[baddad]

I didn't say any of those things!

Simon

I think you know which 'simon' I was talking about!

[coolblue]

Delete invariably and insert 'often'. Other than that I stand by what I said - often - very often - if an autistic person doesn't like something it is taken to be a hugely powerful emotional turmoil purely on the basis that it is an autistic person doing the disliking. Autistic people don't have hobbies they have 'obsessions'. Autistic people don't have tempers they have 'meltdowns'. Autistic people don't have likes/dislikes they have 'food issues'. Autistic people aren't 'naughty' they're autistic. Autistic people aren't overindulged and underdisciplined they have autism related ADD Or DA.
etc.
etc.
etc.

That's probably because the parent has in many cases spent the best part of a decade wondering what on earth they did wrong with one of their children. Suddenly the penny drops and it becomes clear that the child in question has a developmental disorder which explains their all-exclusive preoccupation with Thomas the Tank Engine, their extraordinary rages that *no one* knows how to control, and the weird fact that they only ever agree to eat green food, when their siblings have tucked into whatever is put in front of them.

Of course autistic people can be overindulged and underdisciplined; but if you can tell where overindulgence and underdiscipline begin and autistic behaviour ends, you should make your services available to the public because there are plenty of parents and teachers out there who would dearly like to know.

As for that substantial body of evidence - why of course there is. Because the evidence is anecdotal, and more and more people buy into the anecdotes. The 'self perpeutuating myth' I mentioned in my first post.

I was referring to peer-reviewed research. You can describe findings that people diagnosed with autism have abnormal bandwidth filters, longer than normal auditory evoked potentials, abnormal saccades, and visual hyperacuity as 'anecdotal' if you like, but you will then have to question the reliability of most research in medicine and technology, since it uses the same type of methodologies.

Which is not to say that for some autistic people hypersensitivities etc can't be an issue... Just that IMO it is nowhere even close to the kind of numbers that are casually claimed with pretty much no consideration for the more likely alternative that children behave like children because they are children.

But what's your opinion based on? It's a serious question. If you consider my opinion - that many sensory sensitivities are overlooked in autistic people, and cause needless problems - to be based on anecdotal evidence, presumably your opinion is based on anecdotal evidence too. In which case, what makes you right and me wrong?

The reason I'm concerned about this is because I spent years expecting my son to 'behave' like other children and he just didn't. I gradually worked out that he had sensory problems; it was only later that he was diagnosed with autism. We've made allowances for his sensory 'issues' and have few problems with his behaviour. I think it's significant that specialist schools for autistic children have adopted the same strategy, with considerably more success than schools that see the problems as a matter for discipline.

cb

[baddad]

Here's what i believe - put simply:
Every time a parents says 'my child can't (whatever) because my child has autism' it disables, disenfranchises and further marginalises the child. Of course, autism is a disability, so sometimes there's no other option but to say 'my child can't' and that's completely reasonable. No parent should beat themselves up about things their child can't do, and no child should be 'judged' for that.
But with my own eyes and ears, at every autistic 'group' I've ever attended, in every mainstream, special needs, or independent school I've ever visited, in every care home I've worked in I've seen can't used as an excuse, by parents and professionals alike. And I'd be lying if i said I hadn't sometimes (more in the past but probably still occassionally now) used can't as an excuse too. Whether that's done lovingly, out of a sense of protection, or out of laziness, or out of ignorance or out of martyrdom or whatever else might cause parents to say 'can't' rather than 'can', it's disabling. At best an act of wilful ignorance. At worst an abuse.Who am i to judge? No one. How am I uniquely qualified to spot where one thing begins and another ends? I'm not. But I'm not stupid, either, and I'm willing enough to believe what my eyes see and my ears hear without the need for qualification because I'm in denial about either my own nature or the nature of my child. Many other parents seem to believe anything their child does is someone (or something) else's fault. And anyone here who says they haven't seen parenting/children like that is either lying to me or lying to themselves. Or, quite possibly, both. Quite possibly without even being consciously aware they're doing it. But hey ho...

