Interactions with experts...

Post Reply New Topic

This is a compilation, in reverse order, and Dinah at least responds to me (sometimes). Make of it what you will!




From: "Dinah Murray" <dinah.murray@btinternet.com> Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by btinternet.com. Learn more
Subject: Re: Probably too late? Re: crucial petition
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:53:32 +0000
To: "gwynfryn thomas" <gwynzkind@yahoo.co.uk>
very interesting, I think you might like to send it to the email address given here too:
http://autismspeaks.org/inthenews/grink ... _minds.php
they ask for feedback about whether there is really an epidemic or not

sorry you've been mad, I hope your recovery will be total and preferably not consign you into the hands of doctors
xdx

On 17 Jan 2007, at 14:36, gwynfryn thomas wrote:

>
> Anyway, I've just sent this in (for what it's worth?).
>
> Happy to report my sanity is pretty nearly back to
> normal (still struggling with short term memory, but
> hoping for a near total recovery) and I'll have no
> excuse if I get shirty with you in future.
>
> Happy new year!
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> "Begining with a synopsis:
>
> The word "autism" appears as far back as 1912 (in two
> papers by Eugene Bleuler who used the word to to
> describe a phase of schitzophrenia) and was also used
> by Aaron Rosanof to describe both one of what he
> thought of as the "four great disorders", and also to
> label a segment of his proposed "theory of
> personality". Other pre-Kanner writers, too, have used
> the term, so today's texts are clearly misleading in
> historical terms (and there is evidence that this is
> deliberate!).
>
> Analysis indicates that it was, first and foremost, a
> personality type (given to introversion and lacking
> social drive, etc., but these are not "disorders"
> other than in a purely subjective sense) as described
> by Rosanof's theory, which is the basis for the 1935
> paper by Humm and Wadsworth's "Temperament Gradient",
> which in turn was developed into many of today's
> phenomenally accurate industrial psychometric tests.
> These tests are routinely ignored in autism research,
> when they could give considerable insights into what
> researchers admit is a "baffling" situation. To
> continually ignore this facet, especially in such
> case, is scandalous, and should be corrected as a
> matter of urgence, before even more money is wasted.
>
> Further substance to my current understanding is given
> below:
>
> I myself was diagnosed "very strongly autistic" by one
> such psychometric test, the Chandler and Macleod, in
> 1981 (long before "Aspergers syndrome" became
> fashionable) but, though I'm considered "a little
> strange" no one ever suggested I needed therapy, not
> dreamed of describing me as a ret*d (in fact, with a
> mensa rating of IQ 154 and a gift for practical
> invention, I would probably, by today's standards,
> have been labelled as "gifted") and so the label had
> little impact. More recently though, having
> encountered "aspie" sites on the web, I became
> immersed in a confusing world of contradictions and
> distortions which, even with my elevated capacity for
> analysis and objectivity, took several years to
> resolve:
>
> Firstly, I heard of AS on a radio program, and was
> amazed by how I identified with it, not so much as it
> was described, but rather with reference to how we
> differ from "normal" people. In particular, I was made
> aware, for the first time, of how overwhelmingly most
> people rely on body language, which I'd previously
> been largely unaware of, and thought of as no more
> than a party trick: that I said what I meant, and that
> others subsequently reinterpreted my statements, on
> the basis of their erroneous "reading" of my body
> language, was a source of constant confusion, and a
> major bane in my life. I was, of course, always held
> to be responsible for resulting misunderstandings
> (though I hope you'll understand why I'm a bit miffed
> about this; I had stated my meaning clearly, needing
> no interpretation, so why is it considered my
> "deficiency"?).
>
> Then, when reading the UK description of AS (as
> opposed to the DSM IV, which is too inconsistent to be
> of scientific worth) I recognised myself to be a match
> to very nearly every aspect, albeit in what may be
> described as "subclinically" (I probably, like most of
> my kind, would not get an "official" diagnosis, and so
> am automatically excluded from research by any AR
> centre I've found to date!) and also recognised
> immediately that these features need not be "defects"
> as usually described, but are merely differences (and,
> in an ideal world, perfectly valid; what, for
> instance, is lost by "failure to perceive non-verbal
> cues" among people who speak plainly with each
> other?). That the "experts" in this monster now
> labelled "autism" have difficulty in perceiving this
> led me to study further.
>
> It soon became clear that, apart from a few diagnosed,
> but intellectually able autistics, autism research
> generally attracts personality types which are
> ill-suited to not only recognise that autistic views
> can be valid, but even recognising that other valid
> view points can exist! This is the source of most of
> the confusion in current practice, and is actually
> inherent in Rosanof's theory. Further analysis is
> available on-line here:
>
> I. of S. (part 2). Ego and Class: major barriers to
> autism research!
>
> http://www.awares.org/conferences/bb.as ... 0100230050
>
> [if neither link works I can provide alternative
> directions]
>
> Such mental blocks lead most researchers to
> automatically assume any difference from (their own
> personal) "normality", to be a defect, of which
> examples abound:
>
> Recent research into glial cells (the brains "white
