why do some people consider low functioning inferior ?

Post Reply New Topic

Verdandi. I have no clue what you're talking about, Literally none, and I am pretty smart and with an open mind and can basically process various conceptual material, albeit some of it not so easily:-). Plus I have empathy. I cry for other people. I want to help them. I have given the link to that documentary on my main thread,and I know you saw the link-- and then asked people participating there to watch it and later asked you if you watched it yet and you said you did not, and then I asked you at least two more times if you watched it and no answer, so I am assuming you did not. Too bad. I watched that twice and various parts watched several times and studied, and later the image of one of these young people was in my mind when I broke down and cried after reading a message from Aghogday to me to me on another.thread about Autism Speaks.

Here is the trailer for Best Kept Secret; http://www.pbs.org/pov/bestkeptsecret/trailer.php

Imo, there is no way any of these people shown there (and they are shown in detail on this documentary in various contexts--in their school, in their homes, in social situations,--would be on WP or would even want to if given the opportunity..They would not understand what is happening here or even be interested in trying to understand, the best I can tell.

I am guessing at this point you have already watched this trailer since it is online and know what I am saying is true, but you cannot let go as you are so emotionally locked into your position and the inner meaning of what it represents to you.. As far as I can tell you are not on here to enquire, but to try to act out some kind of repetitive fixed agenda which you are locked into.My heartfelt wish is for you and all of us who are locked into various repetitions in our own way to begin to step out into the light. To be a real activist is to be able to explain your position, not just repeat activist formulas of categorizing other people (the enemy) by rote. If a person cannot explain his activist position but just approaches from an emotional angle and expects other people to understand, to me that is lazy. It is not Work.It breaks down the possibility for both the individual and the group. The 'easy' road of repetition leads to even more suffering. It will not lead to the transformation of the individual or of society, no matter how much you pretend it will..That kind of pretending is believing in magic.

Enquiry is not easy. Enquiry is Work, but it will connect you to what is real..

If you just judge them by how you see them acting generally would Amanda Baggs be "capable of talking on WP", would Carly Fleishmann be "capable of going and "speaking" about autism and helping her father write a book on the topic and now be in school for journalism", would Tito Mukhopadhyay be "capable of writing books and poetry about autism", would Amy Sequenzia be "capable of being an autism activist who helps run a group for autistic women"

Those are just big name people.

And what people understand and what they communicate out are VERY different things. This has been shown in non-speaking, non-communicating in ways that others can understand children, who learn to type, who then get across that they'd been understanding all along the conversations their parents had over them about how frustrating they were to deal with.

(Even me as one of those "high functioning" people who doesn't matter in these conversations to you frequently cannot communicate out nearly 10% of what I understand)

Tuttle, you put some interesting material out here which i would like to use as a learning tool, but no time at this moment. In short, though, your basic message seems to me to be the making a no-think injunction, as the way I see it I see to avoid the obvious--- that (s0me) people here are engaging in magical thinking by separating what they wish to be from what actually is. This is not to deny that the way we think and feel about things can affect what happens in the future. I wrote on my main thread something very interesting and extremely important about the placebo effect, and you imo seemed to more react and not look at that material carefully in that you took umbrage and interpreted it to be saying that what you experience is just in your imagination, which wasn't even what that was intended to be about. And I am afraid now you are going to do it again, which is why I mention this. Wish is a part of life, an important part, but wish alone is not enough. People who think it is are not that effective. It needs to be combined with knowledge and skillful means in order to effect a significant result.( A human's own thinking about himself and his body may be a little different in this respect regarding the possible effect on health)..

It's just in your imagination that you don't matter to me be you high or low functioning. I am just into communication.

Below is what I wrote, but this time in bold.:

Imo, there is no way any of these people shown there (and they are shown in detail on this documentary in various contexts--in their school, in their homes, in social situations,--would be on WP or would even want to if given the opportunity..They would not understand what is happening here or even be interested in trying to understand, the best I can tell.

