2 Wk Window to Discuss Here 2 Autism Documentaries

Post Reply New Topic

btbnnyr wrote:

Yeah,btbnnyr, everything's changing.... I used to collect Indian dolls. Now I collect books and don't even have to buy them anymore...I just find therm....used to write poetry and now I am a painter and write on here:-)...used to love folk music and play the guitar and harmonica...now I'm a jazz sala musician...

You said that what you are learning and studying is joyful to you....what makes it joyful?...is it helping other people...or/and discovering new ideas about brain function and solving a mystery about how the brain works?. Does it change your own brain as you are going along? I assume it does, which is what makes it so exciting.. Joy is an organic state and imo one of the normal positions for a brain functioning at optimum.

Re high functioning autism, I am starting to see more and more that a lot of the ideas being perpetrated by modern psychology about it are sort of creating a myth. It's hard to verbalize, but there is a lot of disorder around cataloging and categorizing various symptoms. Sometimes just having a discussion can change a person's brain if he really understands what is being talked about, if he sees it. I am assuming you agree with this, as it makes simple sense, and yet, also, when a person's functioning is set by conditioning, especially when there is a lot of powerful periodically reoccurring negative reinforcement, it is next to impossible to change the way things have been set. .A person would have to really want to do it...so intent would be a key factor, but combined with skillful means..

Continuing in the same vein, it stands to reason that people who are are very smart are likely to develop more and deeper special interests, so if some people who are seemingly (and even probably) not so smart are also developing these special interests, are they doing it for the same reason? What if it is not either-or, but a little bit of this and a little bit of that, in that, for example, the repetitive area of the brain that in some ways interconnects intent (interest) with motor function---don't know quite how to put it---is being tapped into in some way by both kinds of people, so we observe this similarity between two very different kinds of people, but is this happening for the same reason? In terms of understanding brain function I think it might be important to look at this from more than one angle---the one angle being that they are autistic or on a spectrum...

Last edited by littlebee on 28 Oct 2013, 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think we can categorize autistic people into two different kinds of people when in reality autistic people are many many many different kinds of people that are categorized under one unifying umbrella because of shared attributes.

It makes no sense to me to separate them by one perceived difference; 'smart and not smart'. Autism is more than a measure of intellectual ability.
Autism is often co-morbid with certain intellectual disabilities such as down syndrome, fragile x, and fetal alcohol syndrome. When autism is combined with those conditions it is measurable and diagnosable.

I think there are different types of special interests. One kind is an inclination to develop intense interests in collecting facts and memorizing things, such as train timetables. Another kind is an inclination to develop intense interests in subjects that involve analyzing and understanding and creative thinking.
It's interesting to think of this in terms of understanding brain function and special interests, but I don't think it is a good idea to consider it in terms of cataloging and categorizing people with varying degrees of intellectual ability.

[Marybird wrote:

I am still trying to understand this comment. I prefer to hang out with smart people and to think and enquire with smart people. You do not? This does not at all mean that I do not appreciate and enjoy the company of people who are not so smart, but birds of a feather do tend to flock together.

What you say does dimly seem to make some kind of sense, but I am not able to understand it, perhaps because I am not so smart.

In Best Kept Secret the main concern was that those teenagers would not be able to make a living. I do not think it is really exactly that they are not so smart, but kind of. They could not follow simple instructions (and also sometimes did not seem to want to, probably because it was too hard). The main gist of that documentary was worry of the teacher about what would happen to these people when they were dumped out of the educational system when they reached age twenty-two. She was desperate to do anything she could to prepare them to in some way work.

I am running out of stream...will write more later, but the main point is that there can be different reasons for having special interests...and that point has already been made on this thread, and not just by me...Having a special interest is a normal and even integral facet of human brain function...A reason is thinking that makes sense, so thinking connected to sensation...

I stiil think I am missing something about what you were trying to say....but cannot get what it is...right now I am looingk at it this way-- to group and categorize oneself in with people who can even easily be seen as in some way mentally ret*d and/or brain damaged is perhaps not of great functional value in sorting things out for oneself if oneself is not one of these kind of people...If I say I have a special interest because I am autistic, that is probably not as smart as having a special interest and delving into it deeply and comprehensively so that it is not just is a form of dumbing down....However, from the perspective of a psychologist trying to categorize people so he can make a living off of doling this and pretend it is some kind of hard science when in reality it is a very soft or even squishy and sometimes very corrupt 'science,", then it does make sense.....

I like conversations revolving around interesting topics, not 'smart people'.
Some people have a lot of knowledge and are very interesting, but everybody has their own story to tell.

I have no problem with categorizing myself in the same group with people who have different brain functioning than me. I can sort things out with my own level of brain functioning.
I am interested in hearing your story when you finally get around to telling it.

I don't think special interest because of autism is a form of dumbing down...... I think it is a form of smartening up.
It is all a matter of how you frame things.

Ackshuly, I still love the memorizing type of special interests as adult.

I love to memorize and calculate baseball statistics.

And the repetitive activity ones are still great too.

It's more like I just added more types of interests as I grew up, and nature of interests became more cognitively advanced, and my focus shifted to place more advanced ones at center, but the other ones are still around and still greatly enjoyed.

Also, I often imagine myself brushing the byoootiful fur of my catatar, and happy national cat day, eberryone.

