Are we really the minority we're told we are?

That makes more sense Lotus, but I have seen teachers combine all 3 or 4 learning styles in their lessons and I've been on the recieving end of it a few times, hense my confusion.

 TheCatWoman  - apologies, I don't think I have explained the aural/visual/kinaesthetic approach as well as I should have. It isn't about explaining the same thing three different ways - it's about combining learning styles in one lesson. Here are some examples:

For the dyslexic children I worked with, I taught them to read and write simple nouns by drawing a picture of what the word represented (e.g. a cat), saying the letters that make the word (c, a, t) and then writing the word. This means they hear the word, see a visual representation of it, and learning is reinforced physically by writing the word. 

For the adults I worked with, I used a lot of pictures and sometimes videos to show the meaning of the words in English. Also we often got the students out of their seats and moving about the room, for example if we were practising how to ask someone what their hobbies are, we would tell them to mingle and practise asking each other what their hobbies are and then write down some answers e.g watching TV, playing football, etc So they would be shown some pictures of hobbies, be told the words for them,speak to each other about which ones they like, and the moving around is the kinaesthetic part which helps reinforce  the learning.

A good teacher should be monitoring students to check understanding - there is no reason to explain something a different way if a student already has the correct answer. The dyslexic children I worked with were sent out of the class to work in a small group with me, because they had specific needs the other children didn't have. In language schools students are tested and put into classes at the appropriate level for their understanding.

I don't do any sort of teaching now, and I haven't worked in a mainstream school since the mid 1990s. But if they are still working the same way, I would suggest more streaming. We had such a huge range of abilities, from 7 year olds who could not read at all, to gifted 10 year olds who were not being stretched academically. But some kids who can't read do well in maths, and vice versa so it's not easy, and getting the right mix of teachers and teaching assistants is also difficult and costly. 

I meant social rules, I think all groups have them and groups of autists are no different to NT's in that.

I do agree that few people understand just how much energy is taken up by doing everyday things and how overwhelming they are. I think the need to achieve so much might be because of a need to show other's that we're OK really, not a fraud, or weak or something. Achievement isn't something I really understand as it's something I rarely feel.

What rules are you referring to? I can find other autistic people difficult, because if they want to do something a particular way and it doesn't fit with me it is like hitting a brick wall, but it feels like the other autistic person is trying to control me. In the case of one particular person, the person I went to was NT, but knows me well.

I guess it depends on the person, I am more likely to flee from a situation if it is difficult. As no two autistic people are the same I guess there are parts of each other that we might understand better than a NT, but not everything.

For me, the main difference that very few NTs tend to understand is the amount of energy expended in doing everyday things. For example someone working, by the end of the week may spend the following day getting over the week, whereas many NTs would not understand why a day out or a party might be difficult. In the same way I don't think a lot of NTs from my experience understand how much energy is used up going into an office, especially in open plan hot desk situations. When my office changed to that this was the start of my difficulties because I had used a lot of energy getting to and selecting somewhere to sit and setting it up before the working day even started.

I understand that there are some things we have to do that are difficult, but for me I want others to understand that when I am struggling it is not me being difficult, but heading towards a state where something becomes physically impossible. We do have to try to manage this to a certain extent ourselves and I think I am finally realising that I only need to do that which is possible, as my drive to achieve tasks can be my own worst enemy.

I don't think black and white thinking is an ASC thing only nor do all people with ASC think like that, I know I don't, I know plenty of people who aren't ASC who are black and white straight line thinkers.

I think it's a power thing, NT's have believed themseles to be right and normal for so long and have spent so long forcing square pegs into round holes, that they feel threatened now they realise that a substantial minority of the population are square pegs and want to remain square, resist having their corners knocked off and now have some legal rights to prevent that happening. Very few people will give up power willingly or easily.

It's not surprising that "they" don't understand "us", do "we" understand "them" and their experiences? To me an NT world is a frightening place, I don't think it's only us who worry about fitting in, I think NT's do too, I think they must live in a world of fear in case they're cast out for some infraction with no community to go too, like we do.

Here's another thought, what happens when a person with ASC breaks the "rules" that other Autistic people find acceptable, where do they go? 

Since I understood what autism was I find I believe there are a lot more undiagnosed people, especially older people who have diagnosed children and grandchildren and it helps me understand their differences. 

