Uta Frith on Radio 3 (Autism Awareness Day)

I was hoping that the programme would have explained the condition better. The opening sequences particularly frustrated me as this harks back to a previous documentary about a boy drawing buildings from memory. This and rain man have produced in being asked the question "so what's your child's gift?" When they find out he is autistic. Yes, the child shown in last nights film had a great capacity for correctly naming the dates and yes, it was explained that not everyone will have the same or similar capabilities. I doubt this is something that many of the audience will have taken on board. I agree it would be difficult to show a full reflection as everyone is different but it would have been nice to show a broader range of people and explain more of the difficulties faced. 

zem said:

In terms of a "qualitative break", in the book of his that I've read Baron-Cohen does make it clear that a formal diagnosis requires both having the autistic traits and for them to be having a significant effect.

Trouble is, the term significant (I think the word they use is "impairing") is subjective, and I do suspect some clinicians (and laymen) think it means obviously so.  In other words, if someone is passive and not acting out in anyway, but internalising tremendous anxiety and then home stimming and rocking, melting down or completing OCD rituals to externalise it in private, they wouldn't consider that impairing.  That is entirely wrong.  They are still autistic and autistic should equal diagnosis.  Or am I being literal here...

Hope said:

I fundamentally disagree with Cohen's assertion that the only difference between people with autism and those without the condition is the number of autism traits, and that we are all on the same continuum. I do think there is a 'qualitatitive break', as opposed to a simple 'matter of degree'. It is true that the traits of autism can occur in the wider public, but they are not necessarily there because of the same reasons or causes. A cough can be a symptom of a cold, influenza, or cancer, the same symptom but caused by a very different agent. I am not a Scientist, and of course I do not have the study resources that Cohen has at his disposal, but I am concerned that the continuum idea could trivialise and relativise what is a serious and often disabling condition.

Hear, hear.  I get sick of hearing that.  It's utter tripe.

Hope said:

I fundamentally disagree with Cohen's assertion that the only difference between people with autism and those without the condition is the number of autism traits, and that we are all on the same continuum. I do think there is a 'qualitatitive break', as opposed to a simple 'matter of degree'. It is true that the traits of autism can occur in the wider public, but they are not necessarily there because of the same reasons or causes. A cough can be a symptom of a cold, influenza, or cancer, the same symptom but caused by a very different agent. I am not a Scientist, and of course I do not have the study resources that Cohen has at his disposal, but I am concerned that the continuum idea could trivialise and relativise what is a serious and often disabling condition.

I understand that autism is a spectrum, and that the non  autistic autistic brothers and sisters of those affected can show early markers of the condition in brain scans, yet not go on to develop the full blown condition. Autism is clearly genetic, and more research needs to be done on the differences between those with the full blown condition and those who are sub threshold and do not warrant a diagnosis.

I got rather irritated by a "professional" a while ago who kept saying "I think that we're all a little bit autistic".  To me this is a bit like saying "I think that we're all a little bit gigantic", because everybody has some height and gigantism is basically having lots of height.  But it doesn't mean that somebody 150 cm tall is "a little bit gigantic", or even that somebody 175 cm tall is a "little bit gigantic".

Regarding the focus on number of autistic traits, I was very surprised when I first came across it that in the Autism Quotient it is one point for one trait regardless of whether you strongly agreed/disagreed or just agreed/disagreed.  Preferring not to have a ticking clock but not really being fussed is very different to being unable to stand a ticking clock at all or even a watch.

In terms of a "qualitative break", in the book of his that I've read Baron-Cohen does make it clear that a formal diagnosis requires both having the autistic traits and for them to be having a significant effect.  (I may not have put that very well but I'm rushing a bit).

I will declare that I haven't watched the documentary (busy last night, planning to watch it on catch-up today) but I do find ["science"] documentarys, and TV programs in general, tend to simplify things or explain them badly.  I often get very frustrated with them doing so because it can be misleading.  They also tend to over-dramatise things (a Horizon episode on vitamin supplements that showed countless shots of a pill dissolving in a glass of water put me off the program for a long while) or edit them/present them in a "biased" way.  The message that was conveyed by the program could be as much to do with this as what the professionals actually think.

I fundamentally disagree with Cohen's assertion that the only difference between people with autism and those without the condition is the number of autism traits, and that we are all on the same continuum. I do think there is a 'qualitatitive break', as opposed to a simple 'matter of degree'. It is true that the traits of autism can occur in the wider public, but they are not necessarily there because of the same reasons or causes. A cough can be a symptom of a cold, influenza, or cancer, the same symptom but caused by a very different agent. I am not a Scientist, and of course I do not have the study resources that Cohen has at his disposal, but I am concerned that the continuum idea could trivialise and relativise what is a serious and often disabling condition.

I understand that autism is a spectrum, and that the non  autistic autistic brothers and sisters of those affected can show early markers of the condition in brain scans, yet not go on to develop the full blown condition. Autism is clearly genetic, and more research needs to be done on the differences between those with the full blown condition and those who are sub threshold and do not warrant a diagnosis.

I worry that people will come away from the programme with a very one-sided view of what autism is, not helped when Uta said that Sarah's self-awareness of her own condition is 'rare' (maybe Uta would do well to come on this forum!). Many people with Asperger's are very self-aware, and this in itself can result in depression and high rates of anxiety.

I have more to say but have to go out, so will revisit later.

I was hugely disappointed with the programme.  My biggest struggle is not with my asc children, but with those that come into contact with them, primarily teachers, who don't have a clue how to relate to them.  I was, hoping that the programme would focus more on advising the best strategies to use when working with asc children, such as never...... or always ...... or make sure .......type statements.

I am constantly explaining to teachers where they go wrong and why, yet without experts backing me up, my suggestions are given lip service.

I know psychologist don't like to tell you what to do, but just pointing out how asc people present just seemed to state the obvious.

Watched the Horizon programme this evening, which Anil A Mod flagged above. It was useful as an exploration but I'm never convinced by those experiments with things in baskets or boxes - are they to help NTs understand?

Also Simon Baron Cohen never seems to convey much of an impression. Uta Frith gives a good account of herself.

Anyone else manage to watch it?

I listened in this morning - well I couldn't not do after flagging it. It was useful that she explained the autism situation so clearly. I will try to follow but cannot be around all the right times.

Thing is, it is quite a useful opportunity - not sure if NAS realises this....it will reach a lot of people NAS publicity wouldn't normally reach.

I'll try and look out for the talk NAS mentioned.

Thanks to longman for pointing this radio programme out to us all. I listened to the first episode on repeat this afternoon, and enjoyed learning a little more about Uta Frith, who I much admire.

Have you been listening to this programme Longman, and of so, what are your thoughts on it?

A NAS service will be featuring in a Horizon documentary by Professor Uta Frith broadcasting tomorrow night.