Horizon about Autism Did anyone watch?

Yes in explaining Autism one needs to take account of Co- Existion Conditions.

Many Autistic people do not have an eye for detail as they might have Dyspraxia or site problems.  I expect I also have Dyspraxia.  I have poor perception and good verbal reaspining.  I would say I do not have an eye for detail.

David

The other thing that annoyed me was the simplistic use of the Where's Wally? test to show autistic attention to detail. While attention to detail is a very common ASC trait, it takes many different forms, so it could include focusing in an obsessive way on a narrow interest, noticing minute environmental changes, or fixating on apparently trivial matters, resulting in anxiety.

I struggled immensely with the Where's Wally? challenge as a child, but I also struggled with object relations and spatial awareness to such an extent that the Ed Psych was called in to assess me. But I also had most of the other autistic traits including failing Sally Ann type tests, and struggling to understand fiction in general.

I would imagine that many children with Dyspraxia (a common co-morbidity) would also struggle with Where's Wally?, particularly if they have poor visual-spatial awareness .

ASC comes in many forms. In fact, USA researchers have identified a non-verbal learning disability as a subtype of Asperger's. People with NVLD have severe visual-spatial deficits, problems understanding non-verbal forms of communication, but excel at verbal language. They also have dyscalculia. I meet the full critera for this condition.

I thought nowadays they tell almost any one their diagnoses apaart from Children..

I think the law was changed in 1998 that one has to tell the patient.

In 1990 it was different.

When my Father asked if I had been more strictly brought up whether I would have turned out better.  The Family Therapist said in a way she is not supposed to explain that I have Asperger Syndrome.  She did not think I should be told but my Mother did tell soon afterwards.   She was going by a remark by a Psychiatrist in 1976 that I have mild Autism.  After that Doctor Pat Howlin confirmed it.

As for EMPATHY.  I did those Empathy tests which were a waste of time as I have very poor perception.  I have been advised by someone one senior in the National Autistic not to have EMPATHY and to let a homeless women stay with me again who is homeless.  I think sometimes Autistic people have too much Empathy and allow themselves to be taken advantage of.

I expect some of the research on Autism is a waste of money.

Watched Horizon late at night and only took in a bit of it and did not listen to the Radio three programme.

David.

Apologies, as I had overlooked the other dialogue about the Horizon programme, so we have two threads directly on this (but the other one has moved on to other things).

What puzzles me about Cohen's contribution, in addition to what I said above, is that his profile is impressive, but beneath that he has very specific research goals concerned with Theory of Mind and Empathy.

I understand the validity of exploring scientific concepts, but there is a need for caution when linking it back to real lives of people.

Many contributors here have issues with whether they totally lack empathy or theory of mind. But more importantly I'm unclear about its relevance to living with autism and resolving day to day issues. It is, as I suggested above regarding the marble and the boat, science "stuck in a rut".

Take the Cambridge Unit's project on empathy www.autismresearchcentre.com/project_1_empathy  This explains Theory of Mind as "Cognitive Empathy", and identifies a second strand "affective empathy". This is being pursued by experimental psychology measuring hormones and polymorphisms in relation to brain activity. Such research is self-perpetuating as long as there's money around. But it has been going on an awful long time now. Where's it getting us?

Then there's "systemizing"  - technical term for unusual skills or talents, but also narrow interests. Important area to study BUT how is it being studied - experimental psychology measuring etc.......

It goes on - hypersensitivity can be studied in this way too. I'm not knocking this kind of research in principle, it seems to help in a lot of researchers on the behaviour of the brain, and it was illustrated in the Horizon programme with the headpiece with electrodes being placed over a boy's head.

But we need better understanding of autism now. These studies have gone on for years. I'm worried that this is eternal funding for the kind of research we do here, like the recent poster telling us about experiments on animals.

Please NAS, could you focus some attention on whether research centres are directly helping autism, or autism is justifying everlasting research programmes to bank roll researchers.

Hi there,

I too had issues with this program as I often do when neuro-typicals pretend they know about autism.

The issue Longman has picked up about Cohen. Cohen said it was sometimes a matter of clinical judgement whether to tell someone whether they are autistic or not. This is appalling. In no other medical situation would this be acceptable so why is it here? My diagnosis was a healing. I knew I was always 'different' but not in a negative way, and learning I was autistic was a revelation and I felt good. I was me and I was autisitic. I am me and I am autisitic. I choose who I tell and who I don't. I understand me so much better now and have come to enjoy being me. My autism is who I am and there are aspects of it that I love - like my mental arithmatic skills and memory power.

This leads into the other issue I had with this program. The people who had extreme skills, like mental arithmatic and the young chap who could name days for dates - these are fantastic skills but I felt they were made out to be a bit freakish because of this. No one would make out an athlete was a freak because of their superior ability to run or swim or cycle faster.

There needs to be more integration for autistic people (if they so desire it) and this program once again (BBC typically) seperated us as being odd and too different to fit in.

I feel I can offer society something and although I will always be reserved and slightly apart from others, I do want to take part and I have lots to offer.

There has been a discussion on this under "Uta Frith on Radio 3", after the moderator used it to publicise the Horizon programme, but this is probably a good opportunity to move it across to a heading everyone interested can find.

I had two big issues with the programme. One was this issue that Cohen raised about whether you need to know your diagnosis. He was putting it over as a decision not to tell if the individual was managing OK. 

That's entirely the opposite to what I was told when diagnosed a decade ago. It was explained to me that some people cannot handle the diagnosis, and it may cause suicidal reactions if they feel their life is predetermined by a condition rather than theirs to determine. Therefore I was told because I already had coping strategies and could probably handle it, they considered it OK to give me the diagnosis.

The idea that you cannot be told your diagnosis in certain circumstances appalled me, because surely in many cases having a better understanding of what is happening helps you to manage. There are plenty of testimonies on here as to the value of knowing.

But everywhere else I've come across this, its for reasons of safety, if someone couldn't handle the knowledge, which makes sense. Along comes Simon Baron Cohen with - you don't need to know if you're managing. What's all that about then?!

The other issue I had is the whole point of the marble in the basket and the ship in the box. OK it helps NTs understand the phenomenon of autism, apparently, but can't we move forward to explanations more relevant to everyday life experiences? It relates to perception in young children. When else do people on the spectrum need to bother about where the marble is or how to copy processes when opening a box?

In real terms these analogies aren't helping people with autism, and in the context of the programme, increasing awareness of autism in adults as well as children, why were they given so much time in the programme?

The marble or ball in the basket tests whether children have picked up on "theory of mind", but beyond that "theory of Mind" just crops up willy-nilly without proper elucidation. All it means is that because people with autism don't develop social interfaces they don't learn to anticipate how others might be thinking. But most of us go on to develop an awareness we need to think about that even if we do it badly. Its surely not that we cannot engage in "theory of miind" full stop?

The ship in the box conveys a similar message. NTs copy each other's social formalities, to convey they understand. People on the spectrum don't have the experience of this and don't see the need. Also they are often embarrassed at replicating these social processes, possibly out of fear of getting it wrong. People on the spectrum therefore tend to deal in "black and white" distinctions, without softening the boundaries in the way human socialisation requires. But that has far greater significance especially in adulthood, then doing the right thing before getting a ship out of a box.

The scientists seem to be stuck in this fixation with often flippant and pointless analogies with childhood thinking. Without elucidation into the real world it isn't relevant or helpful to the lives of most people on the spectrum. So why harp on about it?