Published on 12, July, 2020
I don't think I've perused this site in a long time......maybe 5 or 6 years.
I watched Louis Theroux's excellent documentary last week (aired in UK on 19/4/2012) and thought there would have been at least one discussion at this site. Unless I've missed it, here's one to get the ball rolling.
These are my thoughts on the current situation. I haven't put any links to my theories but if anyone wants them I'll list them separately.My son was diagnosed ten years ago with high-functioning autism. Concerns were raised at his 3.5 year assessment as he wasn't speaking. After 6 months of tests, the CDC (Child Development Centre) made their diagnosis. My wife cried on the sofa while I hugged her. I can remember all the 'milestone' dates as if it was yesterday.Tom did vocalise from the beginning and started to talk around 9 months. By 12 months he had a few words. After his MMR (15 months) he lost those words. He didn't have much shared non-vocal communication either (ie. staring at a cup or a toy that he wanted). It was something we watched for like a hawk in his sister when she came along 4 years later.Of course, when we underwent an 'Early Bird Training Programme' for parents of newly diagnosed children after his diagnosis, the child psychologist informed us that it was a coincidence that his words should disappear around the same time as the MMR jab. To be honest in those days, I didn't think it was the jab that caused his autism as he didn't have any massive side-effects. Not like some of the parents we met on that course. Over the eight weeks it took place, we swopped stories and some of the parents noticed immediately after the jab a change in their children. Their stories of incessant crying and fits in some cases were heart-breaking even if, from a medical standpoint, they were only anecdotal. I've always wanted to go back and ask the child psychologist where she found the information that says 'autism' begins to show between fifteen and eighteen months of age. Over the years of study, I've never come across a piece of research that covers this. It's only with hindsight now, that it seems a pretty convenient way of covering up any damage that might occur through a much increased vaccination program that we now have.So there it is. My research over the last ten years has brought me to the indisputable conclusion that the increased rates of autism are down to ONE significant cause, with a myriad of possible results.That cause is of course the vaccination schedule.The myriad of possible results I stated above, is because although vaccinations are the trigger for setting the autistic brain in development, I don't think they are acting alone. I think the damage is further fuelled by the food intake of the children and their individual DNA make-up. I actually think the idea that 'autism' has a possible 'genetic' make-up (the inheritence theory), is probably only a small risk factor compared to the massive risk that vaccinations pose.My silver bullet for making such a bold statement lies in a very, very, simple fact. Take any un-vaccinated population around the world (the Amish community in the USA is a good example). The rate of autism is between 1 in 10,000 - 15,000). The reason why the rate is difficult to assess more accurately, is because the incident rate is so small and because there are not many places left where the actions of Big Pharma have not been steamrollered through (cue the image of Ewan McGregor trekking through the backs of beyond in India and Nepal last Sunday evening to deliver vaccines to a remote village. I do hope he goes back with a film crew when the first cases of 'autism' are reported in the future). Compare that rate to the New Jersey rate which I was absolutely shocked to read as being 1 in 29.You also have to do your homework where vaccinations are concerned. I am in no doubt we will look back on this period of medical history and consider the actions of some people in authority with the same feelings we have towards the clinicians who experimented on patients with mental health problems in the sixties and seventies. When I ask most people 'how many children do you think died of measles in the UK in the year preceding the introduction of the vaccine?' Most answer in the thousands. They are shocked when I say '30'. And out of those we don't know how many had such 'underlying health problems' (as the BBC News is always keen to point out) that they would have unfortunately died of something else anyway. That isn't to say that measles is a simple disease with no risks. Of course in serious cases, encephalitis can cause serious problems. But we've come a long way since the Second World War and cases of measles and their complications were dropping year on year. Mumps never killed anyone and the same for Rubella. If it sounds as if I think the MMR jab is the sole cause of autism, I don't. I think it's the combination of everything. The thimerosal (mercury) preservative in the vaccine, the use of animal tissue and other genetically modified material, make vaccines potentially fatal. You never hear about the risks, but search around and you'll find cases of death, paralysis and other debilitating disorders because