From: OldCoyote@webmail.co.za (Old Coyote)
Subject: Re: Scientists baffled by increase in autism
Date: 24 Oct 2002 00:11:01 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Oct 2002 07:11:01 GMT
"Tom" wrote in message news: "People's Commissar" wrote in message
> > I think it is a neurological virus or something of that sort.
> > However....and this is funny. I once saw a quite big 14 year old kid on
> > computer playing some kind of card game. He was the type of kid to sort
> > star at things for hours or do some kind of counting thing with his
> > tho I never paid it much mind or thought anything of it. And I never
> > thought it strange that I never heard his voice since whenever I went
> > I talked to his mom. Why would a young teen talk to me when he doesn't
> > me. Well... Once, his mom wasn't home and so I got into a convo with
> > A nurse was there and kept staring and I asked her what her problem was
> > my "in your face" manner due to HOW she was staring. I mean, she was
> > STARING so damned strange.
> > "Tani, the boy's autistic. How are you doing that?"
> > Oh, doing what? TALKING to him - having a coversation.
> > LMAO. Later on I found out that well, that wasn't supposed to happen.
> From "The Child with Special Needs", by Stanley Greenspan and Serena
> "The traditional pessimistic prognosis for PDD (Pervasive Developmental
> Disorder, which includes autism as a sub-category) is based on experience
> with children whose treatment programs tend to be mechanical and
> structured, rather than based on individual differences, relationships,
> affect, and emotional cuing. Approaches that do not pull the child into
> spontaneous, joyful relationship patterns may intensify rather than
> remediate the difficulty. We have observed even with older children with
> PDD-type patterns that as more spontaneous affect based on emotionally
> robust gestural or verbal interactions get going, perseveration and
> idiosyncratic behavior decrease and relatedness increases."
> "In a review of over 200 cases, many from leading diagnostic centers, more
> than 90 percent did not directly observe parent-child interactions. Yet,
> this interaction reveals the child's capacity for relating and interacting
> and is the venue in which the child is most likely to perform at his
> highest level. Tests tend to emphasize how the child relates to the person
> administering the test and to highly structured tasks that may require
> motor-planning (attentional) skills that the child does not have. This
> relationship and the tasks are foreign, perhaps even frightening, and thus
> the child is apt to function at a lower level. As a result, the assessment
> often supports a more global picture of the child, rather than a picture
> that builds on how the child relates to, and uses his unique abilities
> with, his most treasured caregivers. Under these circumstances it is not
> surprising that many children are inaccurately diagnosed with autistic
> spectrum disorder."
Indeed. In my humble opinion, a lot of diagnoses of this type are not
based on a child's state, but rather on thier level of conformance.
Or, more to the point, the cost they incur on thier environments aka
thier caregivers & teachers. I think there may be a syndrome involved,
which probably is related to the intelligence level of the child in
question & thier emotional landscape, but I do believe that the diagnoses
of PDD is probably incorrect most of the time.
As for Aspergers, I doubt it entirely. 2/3 of my family have been
social workers for a long time, and I have had the pleasure to
volunteer at many functions. It seems very unlikely that any talent
of a broad enough scope to be profitable could routinely appear in
people who are otherwise obviously handicapped.
I think Aspergers offers comfort in a few ways, it lets us safely
look down on a specific group of people, for one thing. It offers a
potential explanation for things like idiot savant phenomena, for
another. All in all I really doubt Aspergers Syndrome is anything
more than a few mildly popular magazine articles.