Jump to content
thebuzzer

Being Deliberately Rude is this Aspergers trait or what?!

Recommended Posts

But why do you believe the boy in the OP doesn't understand? Other than 'because he has autism', I mean...

Of course it's necessary to enable a child to understand 'rude' if he doesn't understand it, but not to defend rudeness when he can quite clearly demonstrate that he does understand the concept by not being rude when it suits him! Or to bend the facts to suit to justify defending it.

And I did say black and white is the starting point, and that once that basic level of understanding is achieved then the greys (like 'what does rude mean') can be introduced. But if you haven't provide the starting point - the black and white - how can they possibly hope to grasp 'greys' or - heaven forbid - the whole range of colours that exist too?

Said it many times in the past and will say it again. A child does not need to understand the reasons behind 'no' he only has to respond to 'no' appropriately. (Life saver that one). That's the starting point for learning right from wrong that every child needs to go through. If the learning curve is extended for any reason - or even impossible for the child to grasp (as in some severe cases it may be) - it's still the same learning curve. A child who can offer a defence/justification for his behaviour must - by definition - have some understanding of the processes involved

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

We seem to me to be arguing basically the same point. We both seem to agree that there needs to be boundaries and understandable and predictable rewards and consequences for his behaviour. However I believe that they do need to check that his difficulties are not down to anything associated with is ASD. You seem to find it impossible to even consider that, and I don't understand why. Just because he behaves in one way with people he likes and another with people he does not like does not mean he has the same level of social functioning as the other children in the class. Infact the posts do seem to suggest there are some underlying difficulties that could be impacting on this behaviour. Why ignore them. It isn't going to hurt anyone to look into them and might make outcomes much more positive. You are accusing me of jumping to assumptions when you are doing exactly the same from the opposite point of view.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son doesn't see it as being rude, he is very honest and detests lieing so if for example a teacher who he dislikes intensely because he doesn't understand her (and vice versa) is doing wake up shake up and he loudly says "I hate her, I hate the way she dances she looks really stupid" it is a combination of him loathing the ground she walks on and the fact that that feeling is overtaking all he has learnt about self controll due to his intense feelings over hating wake up shake up, the fact that it was in the hall and not in the playground (can't cope with change) and the fact that he was in sensory overload due to all the echoing noise and people bumping into him etc. He repeated this to his teacher in class when said dancing teacher was standing near buy.

 

We are very strict about manners etc and have done the social stories etc etc but he is impulsive and sometimes can't control this. Don't we all sometimes blurt out something without thinking? Perhaps Touretts sufferers are also incontrol really but just don't want to conform, I don't thing so really!

 

My son hates standing out from the crowd and will avoid any situation where he is likely to be singled out whether it be going up in assembly to get a reward that he has worked hard for, public praise of any kind so he really isn't shouting out for attention when he blurts things out because he can't stand eyes being on him for whatever reason whether they be positive or negative. He will also have tantrums infront of freinds and isn't aware of anyone else due to the intensity of his feelings although these are a little less now that his ADHD is controlled a wee bit with medication.

 

In contrast his ASD freind is the total opposite and faced with any of the situations above, or simply because his sandwiches are touching at lunch time he will shut down and block everything out spending hours and hours in his room lost in his own thoughts for the day involved in one of his interests . He's not getting any attention from the behaviour because he is on his own but it is his way of coping with something he finds difficult.

 

With my son we and the school are working with him to try and get him to internalise these thoughts at least untill he is at home but he is almost 10 now and although he is getting better there is a long road ahead of us. Even though a diagnosis of ASD is given every single case is different and individual which is obvious from the differences between how my son and his freind react to the same situation even though they both have the same condition!

Edited by Sooze2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We seem to me to be arguing basically the same point. We both seem to agree that there needs to be boundaries and understandable and predictable rewards and consequences for his behaviour. However I believe that they do need to check that his difficulties are not down to anything associated with is ASD. You seem to find it impossible to even consider that, and I don't understand why. Just because he behaves in one way with people he likes and another with people he does not like does not mean he has the same level of social functioning as the other children in the class. Infact the posts do seem to suggest there are some underlying difficulties that could be impacting on this behaviour. Why ignore them. It isn't going to hurt anyone to look into them and might make outcomes much more positive. You are accusing me of jumping to assumptions when you are doing exactly the same from the opposite point of view.

