Which one of these people is doing more damage to our image?

Post Reply New Topic

Before the pepper spray event, yes. In fact, he was off the radar so to speak, for about a year or two. Now, however, there's now much more talk about Chris-Chan, he's trending much more since this has happened, enough to be picked up by this site and others, rather than just 4chan. The totality of his antics were available for those that were curious, nothing truly dies on the internet.

Baron-Cohen has distorted things, as AS does, both causing adverse consequences for the ASD population. I would argue that the amount of damage SBC has done is very under-rated, possibly because people have not read and actively critiqued his claims themselves, nor are the majority of people (ASD or not) likely to do this. Because he wears the cloak of "scientist", his claims have been widely disseminated as fact - indeed SBC himself likes to describe his findings as "fact" and "truth". Few scientists assume that degree of self-certainty.

However it is not his arrogance that I object to so much as his hypocrisy. He has argued that "WE SHOULD THINK" (his words) of ASD as the extreme form of a "male" brain - because that is his opinion - and then distorts his opinion and discusses it as fact. Philosophically, this is bizarre. I don't mind people being bizarre, I do mind the claim that it is scientific objectivity, a claim he has frequently made. Bear with me...

He has argued that the male/female brain differences are "natural" and "biologically based" - so that's why the sexes are different in the ways he says they are. Hmmm - what about the powerful influences of epigenetics? SBC ignores those as if they don't exist. What about cultural shaping? His answer to that is that "science should be distinct from social policy", and then stretches the distinction to assert his own "neutrality" (ie ignore all cultural influences, because they are not subjects for academic study) - according to him.

He appears blind to the fact that his claims that the male brain is "truth seeking" in a way that female brains are not is inherently political, not scientific. He has claimed that the lower representation of women in the sciences is "proof" of his EMB theory. (It isn't proof). His claim is a polemic, not a proof, and a very sexist polemic.

Viewing autism through the lens of male/female as he does distorts the whole field - and ret*ds the genuine efforts of others to expand a true understanding of autism and the actual male/female presentations and permutations.

Lastly he ignores the much more scientific findings of others, because they contradict his "facts". Neuroscientist Lisa Eliot provides a good example of what he ignores because it doesn't suit his (wrong) theory:
"if autism is caused by extreme testosterone exposure, then you would expect that the boys who have had heightened pre-natal exposure to testosterone would be diagnosed much more often than boys with low exposure - BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. (I don't usually shout in caps, though needs must on this rare occasion).

I have other objections however for now these will, I hope, suffice as my back hurts!

Her and Jenny McCarthy both. They're both sour grapes off the same vine.

Autism Speaks are the biggest monsters. I bet they threaten to kill every autistic adult who walks past their front lawns.

THIS! For every autistic they kill with their false lies, I say we destroy everything they have!
An eye for an eye, indeed.

Not entirely sure, as I am not entirely sure what our image is supposed to be...as far as I can tell there is too much variation for a specific image so sort of hard for any one person to damage it when it's not even a defined thing graspable thing. I'd say people who look at the worst example they can find of someone who fits a certain catagory and jump to the conclusion that represents the majority are doing the most damage to any image we might have.

I do not get what cold calculation of what someone else thinks/feels he is referring to.....wouldn't that take a lot more social ability than most of us have? As far as social ability psychopaths are probably the opposite of autism, so regardless of if the person saying it has scientific background doesn't make it infallible. Also I do not see what is so ridiculous about the idea its not a lack of feeling empathy, but being able to express it in a way that is 'normal' like many people on the spectrum say they experience they can do all the scientific studies in the world to try to figure out how we feel without our input put I do not see it turning out very accurate.

Not a person, but an institution. And that, is public education.

