Talk:Autism rights movement/Archive 1

Request for references
I have been trying to reference the article recently. Most (but not all) of the article is written by me, though it was based on my own knowledge of the autism rights movement, and was not based on specific references. I have been trying to find some references which can be used to varify the statements in the article. If anyone knows other sources which can varify the statements in the article, please add them. Q0 01:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specific sources
I have found that nearly all the facts in the autism rights movement article can be varified in the http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson.html article and Amy Harmon's "How About not Curing Us? Some Autistics are Pleading?" http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041220/ZNYT04/412200346/1051/news01 Q0 16:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concern about section
I have some concern about this text that was in the article, about neutrality and about relavency to this article. I'll do my best to edit and integrate into the article. Q0 02:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did my best to edit this section. A lot of the contributions to "arguments in favor" had to be removed. I moved one paragraph into autistic culture in a new geeks and nerds section, and a lot of it I moved to Aaron_Rosanoff. Q0 03:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition, all contributions are saved at http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/wiki/index.php/Aaron_Rosanoff Q0 03:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contributed to Misconceptions of autistic traits
It is also a factor that it's quite possible to be strongly autistic (according to the original definition by Aaron Rosanoff [as a segment of temperament in his "theory of personality", published circa 1915 *]) physically normal, and highly intelligent, thus escaping diagnosis as children, and consequently not appearing in current statistics. Such normally functioning autistics nevertheless suffer acute discrimination in most social contexts, especially in the workplace, where their lack of awareness of non-verbal communication (and, consequently, the "hidden" agendas of others), and lack of regard for "people" issues like status and authority, make them seem "odd" or even annoying to others, especially to those members of any establishment who attach great significance to these aspects of interaction.

[* See also the development of this theory by Humm and Wadsworth, resulting in their Aptitude Gradient of 1935, described here; http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/34/04713453/0471345334.pdf which is based on Rosanoff's definition of "autism" (etc.) which is also that which Hans Asperger (and, most probably, Leo Kanner?) clearly had in mind (when describing his subjects not as "autistic", but as having autistic pathology) but is now resolutely ignored by clinical "experts" (most notably by Lorna Wing, who seems to have been ignorant of this, when describing "Asperger's(?) Syndrome")]

[It should be further noted that this "autism as a world view, and way of thinking" is strongly associated with aptitude for technical pursuits (and the traits can be readily seen in the biographies of most of those who gave us the greatest breakthroughs in science and invention, and in "geeks" and "nerds" in general) and so seeking to prevent such entities from making their contributions to industry and research, by, for example, prioritising "excellent(sic) inter-personal skills" or "networking" or "dynamism" (which now appear in most adverts for technical positions, even for functions consisting largely of solitary mental effort, as in programming/design/technical problem resolution...) or by preaching that the day of the solo inventor or scientist is over, or that only "team-working" has any value, is a disservice not only to autistics (or the share-holders who would profit from their valuable input) but to mankind as a whole. The current trend in recruitment policy is driven not so much by a need for harmony(?) in the work place, but rather for the ego gratification of management personnel. Most autistics who have actually held down a technical position report that, though they are often shunned (or manipulated/misdirected and unfairly criticised) by ambitious types, they are generally well liked by their colleagues, who appreciate their candour, technical ability, and general willingness to help others; that they are held to be disruptive or not "team players" (in the sense of being cooperative; autistics do not "compete" by trashing others, but rather by seeking to excel) is a bogus invention!]

contributed to Arguments in favor
The above, though, is a somewhat circular argument, beginning as it does with the notion that "autism" is (as is commonly held by today's clinicians) a collection of what are now largely unrelated morbidities (hence the apparent diversity between the various candidates). If one reverts to the original definition; that "autism" is nothing more nor less than the word used to describe an aspect of personality(*) then clearer trends emerge. It transpires though that the word itself (from the Greek for the "self") is erroneous, as it implies self-absorption. Most people, being essentially herd animals and having a need to "belong" (which is the root of most prejudices, for example) are somewhat preoccupied with their relationships with other people, and especially those of their own kind. When it was observed that autistics were almost disinterested in the doings of others, it was supposed it was due to preoccupation with the self, but a more recent understanding (which any able autistic will confirm) is that autistics are more "thing" than "people" oriented.