No I'm not - I'm not assuming anything. I just read the original post and took it at face value rather than projecting my own assumptions onto it. I don't find it impossible to consider the implications of autism - I just don't go out of my way to make it the focus purely to satisfy my own desire to blame a behaviour on anything other than the fact that a child is capable of misbehaving! I believe autistic children are just as capable of behaving inappropriately because that is what children do, but you seem to 'find it impossible to even consider that'. Sorry, I do not believe that autistic children are perfect little angels and that any aggressive/antisocial/rude/inconsiderate behaviour must arise as a result of that nasty autism thingy compromising their ability to meet their full angelic status! They are kids. I expect them to behave like kids! Isn't it more realistic to assume that a ten year old is behaving like a ten year old because he is ten (or in the case of an autistic child who may not develop at the same chronological pace as his/her NT peers even older) than to assume there's some other factor at work? In fact the posts do seem to suggest that there are some underlying intentional rudeness issues that could be impacting on his behaviour. Why ignore them? It isn't going to hurt anyone to look at them and might make the outcomes much more positive.

Personally I wouldn't have to think about many 'what ifs' if my son called one of his teachers a fat pig and spent much of his time undermining his/her efforts to teach the rest of the class and mocking/mimicking him/her. I wouldn't be talking about things like echolalia if there wasn't clear indication that echolalia was a regular feature of my child's autism, and I wouldn't be making assumptions about him not understanding the implications of his behaviour unless there were clear indications to base those assumptions on.

As I said, if it looks, smells, behaves like a fish my first assumption will always be that I'm looking at a fish. If on further examination I see some mermaidy features that my intital assessment had overlooked I'd reconsider, but I wouldn' jump to any mermaidy conclusions purely and simply because I don't like fish (or because I have a desire to see mermaids). Believe me, I do know that isn't a popular view these days, but it is far more 'logical' than the alternatives being put forward.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

PS: sooze 2. Just posted and saw your post. I did wonder if a comoparision with 'tourettes' was going to crop up in this thread and almost mentioned it in my post. No, I don't think tourettes sufferers are just chosing not to conform either, but again I wouldn't make an assumption about an 'autism stylee tourettes type of thing possibility' either unless there was other evidence to suggest it. And yes we are all capable of saying things we regret in the heat of the moment. Obviously i don't know anything about your child at all, and maybe there are tons of other indicators in his case to suggest the explanations for his behaviour that you have put forward. What i can say, without needing to think about it at all, is that if I had behaved that way when i was a child and my mum had defended my behaviour with those kinds of arguments I would have exploited that for everything it was worth - because that's what kids do. I see many, many parents of neurotypical children 'defending' their childs behaviour in exactly those kinds of ways ('he fell in with a bad crowd/his friends put him up to it/your kid started it by looking at him funny') too, and there are enough posts on these forums from parents who are sick of the 'attitudes' of parents onf non-autistic classmates to show that I'm not unique in seeing this.

 

BD

 

Edited by baddad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I wouldn't have to think about many 'what ifs' if my son called one of his teachers a fat pig and spent much of his time undermining his/her efforts to teach the rest of the class and mocking/mimicking him/her. I wouldn't be talking about things like echolalia if there wasn't clear indication that echolalia was a regular feature of my child's autism, and I wouldn't be making assumptions about him not understanding the implications of his behaviour unless there were clear indications to base those assumptions on.

 

 

You discribe my son perfectly, all of the things you mention above are on his statement and things that are well known to effect him on a daily basis.

 

 

You said "But if you haven't provide the starting point - the black and white - how can they possibly hope to grasp 'greys' or - heaven forbid - the whole range of colours that exist too?"