This is based on my own evaluation from watching that documentary twice and studying it. "Imo" means in my opinion. You are telling me that your thinking is better, so therefore the conclusion I came to does not apply. This is why I see in what you wrote a non-think injunction, These are very subtle and come disguised in many forms, Everyone and anyone can give his two cents on here, but you are giving no evidence at all that what I said is not true. The three people you named I did goggle, and that is interesting, but there is as far as I can see,no logical correlation between what I have determined about these five people on that documentary and the people you have given. If the young men shown on Best Kept Secret were educated differently,then perhaps that would be a possibility, but that is not the case and unfortunately will probably not be the case in the future for these particular people. When new education models develop, then yes, perhaps, but they will start when the children are quite young,

I will give a link to this one video I found because of what you wrote, which I loved, and will be talking about this in detail in the future on one of my threads.. Actually the way she worked with her son is identical to the way I work with autistic people, and I would do this naturally without ever having seeing this video. It is how I communicate with people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfiap3a7Tuo

How smart you are is irrelevant.

Crying for other people might be related to but isn't empathy. It might be related to but isn't compassion. It might be related to, but isn't pity. Crying is a physiological reaction to emotion, but it doesn't really confer saintliness. People cry while watching a particular Skype commercial or watching Titanic or whatever. Generally, I find crying to be self-indulgent and a waste of time. No, I don't find crying to be that. I find pointing to it as evidence of being empathic or compassionate to be self-indulgent and a waste of time.

I did not watch the video because it was up for two whole days after you mentioned it to me and because it is very difficult for me to manage watching things that are longer than 30-45 minutes, especially on a moment's notice. But I forgot, I'm supposed to ~push through the pain~ right? Not actually take care of myself because my disabilities aren't disabling enough per your definitions?

I don't know what could possibly be unclear about my post, however. You made clear assumptions that the people presented in Best Kept Secret (I did watch the trailer) could not possibly participate in an online forum. I suggested that you watch Wretches and Jabberers, a documentary about two adult autistic men (Larry Bissonnette and Tracy Thresher) who travel around the world to meet other "low-functioning" (actually, non-verbal or primarily nonverbal) autistic people. Larry Bissonnette has also made a film about his life as an artist and Tracy Thresher is engaged in political activism. Both of them come across as the kind of person you dismiss so thoroughly by saying they wouldn't be able to participate here.

What makes what you said terrible is because you're not really engaging these people, you're not attempting to understand them. You have clearly developed perceptions about them that do not reflect the reality of their lives. I would say that there aren't many here not because they are unable to participate (I mean these are people who make art and films and engage in political activism and write books and poetry and find ways to communicate even if that communication is not always in language. Of course many of them can (and do) participate on forums.

It is blatantly false to say "no one like that can participate here, so everyone who is like that here isn't really like that." That attitude about such people is one reason so few do come around here. Who wants to spend a lot of time on a forum where vocal members are willing to throw them under the bus at any time? To make unfounded claims about their cognitive abilities and impairments?

You seem to be latched onto this idea that there are two kinds of autism and that one kind is basically incapable of everything (but somehow you also say "sorting and grading is bad" which is blatantly contradictory - how on Earth do you resolve that cognitive dissonance?). But as has been pointed out many times there are not two kinds of autism, and autism is a spectrum.



I've seen it.



The best you can tell is pretty poorly, then. It seems like your primary exposure to these people is through someone else's camera lens, someone who chooses how to present them. Tuttle named several people who appear as autistic as the people in that film, but who do actively communicate. You can't learn everything there is about autism or autistic people by watching a single documentary.



Yeah, I am emotionally locked into accepting established facts over biased supposition. I know, it's a difficult burden to bear, but I prefer it to alternatives. I wouldn't want to end up on a forum telling everyone that because I saw a single documentary I can judge whether the people in that documentary are able to use an internet forum or even understand what is discussed on said forum.



My interactions with you are not like my interactions with everyone else on this forum. The reason for this is because I perceive you as trying to control the discussion and manipulate others into perspectives that are both false and toxic. For that reason, I continue to point this out because you continue to do it.

I like how you slipped the word "repetitive" in there. Great nod to autism.



See, I am already a real activist. You're not going to manipulate me into allowing you to redefine what activism means so as to exclude your version of my behavior. You're not making an argument, you're trying to control the context in which this disagreement happens.

Also, your attempts to define what activism means and thus find ways to incorrectly define my perspective outside of activism falls into your usual pattern of manipulative condescension.

I have explained my positions to you several times. You've mocked and dismissed them. I haven't forgotten.

I am also not going to bother to come up with lists of exciting and new responses to what amounts to the same thing over and over again.



Now you completely misunderstand what I was doing - I was not engaging you in an emotional angle. That's something you read into it - the vast majority of your postings to this forum are so extremely emotional that they are difficult to relate to. This post, for example, you use your favorite word again - "suffering." That's one of your emotionally manipulative ploys to steer people away from perspectives you dislike. It's just a buzzword to you.