of vaccines.You may ask, 'if vaccines are the cause, then why don't they affect everybody?' I think in part, they probably do. If you correlate the rises in asthma, eczema, hay-fever, mouth-ulcers and a whole host of other non-life threatening disorders (actually asthma is life-threatening) between vaccinated and un-vaccinated populations the evidence is once again there to be found. You have to disregard almost 95% of medical research because it often is funded by pharmaceutical companies for the sole purpose of demonstrating the 'safety' of their products. Any negative findings are routinely hidden from the rearch data, thus making the results meaningless.What I found quite shocking in Louis' film was the visual evidence of what I'd been reading about over the years. The rate of obesity in the States is currently running at 37% of adults and 1 in 2 of every child. The figures are mind-blowing. The States also has been Monsanto's GM playground and coupled with a massive lack of nutritional value to the food results in what I perceived on my TV yesterday. When the young man was collected from the hostel to spend the day with his mum, I was shocked to see him tucking into the fast food. His actions looked entirely like an addict trying to get a fix. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but if the 'fuel' of autism is the action of a diet upon a damaged body, as many clinicians working in the field suspect, then we need to fix these addictions.I realise my views are probably very controversial, but if anyone is feeling pangs of guilt from subjecting their children to the vaccination schedule, I would advise them to let it go. We can only do what we think is for the best, and I'm in no doubt that we all acted in what we thought was the best interests of our children. I actually think the term 'autistic' is becoming redundant now for the simple reason that I've met too wide a 'spectrum' of children and adults who are termed 'autistic' for it to be meaningful. I think of my child's 'autism' now, as a result of someone else's incompetence on the good days, and down-right evilness on the bad days. I also think we need a term that expresses exactly what these children have ended up with .....a term such as 'government damaged' but with a positive spin. Tom hasn't had any more vaccinations since the age of about 3. What I've learned about the whole process of vaccinations means I will not subject him or his sister to any further vaccinations until they are old enough to weigh up the evidence themselves and then make their own decisions. Funnily enough, the autism specific advisor who was one of the team who delivered that very first 'Early Bird Programme' I mentioned above ten years ago, told me she had had four children herself. She's since retired but guess what?..........none of her children ever had any vaccinations whatsoever.Food for thought.
As I said I haven't visited this site in a long time, but I was surprised to find how large the NAS has grown (if the size of the website is anything to go by). What further surprised me was the availability of data concerning everything to do with managing autism (from behaviour to legals, education to work etc). There is a lot of stuff on here. What I could't seem to find easily was any mention of causes of autism.
Where are the voices suggesting what the causes of this 'development disorder' are?
Where are the independent research papers outlining various inquiries into possible causes?
Surely this should be the number one priority for an organisation dealing with autism, shoudn't it?
I know only too well how difficult it is getting any help to deal with my son's autism, but if I could stop one more child and their family going through the journey that we've gone through, I would.
If, as I have claimed, the rise in 'autism' that we've seen over the last thirty years, that correlates perfectly with the increased vaccination schedule, is due to vaccinations then parents need to be informed of the risks involved. Then can they make an informed decision as to whether the risk of 'autism' and the subsequent pressure it places upon the family ( ie.the immense emotional and financial strain, the Extreme Love that Louis talks about) is worth the risk BEFORE accepting vaccinations.
I would have foregone ALL vaccinations for my children if I knew then what I know now.
I welcome your comments and debate.
Al
I get most metaphors now, but I am still sometimes thrown. For example, recently my Mum said that someone was 'pushing up the daisies', and I thought they were literally gardening, visualizing them pushing up the daisies. I suddenly realised that this was not what she meant, but it took some time for me to work it out.
Scorpion0x17 said:Oh, and you're still wrong about autism and vaccines, btw!
Oh, and you're still wrong about autism and vaccines, btw!
Brilliant, love the sense of humour
Get back to you when I have more time........just finished reading 'Jerusalem' by Jez Butterworth......interesting read.
Hi Altruistica,
Good to see you back on the forums, and I'm glad I didn't offend you in any way - I find it really difficult to know, even on internet forums, how someone is going to take what I say, or write.