 

and youre so right but this covers everything and it applies the the ASD diagnosis too - there is no black and white, all people are effected in a whole range different ways through every colour of the rainbow from the darkest blackest all consuming thoughts that seem irrational to some but haunt others to the always smiling happy rose coloured specticle wearing cherub who skips though life untouched by reality. Both sides have their difficulties, learning how to say no isn't going to solve all the difficulties certain children have but years of social groups, explanations and getting out there in the world and letting them be part of it will help in the long run but the result you get really does depend on how the individual persons ASD effects them at the end of the day.

 

 

PS: sooze 2. Just posted and saw your post. I did wonder if a comoparision with 'tourettes' was going to crop up in this thread and almost mentioned it in my post. No, I don't think tourettes sufferers are just chosing not to conform either, but again I wouldn't make an assumption about an 'autism stylee tourettes type of thing possibility' either unless there was other evidence to suggest it. And yes we are all capable of saying things we regret in the heat of the moment. Obviously i don't know anything about your child at all, and maybe there are tons of other indicators in his case to suggest the explanations for his behaviour that you have put forward. What i can say, without needing to think about it at all, is that if I had behaved that way when i was a child and my mum had defended my behaviour with those kinds of arguments I would have exploited that for everything it was worth - because that's what kids do. I see many, many parents of neurotypical children 'defending' their childs behaviour in exactly those kinds of ways ('he fell in with a bad crowd/his friends put him up to it/your kid started it by looking at him funny') too, and there are enough posts on these forums from parents who are sick of the 'attitudes' of parents onf non-autistic classmates to show that I'm not unique in seeing this.

 

BD

 

 

I don't defend my sons behaviour in the way that lets him get away with it (I would never ever repeat any of my comments made here to him for fear of giving him an excuse!), if he has caused upset he needs to apologise and will have consequences for his actions when he is at home or as soon as it happens if there is somewhere I can sit with him for a timeout whether his freind is waiting to play with him or not. He will repeat the behaviour but he will be punished again and again, he is gradually learning and where his freinds are entering a difficult defiant stage in their lives and shocking their parents he is at last at 9 coming out of the terrible 2's and becoming a nice little lad. This again is partly due to medication slowing down his thoughts enough to be able to learn how to think first act later - it doesn't always work but he is getting there slowly because I have been consistant and he knows where he stands with me. I'm not giving him excusses, he doesn't get away with it but I'm just saying the reasons why he can act the way he does sometimes. My son also always jumps right in and gets agitated, defensive and argumentitive in conversation if someone dissagreas with him or offers a different point of view no matter who it is which is something else we are helping him with at home and in his school social group. Again it is taking a long time but it is something that we need to try hard to overcome by the time he is an adult really, there are no excusses but he needs to work very very hard on these areas which is very hard when you consider he has 2 younder siblings who don't even need to think about the right way to act in these situations - they just understand.

 

My mum would have beaten me and my brother if we were excessively rude. My MIL told my husbands Primary School Head Master to do what ever he wanted to him if he was naughty so he used to give DH the cane very very often and another one of his primary teachers broke a wooden ruler over his knuckles because he couldn't write fast enough. He was a lovely lad outside of school and is a lovely man but school nor his parents knew or dared to question why this lovely child was so badly behaved. My kids aren't going through that.

 

I'm not sure what the 'autism stylee tourettes type of thing possibility' you mention is really - touretts is linked to ADHD, I could ask my freind for more info for you if you like her son has it and he knows a couple people with the condition too.

 

Suex

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sooze2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sue - i actually came on to delete/edit the post of mine - not because I think there's anything in it that's necessarily innaccurate (I do hope people spotted that 'necessarily' so that i don't subsequently get accused of saying I'm claiming my views must be 'right'), but purely because I thought it had got a little bit too specific about subsequent posts rather than remaining 'On Topic' to the original OP.

'I have described your son perfectly' confirms that for me. Unfortunately, I was too late and the edit button had disappeared, so i will try to redress the balance now (and in doing so use my son - which can cause no problem for anyone except perhaps him and me - as the example!):

 

My son is no saint. He is frequently in trouble at school for answering back, for talking in class, for interrupting, for getting distracted from his work etc etc etc... All of these aspects of his personality are undoubtedly exacerbated/connected to his triple dx of autism/adhd and dyspraxia. I have never medicated him to help his adhd, because trials have always shown that an 'effective' dose in one area has an equal and opposite effect in some other area of his functioning, and the trade off has never seemed worthwhile. However, as he approaches his teens and all of the implications of that I'm starting to think about what new options there might be 'just in case'.

