Struggling with transitions

Post Reply New Topic

I understand you have good intentions, but you are embarking on a slippery slope. To you, autistic children have "behaviors out of their control." That is a very dangerous statement. You are saying autistic people are not in possession of their faculties, at least from time to time. What you are implying is autistic people are unpredictable. It begs the question: "what else don't they have control over?" Once you take that view, you are implying autism is a mental illness, which a lot of people in this forum disagree with.

It's a lot healthier to view all behaviors as sovereign expressions, and deal with them as such. People are absolutely entitled to be upset. Whoever says they don't get upset is simply lying.

There is a different way of handling tantrums. I have never failed once to remove each type of tantrum from my children, permanently. There is a reason why my children are always happy and smiling. It'll do you some good if you take a look at this article: http://www.eikonabridge.com/fun_and_facts.pdf. There is a different way of raising these children.

First off, I am not guessing based on unreliable observational or secondhand information. I know firsthand as an autistic person that, despite having possession of my faculties, being taught manners and self-discipline, there are some things I cannot do or cannot control.

I cannot look another person in the eyes while speaking to them anymore than a blind person can because my brain gets overloaded with all of the information at once. I cannot control a meltdown any more than an epileptic person can control a seizure because both are caused by an overload in the brain or nervous system.

Some people might see the lack of eye contact as rude and the meltdown as a manipulative tantrum, but that is because they are coming from an ignorant, ableist viewpoint. Some people might think that because an epileptic's seizures are "behaviors out of their control" that they are unpredictable and have no control over other unrelated aspects of their life but again that is because they are coming from an ignorant, ableist viewpoint.

Second of all, I am not implying that autism is a mental illness because it is not a mental illness; it is a neurological condition. It is a better, non ableist view to realize that not all behaviors are expressions of people's thoughts but results of their abilities and disabilities.

A blind person is not showing disinterest by not looking in your eyes when speaking. A deaf person is not ignoring you by not turning around when you call out to them from behind them. A paralyzed person is not showing their dislike for you by not shaking your hand when meeting you.

Autistics are actually very predictable if you understand autism and particularly their expression of autism. Personally, I generally find Autistics easier to predict than Neurotypicals.

What's that got to do with control or no control? Different people have different style preferences. That's the way you like it. Period. Why do you think it's a control/non-control issue? It's a free country. Where in the constitution is it written that you must look at people when you talk?


You do have control, if you would just stop parroting the boilerplate sentences from ASAN. Take a look at http://www.eikonabridge.com/anxiety.pdf. There is a very clear line between what's a mental illness and what's not. As a society, we don't punish mentally ill people, because they cannot take responsibility for their actions. However, if you claim you are not mentally ill, you MUST take responsibility for your actions. You at not at liberty of using "I cannot control myself" as an excuse. If you are not mentally ill, as you claim, you are responsible for your meltdowns. Period. Notice I am not saying you should not have meltdowns. You can perfectly have meltdowns whenever you like, it's a free country. But, you cannot claim you are not in control. You have to assume your responsibility, and not blame it on something else. There is no way around. You either assume responsibility, or if you don't want to assume responsibility, then you are admitting you are mentally ill. Please notice I am not telling you to control your meltdowns, I've never told anyone to control their meltdowns. Meltdowns are sovereign expressions, to me. They are part of basic human rights. (How do you think the USA got its independence, if not for a whole bunch of people having a gigantic melt-down?) BUT, each and every person that is not mentally ill is responsible for their meltdowns. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

My advice is: stop following the non-senses from ASAN. They have a disability view on autism, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That view stops people from learning. It kills all desire for people to improve themselves. This society doesn't owe you any favor.

Finally, take a look at this person with Down Syndrome.

(2:27)... The message I'd like to give to parents, is something as easy as very hard gets. And that is to keep in mind that what you have is a child, not a disabled person. A child that you need to develop/educate, not a disabled person that you need to care for. These are very different things. Down syndrome is not something to suffer from, to suffer with, but something to enjoy.