However in the general public I think there are only a small number of people who really understand the hidden experiences, unless they have some experience themselves or with those close to them.

In society there is an overall understanding of accepting everyone's differences whatever they might be. However in society in general, including education it seems that the aim is to help people fit into the 'norm' rather adjusting to support people's needs. If we are not so much of a minority why are the ways we think not becoming the norm. I often fall to understand why people don't understand my black and white thinking. So if there is a fact, why do people understand it in a more complicated way.

You know that explaining to you three times in three different ways has been the bane of my education, I end up totally confused, I think I've understood then I doubt my understanding during the next three exlainations. This is why I think classes or schools seperated by learning style would be so much better, it would lead to less confusion and move things along quicker and stop people getting bored.

As a teacher and and autist, what would you like to see change about the way schools are structurerd and subject are taught?

I agree. I've worked in education twice in my life - as a special needs teaching assistant with 7-9 year olds, and then later as a teacher of English as a second language. All learners have different needs, and all teaching staff should be trained to teach in a way that can accommodate all learning styles. Even when training to teach adults, we were taught to teach in 3 different ways: aural (telling them) visual (showing them) and kinaesthetic (doing an activity to help them absorb the lesson)

Lotus I suspect you're right, not only would there be fears of over diagnosis, but the SEND budget would go through the roof. I wonder if the answer isn't to have more diversity in schools in general? School's seem to fail so many young people, everyone has a different learning style, whether they're NT or ND and I wonder if this wouldn't be a better way of getting the best for all children? Obviously there would still need to be "special schools" but maybe the number could be reduced if we thought about how we educate differently.

I've got to be honest and admit to being a bit wary of Simon Baron-Cohen, I know he's rowed back a bit on it now, but he was the one who promoted the extreme male brain stuff that has negatively impacted the lives of so many ASC women.

I believe Simon Baron-Cohen at al did the test on 5 year olds and another source claims that most children aged 4-6 who are not autistic can answer correctly, however it could of course be delayed until 7, as it has been reported that older children who are autistic usually still give an incorrect answer.

I doubt that either the Sally - Anne test or the AQ50 for teens would be implemented though, as I expect the government would fear what they call "over diagnosis" and many parents would then want a full professional diagnosis to get their child support in education, which would be costly.

Children start school so early these days do you think a 3-4 year old would understand the test? At that age they've not developed abstract thinking, would that skew the test? Otherwise I think it's a good idea, even if it wasn't done when they first start school, mabe it could be done a bit later, when they're about 7 maybe?

I'm not sure we are such a minority as is thought. If I hadn't happened to watch a documentary featuring an autistic woman I might never have guessed I was on the spectrum, and there must be other adults like me who haven't thought about it. Even with kids it can be masked. Until we get widespread testing we won't know. I wonder if the Sally & Anne test could be introduced as part of base line testing when children start school, or maybe the AQ50 test could be given to teens at secondary/high school?

It is negative, but valid, I think NT's do see us as defective and when they look at us WE LOOK JUST LIKE THEM! Hense the fear and distrust and in some cases a need to destroy just like we, homo spaiens destroyed or out competed other hominids and why as a species we find it so hard to accept that we're not the only sentient or intelligent species on the planet.

I agree that the few studies that have been done do show a different brain architecture, and you're right they are far to expensive and I suspect invasive to do on a large scale.

Ah yes, the dividing line between hard and soft sciences, is there a slightly spongey bit in the middle where we can all agree on and work outwards from? 

Most clinicians who diagnose autism are psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. To a biologist they are rather woolly disciplines, lots of concepts but relatively few hard facts. There is no biological test for autism, no measurable biochemical or biophysical parameters that give a definite answer.

There have been some tentative results from active brain scanning, where a patient is scanned while doing various mental tasks or is stimulated in various ways. They have given some indications that autistic brains have measurable differences in architecture from neurotypical ones. Typically, the autistic brain shows greater or lesser connectivity between regions of the brain. This is often greater close-range connectivity within functional areas and less between distinct functional areas. This is why integration between sight and motor areas is quite often poor in autistics, resulting in equally poor performance in ball games, for instance. However, in some autistics certain long range connections can be unusually highly developed, resulting in very specific heightened abilities. At present this sort of investigation is far too specialised, expensive and time consuming for routine diagnosis.