I argue this primarily for these reasons:
-School DIRECTLY is creating negative images of spectrum people by essentially "marking" them with SpED classes, etc as well as teachers taking light of their situation. Teachers are practically told to treat SpED students as inferior, and any issue will be due to their "disability". In addition, the anti-ASD environment ensures that most ASD people are going to struggle and face severe life problems. The bullying will only make things worse.
-A lot of SpED teachers practice SOME form of ABA. Whether this be actually holding the child hostage until a demand is met or whether it be by "drilling" (or making them feel as if they are less than whole for not acting NT), ABA is still the norm in public schools.
-With ABA, many people with ASD are pretty much explicitly taught to think of themselves as inferior, especially given the incredible stigma that it has.
-The caste system that is unofficially in place in schools always favors extroverted NTs. The popular kids are always going to be the ones that know how to socialize well, and have the most connections. For someone with autism this is incredibly difficult because such large-scale socializing is not in our nature. With this, again, comes more stigma and suffering.
-With the caste in my opinion comes the "role-model" hypothesis. How many main characters from teen shows have you seen were extroverted NTs? How many times are the "popular" kids in the spotlight? Again, this role model is constructed, and this role model is seen as the right way.

With all of this, this is where I think the "inferiority complex" that is perceived partly comes from. It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The current policies in act are basing autism purely as a disability. I understand that there are some people who have more severe forms of it, but to label us all as "learning disabled" is ridiculous.

I'm not advocating for neuro-segregation in schools; I'm simply pointing out that "integration" has been incredibly harmful, and ironically it's making the problem worse.

I'm for neuro-segregation in schools. The curriculum in NT schools, only works well for NTs, that's where the "disability" comes from, that's why it looks like that. The "best" that's on offer is special education in the form of remedial education, where nothing challenges you, where you're thought of as "learning impaired", were your brain sits there an rots. So you have a choice of either, trying to make it through a defunct, broken system, or do nothing and be treated like a drooling invalid, that's the totality of what AS people have. That wouldn't be the case if we actually had classrooms for AS people, not "jam them in the NT system and hope for the best".

I've heard specialists say that ABA has impressive results. I'm not sure what they mean by that, I'm not sure what the goal of ABA is, or what these results are.

I voted for someone else. I believe the media spreads a lot of negativity whenever a high profile criminal is said to have Asperger's. Sometimes the assumption that such a person has Asperger's is speculative. Much of the public, unaware of what Asperger's is, can begin to associate Asperger's with a criminal mind.

There are days when I truly despair at some of the things I read here and on those days my only answer would be "ourselves".

I am generally not in favor of neuro-segregation. First, the real world is made up of people of all neurotypes. Kids need to learn to operate in an environment with that same diversity. Second, segregation tends to result in lower quality education especially for the minority group. If you're problems are with the way sped departments (and there are lots of problems there in my experience) within mainstream schools are run, what makes you think segregated ASD-only schools are going to be run differently?

That's only the case if governments don't want to fund such a thing due to bias, which is where we are now, no funding so mainstream or special it is. The lower quality education, is also where we are, right now. Special Ed departments just aren't the correct place for AS people, they're remedial education, and not education. Both the mainstream, and the special, just don't cut the mustard. There are examples of AS schools out there, though I'm not sure how they're doing.

I'm somewhere in the middle here. Even though ASD people definitely struggle with schools, I think a lot of NTs struggle fitting in as well. I think if the education system in general were not based on misery, and didn't try to fit EVERYONE into one single curriculum (and rather, individualize education plans for all), perhaps a lot of issues we see in factory-model school could be fixed. Ever heard of schools such as Sudbury?

Not that I'm a fan of SpED either. It is remedial education, and it's only goal is to make the subject fit in. That's the ultimate goal: conformity.

Chris Chan, for his behavior patterns are not realistically equivalent of being autistic..

Which one of these people/organisations is doing more damage to our image? Maybe first you have to consider:

- which particular myths does each option dominantly promote and seek to reinforce in the public mind?

A rough and ready example:

AS: the dominant myth = "autism is a disease that must be eradicated for the good of society"

The mindset underlying this myth:

all autists are diseased and have no place in normal life
therefore the stigmatisation, exclusion and prejudice is justified
because "they" are diseased just as once lepers were
so it is best that they are isolated from opportunity to participate and be treated coercively
until the disease is fully under control.

Anyone else like to apply the same process to any of the others?