Autism

[kitchen_kink]

This article, exploring the "difference model" of autism (as opposed to the disease model), seems like one of the more important things I've read in a really long time.

In a synthesized voice generated by a software application, [Amanda Baggs, a severe autistic,] explains that touching, tasting, and smelling allow her to have a "constant conversation" with her surroundings. These forms of nonverbal stimuli constitute her "native language," Baggs explains, and are no better or worse than spoken language. Yet her failure to speak is seen as a deficit, she says, while other people's failure to learn her language is seen as natural and acceptable.

Comments

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

There's a fascinating book called Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin, herself autistic, which (sort of in passing, but at some length) touches on much the same thing.

[anotherjen.livejournal.com]

I watched the video. It is indeed amazing.

[zarex.livejournal.com]

It's definitely interesting, but I'm not sure I would agree that it is "no worse" than spoken language. I mean, the purpose of language is to have others understand what you're thinking, isn't it? Her "communicating" with her environment may be satisfying or fulfilling to her, but if no one else can understand it, how is it effective as language?

It appears more of an OCD type of behavior to me.

But interesting nonetheless.

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting to study whether people on the autistic spectrum are able to understand other autistic spectrum people's "languages."

I did not necessarily get from this that the idea is that such a "language" is "no worse" than spoken language; rather that it is at least a legitimate form of expression that has purpose and meaning, not the purposeless meanderings of a person experiencing no thought or sense of individuation from the world. It is highly worth noting that the maker of the video does indeed speak "our" language, through a computer, though she cannot speak it with her mouth. Watching her movements and listening to her singing, I was put in mind of some types of dance and especially ritual and trance activity, physical languages that are more about interaction with the surrounding world. The difference seems to be that these actions, for her, seem to be more about information-gathering and communion than about expressing ideas to another person, which is part of the essential struggle of the autistic to begin with: the idea that such a person is "self-directed" rather than engaging with others.

...

[zsquirrelboy.livejournal.com]

I think there's genuine value to what she's saying, but I find myself returning to something: she needs someone to take care of her. And that to my mind is pathology. I'd like to see things focused on getting people like that self-sufficient, and perhaps providing them with the right communication prosthetics to interact with the rest of us.

Re: ...

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

It's true; she does. And as one critic says, it's not like we can look at a paralytic and say, "you don't need that wheelchair - walk!"

But I think that the article - and the political statement of her video - is less about that than it is about raising awareness that inside what looks like austics' "little worlds of their own," there is far more often than not an incredibly intelligent brain working, and that just because many can't outwardly express their thoughts doesn't mean that they don't have them.

I think - I hope - that the idea is, as you say, to try and make autistics more self-sufficient, and absolutely more able to share their ideas with the world, because they are clearly often wonderful ideas! A blind person still needs a caregiver or at least a guide dog; a quadrapalegic needs a wheelchair and probably fairly constant care, but the society at large doesn't treat people with such disabilities as mental defectives.

Of course, don't get me started on how the society treats people who *are* mental defectives...

Re: ...

[zsquirrelboy.livejournal.com]

*nod* I also guess some of how I approach this is informed by other experiences I've had.

I was at this weekend long party with a bunch of fans of a webcomic. One of the people there really put me on edge. She was perfectly pleasant in the forums, but in person, she was the total embodiment of "Poorly Socialized Geek". Would go on and on about things people weren't interested in, seemed oblivious to her impact on people around her.

Hardly the end of the world, you see plenty of people like that at a con. I was vaguely annoyed to be around this person, and avoided her a bit.

A couple weeks later she posts to one the forms saying I'm so weird it made the national news Having a sudden sense that maybe she's already trying, made me re-evaluate how I think about a lot of these kind of things.

And who would do all the work for crazymeds?

[zarex.livejournal.com]

I agree. It looks a lot like performance art to me, though for her own personal fulfillment, not for an audience.

thanks

[artemisedge.livejournal.com]

for posting that. i don't read Wired usually, but that was a great article. One I've tried to pass on, as well.