Talk:Neurodiversity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page lacks objectivity and reads like a brochure for some kind of politically correct mental health organisation. At very least the list of links at the bottom should removed: Private "official" link lists do not belong in what ought to be an encyclopedic article. --80.219.55.240 19:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No serious neuropsychologist considers Autism and Asperger's syndrome mental illnesses. Yes, they have DSM descriptions, but how else Autism spectrum people with them would get support for their problems? But I agree that the link list needs pruning. -Hapsiainen 22:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree about the article lacking objectivity. I don't understand the claim that it "reads like a brochure for some kind of politically correct mental health organisation" put it looks like a put down. As for the link list, I have categorized it so hopefully that will help. Q0 06:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the external links section is way too large. When the Aspergian Pride's list was separate from the external links section I thought that was ok because then people would still have a shorter list that is easier to go through. But now with the two links sections there is only one hard to sort through list. I think either the links needs to be divided back into separate "external links" and "aspergian pride links" sections like it was before, or the external links list needs to be cut shorter, or the external links section needs to be divided into subsections to make it easier to sort though. Q0 08:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To the first user: I completely agree. Cerebral Palsy as neurological difference? And the WHO regards autism as a mental disorder/disease. The director of the American National Institute Mental Health, Thomas Insel, regards autism as a mental disorder/disease. As does the Judicial committee of the US.
The gay comparison is ludicrous as even some high functioning autistics find basic social interaction confusing, much less concepts like physical love and sex. And the motives are different. Most 'gay cure' attempts were to give a feeling of power over people, where as attempts to cure autism more often come out of a desire to help their children.
I don't hate auties/aspies, I'm just pro choice, and I'm against forcing a cure on them. They can choose to remain autistic, and that's fine by me, if their happy with it. But that doesn't mean they have the right to stop others from getting ABA or other therapies.
We need a bit more expansion on opposing views, and a change to some of the wording ('Response to Prejudice sounds a little POV, don't you think?) Lord Patrick
- I think you have misunderstood a couple of things. Firstly, ABA, TEACCH and other therapies don't cure Autism. They modify Autistic people's behaviour and teach them new skills, but they don't remove the difference, "palsy" as you call it. Secondly, I have never heard of any Autism advocate who wants to stop such therapies. They have been sometimes criticised being not scientifically proven, but that is a completely different topic. You also don't realize, that this page tells about the whole Autistic spectrum. Asperger's and Rhett's syndromes are included. But you only talk about high-functioning and low-functioning Autistics.
- Because you confuse some basic concepts, it is difficult to respond to your comment. However, I have to add that Cure Autism Now isn't about choice. They think is better that no people of Autism spectrum would be born. So they also want to prevent Asperger's syndrome, which causes only eccentric behaviour, not e.g. spinal pains or slow learning to talk. -Hapsiainen 20:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Now I've read the links and found people opposing ABA. But ABA isn't the only therapy for Autistics, although it is the best known. I think that the article gives too polarized view on the issue. If you view the Autism spectrum as plurality, the border between the Autistics and neurotypicality as a social construct, you have just to wait that an Autistic child learns to speak. If you interfere, you wish that such kids were never born. I don't recognize myself from either of these streotypes. I don't also believe that the situation in every coutry is so polarized.
-
- I believe that when you can organize the child's environment differently, provide the therapies that you belive they help the child, and not force them to be someone else, you can still be a proponent of neurodiversity. Here is a text from a page under the proponent links. "Therapies we have used." I propose an extra paragraph under the "Who are the proponents" section: "There are different views among the proponents, which therapies help Autistics and develop their skills, and which only force them to act as desired and harm them." I sense that the article is controversial, so I first put the text here.
