Over at his blog, Harold is fretting about the possibility of Autism Twitter Day really being a stealth-Neurodiversity attack:
What exactly does “positive” autism awareness mean? Is that concept consistent with “realistic” autism awareness?
Well, yeah. Look Harold, sooner or later you’re going to have to bite the bullet and accept the fact that a sizeable percentage of the autism community are interested in pursuing positive autism awareness. This means reflecting _one_ reality of autism – that there are positives to autism and they should be celebrated and that awareness of these positives is something that should be raised. This is reality. _One_ reality.
Another reality is that autism has its downsides too – we all live it, we all know that. Now, if Harold (or whomever) wants to do his own “negative” autism awareness day then – good luck to him. Personally, I’ve had enough of that but I recognise that it – just like the positive side of autism – is a reality. Harold goes on:
Still I can’t help but wonder when I see the adjective “positive” used to describe autism awareness whether it is an attempt to censor the discussion, to promote an unrealistic, feel good picture of autism
Yeah, damn that evil censoring positivity. Sometimes autism (take a deep breath Harold) _does_ feel good. It feels good to be involved in my childs life on many occasions. And as for censorship Harold, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve tried to comment on your blog only to note no comment has ever made it past your censorship. You, by contrast, continue to remain free to comment here.
Here’s the thing Harold. You don’t want there to be _any_ discussion of positivity in my opinion. You refuse to believe such a thing exists. You see autism = bad. End of story. The terrible truth Harold is that you are the censor. Anything that doesn’t contain a hefty dollop of misery isn’t ‘reality’ for you. Well, cool, whatever you like. However, please don’t try and dictate to everyone else – who clearly see that autism has many sides and many realities – what we should and should not talk about.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Alyric – I honestly believe that Harold genuinely holds to the beliefs he proclaims to. I am in no doubt that he holds autism to its DSM critierion and firmly believes that that is the exclusive, comprehensive description of symptoms and therefore presentations of autism.
Our job now is to encourage him to think about what the traits mean in their practical real-world application.
“I am in no doubt that he holds autism to its DSM critierion and firmly believes that that is the exclusive, comprehensive description of symptoms and therefore presentations of autism.”
I think it just happened to be the most negative description and therefore the most useful, for now. Watch him ignore all references to the peer reviewed literature where you find tons of things that could be viewed quite positively about autism. We could even supply a reference to a nice overview of that literature. The point is that he does not want to know. Why is that?
I’d be inclined to think that as well, if not for his strange flirting with anti-vaccine quackery, which clearly goes against his otherwise adamant position about accepting whatever the consensus of scientific authorities is at any given time, without much in the way of critical thinking. You talk to him one day, it’s as if questioning authority is taboo. On a different day, it’s the thing to do. (Jenny McCarthy is great, blah blah blah).
alyric >> The point is that he does not want to know. Why is that?
Reading on I suspect Kev’s got it right on the nose. The positive things that are inherent in autism have less than no value to a strategy that is so well demonstrated in some literature I favour:
And so Eeyore mopes his way into getting Pooh to get him a birthday party and presents. Eeyore’s response?
Just how some people view their world and operate. *shrug*
“Joseph and David Andrews (M. Ed.) (Distinction)
If you are not talking about autism disorders as defined in the DSM when you refer to autism what in the heck ARE you talking about?”
Heh. Proof that HD doesn’t read what he claims to disagree with or argue against.
Certainly didn’t read what I actually wrote, did he?
However, given his ‘understanding’ of autism as just one thing (as described in DSM), one has to wonder that he hasn’t picked up in the changing nature of the criterion-sets over time in both DSM and ICD! As more information becomes available, the nature of these sets of criteria is bound to change: better understanding leads to better diagnosis – it’s a recursive process. Essentially, this represents the diagnosticians checking their assumptions and what they have found out already against what is now there to be known. And, although I am not fond of the APA, I have to acknowledge that they are at least trying to take a grounded theory approach to the development of DSM-V, by soliciting the views and experiences of those diagnosed under that system (and possibly its sister system, ICD) as a form of member checking.
Pope’s poem states that:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.”
This means that a small amount of learning, that doesn’t cover even the principles of some science or field of study/investigation, is likely to be more harmful than it is beneficial. Pope says here that one should – if one is learning something – go full into that topic and saturate oneself in it (oddly enough, one of the characteristics of being autistic that he prefers to see in purely negative terms); if one can’t be arsed to do that, then one should leave well alone (and let others be the experts in that topic or field). The last two lines are essentially redundency aimed at amplifying the sense of the first two lines.
HD has a lot more learning to do.
Without that learning, the little learning that he has now is definitely a dangerous thing.
“The point is that he does not want to know. Why is that?”
Because the additional learning and the additional knowledge has a responsibility attached: that of using it properly.
That would go against his a priori aim.
HD: “…judging by the comment title, I was invited here to comment…”
Blog title: “Well Harold, since you asked…”
That doesn’t look to me like any sort of invitation to comment. More like an invitation to read something!
Just looked at HD’s blog.
No comments still!
Is his blog actually that popular that we should expect comments?
I’ve never rated it as a must-read, and I’ve never heard of him mentioned outside the ND blogosphere, where as I’ve heard of yourself in two seperate contexts, for 3 seperate organisations.