 

I expect the school he attends, and the teaching staff within it, to have an awareness of those factors that effect him in the classroom; to give him some leeway and additional support to help him to stay on task and to work with him on strategies to help him recognise, reduce and overcome his impulsivity...

 

But: I also have an absolute expectation that if my son does something he knows to be wrong, that he is sanctioned. I also have an absolute expectation that if he enacts behaviours that significantly impact on others (knowingly ot unknowingly) he is sanctioned (in the latter case with additional input to help him understand). I also believe that if his behaviour is impacting on a teacher's ability to teach a class of 8 - 10 students (and when he was in primary around 30 students) that the needs of the class and it's teacher should be given (at least) equal consideration.

 

My son understands that calling a teacher a fat pig is not acceptable behaviour. My son knows that deliberately mocking/mimicking/goading a teacher and disrupting a class is not acceptable behaviour. These are the behaviours that the OP described and asked for comment on, offering significant 'evidence' that her son also knows that these behaviours are unaccptable. IMO all of the things I mentioned above (awareness, leeway support and strategies) should apply when my son is being (for want of a better phrase) 'unaggressively impulsive'. If he is being deliberately provocative (repeatedly displaying the kind of behaviours in the classroom that undermine the staff's ability to teach etc etc) then he should be sanctioned, and the school given my complete support over those sanctions (assuming of course that they are approrpiate sanctions for a school to deliver).

 

Now, qualifying that: deliberately provocative behaviours are 'normal' behaviours, especially in children. Does autism preclude normal childhood behaviour in any way? Not to my knowledge... In the same way, compromised understanding, impulsivity, distractability etc are not the sole preserve of autistic children, but do parent's of autistic children generally accept that reality if offered as an explanation (never a defence) for the behaviours of the children they accuse of 'bullying'?

 

You've mentioned in your post how very, very hard it is for your child to overcome his impulsivity etc. I totally agree with that - believe me I'm not trivialising the amount of effort it takes in any way. What I am saying (as you appear to be saying) is that that amount of effort is a fact of your child's life, in the same way that a child who is, say, deaf, has their inability to hear as a fact of their life. You can't remove the 'fact' from the equation, or project some 'false' value onto the fact, without changing the outcome. Using austism to qualify/excuse deliberately provocative behaviours is projecting a false value. Using autism to deny the 'deliberately provocative' aspects of a behaviour is removing a 'fact' from the equation. Most importantly, inserting false values or removing facts from the equation will ultimately disable, unless the environment is restricted to one that only operates within the boundaries of the 'false' equation. Autism is almost certainly going to restrict opportunities however hard our children work - that's a horrible 'fact' of their lives too. But the extent of that disablement is a variable, and what we, they and 'natural abilities' put into that variable determines how positive or negative that variable might be.

 

As far as the 'autism stylee tourettes type of thingy possibilty' goes, yes there is a higher incidence of tourettes among the autistic population. But tourettes isn't impulsivity, and it's not something that is controlled or directed at will which is what's happening here. [And before anyone says, 'but it can get worse in stressful situations' that would apply to all/many stressful situations; not isolated events based on personal preference.] Introducing tourettes as a possibility/explanation where there is no other evidence whatsoever of the condition is another projected false value.

 

Finishing on a lighter note - I once told a waitress at a holiday camp restaurant who had noticed some of Ben's ABO behaviours that he is autistic and I have 'autism induced tourettes', explaining that his behaviour sometimes made me swear ;) At the end of the week she commended both of us on our behaviour, having totally missed the joke :)

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I expect the school he attends, and the teaching staff within it, to have an awareness of those factors that effect him in the classroom; to give him some leeway and additional support to help him to stay on task and to work with him on strategies to help him recognise, reduce and overcome his impulsivity...

 

Surely the point being that everything within that school is autism-appropriate: the teaching, the sanctions, the rewards, etc, etc, even down to the physical lay-out of the class-rooms.