And, thankyou for the link to the information on Crohn's disease, I hadn't seen those particular videos before but was aware of most, though not all, of the information contained within them, so they were somewhat useful (if a little hard to take seriously when "Crohn's" is repeatedly spelt "Chron's" in them).
I'm glad to hear your son is improving, and yes, since being diagnosed I've had many moments of doubt - particularly as I have become more familiar with, and exposed to, the wider range of symptoms and difficulties experienced by those on the spectrum.
Regarding poetry and metaphor - well, metaphor first, yes I do use metaphoric language, but, as I understand it, only it's crudest forms, and I have to learn what it means in order to use it, if that makes sense - so, for example, I kind of understand what is meant by "It's raining cats and dogs" (and that it doesn't literally mean that cats and dogs are falling from the sky), but it's not a metaphor I use because I've never really got exactly what it means.
In fact I can't think of a metaphor I do use, right now. Oh, except "off the top of my head" - I use that - and it's hard to explain - I know what it means, and I don't recall ever thinking it meant literally that the the idea or thought was on top of one's head, but I do know when I first heard it I didn't get it, and it was only though repeated exposure to it that I got an understanding of what it meant.
I guess, it's like all language is metaphor in a sense, that is to say, no single word inherently means what it means, if you see what I mean, it is just a sound-form, and corresponding visual-form, that gets associated in one's brain with an abstract concept - like a kind of cypher.
For me all metaphor works on that cypher-like level, so I don't just 'get' it, I have to learn to decypher it.
And so, to poetry. I don't get most poetry. It's like trying to crack military grade encryption, to continue the cypher analogy. In fact, I generally find the explanation of a poem even more confusing than the poem itself - because I read it and just think "What? How on earth do you get that from the poem!?"
Finally, regarding holes in knowledge being typical of ASC - yes, I think so, but once again it's one of those things that's a gross generalisation, and how much one knows, and how big the holes are, depend very much on where one is on the spectrum.
Well, I say that, I suspect it has far more to do simply with learned knowledge and/or IQ than anything else - and it's no different for us on the spectrum, than it is for neurotypicals. Again, I can't think of an example off the top off my head, but I'm often shocked at the things many neurotypicals just don't know - things I take for granted, as obvious truths about the world.
Anyway, please do post any other thoughts you want my opinion on, as I said before, I've found our discussions very helpful myself, as it makes me think about aspects of the way I think and perceive the world that I don't normally think about - so it's helping me to understand myself.
Hey Scorpion,
Sorry I've not been back to the site......been really busy with family etc.
You haven't offended me in any way. I think it's quite 'comical' in a way if you re-read all of this thread how we both vehemently argue our corners and then strike a balance to try to get past our different beliefs (namely whether a type of autism that I'm calling 'vaccine-damaged' autism really exists or it doesn't). At the end of the day, all I'm trying to do is help my son and others with autism.
The reason I visited the site today is to post this link to a doctor talking about Crohn's. I'm sure you've probably seen this but if you haven't it might help:
tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp
Temple's book on relationships has just come so I need to have a good read. I noticed on our bookshelf the other day Tony Attwood's book on Aspergers that I haven't touched for a good few years. Tom has started saying he isn't autistic ('I'm not like the other boys in R12') which is on the one hand is great and on the other not so great. It's great because he's actually conversing with us about what he thinks and how he honestly feels. What's not so great is that he's actually displaying 'autistic traits' by being so rigid in his thinking about what constitutes being 'autistic' and also being quite dismissive of their rights to be. Did you ever go through a period where you stated you didn't have an ASC? All of this is quite new to Tom, as he's never been open and receptive to take on-board ideas about self........and he's also a teenager so has all that to deal with to.
Having said all that, we're beginning to see changes in him that we haven't seen before....and not just us, others have remarked upon it too. I gave him the best piano lesson we've ever had the other day, engaged all the way through and actively wanting to master the skill. He's talking more at the dinner table about different stuff than just videogames and it's all looking positive.
Just picking up on one of your last points...'we don't do metaphor'.
Do you ever use metaphoric phrases in your own day-to-day conversations?
What do you think of poetry?