Contents |
[edit] Autistics vs. Autistic spectrum
Not all Aspergers indentify themselves as Autistics. I identify myself only as an Asperger, although I know that the line between Autism and Asperger's syndrome is blurry, and in the future science it could be divided differently. If the article calls all the people of Autism spectrum as Autistics, it leads people to believe that there isn't Asperger's and Rett's syndromes. And then we forget their needs, obstacles that they meet, which are somewhat different from what the Autistics called Autistics have. So the article should describe the group as "people of Autism spectrum", or at least to explain that in this text the word autistic means all the people of Autistic spectrum. -Hapsiainen 11:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I noticed that I used word "Autistic spectrum" differently than it is used in Wikipedia. It is used there about the whole humankind. I thought that it was the same concept as "autismin kirjo", all the people that have an autistic spectrum disorder. But the literal meaning of those words is so similar. Fortunately I didn't add my confusion to the text. -Hapsiainen 14:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nathan Braun
The only google hit for ["Nathan Braun" Neurodiversity] is his Wikipedia page, Nathan Braun, which only says that he "claims a commitment" to it, whatever that means.[1] What's the value of this "see also" link? -Willmcw 00:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps whoever added the link could answer that. Google is a poor barometer of notability in many, if not most instances. Having witnessed with dismay the unrestrained zeal of certain deletionists, this particular restoration may have been a bit too reflexive. The analogy of autoimmune disorders comes to mind. Deletionism seems all to easy to defend, and no organized effort to temper the evident problem has jumped out front and center. Ombudsman 01:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Opposing views
The article states:
"There are some people, mostly some parents of autistic children, who believe that autistics face great difficulty in life because of their condition, so the "benefits" of the unique, and arguably, rewarding subjectivity experienced by the autistic is not worth the social and functional strains entailed. These people believe a cure for autism is the best way to solve the problems of autistics, and see it as unfair to characterize the desire to cure autism as bigotry."
Many clinicians, doctors, scientists are cure oriented. It is usually professionals that encourage parents to normalize their children or they will have to be institutionalized. It is unfair and biased POV to say "mostly parents".
Because autism is a spectrum condition, It is unfair to those autistics who do have great difficulties in life to downplay the hardships they must live through. I agree that autistic people have unique and rewarding experiences, but their difficulties should be noted in order to raise awareness and acceptance. Autistics will not be given the help and services they need if they are portrayed as not in need of any accomodations. Becca77 07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Q0, saw your edit. It is better, though still seems a tad offensive. Here is an example of some wording I think is more Wiki-like:
- "Because autistic people usually have some unusual (or unfamiliar) difficulties (or challenges, hardships, etc) in life, there are some people who think finding a cure for autism would be in the best interest of autistics. People who are interested in a cure for autism are predominantly neurotypical individuals; including physicians, therapists and parents of autistic children. Autistic people accept their condition as unique, and arguably, rewarding; despite the social and functional strains entailed. Autistic people feel the desire to cure autism demonstrates prejudice and intolerance.
- Or something like that. What do you think?
- Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Middle Ground?
It seems that many in the anti-cure camp are at the 'high functioning' end of Autism and ADHD. They rightly point out the contributions to society that people with their conditions have made, and if we were to eliminate these, then who knows what humanity might lose?
On the other hand, there are many people who aren't high-functioning, and these disorders cause significant impairment to their lives.
It seems to me that the goal of 'cure' should be to help eliminate the impairments to help the people lead productive lives, but not eliminate the positive traits. .
- I haven't seen any evidence to the effect that low-functioning autistics are more likely to be pro-cure. The anti-cure position is not exclussive to autism or psychiatric disorders. It seems to occur in disability in general. Are the politics in autism a little different? Maybe. As to elimination of impairments, leaving positive traits intact, that's too theoretical and simple of an idea, frankly. Being autistic is not entirely about strengths and weaknesses. It's more than that. If you were offered to be turned into Bill Gates, would you take the offer? Is it possible to cure Rain Man of autism and let him keep his human calculator and memory skills? Neurodivergent 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More Discussion off of where Middle Ground left off
A lot of what I'm about to tell you below is my own experiences, which I know can't be the complete basis for Wikipedia articles. However, I urge you to read what I have to say and seek out others like me in an attempt to make this article more balanced.