TheCatWoman said:

Are we seen by NT's as competition?

I think that to be competition we would need to be seem as rivals in some way.

To me it is more like we are viewed as defective - either we are weak (cannot cope with many aspects of everyday life easiy), inept (poor social skills often causing us to mess up) or just weird (stimming, odd ways of talking, info dumping, odd special interests etc).

Society seems to want to push out the defectives as we are uncomfortable to look at / deal with and who knows if it is infectious (seeing it from an uninformed laymans perspective).

Add the fact that recent press coverage is showing us collectively to be a net taker from society in terms of benefits and are becoming more associated with criminals, and finally that society has started to migrate to echo chambers of opinions courtesy of social media, it is little wonder we are becoming ever more excluded.

TheCatWoman said:

How much could NT society learn from us ND's?

Alas I don't think they are interested in learning from us as we are seen as defective. It would take enlightenment to see beyond our differences as this seems to be a trait dying off in the present social climate where we have such big issues as facism and wars becoming ever more present in everyday life.

I apologise if this comes across as negative but these are what I see influencing the situation you discuss.

There's even a term for that: "the social model of disability".

I wrote a long reply to you all yeserday evening and something happened and I lost everything but the last 2 letters I'd typed, so frustrating.

There are always problems with statistics, it depends so much on who's interpreting them and what the sample sizes are that they're working with. Reading Gina Rippon's book the Gendered Brain, showed me just how small sample sizes were and the huge assumptions made on the back of them. 

Who else should and could have input on diagnosis, apart from clinicians? They do seem rather limited by the diagnostic criteria and of course for some money and prestiege will be a huge motivator, drug companies really want to get in on the act and medicate us whilst making huge profits.

I wonder if some of the kick back we're seeing is from a very primal cause, humans in general seem to be very hostile to other hominids, in our deep past we seem to have out competed our hominid cousins, the Neanderthals and Denisovans, and problably a few others too. Are we a hidden other? Are we seen by NT's as competition?

How much do we actually know about what makes an NT brain typical? Is it like mental well being, something that nobody until fairly recently actually bothered researching because we all "knew" what is was, only it turns out we didn't really. Do we have a case like that in maternity services, where doctors only see the cases that go wrong and need massive intervention? Are out neurologists seeing enough brains, or are their sample sizes to small and they don't see enough "normal" brains.

One of the things we're repeatedly told is that we're a social species, but so many autists in particular want time away from people and choose how they interact. When I used to do silent retreats, a lot of people really freaked out, but others, wanted to come too, the idea of being able to finish one of your own thoughts from one end to the other without interuption, was seen as something valuable and beyond reach of many. I wonder if we all feel the need to be less social to have more space in our heads with less interuption, especially now smart devices take up so much attention. Not all of those people we ND by any stretch of the imagination.

How much could NT society learn from us ND's?

Any condition or disorder that is purely characterised by clinicians, however well qualified, looking at the outward traits and behaviours of people is going to be rather poorly defined. There is no biomedical test for autism or any other neurodivergence. This means that the division between who is or is not neurodivergent is inherently woolly.

However, I think that, despite the general move towards seeing a continuum between neurotypes, that the majority neurotype (neurotypical) will continue to be recognised as being such. For autism, the requirement of the condition having recognisably deleterious effects on the everyday life of the individual being necessary for clinical diagnosis, will continue to keep us somewhat distinct from the general population.

I agree, I think there is a trend for being neurodiverse some think its some kind of super power some that it automatically elicits sympathy and support without understanding the misery and struggle that ND actually brings. I guess education is part of the answer and maybe only those with a diagnosis should be considered in the equations.  However, that more people are being diagnosed is I think a growing recognition that many have gone undetected for years, as autism used only to be considered for men. So many women I think have struggled through life without support or an understanding of why they may have meltdowns. struggled socially, suffered chronic anxiety etc. I think there needs to be more support for older women and a recognition they may have spent most of their life battling a condition they didn't know they had or being able to manage. We don't have to go too far back for any mental health problem to be an unmentionable, embarrassing issue. 

I had some similar thoughts. But never decided to put it into words. If the world itself would be more suitable for people, who struggle more than the "standard" than maybe the diagnosis wouldn't be needed in many cases.