I came across this poem about seven years ago and it summed up perfectly why I 'do' music and why I compose:
In my craft or sullen art – Dylan Thomas
In my craft or sullen art
Exercised in the still night
When only the moon rages
And the lovers lie abed
With all their griefs in their arms,
I labor by singing light
Not for ambition or bread
Or the strut and trade of charms
On the ivory stages
But for the common wages
Of their most secret heart.
Not for the proud man apart
From the raging moon I write
On these spindrift pages
Nor for the towering dead
With their nightingales and psalms
But for the lovers, their arms
Round the griefs of the ages,
Who pay no praise or wages
Nor heed my craft or art.
Here's an analysis of the poem by a reader that I've just copied and pasted if anybody has trouble understanding the meaning.
u might want to consider listening to his recording on http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoet.do?poetId=7091# . it'll help give u a better idea as to the image he wants to portray. lines 4 n 5 are really sad, the way he read them. the way he set craft and art up side by side, and tacked on "sullen" to art, is interesting in the image of art he's setting up. art here is humanised as a being which is resentful, and we are given to understand later on that its because nobody reads his work which he labours on in the still of the night - a time where nobody is awake, and he's the only one awake (sense of secrecy? carries connotations of working at his art in secret, coz its banned). the very ones he writes for, lovers, because they love (we presume it is thus so, because they're the only parties he doesn't tag negating adjectives to), don't read his works, when he writes to express all that they feel. he doesnt want to write for fame, fortune, recognition, or even money to survive. art is not a craft - sth u labour at as a means of survival. he doesnt write for the higher-ups (proud man), or for the dead to eulogise or mourn/soothe their passing. he writes for and/or about life, setting love up as the one party he will write for, because as one loves, one will encounter all the pain of life. hence it is appropriate to write for lovers. but sadly nobody reads his work, not even treating it as craft, needless to say art. sorry if im rambling on, its coming off the top of my head, so not v organised. if im wrong, pls correct me
What does poetry mean for yourself?
Tom really struggles with any language other than direct instructional language (although he loves Lee Evans!). He showed me this clip from one of the DVDs we bought him last Xmas (I think he has every one now):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOJz41rFsnE
I watched the video and we laughed along hysterically. Afterwards, I asked Tom if he knew what a 'payrise' was? He didn't (as I suspected he wouldn't). This is quite normal for Tom. Fourteen and a half years on this earth has left him with huge holes in his knowledge of the world. Is this typical of ASC? His lack of knowledge didn't stop him from enjoying this clip (so much so that he wanted to show it to me) but when this happens I am always left wondering at what level is he understanding the point Lee Evans is trying to make? Does it matter?
I've got some other thoughts I want to share with you and get your opinion on, but this post is already long enough.
I agree with you there, Temple. The portrayal of autism should be more rounded and depict all parts of the spectrum, otherwise people could get the wrong idea. And vaccines are part of a civilized society, just like pencillin, pain-relief, clean water, and all the other things that have made our world safer.
the reason why dint like this program was i was worried that everyone would think we all was like this and that was the reason i use to not tell people i had autism because i dint want people to think i was like that and that why i dint like going to my special needs school because all the kids in that school was like that and i was not like that but having said that it much be great for other parents out there knowing they not the only ones going through things like that also there is no proof that taking the flue jab will curse your child to be autistic.
@altruistica: on the assumption that you'll read this, I would very much like to continue our conversation, as I found it very interesting, and useful to myself because it gave me an opportunity to think through some aspects of having Asperger's that I hadn't previously thought about.
I hope nothing in my last reponse to you caused you to be offended, or has in any other way stopped you from continuing the conversation.
i hated this tv program i don't know why i just dint like it at all.
Hope, I didn't say I was against all vaccinations; just that I would have chosen the alternative three separate vaccinations for my hyperthetical child rather than the single MMR jab.
Of course I would (and do) accept life-saving drugs if I need them but I've had adverse reactions to some antibiotics which make me wary when they are prescribed. On the last occasion my reaction - principally insomnia, hallucinations, high anxiety - was apparently only experienced by less than 1 person in 10,000 - and this was something I'd taken previously without any problems.