I didn't expect you to understand what I posted because multiple people have explained to you why that particular statement was wrong over and over and over again and you refuse to take any information into account but your own narrow assumptions about what "autism" is. So, yes, you're just saying horrible things. What else is there to say? You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that your argument has any merit at all and is worthy of debate. It's not. Real people's lives take precedent over your biased theories about their lives.



You wouldn't know what real was if it stripped itself naked, painted itself purple, and danced on a piano singing "what is real is here again." This is yet again a rhetorical attempt on your part to marginalize my reactions to your nonsense as something that it isn't. This is also, again, vague emotional rhetoric.

Verdandi, it's Work to think things through instead of reacting. Maybe if you read my last message it will help you understand better. We are definitely coming from two different paradigms, which makes it difficult for you to understand what I am writing. Some very subtle and hard to understand concepts I am presenting give a different shape, and not an autistic shape, even though I am an autistic..

Sorry I just barely glanced at what you wrote as to me it is kind of a rant. I do not think so many other people will be reading that much of it either. Anyway, for those who do want to read and see where Verdandi and I are 'at,' below is a link to something a bit less convoluted. And note, Verdandi, that you yourself said you couldn't think of an example of what you were saying. Imo from what I did read you just seemed to be emotionally piggy backing off of what Tuttle wrote. She did seem to go to some kind of effort to get her point across. I do not agree with what she was trying to say, but she did in some way communicate. I can see what her point is.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5672927.html#5672927

As far as people not being on WP because of what I am saying, that is ridiculous. The member went up 5000 since I joined, and it seems to me the system is thriving. (Using your terminology) Just your own attempt to poison the well. In fact I have often thought that it is someone like who is driving people away.

One important point, and this is inspired by the op, but for all reading: Work connects to emotion in a way which builds up a powerful force that cane be harnessed for the benefit of many people, whereas emotional reaction spurred on by mechanical thought that skips steps to pretend to make things fit leaks force, though it may create for the person leaking this force an illusion of doing.

Then why don't you answer any of the questions I ask in response to your posts -- particularly the last ones, which were explicitly directed at you alone?

It's not fair to suggest someone's behavior is lazy, to criticize them for not explaining their position, when you yourself do not explain your position even when you are asked direct questions. What makes your inability/choice not to explain something different? (Also, it's worth pointing out that Verdandi tends to explain her points in great detail.)



Where did Tuttle say her thinking is "better" than yours? How have you come to this conclusion? Because what she holds as true is different from what you hold as true? -- in other words: because she disagrees with you? If it is because she disagrees with you, then by your logic (as far as I can understand it), you've been telling a lot of people that your thinking is better than theirs...and still by your logic, that would mean that you, yourself, have been writing "non-think injunctions" (and what is a "non-think injunction"? I have no idea what it means, but I would like to if you are willing to explain.).



Tuttle did offer evidence for her argument -- she offered 4 examples of people who can communicate using words that she probably thought would fit your definition of low-functioning (I don't know what your definition is, just fyi). You may not consider her evidence as valid (i.e. supporting her argument/proving that what you said is not true), but that does not mean she did not give you any -- nor does it mean that other people would not disagree with you and consider her evidence valid.



If you disagree with someone's perspective, maybe it's because you don't understand it (you have suggested that other people who don't share your perspective don't understand you -- you are just as capable of lacking understanding as anybody else). You might still disagree with them after you understand it, but I would hope that if you could see how other people arrive at their conclusions you might not say things that so easily come across as dismissive, like, "It's just in your imagination".

Animalcrackers, I have to go to work and only have so much time. I though quite a bit about answering what you wrote yesterday, not so much about what to say, but whether it would be worth it.The reason I did not answer the recent message, aside from only having time to respond to certain material since I am working, is that all the answers to the questions you asked and I think to this recent message, also, which I have just now skimmed, are in the previous material, meaning recent previous material, that I wrote, such as the messages you are responding to:-) I recall you left another message a few days ago which kind of slipped by me. and do not think this completely applies there. I will try to find that and reread it.

The thing is you are looking for specific answer to some things that can only be presented by giving an entirely different perspective or paradigm, which paradigm I am trying to present, and I think doing a pretty good job of, for those readers who are ready to maybe make a shift, but unless you really try to think in a new way (not meaning you necessarily have to agree with what I am saying) you will miss even seeing what I am saying.