[The behavioural difficulties(?) as they are often described, or developmental disorders, when seen in context, become mere differences, not disorders (is a human to be considered deficient because he cannot communicate articulately with an earthworm, say?). Autistics are said to have difficulty maintaining eye-contact, but few seem inclined to explain the "need" for doing so (it should be noted that, among males in other higher primates, eye contact signifies aggression; could it be that in normal human males, it is only a tool for establishing dominance? In that case, those not driven to dominate others have no need of it)! They are held to have "communication difficulties" through not making use of body language (a primitive means of communication used by lower animals) yet report that, when they converse with others of their kind (who are also prepared to use that wonderful invention, language, as intended) that "communication" takes place with unprecedented clarity. It could be argued that the more arcane aspects of "normal" communication are also important, in terms of bonding, establishing status and the like, but what value is that for those who do not need to "bond", or to whom status is a largely meaningless concept?]

Beginning from Rosanoff's definition it is seen that autism really implies an unusual interest in factual events, the way things work, inquisitiveness about the laws of physical reality etc., and this tends to diminish the importance of purely emotional values such as, timely interaction with others, deference to those of greater social standing, and status symbols. It also explains the tendency to introversion which autistics display, which can be properly described as the absence of need to be continually aware of the attempts at interaction by other herd members! Given that the quest for scientific truth involves in depth consideration of complex issues, introversion should be seen not as a social aberration, but as an essential tool for investigating physical events. The only "problem" arises from the fact that these characteristics, in nearly every measure of human phenomena, is at the exact opposite end of the bell curve from those people which could be described as "establishment" types (who's world revolves almost entirely around "people" issues; ambition, the acquisition of wealth and power, and the need for the respect and admiration of others) who's notions of what is desirable have an unrepresentative impact on the outlook of the majority, and who's stipulations (though they are a minority) are thus what largely determines what is to be considered "normal". Such people, having acquired the status they attach so much importance too, will be deeply offended by autistic types who treat them (and everyone else) as equals!

To investigate autism in history then, one should disregard later add-ons (like late speech, sensory issues, dyspraxia...) in favour of the fundamentals; lack of "sociability", disregard for convention or authority or hierarchical considerations, introversion, compulsion with impersonal issues (note that compulsion to acquire status or the like, is rarely described as "obsessive"). Examples then abound; Archimedes' eureka moment (though now held to be apocryphal) is absolutely typical of an autistic's "obsession" with interesting problems, which get worked on until a solution is found (which is often at a time when the conscious mind is relaxed, e.g., in a bath, or while asleep) further displayed by his untimely death (at the hands of a Roman soldier who told him to move on, but was ignored as Archimedes was engrossed in yet another puzzle). This obsession and introversion is further displayed in Pasteur's repeated ability to draw correct conclusions from seemingly insufficient data. Problems with "authority" are displayed by the likes of Galileo (who obviously was missing the hidden body-language messages from his friend the Pope...) Newton, Issigonis (any article about his development of the Austin Mini, arguably the car of the 20th century, and the precursor to most small cars today seems to belabour how "difficult" he was to manage, as if that was the only issue of importance) Whittle, Maxwell (who's biographies say much of the thrashings he received from his headmaster, but little about what he'd actually done to deserve them; this writer observes that, while he wasn't a particularly bad lad, and did no more "wrong" than his contemporaries, he could do nothing "right" where his own headmaster was concerned). One needs only read of the lives of Nelson, Livingstone and H.M. Stanley to find how exceptionally competent people can nevertheless be deemed as undesirables by their "superiors", indicating that competence does not guarantee acceptance, and that fitting-in is a separate issue. Similarly, lack of interest in commercialism (deemed desirable by establishment types, as they usually enjoy most of the proceeds) as in the case of Nikolai Tesla, say, invariable leads to charges of being a "failure" in media accounts, however ingenious the subject (as Tesla surely was).