True Colours: If you got a life-threatening disease and were rushed to hospital and were offered life-saving (pharmaceutical) drugs, would you refuse? Would you rather die than be cured? I think you would answer no.
So what is the difference with vaccines? They prevent disease, other medicines cure disease. Prevention is surely better than cure. SEcondly, not getting vaccinated without good reason (i.e. allergies or previous bad reactions) is irresponsible and actually selfish. Other people could die or get seriously ill if you get one of these diseases, even if you only have the disease mildly. This is not just about individuals, but about society and peoples' right to be free from life-threatening disease. Diptheria, by the way, is deadly. It restricts the breathing passages and causes death by strangulation. It can only be cured by antibiotics.
I've never had children but if I had done I would probably have chosen the option of three separate vaccinations (even if it had meant paying for them) rather than the single MMR jab, just to be "on the safe side" as my mother would have said. She refused to have me vaccinated against diptheria and smallpox when I was little and I've inherited her doubting mind when it comes to the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies.
True Colors said:Not cause it, but maybe trigger it. As I understand it, some children show no initial signs of autism - in fact appear to be developing normally - but then start to regress, in some cases losing the ability to speak which had already begun to develop.
Firstly, see Hope's excellent post.
Secondly, yes, that's how it works sometimes. That doesn't mean they didn't have autism before and then do. There were just no clear symptoms of it up to a certain point in development, at which time the symptoms appeared. Such a child could go down any path, vaccine or no vaccine, this food or that food, at it wouldn't make any difference. The activation of already present genes, is the only 'trigger', if you want to call it that.
No, vaccines do not trigger autism. THe research is conclusive on this point. Autism affects the brain, vaccines trigger the immune system to produce illness specific antibodies. Vaccines contain chemicals, but so does the food we eat, the air we breathe etc. Our brains are protected by the blood/brain barrier. If, hypothetically speaking, vaccines affected the brain, you would not get autism but a disease with physical symptoms. The person would feel sick. Autism is NOT A DISEASE!!!. It is a difference, and we are no more nor less healthy or unhealthy than any person without autism.
Do you mean maybe vaccines cause autism in some individuals when it hasn't been apparent up to the time of the vaccination?If so, no, autism is not a disease, you do not 'become' autistic, you 'are' autistic, from birth.It is not 'caused', or 'tiggered', or anything like that, it is just there
If so, no, autism is not a disease, you do not 'become' autistic, you 'are' autistic, from birth.
It is not 'caused', or 'tiggered', or anything like that, it is just there
Not cause it, but maybe trigger it. As I understand it, some children show no initial signs of autism - in fact appear to be developing normally - but then start to regress, in some cases losing the ability to speak which had already begun to develop. I suppose it's possible that the shock to the system of a vaccine triggers that regression.
True Colors said:What they say, and I/we was/were arguing against, was the idea that vaccines in some way cause autism in some individuals.But what you stated pre-supposes that the autism already exists in those individuals.
What they say, and I/we was/were arguing against, was the idea that vaccines in some way cause autism in some individuals.
But what you stated pre-supposes that the autism already exists in those individuals.
Maybe it does, even if it hasn't been apparent up to the time of the vaccination. I suppose that is possible.
[/quote]
Maybe what does what?
Do you mean maybe vaccines cause autism in some individuals when it hasn't been apparent up to the time of the vaccination?
It is not 'caused', or 'tiggered', or anything like that, it is just there.
Scorpion0x17 said:What they say, and I/we was/were arguing against, was the idea that vaccines in some way cause autism in some individuals.But what you stated pre-supposes that the autism already exists in those individuals.
True Colors said:If people with autism/AS have differently wired brains it's possble - isn't it? -that a vaccine/drug may have some adverse effect in some individuals which wouldn't occur in NTs.
Yes.
However that's very different from what the anti-vaccine crowd say.
And also very different to what I, and I believe (though I don't want to put words in her mouth) Hope, was arguing against.