Interestingly, he does not accept there are different degrees of Down Syndrome. See, there are always different ways of looking at life. He says something very true: we all have our limitations. He told the hostess, in her face, that she was no Naomi Campbell. (This video has English subtitle). There is no need for the disability view. The disability view is extremely harmful, because it gives an excuse for people to stop seeking to improve themselves.

I am sorry; if you will not, or cannot, read my post closely, I will not bother continuing this conversation.

I already stated before that my views are based on, and solely on, my own experiences as an autistic person. Other than the fact that ASAN is an advocacy group run by Autistics, I know almost nothing about their views. If we share the same views, it is merely a coincidence - though not surprising considering that they are also autistic.

I also already explained why there are some things that Autistics cannot, not won't, do. This does not apply to all Autistics equally, but for those it does...: It is not a style. It is not a preference. It is not "the way we like it".

I cannot control my meltdowns any more than an epileptic person can control their seizures. Both of us can try to learn our triggers and then try to avoid them. Both of us can try to learn the signs (of an overload before the meltdown / the aura before a seizure) and leave before it starts. Both of us may be able to take medication to reduce the frequency or duration of the events, though they will not eliminate them entirely. Neither one happens by choice or can be stopped, once they start, either by choice or mitigating measures.

And I am not avoiding any and all personal responsibility. If it is something that I am capable of doing, even only with extreme difficulty, I try to. My parents, teachers, and pastors raised me with high expectations because, growing up, no one knew that I was autistic. And for three decades, I tried to exceed those expectations until I began to suffer from what I now know was autistic burnout.

THEN I was diagnosed autistic. Then I tried to use every therapy and mitigation technique I could to again meet and exceed those same expectations until I realized that it made my autism burnout worse. THEN my functioning levels were tested which objectively revealed how severely disabling my symptoms were. How is it a "self-fulfilling prophecy" if no one knew about it until AFTER?

And, no, I am not "admitting it is a mental illness"; I am admitting it is another type of disability that has the same result.

I cannot force people to learn. Have you read my two linked articles carefully?

We live inside the Technology Singularity. It's always exciting to learn and discover things. See, the other day I was looking into Shor's algorithm in Quantum Computing (see https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208) where there was this picture, where each thumbtack is moved every morning one inch in the direction of each weirdly-houred clock. In some cases, the thumbtack will close a loop. In other cases, the thumtack will stray away.



Then, this weekend I looked into Richard Feynmann's YouTube video answering a journalist's question about "why do magnets repel each other?" That motivated me to look at the QED Lagrangian one more time, and the electromagnetic field tensor in particular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor

And then it hit me. For the longest time I've known there are two types of autism: pro-picture, and pro-video. Some children respond well and can be raised via pictures, but some others respond better to video clips. I knew pro-picture children are stronger in storing concepts inside their brains, while pro-video children were better at storing processes inside their brains. I knew this dichotomy must come from something fundamental in the human brain, but I did not know what the underlying mechanism was. Then I learned about CNN (convolutional neural network) and RNN (recurrent neural network) in modern artificial intelligence, sometime ago, and immediately realized they map perfectly to the storage of concepts and processes inside human brains. But I still didn't know the why of the dichotomy. It was only today that I made the connection. First from the electromagnetic field tensor: a static electron would produce an electric field (symbolized usually with letter E), but an electron moving in a loop would produce also a magnetic field (symbolized usually with letter B). The electric field maps to the storage of concepts (pro-picture), and the magnetic field maps to the storage of processes (pro-video). Furthermore, because of the loop needed for magnetism, it reminded me about the clock-thumbtack analogy I saw from the Shor's algorithm. Voilá. Now I understand the why of the dichotomy. If you have a long neural pathway of a given length (in number of neurons) inside the brain, there are only two possibilities: (1) the neural pathway doesn't cross itself, in which case it's an open string, or (2) the neural pathway crosses itself, in which case it's a closed string. In the first case, it maps to CNN (concept, or pro-picture, or electric field). In the second case, it maps to RNN (process, or pro-video, or magnetic field). Our brain essential operates like a bosonic QED Hamiltonian. (QED = Quantum Electrodynamics). It weaves through concepts and processes.

