Supernanny

Post Reply New Topic

Anybody going to watch the Supernanny tonight with the kid with Autism? I wonder if they'll present Supernanny as a guru who can "fix" autistic children?

*Note- I very very rarely watch those shows, but my interest is piqued.

I've got it set to record on the DVR. I'll watch it sooner or later.

I watched part of it but turned it off in disgust - my TiVo has been taught to record anyting with 'Asperger's' or 'Autism' in the title . . .

Basically they were teaching this kid to talk by taking away the few things he enjoyed in his life until he would ask for him . . .
While that may teach him that in the future he can ask for what he needs, it seemed really mean . . .

If there are few things he enjoys in life, there are few ways to motivate him. If they had to do it that way, they had to. I don't think it was mean at all; they (from what they showed) treated him humanely. It was smart, IMO.

I wonder if you're also opposed to "grounding" "normal" children, or taking away allowances or TV priveledges? Or is that different because it's punishment?

They weren't permamently taking things away, they were making him do things to get them. He still got what he wanted, he just had to communicate. That's pretty much how the real world works, actually, to a larger/more complex degree.

I watch "Supernanny" occasionally. I wonder why she's so popular here. She was featured on the "Fame Game" board on "Temptation," the new Australian version of "Sale of the Century."

Two things struck me. First, the kid was very high functioning. He began to speak with very little prompting and was imitating with that toy guitar by the end of the show.

Secondly, a three year old child is diagnosed with autism but, apparently, has never had early intervention and is not now in a pre-school? In 2005?

Seems kind of neglectful.

Before you start jumping on me here, remember that we are talking about a child with significant learning delays, not an aspie who is having a hard time socializing.

I thought what she did was okay until she went with food but she defiently didnt seem to think he needed to be cured or anything like that .

I'd like to think that if he hadn't responded after X amount of time they would have let him eat anyway; the method used was probably under the assumption he would cooperate. But I can't be sure.

Last edited by Serissa on 07 Nov 2005, 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wish I had seen that show. Sounds interesting.

Would you have prefered that they tie him down, electrocute him, or subject him to some other extremely undesireable stimulus instead like lots of other early intervention programs do?