If people with autism/AS have differently wired brains it's possble - isn't it? -that a vaccine/drug may have some adverse effect in some individuals which wouldn't occur in NTs.
altruistica said:Over the years I've often wondered what the problem might be with Tom acquiring language. He's definitely had to use different parts of the brain to learn how to speak. The way he has had to learn grammar (in a spoken context) also has been different. He had great difficulty choosing the correct personal pronouns (he would often say things like 'She gives his watch to her' when i should have been 'He gives his watch to him' or similar). As he was into Mario Kart at the time, I made a load of laminates that featured the cars, the characters and the differnt pronouns. It took me two days of printing, laminating etc. I thought it would take him a couple of months to get the idea. We played the game twice and he'd got the idea. The visual aids succeeded in less than an hour what months of work had failed to achieve. I knew then, that for Tom to learn, the correct keys had to be provided to open the lock.
I think there was a few things going on there.
Firstly, you were attaching the information to be learnt to something that interested him (Mario Kart) - we're often very driven by what interests us and very little else.
Secondly, you were presenting the information in a visual, and from the sound of it kinesthetic, way - and, as you mention later in your post, we're generally (though it's not a universal) visual-kinesthetic thinkers - which I'll come back to shortly.
Thirdly, though I'm not sure if this relevent here, what you said about the 'correct keys' was interesting - particularly regarding language - if you ask me what a given word means I will often struggle to give you an answer - it's not that I don't know, but it's that there's no context to the question - ask the same question in a slightly different way, giving context, or ask me to give an example of when the word might be used, and I'm more likely to be able answer the question. It's not something I fully understand myself though.
altruistica said:Today was a classic example of the deficit. I had him doing a Maths Entry Level paper from 2009. One of the questions was on directions (ie. 'Bath is SW of Birmingham' type questions). After I explained the points of the compass to him, he tried to answer the three questions. In each case you had to complete the phrases, such as 'Leeds is ______ of Manchester'. The answer was EAST, but he put WEST. In each case he put the opposite. After questioning this I found out that he thought it meant.....'Which direction do you have to go in from Leeds to get to Manchester'. We've come across difficulties like this in the past, where the use of language just gets in the way. In these situations you just have to do numerous examples just to show what the language means.
Once again, directions are something I struggle with all the time - and again, it illustrates the way we, or at least I, think visually - even if there was a map of the UK in front of me, showing Leeds and Manchester, and I was given that same 'complete the phrase' task, I would answer it by first assuming North was 'up' on the map, and visualising a compass symbol with the direction letters of N, E, S, and W written around it, and transposing that over the map. I don't hold the piece of knowledge 'Leeds is east of Manchester' in my head.
altruistica said:I think Temple's thoughts about thinking in pictures is really relevant, as it's something I think we all do.......it's possibly just that the pictures in ASC cases are much more pictorial than verbally descriptive.
You say that thinking in pictures is something we all do, and in a sense you are correct, however, let me ask you a question - when you're thinking about something, do you have a voice in your head? and does that voice ever stop?
For most neurotypicals the answers to those questions would be 'Yes' and 'No', however for some autistics the answers would be 'occasionally' and 'often'.
We all have three (well, possibly more, but psychology generally recognises three) modalities of thought (Auditory, Visual, and Kinesthetic) that we each use to differing degrees, however, we each favour and predominantly use one more than the others, and one we use the least.
In the neurotypical population, and this is a generalisation, but it is braodly true, people are predominantly Auditory, a bit Visual, and only slightly Kinesthetic.
Autistics, however, and again it is a generalisation, are predominantly Visual, a bit Kinesthetic, and slight Auditory.
And when individuals don't match that generalistions it's usually only the first two modalities that are swapped (so, neurotypicals that are Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic or, and autistics that are Kinesthetic-Visual-Auditory (I'm this later one, I think)).
Of course, you find all combinations in both populations, autistic and neurotypical, but as I said, it is a generalisation that is broadly correct.
This is why, as I said earlier, I can often sturggle to define the meaning of a word verbally, because I can 'feel', and sometimes 'see', the 'shape of the meaning' of the word, but can't verbalise that.
altruistica said:Tom really struggles with any English work that involves creating from scratch a story or a piece of prose, whereas a piece of comprehension is much more manageable because it's more analytical.I also think the idea of 'a dog has four legs, as a table does, therefore a dog is a table' is an important concept. The lack of imaginative play that has been documented in the past, must revolve around the 'need' for the same input to give the same output.