So, now I know the why of the two types of autism. Truly, with enough research results in the future, we will be able to link this dichotomy all the way down to genomic details.

The understanding of autism, is simply a means to an end. There are a lot of problems/issues more interesting than autism. Understanding autism is just a stepping stone into understanding artificial intelligence, which of course is a lot more interesting.

- - -

What's the point? At my age, I have not stopped learning. Learning is exciting, and it provides me with ideas and inspiration to understand the world, and even to solve my daily problems, like how to raise my two autistic children. It's a bit of a shame that Pablo Pineda's TED talk is in Spanish. I really wish everyone could listen to what he says. He basically tries to tell people that learning is fun and exciting, and that learning is something that goes from birth to death.



Unfortunately, all too many people stop learning at some point of their lives.

I haven't hit that point. I hope I never hit that point.

It is kind of hard to have a debate when you will not address my arguments or stay on topic.

Being a stereotypical autistic person, my focus is strongest in relation to my special interests, but within that scope, I am always excited to learn. When it comes to learning how to overcome my struggles due to autism, I am also obviously motivated to learn. But no amount of punishment or undesirable consequences will improve my struggle with transitions because it is due to a very real limitation in executive function, not misbehavior. I need mitigation and accommodation, not punishment.

There are no other problems more important to me than treating my autism because it is so prevasive and disabling. To say that, "there are a lot more problems more interesting than autism", on a forum for people struggling with autism and their families trying to understand and get understanding, acceptance, and help with their issues is ironic and callous. Understanding autism is only a stepping stone into getting treatment and/or acceptance to those suffering with autism. For many, the understanding of autism is not simply a means to some separate end. As a parent of children with autism, it is sad that you view learning about autism as more of a means to learn about some hobby than learning more about your children and how best to help them.

So, let me stay on the topic and ask this question one more time: Have you read my two linked articles carefully?

- - -

See, recently in a posting (https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=371006&start=8) I mentioned this:

I was listening to "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkel today. The passage about "People talking without speaking. People hearing without listening ..." kind of all makes sense, now. It also reminds me of Bob Dylan's "The Boxer": "Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest ..." Those were all visionaries of our modern world. We've accustomed ourselves to the Twitter style of communication. Shallowness everywhere. A lot of chatter, but I guess that's all what Paul Simon would call "The Sound of Silence," or more elaborately as described by Art Garfunkel: "the inability of people to communicate with each other, not particularly intentionally but especially emotionally, so what you see around you are people unable to love each other."

Isn't it amazing? Paul Simon wrote these two songs long before the Internet era. Somehow he already knew all about the problems of communication in the modern era. Most people can't do any intelligent discussion. They won't even click on the links. What can you do, if they choose the path of pain and sorrow for their own lives?

The only thing you can do is too keep plowing ahead with your life. The world doesn't stop moving forward, even if some people choose to be stuck forever. Not my choice, not my problem.

- - -

Here is a good image of open string vs. closed string, from Wikipedia.



So simple. Who'd think that 6.5 years after I came to understand my son, I was able to find the fundamental mathematical reason why my son was different from my daughter. Ha ha. Sheer mathematical elegance. (OK, my daughter just came by, and I had to explain all this to her. Ha ha.)

Now, the running of RNN inside human brains will necessitate some form of a clock, almost like the clock used to run CPUs in computers. But that part we already know a bit about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_oscillation. They come in many different frequencies:
Delta wave – (0.5 – 3 Hz)
Theta wave – (4 – 7 Hz)
Alpha wave – (8 – 13 Hz)
Mu wave – (7.5 – 12.5 Hz)
SMR wave – (12.5 – 15.5 Hz)
Beta wave – (16 – 31 Hz)
Gamma wave – (32 – 100 Hz)

I find it very sad that your go to method of teaching your autistic child how to regulate their behavior is through physical abuse. I find it even sadder that you use misguided social generalities and labels to justify it. Why on earth would any parent choose to be the source of their child’s pain? (Rhetorical)