You make claims about my communication which are false because of other parts of my communication. You make statements about my abilities which are not true, and compare me to those who are "not able" to do these things which I "am able" to do, yet I'm not able to do these things. So, its not all about "communication", if its not you Listening to me about what I Am capable of.



Yes, you watched a documentary and decided that people who looked in a particular manner could not communicate in these manners.



I never said that. Do not say things I never said. I asked if people who DO look like those people and DO communicate in the methods you are saying those people can't, would also be considered to be not capable of that. Because they are able to, and they do. And that doesn't change how they LOOK. It doesn't change that they can't speak, can't be safe alone in public, can't feed themselves, and can't even use a toilet. They can write, participate in online communities, and be effective autistic self-advocates. They can be meaningful people with meaningful jobs. They just also have a lot to work around. Like the fact that they can't speak or feed themselves.

How someone Looks in terms of being unexpected, doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they do is like that.



It's non-think because you disagree and instead of you telling me something must be true I ask you a question?



I named four people. The four people were not all educated the same. They didn't all come from families with money. They included heavy ABA therapy and no outside communication showing until age 11, and included one mother being the only person helping her son because autism wasn't understood in the area, by doing things like going and swinging him on a playground swing while teaching him. Both of those people still cannot speak.



From what I saw in the trailer, those people would be entirely capable of it. They'd not communicate in standard ways maybe. They'd not sit down and write a long post in response to others, immediate, in perfect english. But they'd be able to communicate ideas in writing, in response to others in writing.

And whether they decide to or not. there are other ways to communicate. And they were definitely communicating with people in there. They were not locked up not communicating. They were needing extra prompting, they were doing more simplistic communication, but that's communication. Some might become writers, who only stay at home and write and never interact with an office. Some, artists. (That's a pretty common one actually, because it is a good way to communicate without words). Some, musicians (again, another form of communication). They might help test products. They might figure out another thing that fits their particular interest and run with it.

Because its possible. Someone who is this "locked in their head" as you say, is still there, is still human, and still has capabilities. And still communicates. And still CAN communicate.

The camera doesn't tell you anything about how they ARE, only about how they LOOK.

Why don't you ask others who appear how they are what its like. Not the parents, not the educators. The people.

That's what's interesting.

And they say, no, they can communicate, they can write. They do it differently. They frequently take longer, but they do it.

And really, some of their writing is the most interesting to read on the topic of autism.



How Tito was taught is interesting (I haven't watched the video, because my computer isn't happy with youtube at the moment, but I saw who its about and I've read a lot about him. His style of learning is definitely one to test when working with autistic children, but all people are individuals. I don't agree with all of it, but some of it is just straightforward. But again, people are individuals and learn differently and think differently and function differently. I teach my students in drastically different styles depending on the student I am working with.

Thank you for responding, littlebee.

What would make it worth it? Me being able to understand what you say? If so: You don't know until you try. In any case, would it take too much effort to answer these "yes"/"no"/"sort of"/"partly"/"not exactly" questions(?):






I'm 100% convinced that you can see the answers (because it's your thought processes and your intentions that gave rise to your words) but I cannot. If I could see the answers to my questions in what you've already written, I would not have asked them. It's not for lack of trying -- questions are hard for me, and I don't spend the effort trying to come up with them if I can figure something out for myself.



Thank you.



Of course you need to present an entirely different perspective and/or paradigm to answer my questions -- yours ....because my questions are about specific aspects of your perspective and what you think.



The quality of your explanation is relative...and sort of irrelevent -- communication is a two-way street. Misunderstanding and even complete lack of understanding both happen even when people really try to understand and to look at things from unfamiliar perspectives, even when people are doing their best to explain. Not everyone uses language the same way or has the same language abilities, and those things play a part, too.

I am more than willing to try to look at things using your perspective -- that's why I asked you about your perspective in the first place.

This message had a lot of wrong formatting, and I did have some insight just now while I editing it and adding some comments. I am seeing in the messages of some here what to me is a form of magical thinking. There is a blurring of boundaries between self and other and an expectation that other people will understand a gist even if it does not correlate.

I just edited my previous message and added some comments, so if anyone is interested, please read it again.

I wasn't trying to negate anybody's feelings -- I was trying to point out that the problem that causes those feelings is the image itself, and that not wanting to be associated with commonplace negative stereotypes about autism is something that autistic people at all functioning levels have in common.



I was using myself as an example...I can't say for sure if I'm being too literal or not.