So, cool blue, can we agree to differ? Please? You seem totally confident about your parenting and your 'reading' of your own child so there really is no reason for you to be bothered by my opinions - they obviously don't apply to you. But in situations where they do apply there are children's lives being messed up, and it does, in that context, seem relevant and reasonable to discuss such issues on a forum like this one, despite the fact that they seem to hit a nerve with many...

Look through this thread - more posts have been made directed at me than at the OP. People seem to have an awful lot invested in my views being wrong. Can't think for the life of me why that should be...
sawjd - sorry again for the diversion. Hopefully people will get back to responding to your post rather than attacking mine at some point. FWIW I still stand by the content of my original post, offered with the best of intentions.

L&P

BD

PS: I too think it's significant that specialist schools get better results - proving undoubtedly that making reasonable adjustments and maintaining expectations helps autistic people realise their full potential. I've not got any problem whatsoever with reasonable adjustments or maintaining expectations - just with the unreasonable adjustments and diminished expectations I associate with 'can't do'.

This post has been edited by baddad: 31 July 2010 - 07:10 PM

[sawjd]

Hello everyone,

Just wanted to say, thanks to everyone for your replies, i have personally messaged Baddad. My OP has caused upset and was not intended to upset anyone. I wish i could personally thank everyone. I hope things get easier through the holidays.


Best wishes to everyone.

sarni

[coolblue]

So, cool blue, can we agree to differ? Please? You seem totally confident about your parenting and your 'reading' of your own child so there really is no reason for you to be bothered by my opinions - they obviously don't apply to you. But in situations where they do apply there are children's lives being messed up, and it does, in that context, seem relevant and reasonable to discuss such issues on a forum like this one, despite the fact that they seem to hit a nerve with many...

Happy to agree to differ. I'm not actually totally confident about my own parenting - I did say that I spent some years expecting my son to 'behave' until I figured out that there might be a reason why he wasn't.

Nor do I have any problem with discussing such issues. I thought that's what we were doing.

Look through this thread - more posts have been made directed at me than at the OP. People seem to have an awful lot invested in my views being wrong. Can't think for the life of me why that should be...

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they have 'an awful lot invested in your views being wrong'. Any more than you appear to have 'an awful lot invested in your views being right'.

In my case, I am acutely aware that I got it very wrong with my son initially, and wouldn't want other parents to make the same mistake.

sawjd - sorry again for the diversion. Hopefully people will get back to responding to your post rather than attacking mine at some point. FWIW I still stand by the content of my original post, offered with the best of intentions.

Why equate disagreement with 'attacking' your post? You made a valid point, but I felt you also made some sweeping - and misleading - generalisations. I assumed that it was OK to point out where I felt you were wrong.

cb

[baddad]

*wibble*

sorry mods, another reply I've deleted because I just can't be fagged anymore...
sorry for the inconvenience.

Coolblue - stick with it my lovely! I'm sure it'll all come good in the end.

This post has been edited by baddad: 31 July 2010 - 08:04 PM

[call me jaded]

Awww my lovely long reply got lost in the glitch.

To sum up I think I said that sometimes it's neither ignorance nor neglect to recognise that disability is, err, disabling and that painful though it is, accepting the difference can be beneficial and bring inner peace. Wish I could remember what it is I said about Pollyanna.

[baddad]

Awww my lovely long reply got lost in the glitch.

To sum up I think I said that sometimes it's neither ignorance nor neglect to recognise that disability is, err, disabling and that painful though it is, accepting the difference can be beneficial and bring inner peace. Wish I could remember what it is I said about Pollyanna.

Totally agree - just as long as we never forget the 'sometimes'.

I've posted the plot of 'Pollyanna' for you from Wikipedia. It's about the benefits of optimism and having a 'can do' attitude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna

Seems a bit dated and un-PC these days with that 'miracle' recovery, and all that burying your head in the sand nonsense about 'if you look for the bad in mankind you will find it' but a lovely tale none-the-less.

L&P

BD