I also think the idea of 'a dog has four legs, as a table does, therefore a dog is a table' is an important concept. The lack of imaginative play that has been documented in the past, must revolve around the 'need' for the same input to give the same output.
Another generalisation that usually holds true is that we live 'in the here and now', so anything that isn't rooted in the here and now is difficult for us.
I think it's incorrect that we lack imagination, it's just a different form of imagination.
But I'm really not sure, because I can see that what I call 'imagination' is somehow different to what neurotypicals call 'imagination' but having never experienced neurotypical 'imagination' I don't know how it differs,
altruistica said:I wonder where exactly language acquisition fits into this? Your description of 'a dog is a mammal with four ambulatory limbs' is simply beautiful in its exactness. Where does this description come from? Is it a learned thing?
No, it's very much not a learnt thing. Again, this is another generalisation, but we are analytical systemizers. So a dog and a table, whilst they have a very similar overall phyiscal form, are very different things because they function, and behave, in very different ways, and have very different defining characteristics. We also like precision and dislike abiguity.
altruistica said:Do you play any instruments Scorpion?I'm going to think some more on this aspect of conversation being improvised play....whether we could use music improvisation as a spring-board to develop language areas to become more spontaneous. Do you think there is mileage in that idea?
I'm going to think some more on this aspect of conversation being improvised play....whether we could use music improvisation as a spring-board to develop language areas to become more spontaneous. Do you think there is mileage in that idea?
I don't play any instruments, though I do enjoy music.
So I don't know whether there is 'any mileage in' that idea.
Oh and that reminds me of another generalistion about the way we autistics think - we don't do metaphor! Part of me want's to write "No, there's no mileage in that idea, because an idea is an abstract concept that in and of itself does not have physical form, so it cannot contain anything, nor have dimension, scale, or distance!"
altruistica said:I'll just comment quickly on another thing that struck me in your reply. When I said about jokes, 'sharing the moment' with the other person irrespective of how funny the joke is speaks more about trying to show empathy to the other person, not just being present in the same place at the same time. It really refers to one's attentivenenss to what the other is saying. By grinning along with each line as they deliver the joke, you're actually saying (non-verbally off course). 'I am interested in you and what you say. I respect your wish to want to build our friendship and I'm reciprocating that wish by giving you my time'. That may sound very convoluted and a waste of energy if the joke is rubbish (and often it is), but it's almost a social etiquette I suppose.
On one level I completely understand that - but that is an example of something that for me is learnt.
For me, and again I believe it is generally true of people on the spectrum, the act of simply being in the same place, at the same time, doing the same thing, is all that is needed to convey 'I am interested in you and what you say. I respect your wish to want to build our friendship and I'm reciprocating that wish by giving you my time'.
Scorpion0x17 said:From what I understand of stuttering, no I don't think it is at all the same. And it's not so much that I worry about what the other person is thinking, more that, on top of taking in the words they're saying, processing the meanings of those words (which again, for me is not an enitrely sub-concious or automatic process), I'm also having to consciously think about what what they're saying might imply about what they might be thinking (and that generally involves lots of chains, and branches, of logical possibilites, as well as all the potential illogical possibilites (because more often than not, it seems to me at least, neurotypical thought processes appear utterly illogical)) - so there simply isn't the cognitive processing power availble to either think about, or to fetch from the language centers, the words I want to say in response.
From what I understand of stuttering, no I don't think it is at all the same. And it's not so much that I worry about what the other person is thinking, more that, on top of taking in the words they're saying, processing the meanings of those words (which again, for me is not an enitrely sub-concious or automatic process), I'm also having to consciously think about what what they're saying might imply about what they might be thinking (and that generally involves lots of chains, and branches, of logical possibilites, as well as all the potential illogical possibilites (because more often than not, it seems to me at least, neurotypical thought processes appear utterly illogical)) - so there simply isn't the cognitive processing power availble to either think about, or to fetch from the language centers, the words I want to say in response.