As someone well studied in ADHD issues and with middle-functioning ADHD who goes low-functioning on some issues and high-functioning on others, I'd have to lean towards the statements of the person above. I was especially bothered by the following statement: " Administration of drugs to children for minor conditions that won't affect their normal development such as ADHD."
ADHD is certainly not always a "minor condition" and certainly HAS affected my normal development. My ADHD has affected all parts of my life, all throughout my life. If it wasn't for my being treated for it, I would not have made it through elementary school, let alone the rest of school and on to adulthood. (You may argue this with "well, if schools were structured to accomodate the unique quirks of ADHD, this wouldn't be a problem". You may be right, but they're not, and until they are, we still have to function within their structures... and many of us couldn't w/o some kind of treatment. I know I'm one of them.) My ADHD has affected everything from study habits to being at work on time to driving to difficulty with orgasm. I *know* I'm not the only one.
Perhaps you should consider restating that as "Administration of drugs to children for minor conditions that won't affect their normal development as high-functioning ADHD" or some other wording of it that stresses a mild case of it.
Also, I've had people argue with me that ADHD doesn't exist, that if you had something you wanted to do, you'd be able to do it. I've cited times where I'm in my room, alone, with nothing to do but pay the bills. I really truly WANT to pay my bills. It's not hard. It's just writing the check, putting it in the envelope, putting the stamp and address on it and sending it. And yet, I can't do it. I try as hard as I can... and I just can't do it. I take my medication, and suddenly, I can. It's stuff like that that makes me realize that, disorder or neurological difference, I've got something that's keeping me from being able to live my life, even when I'm in an environment that's ok for me to work in. And I'm going to do whatever I can to overcome this thing that's keeping me frustrated and unable to live my life to the fullest.
The idea of neurodiversity will help to bring about greater acceptance of people with unique neurology like ours, and for that, I support it. I'm just worried that it will go too far and will keep those of us who need extra accomodation or who need our medication to live our lives from being able to obtain it. I think that both views need to be able to be held in a state of quasi-paradox: we have neurodiversity, but some of these people need help to be able to get by, and if they want it, they should be allowed to have it. But our gov't and our society is so wrapped up in needing things to be easily quantified if they are to be accepted, that I just don't see us being able to get any help from society or the gov't if we wish it if our conditions aren't labeled as a disability.
And as for your question above about "if you could suddenly be cured, would you"? That's a tricky question. I've thought about it at various points in the past, and have had different answers. I was diagnosed at age 8 and am 24 now, and I think I would have to say at this point that, no, I wouldn't want to be cured completely, but if someone made it possible to take a pill or have a cure for the parts that impact negatively on my life, I would go for it in a heartbeat. Not all of us are able to overcome the differences in our neurology by willpower alone, and to expect us to be able to do that is as bad as the people who say that ADHD doesn't exist or who call ADHDers lazy, stupid or crazy, and who say "well, if you'd just apply yourself, you'd be able to do it", as if we're choosing not to. It's blaming the victim.
And as for the part of the article on treatment of children... nobody, but NOBODY, has *asked* these children "Would you *like* to be treated? Do you feel like you need extra help?" I was never asked if I wanted to be treated... I felt like I had no choice. I was very keen to realize that, and it caused many conflicting feelings with the fact that the treatment *did* help me and that I did feel that I felt better and functioned better with my treatment. There's people who say "oh, it's not real" or "oh, I would never give drugs to my child", not thinking that perhaps the child feels the struggle in school themselves (because they most certainly DO) and that perhaps the child would WANT to try treatment to see if they could make their own life easier/better. People talk about treating children as if they're property... noone even proposes to give the child any choice... and I think that should be addressed as a good strategy for use with neurodiverse people.
Thanks for reading my writing, and I hope you'll think seriously about it and get back to me (and not just with a knee-jerk "you're brainwashed by the medical establishment." I truly do enjoy learning about multiple modes of thinking on ADHD and incorporating what works into my own personal outlook.)C4bl3Fl4m3 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