Such singular observations prove nothing in themselves, nor the lack of parochialism, or desire for self aggrandisement, nor the altruism displayed by candidates such as Einstein and Jefferson, but further study does support the view that most of the afore mentioned are in fact autistic, according to Rosanoff's definition (though, with the exception of Einstein, it's difficult to find examples of the morbidities on which today's diagnoses depend, which suggests that normal functioning autistics are in fact in the majority, which further undermines the justifications given for the current move to "cure" autism, i.e., by eliminating the autism genes from the human pool). It could be further argued that, according to the original definition, technical excellence is itself evidence of autism, as, if one looks for exceptions to the rule, the only seemingly apparent non-autistic who made a significant contribution to the world of science and invention is Edison (who's penchant for sabotaging his rivals, and the frequent charges of plagiarism, are indicators that he was very much an ambitious type). After all, those who are concerned with "people" issues will surely turn their genius towards the achievements that matter to them, such as self enrichment, rather than the simple pursuit of knowledge, which to autistics is an end in itself.

--

[* (the following is just a brief recent compendium of Rosanoffs segments acording to his theory personality, as extracted from a current "temperament and aptitude" test {as the original is now dificult to obtain}):

N: Conventional/Self-controlled/Self-directed M: Active/Alert/Outgoing/Sociable

H: Materialistic/Shrewd/Hard-headed/Entrepreneurial

P: Verbal-minded/Direct/Competitive/Openly determined

E: Project oriented/Precise/Orderly/Detail-minded

D: Careful/Steady paced/Security Oriented/Constructively Critical

A: Sensitive/Quietly determined/Visual-minded/Shy

A/Artist (=autistic; it was recently reworded for political correctness!)

Artists are driven by the desire to create. They are individualistic, but hate to be shown up socially, so tend to avoid either group or conflict situations. They prefer to work alone but can work well in small groups where they have established intensive relationships, such as in the creative team of an advertising agency or a group of researchers. Artists, though, do have strong egos and set high standards. They are able to work well without close supervision. They like to be trusted and respond well to delegation. However, some management attention may be necessary to make sure they do not undertake tasks that are impractical.

Make sure when they start a new job that you give them the background thinking: Artists work better when they are in the picture. Do not labour detail unnecessarily and encourage them to contribute their own ideas. Artists often do have good ideas but are too shy to mention them.

If Artists become frustrated they will use escape mechanisms. One common behaviour is to start sulking. They can refrain from normal social behaviour and become difficult to approach and more unrealistic in their attitudes. Other reactions are to either withdraw from the workplace, at least mentally, if not physically, or to refuse to deal with people they dislike. Another response is to dodge situations where they feel they may not be accepted. Artists can be passively stubborn and intractable if they feel things are not going their way.

If you need to secure their co-operation over a new proposal try the following:

Do not try to get their approval at a group meeting. Instead see them alone, and spend some time getting to know them beforehand so they are at ease in your company. Give them the background to your proposal and the thinking that led up to it. Appeal to their imagination and ask for suggestions. Once they understand your proposal Artists will often come up with useful ideas. Mention your confidence in their ability. If they do suggest an impractical idea treat it gently, show respect for it, and explain why it will not work. If involved in a group discussion, avoid bringing them into too great prominence; you will earn their loyalty if you protect them from others who they believe are inclined to ridicule them.]