Over the years I've often wondered what the problem might be with Tom acquiring language. He's definitely had to use different parts of the brain to learn how to speak. The way he has had to learn grammar (in a spoken context) also has been different. He had great difficulty choosing the correct personal pronouns (he would often say things like 'She gives his watch to her' when i should have been 'He gives his watch to him' or similar). As he was into Mario Kart at the time, I made a load of laminates that featured the cars, the characters and the differnt pronouns. It took me two days of printing, laminating etc. I thought it would take him a couple of months to get the idea. We played the game twice and he'd got the idea. The visual aids succeeded in less than an hour what months of work had failed to achieve. I knew then, that for Tom to learn, the correct keys had to be provided to open the lock.
Today was a classic example of the deficit. I had him doing a Maths Entry Level paper from 2009. One of the questions was on directions (ie. 'Bath is SW of Birmingham' type questions). After I explained the points of the compass to him, he tried to answer the three questions. In each case you had to complete the phrases, such as 'Leeds is ______ of Manchester'. The answer was EAST, but he put WEST. In each case he put the opposite. After questioning this I found out that he thought it meant.....'Which direction do you have to go in from Leeds to get to Manchester'. We've come across difficulties like this in the past, where the use of language just gets in the way. In these situations you just have to do numerous examples just to show what the language means.
I can't help thinking that a lot of Tom's (ASC in general) difficulties seem to stem from this deficit in language. Whether it's in the speed of processing single words and phrases and attaching meaning to it, or whether as you refer to above, in the ability to retain what someone has said and formulate your response in real time. I think Temple's thoughts about thinking in pictures is really relevant, as it's something I think we all do.......it's possibly just that the pictures in ASC cases are much more pictorial than verbally descriptive. Also, as a musician I'm well aware of the 'creative, playful nature of composition and improvisation'. Often the distinction between the two terms are that improvisation is seen as something that occurs in real time, whereas composition is usually decided on at a later date through studied thought processes involving decision making in areas such as inventing, retaining, developing, editing material. Conversation can almost be seen to be an improvisatory skill, whereas the discussion we're having is more akin to composition. I know Tom really struggles with any English work that involves creating from scratch a story or a piece of prose, whereas a piece of comprehension is much more manageable because it's more analytical.
I also think the idea of 'a dog has four legs, as a table does, therefore a dog is a table' is an important concept. The lack of imaginative play that has been documented in the past, must revolve around the 'need' for the same input to give the same output. I wonder where exactly language acquisition fits into this? Your description of 'a dog is a mammal with four ambulatory limbs' is simply beautiful in its exactness. Where does this description come from? Is it a learned thing? In the same vein I thought it extraordinary what 'Tom' (not my Tom) said in his testimonial on one of the NAS's pages:
When I was about six, our teacher was reading us the story of Icarus, who flew up too close to the sun and his feathers started to burn off. The teacher got half way through this story and suddenly this voice interrupted, saying, 'Stop, stop! This story’s stupid – how could a bird fly anywhere near the sun? By the time it got above the troposphere, it would have frozen. And also, the atmospheric pressure up there is so little that the body would literally burst.'
And of course, the teacher said, 'Excuse me, stop interrupting. Could you let me finish the story?'
But that voice, that was me.
I shouldn't really think this extraordinary as I've probably seen simlar things in Tom....where he knew everyone else's lines in the Year 5 play.
Do you play any instruments Scorpion?
I'll just comment quickly on another thing that struck me in your reply. When I said about jokes, 'sharing the moment' with the other person irrespective of how funny the joke is speaks more about trying to show empathy to the other person, not just being present in the same place at the same time. It really refers to one's attentivenenss to what the other is saying. By grinning along with each line as they deliver the joke, you're actually saying (non-verbally off course). 'I am interested in you and what you say. I respect your wish to want to build our friendship and I'm reciprocating that wish by giving you my time'. That may sound very convoluted and a waste of energy if the joke is rubbish (and often it is), but it's almost a social etiquette I suppose.
Later,