 

This is very, very different from a mainstream secondary school. I think I'm right that in primary, Ben was in a specialist unit within mainstream? Again, a very different experience from those with children in straight mainstream.

 

Which highlights my point that even if a chld with ASD is just being plain naughty, the approach to that naughtiness still has to be autism-appropriate. At work we have extremely firm boundaries (and in fact I am one of the 'scarier' night staff as I don't stand for any nonsense ;) ). But, when I intervene with a child with ASD of course I have to do it within the context of their autism. Sorry, but it seems to me quite counter-productive to sideline autism when dealing with behavioural difficulties...not to use autism as an excuse, but you have to use it as the starting point for modifying those behaviours.

 

Bid :)

Edited by Kathryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely the point being that everything within that school is autism-appropriate: the teaching, the sanctions, the rewards, etc, etc, even down to the physical lay-out of the class-rooms.

 

This is very, very different from a mainstream secondary school. I think I'm right that in primary, Ben was in a specialist unit within mainstream? Again, a very different experience from those with children in straight mainstream.

 

Which highlights my point that even if a chld with ASD is just being plain naughty, the approach to that naughtiness still has to be autism-appropriate. At work we have extremely firm boundaries (and in fact I am one of the 'scarier' night staff as I don't stand for any nonsense ;) ). But, when I intervene with a child with ASD of course I have to do it within the context of their autism. Sorry, but it seems to me quite counter-productive to sideline autism when dealing with behavioural difficulties...not to use autism as an excuse, but you have to use it as the starting point for modifying those behaviours.

 

Bid :)

 

No - the school setting doesn't make any difference to the underlying principle. Ben's primary education began in a specialist unit attachment, but he was fully integrated into the mainstream by year 4/5. In fact, the special unit provision was more problematic than the mainstream class, because it was a 'language' unit and Ben's language skills are not particularly compromised (though 'social' aspects of his language are). I'm not in any way trying to sideline autism when dealing with behavioural difficulties, or any other factor (autism related or not) that can impact on behaviour. You don't have to use autism (or any other factor, autism related or not) as the starting point. You use the black and white behaviour/consequence as the starting point, and look at the other stuff - if necessary or relevant - once the 'black and white' is established as a basis for negotiation.

In a huge number of cases - whether autism related or not - the simple act of learning that 'no means no' is enough to make a massive difference to a child's interactions and opportunities. That can only work if the 'No' is applied consistently, rather than 'No, but...' i'm not saying 'but' hasn't got a part to play, but why go looking for 'buts' when everything points to there being a far more logical, rational, age appropriate, personal, human explanation...

Wheelchairs again: A person in a wheelchair faced with a staircase has a big 'but' factor to consider.

A person in a wheelchair disliking and being rude to another person hasn't got any (wheelchair related) 'buts' to consider, and it's a real act of denial and projection to invent some.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Edited by Kathryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.You don't have to use autism (or any other factor, autism related or not) as the starting point.

 

But the whole point about special schools for autism and any behavioural therapies is that autism is used as the starting point!!

 

Otherwise there wouldn't be special schools for ASD!

 

Or specialist autism teachers.

 

Or autism outreach training.

 

Or autism specialist diagnostic centres.

 

Etc, etc, etc...

 

Bid :)

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the whole point about special schools for autism is that autism is used as the starting point!!

 

Otherwise there wouldn't be special schools for ASD!

 

Or specialist autism teachers.

 

Or autism outreach training.

 

Or autism specialist diagnostic centres.

 

Etc, etc, etc...

 

Bid :)

 

Well, that may be your opinion of a specialist school, but it's not mine.

My feeling is that a specialist placement is an adapted environment - in the same way that an adapted kitchen is an adapted environment for a disabled person. It's adapted according to demonstrated need -not to a parents perceptions of needs or a teachers perception of needs or the students perception of needs but on a set of needs identified and agreed collectively on the basis of evidence.

They don't make all the walls padded on the assumption that because some autistic people are aggressive they all will be...

They don't make them all wear special crash helmets on the basis that because there is a higher incidence of seizures among autistic people they are all prone to them...