“Eeyore the old grey donkey stood by the side of the stream, and looked at himself in the water. Pathetic he said, that’s what it is.”
A favoured literature indeed and the sentiment is right on the money:)
I shall now dub Harold – Eeyore of New Brunswick. It has a certain charm and no small accuracy.
“I shall now dub Harold – Eeyore of New Brunswick. It has a certain charm and no small accuracy.”
Yeah but it’s name calling, and that, IMHO, isn’t necessary.
all alyric does is name calling and insulting people he/she/it disagrees with. Can’t seem to think of any facts or arguments to dispute any positions they disagree with.
“all alyric does is name calling and insulting people he/she/it disagrees with. “
“it”??!
Just kidding jypsy. I’m actually trying to get him to stick to advocacy and quit the mottron bashing. Don’t quite know why other than it’s important cause I sure am not getting anywhere but I also am stubborn. It doesn’t do his cause any good with those tactics.
@ Jon
The day you answer any aqctual criticism levelled by me in your direction is the day I buy you a bunch of flowers. To date, you haven’t and the last time was what – all of two days ago?
Kev
I stand by my comments at my site and here. And I thank all of you who commented here. You have confirmed what I have suspected for some time, that most of the Neurodiversity, Autism is a Blessing commentary, at Autism Hub site isn’t truly based on the defining characteristics of the autism disorders as defined by the diagnostic manuals.
Autistic Disorder is by definition a disorder marked by serious deficits that impair the lives of those who afflicted by the disorder. It is also unfortunate that those who oppose the efforts of parents to help their own children, and interfere with those efforts, should do so on such a weak foundation and by misrepresenting the realities of autistic disorders.
I wish you all an enjoyable holiday season.
“I stand by my comments at my site and here.”
You’ve yet to show me how I quoted you out of context. Do you stand by that comment?
>> I stand by my comments at my site and here. And I thank all of you who commented here.
You stand by them,…
>> You have confirmed what I have suspected for some time, that most of the Neurodiversity, Autism is a Blessing commentary, at Autism Hub site isn’t truly based on the defining characteristics of the autism disorders as defined by the diagnostic manuals.
…close your eyes so as to not see how you were shown wrong, and declare over and over “I was right”.
LOL Little wonder you so actively filter comments on your blog. You only have to not read those posts once instead of over and over.
Man you act like such a tool.
Hi Dedj,
“Is his blog actually that popular that we should expect comments?”
Well, when you put it that way… LoL
I think that it’s interesting to see what he gets in terms of time-relevant commenting (when he’s having a go at things like the Autism Twitter Day, as an example), because it shows the real significance of his writings.
“I’ve never rated it as a must-read, and I’ve never heard of him mentioned outside the ND blogosphere, where as I’ve heard of yourself in two seperate contexts, for 3 seperate organisations.”
Indeed. And it makes one wonder what his really central agenda is.
I’m not sure he has a central agenda. I’m beginning to suspect that he truly doesn’t know that the DSM criteria that we have today was formed by exactly the process he calls ‘weak’.
He believes the DSM as the be all and end all with all his heart (irrespective of what’s in the literature) becuase that’s all he is able to do.
Basically, anyone who is unable and/or unwilling to even listen to an alternative arguement – and then makes unreferenced universal claims about people “opposing help” just because they disagree with him – is on very shaky logical and ethical grounds.
I see no reason to debate with this man about anything.
Dedj:
“I’m not sure he has a central agenda. I’m beginning to suspect that he truly doesn’t know that the DSM criteria that we have today was formed by exactly the process he calls ‘weak’.”
Indeed. I’m actually not sure – based on how he presents in blogs – that he’d know how to have a really good think about what he says; it’s just diatribe.
“He believes the DSM as the be all and end all with all his heart (irrespective of what’s in the literature) becuase that’s all he is able to do.”
Indeed. And this is – sadly (for his clients) – not good thinking in a lawyer. For a job job like that, one has to be able to see many sides of an argument – if only to be able to second guess one’s opponent in a courtroom. It’s a bit like seeing statute law as being written in stone and ignoring the fact that case law issues can modify or even change things in statute law.
“Basically, anyone who is unable and/or unwilling to even listen to an alternative arguement – and then makes unreferenced universal claims about people ‘opposing help’ just because they disagree with him – is on very shaky logical and ethical grounds.”
I’ve said before and I’ll say again: I’m glad I will never have to use his services.
“I see no reason to debate with this man about anything.”
It’s impossible to do that anyway. Isn’t it?
I wasn’t aware that he is still a current and practicing lawyer.
But anyway, his main problem seems to be this adherence to the false dichotomy of “treatment vs. no treatment”, that is, opposition to his idea of treatment is taken as opposition to any treatment at all. He even goes on to imply that this is typical of ‘the ND crowd’.
Funnily enough, this years autscape (and I suspect, autreat) was attended by multiple people who research, publish, deliver or recieve autism interventions, yet these are exactly the people he says (in some cases the exact individuals) oppose treatments.
When someone tells you something that has been true in exactly 0% of cases you know of, it’s time to question if they know what they’re talking about.
He seems to have a very concrete idea of ‘How it is’ and any criticism gets interpretted as being diametrically opposed.
I have more to say, but can’t really see the point. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions, just as Kev and others are waiting for answers to theirs. We will never get them.
This thread should end.
Besides, the point, there was no censorship on autism twitter day…