contributed to motivation for speculation
That said, according to the original definition, autistics will value their "being" regardless of what others think, or of how unique it is, so a more valid motive is simply to redress the current diversion from the original meaning, which has lead to many who are clearly neurally typical in attitude, being labelled autistic, due to having some of those physical attributes now collectively known as "autism" in clinical circles. That autism may have a direct impact on some such issues is possible, even probable, but until researchers take the trouble to start from the proper understanding, then we can hardly expect to make significant progress. To separate autism associated issues from those that simply co-exist in some people who appear to be autistic, is the first step to developing successful medical intervention, where applicable. Before that though, researchers need to understand that "abnormal" does not mean "to be cured", nor even "undesirable"; pointing out the immense contributions of autistic scientists and inventors may be the only way to make them stop and think, and ask first if their own NT assumptions are valid!

Name of the movement
I think the name autism rights movement came from Aspies For Freedom but I'm not sure. Q0 00:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HTML commented text in the article
These comments were in the article, though they were comments so were not visible to the viewer unless they viewed the source. None the less, I thought they would be better on the talk page instead of in the aricle, even if they were not visible. Q0 21:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we say why some people find the ribbon offensive?
 * It's been made clear that many autistic adults find this offensive, but I havn't heard a lot of arguments, so it is hard to list reasons. I can see if I can come up with some possibilities
 * I will talk more about this in the "talk" section, but it's because it's too easy to misunderstand. Looks too much like "solving the puzzle of autism" when that was not the original intent. BJY

Einstein did poorly in school: a myth?
I noticed someone said it is often claimed to be a myth that Einstein did poorly in school. Is there more information about this? I have heard that it is a myth that Einstein did poorly in math, but I havn't heard his reported academic failure in other subjects (like geography) challenged. Q0 20:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aspergian Pride's List of Pride and Advocacy Links
There is an error in some of the links in this section. If a URL ends in file.html, then the link includes a / at the end (ends in file.html/). This causes many of the links to not work. Also, the wikipedia links should not end in a slash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_culture/ should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_culture. I thought I would let the people maintaining those links know that so they can be aware of why some of the links are not working. Q0 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Autism is the inner core
That is my opinion that without Asperger syndrome I would not be that person that I am now. I like myself now, for 22 years I lived in a void of pain but now it is fine. I got the help I need and my good variables are starting to show. Just as the body is a part of the soul is Autism a part of the soul, the body and Autism are walking in different directions. The soul is the best of the living as well of the dead.

--Msitua 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's nice, but is not relevant to the quality of the article. Lord Patrick 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Insulting and degrading language
This is not tolerable the notion that autism rights proves that we need a cure. it is like balck slave saying I want to be free then saying it proves he diseased


 * Well, I agree with your edit and reworked the rest to better represent a neutral point of view, and I think its pretty good now Ryan Norton T 15:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed banned from autism assembly
I removed that comment as it is nonsense, I am the admin for autism assebly, it is not a board and there is no way that anyone could be banned, it is just a webpage. People can only be removed from the list if they request it. People join at their own request, and leave at their own request, no-one could possibly be banned from the list. The comment about 'someone being banned from aspies for freedom' is rather silly as occasionally people will be banned from any forum. No-one has been banned from the group Aspies for freedom, or an offline group of Aspies for freedom, which is the impression that is being given. 3 people have been banned from posting on the forum section of the website, out of nearly 700. I cannot see how that is pertinent to the autism rights movement. AmyNelson 30 August 2005


 * OK, it makes sense to me and I'm fine with its removal - thanks. Ryan Norton T 18:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for the movement
The notion of famous autistics forms a part of the reason why there is a rights movement in the first place. RN why are trying to destroy this entry?? That section does belong. I think you should put it back. Cos I am not happy with you changing things without talking about it. you are like the lone wolf or the rogue cop. I thought you were on wikibreak?? whayt happened??JoeMele 15:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I merged it into Asperger's syndrome Ryan Norton T