I don't have the power to change how anyone thinks -- nobody does. All I'm attempting to do is share my perspective and my ideas, just like you or anybody else here (I don't know if I've managed to communicate what i mean successfully, and even if I have successfully communicated my thoughts I don't expect people to adopt my way of seeing things or to agree with me).



Well, I see it as very much on topic. Maybe I've not done a good job of trying to explain my thoughts, or maybe we just disagree.



Okay.



I do understand what you meant about being pegged, but thank you for elaborating.



I did not know that.



The reasons for feelings are just as important as the feelings themselves.....I'm not trying to dictate what other people feel. I don't understand why anybody would be embarrassed. I know that you're supposed to be embarrassed, but I don't understand why.



I'm not twisting it around at all. If someone is embarrased to be mistaken for someone like me, that means that being someone like me is an embarrassing thing... substitute "me" for anybody else; It is not about any individual.



The functional value depends on the context and the person. I imagine that, generally, high functioning autistic people might disclose their autism for reasons like wanting to bridge communication gaps with other people, or if they need accomodations to be able to succeed at work, or to get help with learning, etc....maybe they just see it as fundamentally affecting their experience and who they are as a person and might want to tell friends, family, or romantic partners as part of building mutual understanding and emotional closeness. Some people might tell other to get special favors, but that's not the only reason possible.



A lot of my speech/writing is convoluted...I'm sorry about that; I don't do it on purpose.

It does make sense not to encourage other people's negative impressions of oneself....but if it's done by "Othering" a group of people that is, in my opinion, not ethical. Understandable, but not right -- I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's how I see things.



I'm sorry that happened to you.

Me personally, I don't tell many people I have autism -- I don't talk to many people in a conversational sense and it doesn't often come up (well, occasionally it does with friends or family, or health care professionals)... but I'm open to telling people. As far as my guesses about why other people disclose, you can find them above.



I'm sorry you didn't get anything out of responding, but I do appreciate you doing so. (I appreciate all responses to my posts -- answers to questions in particular. I'm not good at responding to responses in any consistent way, especially if I agree with people.)

Last edited by animalcrackers on 19 Dec 2013, 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks for answering these.



I don't trust you on this one. What makes you think this?

Last edited by animalcrackers on 19 Dec 2013, 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

She can't possibly know that. She's speaking over and for these people and denying that they could possibly have a relevant voice. Everything she knows about these people comes from that one documentary, as if documentaries are not edited to show what the film maker wants you to see, as if one can possibly get a full, accurate picture of what the subjects of said documentary are like from a 90 minute documentary. What that documentary is about is the future they have or do not have because the state basically abandons them at 18 - and guess what? This same thing happens to those who are described as high functioning. Not all, and not necessarily to the same extent (some yes to a similar extent, some not so much).

I do think that such individuals do have a stake and do have opinions on why they might be perceived as inferior and how bad that can be for them. I've seen a few posters talk about this - a couple of them in depth - one who described suicidal depression as a consequence of bullying related to that assumption. If they're not coming into this thread it's not because they have no investment in the topic or nothing to say about it. It's because they'd be faced with the very attitude this thread questions and people shouldn't be expected to subject themselves to that.

For that matter, at least one has posted on this thread, on page four. But since littlebee conveniently defines everyone on this forum as "not in that category" because they're on this forum then she suddenly becomes someone she isn't in terms of how littlebee insists this forum and this thread must be. The existence of real people with their real lives is swept aside for littlebee's ideological stance that such people cannot exist in this environment because of a 90 minute documentary that could not possibly give her the information that she's wrested from it.

Well said. I completely agree.

(And I edited my question to littlebee -- I didn't think it was possible for her to know that, but am curious about what makes her think as she does.)



Also, on page 7:

Last edited by animalcrackers on 19 Dec 2013, 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

You do not trust my judgement...and want to judge for yourself. That figures. .I do trust you trust your own judgement:-)...so, did you see the documentary. In showed a lot of footage of these young people, in school, at home, in after school care centers, and other situations. This is my evaluation after watching extensive footage several times. Even from the few seconds it shows of each in the trailer it is obvious (to me).

This does not mean I would not want them on wrong planet or would not encourage them or believe in them, though to encourage them to try something so far out of their scope (again imho) would be verging on criminal, as it would be setting them up to fail.. I have thought about these young people a lot and how much I would love to work with them. However I would not use the same methods as their teacher. At lot of her approach was very upsetting to me, though I know how deeply she cares..