They don't spend additional funds on training so that classrooms can be disrupted by a single student whose actions prevent the rest of the class from benefiting from that additional training...

 

(Etc etc etc)

 

In many ways I suspect the 'rules' are tougher in a good specialist placement than they are in mainstream - because all of that additional expertise absolutely underlines the principles of 'Black and White' models of expectation/consequence, and the 'greys' are presented in a structured, personalised and appropriate manner. For many children that's underlined completely by the changes in behaviour once they are in the right environment. Of course, that can't count for anything if external influences are undermining that programme, and children can actiually 'improve' in the wrong environment too - not because they actually improve but because the behavioural expectations are lowered to such a degree that they no longer feel challenged by them.

 

NB: None of that means that all specialist placements are 'good' or that all mainstream placements are 'bad' - I certainly wouldn't generalise like that. For my son after a rocky start in the language unit, mainstream primary met his needs better (I suspect) than any of the local specialist primary provision could have. I feel equally confident at this stage that the specialist placement he now attends offers the best option for his current needs. In neither of those placements has the focus been on the fact that he is 'autistic', the focus has been on what he can do and can't do based on the evidence presented.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE (baddad @ Jun 26 2009, 01:46 PM)

.You don't have to use autism (or any other factor, autism related or not) as the starting point.

 

 

Ah! ……now I get it! You treat the person as guilty unless proved otherwise. Brilliant, that saves us from making reasonable adjustments. Nice one! Job done! :rolleyes:

 

Nellie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (baddad @ Jun 26 2009, 01:46 PM)

.You don't have to use autism (or any other factor, autism related or not) as the starting point.

 

 

Ah! ……now I get it! You treat the person as guilty unless proved otherwise. Brilliant, that saves us from making reasonable adjustments. Nice one! Job done! :rolleyes:

 

Nellie

 

No nellie, that's not what I said at all. You've obviously looked at it out of context and missed all the other stuff I said. Easily done when someone's cherry - picked one specific line from a much larger post. :rolleyes: You may not be aware of the full post unless you tracked it down, but it would have said what I've said throughout - that autism isn't the start and finish of explanations for why a child miight behave badly.

And I don't think 'guilty of autism' would stand up in court (and equally i don't think 'not guilty because of autism' should either without significant evidence to that effect).

I've absolutely no objection to 'reasonable adjustments' whatsoever - think they're hugely important, in fact. Not quite the same thing, though as assuming a connection between x and y purely on the basis of (however positively intended) discrimination/patronisation. I don't assume 'guilt until proven innocent', but neither should anyone assume innocence when all the indications are 'guity'. You have to look, honestly, at what's in front of you and make an informed choice. That can be incredibly hard for a parent to do, but it is important, IMO.

 

Hope that clears it up, because you're right - taken out of context like that it does look very different.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, having read your posts, I think I got it spot on!

 

Let’s hope all the parents / carers / professionals out there don’t take it out of context then! :(

 

 

Nellie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, having read your posts, I think I got it spot on!

 

Let’s hope all the parents / carers / professionals out there don’t take it out of context then! :(

 

 

Nellie

 

Nope, you've definitely misunderstood! Honestly, I do know what I mean (unless you know something about me I don't? :lol: ) and I definitely wasn't/am not saying 'guilty until proven innocent'. Whether you accept that I am capable of knowing what I mean when I say something or not, is, obviously, your choice. But it's a fairly neat example of how people can project what they want to see onto the actions of another person regardless of any evidence (in this case the other person actually saying' no that isn't what I said') to the contrary.

 

Yes, lets hope all the parents/carer's/professionals out there don't take it out of context then, because they would be doing me a gross injustice! :(

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easily done when someone's cherry - picked one specific line from a much larger post. :rolleyes:

 

On this question of 'cherry-picking' as this is now the second time you have mentioned this in relation to me...

 

BD, you have posted at length in this thread, forcefully putting your opinions out there on an open forum.

 

You really can't object if people then quote you.

 

Bid :)

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think all useful views have already been expressed and as this thread has now descended into personal territory, I'm closing it.

 

Kathryn

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...