Also, please stop with the paranoia about me trying to "destroy" it. Anyway if its as important to the movement as you say it should be reflected as such in the article... I've mentioned a bit in the intro... any other ideas on how to reflect this in the article? Ryan Norton T 16:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

POV
How is some less than POV than MANY???? please. This is some must be NAAR's idea. This is a racist/neuralist slap in the face by NTsJoeMele 20:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Joe please... I was the one who put it to many originally but it was a mistake so I put it back to some. Ryan Norton T 20:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I was the anon who edited "many" to "some". I had simply forgot to log in at the time. As for the absurd conspiracy theory accustation, I live in New Zealand, and am not a NAAR/CAN/other pro cure group member (Although I am pro cure). I simply thought that the original "many" was biased. I will need a source for so many being offended by it, and Msitua doesn't seem to dislike it. In fact, he (she?) used it in his autistic pride speech on the Pride Day talk page. Lord Patrick 03:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

mitsua this and that. How did he become the barometer?? some is just as POV as many. The fact this is coming someone who is pro cure is telling. A nazi is a pro cure of the jewish genetic difference. So lord patrick( delusionds of grandeur???) is a modern day socially acceptable eugenicist who believes in genetic purity. He has no business even touching anything remotely discussing autistic pride seeong how it is people like who make our lives seem so miserable to live. JoeMele 04:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a eugenicist. I am against pre natal testing for autism, but for the OPTION of a cure. And besides Joe, under the logic that I shouldn't be allowed to edit this article as I am pro cure, shouldn't you not edit it either, seeing as you have a quite strong POV on this issue. Many people with POVs edit Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean they put their POVs into the article. As for the choice of my name, I have no claim to a Lordship, I simply thought it was a better name than just "Patrick", which is probably taken anyway. Oh, and one last thing

Lord Patrick 04:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not personally attck for being an eugenicist nor a nazi. If you feel the descriptions might fit when people talk about eugenics and nazism is more of a personal problem than anything else. Now that is rich! I am as an aspie cant research and write on autis pride? better tell all those black authors who write on the civil rights movement. And a CURE is the same as a prenatal test. This is the foundational lie of the pro cure movement. All you have to do is too look at what happened in the cure movement for downs syndrome. That says it all. Beside nothing was ever cured in human history. nothing. I remember the story of a group in africa who claimed to be jewish. they were laughed at for decades until a genetic test proved that they were jewish and had a distinctive gene found only in jewish populations. How is this any different?? Perhaps we could cure that gene? and prevent it from recuriing now wait that is a protected genes. Only if you have as you have the bad genes. the genome has now been stratified intl layers as human society into the priviliged and the undesirable. but of course the word genome is just a convienent linguistic paraphrase for the actual human beingsJoeMele 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that you shouldn't write for this article. By all means do, but I was saying that by the "People cannot write on subjects they have an opinion on" logic, we should ban just about everybody on Wikipedia from editing anything. And as for "nothing ever being cured", did the decline and cure of the black plague not happen? (Note: I am not comparing autism with the black plague, I am merely refuting JM's statement that nothing was cured in human history.

Nope. the black plague or the bubonic plague was never cured either. It is still around waitng to strike around the world if sanitary conditions deteriate.JoeMele 13:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Either "some" or "many" work fine for me. I am not seeing the shades of meaning the rest of you are seeing, I guess. "Some" means more than a couple. It means a bunch! And "many"... well, that means a bunch too! But, Joe, please back off from the Nazi-analogies, etc. It is uncomfortably Tern-like, IMHO. ManekiNeko | Talk 20:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed comment regarding AFF
I have removed the comment about people being banned from AFF and other similar sites for disagreeing on the minority group issue. No-one has ever been banned for simply having a different viewpoint. If you have proof to the contrary, i'd very much like to see it. Without any proof it is just a slur. As with wikipedia, very occasionally someone will have to be banned for abusive behaviour, trolling or spamming. That has no relation to any specific issues related to the autistic community. User:GarethNelson