My Child Won't Listen

That’s really more of a neurological-discussion, when we’re talking about sensitivities and processing; I believe that psychological-issues only really have a place in talk of comorbidity. Otherwise we risk conflating development/psychology/behaviour with the root-causes of autism, which as Ian pointed-out, was quite-decisively ruled out as a root-cause over-decades of scrutiny. There was a whole-wave of misery caused by the conflating of psychology with autism.

Excuse me for being pedantic - I am autistic after all - but did you mean psychodynamic theory rather than all-encompassing "psychology" ?  I am very much a believer in a psycho-social model. Freud's archives were closed for a hundred years ofter his death. A lot of people suggest that when they are opened, much of his work will prove to be at best speculative.  I believe that one could start with basic biology and chemistry and test neurological theory. I am not sure how one could falsify Freud's belief in the id, ego and superego by experiment. It is like belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; if you believe then it is truth that does not need proof.

Yeah.. I did mean psychology as a whole, which is not to say that or don’t believe in psychology, I just mean that it doesn’t come before neurology where autism is concerned. 
I do believe that live takes its toll and that nurturing occurs, but if you fail to consider that a person has a social impairment before looking at behaviours, you’re speculating at best. 
I mean ‘refrigerator mothering’ was a solid speculation, before you consider autism, but with autism you can see that parents can be cold or exploitative with their child in the face of odd and unrewarding behaviour. ‘Refrigerator mothering’ can be a factor in childhood development, at consequently the behaviour and psychology that one manifests, but it’s doesn’t play a role in the root causes of autism and as such I incomplete if conflated with neurology.

DeSpereaux said:

Also autistic children don’t need ‘symbolic logic’, they need something actually-logical to memorise and the time to absorb it, the more they are exposed to the less chaotic the world appears and the more competent they become in facing it.

I'm not sure you're talking about Logic anymore. Perhaps you might be referring to Reason? If anything symbolic logic can help turn your ADHD friends sentences into mental formulas and follow all their tangents they might not finish. For instance, is this is what you mean when you say "Logic"? 

Premises: ((R→S)→Q), ¬Q, (¬(R→S)→V). Show: V.

Or do you mean something else.

Try: ‘Gwynne’s Grammar; The Ultimate Introduction to Grammar and the Writing of Good English’ by N.M Gwynne.

Also autistic children don’t need ‘symbolic logic’, they need something actually-logical to memorise and the time to absorb it, the more they are exposed to the less chaotic the world appears and the more competent they become in facing it.

I fell asleep but WHAT on earth are you talking about? 

Being reactionary: quick to judge without attempting to understand, quick to assume, projecting my bias onto a child without using a bit of Reasoning and Logic, IS bad parenting. We've all done it and I'd advise taking necessary measures to grow and mature out of it quick. It only compounds problems. 

To get to the same page, it may be good to understand what you mean by Rhetoric and Logic. So, perhaps add links to what you're referring to. For example:

Symbolic logic can be useful for most Autistic kids, in fact. 

If I were to talk about Logic, I would be referring to a manual such as this open source book - PDF https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=oer-ost

And as for Rhetoric, I bought The Trivium years ago and find it a concise summary for the most part. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trivium-Classical-Liberal-Grammar-Rhetoric/dp/1632864967

I noticed that the cheap-shot didn’t go unreciprocated there.. .. you didn’t need it to make your point though, the prose and substance you’ve formulated speaks for itself..

iI have to say that I feel a little nervous when the discussion of medication come up though, because I just feel uneasy about the supplementation of healthy-lifestyle with pharmaceutical-crutches, though I don’t question that medication is reasonable in some situations..

As I say, psychodynamic theory is not one of my "special interests" but I do know that to Freud "neurosis" was linked to frustration during the psychosexual development of the infant. In other words, it is part of his belief system and is not scientifically falsifiable. I wonder what is the basis for your assertion that "most in philosophical academia now recognise the Neurotic state as the 'normal' being ... " 

You ask where I am getting this information. I am not a psychologist, but I have studied psychology at postgraduate level in the context of child development and social work. Are you a psychotherapist? Your profile does not state your experience. You clearly have some academic background, so why are you reluctant to back up your opinions with citations?

A lot of what I have written can be found in any general undergraduate psychology text. As I say in my profile my interests are eclectic but very much more bio-psycho-social than psychodynamic. I am in favour of pragmatic approaches like Solution-Focussed and Egan's "Skilled Helper" model, because they have been proven effective. (NIHCE guidelines).

I was once at a lecture at the Tavistock, where a therapist said that a year of weekly psychotherapy was as effective in treating depression as Prozac. That is fine if you are in a position to take forty-plus half-days off work, and possibly pay for private treatment. My response was thank you, if I were depressed I would take the pills and get on with my life! To me, psychotherapy is a bit like theology, with everyone arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin, but the fundamental principle, that a Deity exists, is just assumed.

The Creak points reference I have is:

 (king & lord (2011), Is schizophrenia on the autistic spectrum? Brain Research, 1380, 34-41)

I was hoping you’d spare me the references..

I think that first paragraph about bad parenting is rigid and extreme, its suggests that these parents aren’t sensible because they aren’t Christ, is ridiculous and it doesn’t mean they’re not being as sensible as is reasonable.  
This is a perfect example of what I mean by inferior rhetoric equals inferior logic, it’s difficult as times to not say things callously so I hope you’ll forgive that, it is late..

Arguably Creak was superseded by the work of Rutter and Wing. There is an interesting if rather long history by Evans, B (2013) " How Autism become autism"  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757918/] which I need to work my way through, but which, at first sight, seems to put this discussion more cogently.

Whilst we are all entitled to our opinions, I like it if, when someone quotes an authority, they back it up with an actual reference. Freud wrote over forty books, which reflected the development of his thinking. Many of the other names we have mentioned had long careers, and their views changed.

Rhetoric is the most important of science to attain. If have a vocabulary and grammar that is better you can communicate better; if you can communicate better, you have better reason and logic; if you have better reason and logic you have better rhetoric. Rhetoric is the true crucible of understanding, it’s not a bad thing, it is essential to the integrity of everything that follows it. Therefore if someone has not defeated my rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that their logic is either equal or inferior to mine.. I’m crudely stating that point but it doesn’t cheapen the idea..

Also you’re forgetting the final point: compositional technique.. also it is referring to the exploitation of language and the persuasiveness of one’s arguments; not the exploitation or persuasion of people..

Rhetoric - " the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques." [OED]

Hopefully we can share ideas without trying to persuade or exploit. There are many perspectives. I tell my students that there a lot of theoretical approaches. and there is not a single "right" answer. One advantage of being neurodivergent is we can often see the big picture. Every theory or perspective has limitations. We learn by considering new ideas, rejecting some and incorporating others into our world view.

I don't disagree, but I don't know what pretext you are referring to.

I agree juniper, this is a pretty chaotic thread, at this point. But ultimately if a point is made and then bolstered, then it could be considered a pretext and people can make a pretext to justify anything if they wish it enough.

What specifically about it.

In fact, re-read the OP and please let me know how this relates. 

What specifically about it.

In fact, re-read the OP and please let me know how this relates.