> matter") once thought to be no more than nutrition
> providers, has shown them to be more important in
> cognition than previously thought. As such, denser
> glial cells should be seen as advantageous, but read
> any autism text on the subject, and such observations
> in autistic brains are universally presented as the
> result of chronic inflammation (for which no other
> indicator has been discovered, which, in itself,
> should be sufficient to cause a re-think?). Note that
> the original autopsy of a slice of Einstein's brain
> revealed only one notable feature; his unusually dense
> white matter.
>
> [This in starc contrast to the extant fictions on the
> web re the supposed mapping of Einstein's brain
> (impossible, as most of it was buried with his body,
> as was later the remaining slice); if one becomes
> familiar with much of the supposedly "authoritative"
> texts on autism on the web, it should come as no
> suprise that this fictious brain is comprised of the
> polar opposite of those features now regularly
> identified in current scans of autistic brains. For
> the record, a perusal of Einstein's biographical
> details and thought processes show him to be a
> slam-dunk for not only a HFA diagnosis, but also the
> autistic personality type that Rosanof described.]
>
> Similarly, the unusual spurt in head growth in some
> autistics is assumed to be due to inflammation (again
> uncorroborated by any chemical signal) but, despite
> frequent claims to the contrary, there is little
> statistical corroboration between head size and real
> development disorders. If, on the other hand, head
> size was compared to those diagnosed as autistic by
> industrial psychometric tests, then I would not be
> suprised to find a considerably stronger correlation,
> showing that the larger heads are merely the natural
> develoment of the natural outcome of the autism
> personality genotype.
>
> As things stand, the above study will probably not
> take place, and is even less likely to be published,
> yet it's a simple straightforward excercise which
> could bring considerable clarity to the autism issue,
> and would most probably demonstrate that "autism" as
> currently understood by practising clinicians, is a
> hodgepodge of disorders, only some of which are
> related to the autism personality type (of which most
> recipients are clearly not "disordered" in any
> objective sense, and are so excluded from current
> research. It would then become clear that many
> disorders now lumped together under what has now
> become a catch-all lable, are not in fact related to
> autism as historically understood nor to each other
> (leaving little wonder that "autism" is often now
> labeled as the "condition that defies definition"?).
>
> In another example of how reintroducing historical
> veracity to autism research could clarify issues, the
> Awares on-line site to which the above links lead,
> carries a paper by one Professor Fitzgerald re the
> high levels of creativity found among some autistics,
> and speculation that it arises from certain brain
> defects, or even mercury poisoning! Instead of
> comparing "autistic" creativity to the population at
> large, what if it was compared to the autistic
> population as measured by psychometric testing?
> Rosanof (back around 1920) ascribed creativity
> exclusively to that segment of personality he labeled
> autistic. Just a coincidence? I think not! The above
> (just a small fraction of my independant and unfunded
> research) leaves little room to doubt that the study
> and subsequent understanding of the autistic
> personality type (of which only a tiny proportion of
> the population could be properly considered
> disordered) is of central and fundamental importance
> to any understanding of "autism" as clinically
> described. Without it, the issues are unlikely to ever
> be resolved, yet most of the work has been done;
> industrial databases are replete with relevant
> information, just waiting to be tapped into.
>
> This is currently not being done, and in fact is being
> resisted (academic snobbery?) by the current industry,
> yet it would cost only a small fraction of funds that
> are curently being spent on going around in circles!
>
> A serious rethink is in order, both in how grants are
> allocated, and as to which personality types get to do
> the research. The latter is problematical, as those
> best suited to understanding the difference between a
> defect and a difference, i.e., scientifically
> competent and well educated autistics, by their very
> nature (again, as described in Rosanof's theory, and
> as frequently observed even in current orthodox texts)
> tend to "hard" sciences, and are not desirous of high
> academic atainment (largely a social persuit, intended
> to acquire and demonstrate "status", which is not of
> interest to autistic minds) and so are unlikely to
> either seek or win posts in PhD heavy autism research
> circles.
>
> Reccomendations for improving grant efficacity:
>
> Bring pre-Kanner understandings of "autism" to the
> fore, and insist, particularly, on the inclusion of
> the personality type, making full use of the early
> theory and also existing psychometric databases built
> from it.
>
> Identify autistic personality types in schools (to
> acquire data, as industrial companies may be reluctant
> to give access to their own intellectual property) and
> especially in college students, and then affirmatively
> encourage them to take an interest in neurology,
> psychology and related subjects, with a view to them
> acquiring the specific training appropriate to autism
> research. If need be, introduce quotas to grant
> recipients, to ensure that at least some of their
> researchers have significant strentghs in the autistic
> segment of their personality profiles."
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html