Your equating tantrums and meltdowns is inaccurate and disturbing

This is one of the sanest, most rational and humane posts I've read on this site. In sociological theory, Emile Durkheim coined the French term "anomie" ("anomy" would be the English equivalent, but the French is generally used); this comes from the Greek "a" meaning "without" and "nomos" meaning "law" or "custom". It is the state, generally sociological, but also psychological, where cultural norms (customs) have ceased to exist, usually in deference to the principle of "self-determination". Durkheim's genius was to link this phenomenon to problems such as mass narcissism, depression, aimlessness and, ultimately, suicide. And this, I think, is the alpha and omega of the problem with modern parenting and pedagogy, and the reason why all four of those social and psychological problems afflict societies in almost direct proportion to the extent of their emphasis upon the "right" to self-determination of the individual and in particular the child - though the relationship is of course slightly more complicated than that.

The genesis of the problem is/was in the fact that all the exponents of free-range parenting and similar ideas were exceptionally gifted and self-willed children who generalised from their own experience (think Bertrand Russell, Rudolf Steiner and Dewey). Most children are not able to or do not wish to determine what their relation with life will be from first principles, and such children are left to grow up with an intellectual and moral void ever before them. The ultimate source of the idea is in the Enlightenment idea that each generation is capable of moulding its existence anew. This cannot be the case; nothing and nobody exists in a state of intellectual or cultural vacuum. It follows from this that a parent must provide his child with such standards, if for no other reason than to save his child the necessary burden of determining the nature of everything for himself.

The essence of science is the empirical method; by the empirical standard, modern parenting methods have failed, because the prevalence of problems such as divorce, juvenile delinquency, drug addiction and others have skyrocketed since the introduction of those methods. I think, at the very least, that Bertrand Russell would have accepted that his methods had been tried and had failed and needed to be abandoned. The empirical evidence is clear; as it were sparing the rod has spoiled the child. And of course, the child himself doesn't exist in vacuum; his inability to reach healthy and well-balanced adulthood caused by the absence of cross-generational standards has the effect of making him a nuisance on the rest of society through the increased likelihood of his engaging in antisocial and criminal behaviour.

Self-discipline cannot be emphasised enough here. Experts on the subject, such as Roy Baumeister have determined that after intelligence, it is willpower that is the most accurate predictor of success in life. Of course, willpower and self-discipline are almost exactly the same thing. The difficulty in persuading people - particularly young people - that self-control is of the essence is in the fact that their emotions rebel against it (not their REASON, note); we live in a society where emotional distress is more feared than genuine physical pain, and yet emotional distress is a part of life, and almost a perpetual one. This is why "snowflakes" (my generation - alas) are incapable of dealing with the real world and why the Chinese and Indian nations are beginning to dominate industry and the economy; those nations have too much good sense to accept the unimaginably ridiculous sentimentalism of our attitude towards the child, and as such are turning out healthy, well-balanced, high-achieving adults who are developmentally ahead of ours at every stage. Unless you can mollycoddle your child forever, then mollycoddling him at all is going to harm him; eventually, he'll have to enter the real world and will find himself ill-equipped. I've often wondered whether there's some subconscious sadism in many parents' setting their children up for failure in the way outlined, because I think every parent knows as a matter of instinct, if he is even remotely intelligent, that mollycoddling his child will harm it. I think many parents, having themselves been brought up under a philosophy of infinite and uninterrupted gratification, see the need to look after a child as an imposition, which would lend further credence to this theory.

As for corporal punishment, this is also an essential element in bringing up most children, provided that it's proportionate and does the child no actual injury. Personally, if it hadn't been for the possibility of punishment, corporal or otherwise, from my father, then as a teenager I'd have simply stayed in bed till one or two PM every day and spent the rest of the time on Facebook; it was (the threat of) punishment which prevented me from breaking down into complete stagnation, and the same is true of most other children. The absence of a father in modern households is of course part of the problem, because he is generally the source of discipline, or at least the corporal aspect of it, and the very lack of discipline and standards for the child is, as already noted, likely to create further single-mother households in the next generation, so that the problem is self-perpetuating.




One Dr Bruch, as quoted by Christopher Lasch in The Culture of Narcissism


Christopher Lasch


Christopher Lasch