Perhaps it is not politically correct to say this, but if so, that is kind of a stretch:-): Here's how it works for me: I get more feedback and interesting ideas from smart people, plus they are more likely to understand when I am talking about my special interests and be more likely to listen, and of course it is also more interesting to be around people who have the same special interest as me. But this is not really about smart or less smart people so much but more a kind of allegory for how grading and sorting can affect the way people think about things, including "autism," and also, in turn, the way they think about things can affect the way community organizes around certain concepts, and such an organization can reinforce and amplify various emotional/sensory affects. Anyway, I think that everybody is inherently more smart then they think they are. If you think about being smart, it actually makes you less smart, as it takes away some kind of alert attention that plays into being smart, and interesting, if you think about being stupid it also makes you less smart. However, I think if you know you are smart, this makes you more smart, just as if you know you are stupid, this also makes you more smart.

Anyone reading this might also want to read this message today on the placebo effect from another
thread which is meant to be read in conjunction with this one: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5720570.html#5720570

Re everybody having his own story to tell. Yes, this is very true. I love this comment. It is not good to tell stories that leave other people out. If a story is really interesting and relates to everyone listening from some angle, then everyone listening can in some way be included..Thank you for writing this.

littlebee wrote to marybird:

So there are two kinds of stories: one kind includes everyone and another kind leaves some people out. For instance, if all the people listening cannot understand all the words, jokes, idioms and/or subtle in- house references in the story. I think these contextual specifics can be compared to elaborate left brain dat processing, and the more general aspects to right brain big bites, but there is some kind of constantly ongoing overlap and interplay.

What is the bridge between the two? I was thinking today that it must be movement. Let's say there is a party of psychoanalysts---or I should perhaps say psycho analysts in that everybody knows a lot of these folks are actually psycho, as least it is depicted so in various films and movies, and these folks are gabbing and competing and talking about things no one else could or would even want to understand...and the one who is hosting in her home has a slightly ret*d teenage son---or is it not politically correct to say this? Well I think it is okay, but let's just say he is dense or maybe stubborn and resistant, so a normal teenager. Anyway, the son who was forced to attend is just sitting there during the gathering and does not understand nary a word of what they are talking so intently and sometimes joking about. But he isthere.. Then afterwards some are in the kitchen (an interesting word, actually, as kit implies a kind of enclosure, so room), and this son is helping some of the psycho analysts make coffee and put some cookies on a plate. This is an hands on physical activity which binds those in the kitchen together. They are doing something physical that they all can understand., though bear in mind that this teenage boy would not even be there unless he was related to one of the participants. Also, these psychoanalysts really are quite smart, and one of them who is helping the boy put the cookies on a plate is genuinely kind in a way his his own parent who is actually quite cold and cut-off is not. He can feel it by his or her presence and the simple conversation she is making which is seeing, feeling and accepting him as a person from every angle.. She is asking him about school, and it is very interesting---to him...to both of them.

I am not sure if I know where I am going with this, or if other people know....but first...I forgot to mention there is a vase with beautiful fragrant roses in the room, and there are even some roses in the kitchen, and the coffee is giving off a wonderful aroma as are the cookies which were just warmed in the oven---I think these psychoanalysts follow Martha Stewart:-)---anyway, there is a genuine beauty there, but it is questionable if any of these folks have sorted much of anything out, even the very kind one---remember, generally speaking, you have to pay her two hundred dollars an hour to even talk to you..but it felt good---Anyway, being there together feels good tosome but not all of them--one of the analysts is worried about a career move and is Vying for power with another man in the group conversation, but it does not seem to be going his way, and -the boy at times is getting a little paranoid.

Sorry. I know this is something not quite so happy about this story (so far:-)...but the point is, how is a person to make sense of all of this.kind of scenario which just goes on and on with no seeming resolution..In France and other areas of Europe they made up a whole philosophy about this called existentialism.

So, and you do not need to have seen it to participate here, getting back to the documentary, Neurotypical and the little autistic girl, Violet. She could be a symbol for ourselves.

r messages are helping me to understand that having a special interest can interconnect with oneself (or in some cases, at least) protect oneself from interconnecting with the world) in many different ways and from many different angles of brsin function, and, though I do not know if this was your intent, have helped to begin to realize how "special interest" could be conneted in some way to the intent area of the brain, whatever that is, and so to motor function. You are a wise person.


littlebee wrote at the end of the previous message:

What story is about to an individual is basically what this or that represents to the inner self. That's why the organic folk literature such as Grimms Fairy Tales (and also spiritual writing from various religions which employs sophisticated allegory) has so long endured, as it helps the child sort out certain conflicts within himself which relate back to an essential drama regarding personality integration. The way into hell imo is the subject object relationship and what the objective world comes to mean to the inner child, and some trauma is too painful and too terrifying to face, so it becomes suppressed, but the good news (or bad news, depending upon how you look at it) is that the way in is also the way out, and the key is to use representation consciously as an integrative device, so to deliberately present meaning from an angle which will allow a person to turn a buffer into a bridge.

This is why I like object relations theory, as it does seem to point to an actual understanding of the human dilemma in a way that Freudian theory does not. Is this kind of approach new to humanity? No, it has existed for many hundreds of years. Melanie Klein just hit onto it in from her own orientation, and now this theory has been refined, but basically no one understands that much about it even the average psychologist, as it is kind of esoteric, and this kind of approach is not available to the general public, which is stunning, meaning not beautiful but shocking, and I really do feel some kind of anger anger when I think about it..

Marybird: About three days ago I came upon this post of yours from another thread and have been thinking about it ever since......I hope it is okay if I post it here, as it helped me to understand something I feel is very important, and I would like more people to see it....

I think it is very helpful material for beginning to understand object.relations....right brain, as mentioned several times, makes more general representations, whereas left brain kind of fine tunes. These obviously both are constantly working together, but imo, in almost all people , meaning 99.99999 percent, there is an imbalance, with the weight going in one or the other direction. I suppose a naive and undeveloped theory of mind would be a good example of an imbalance toward right brain over-generalization, and getting lost in analyzing and tabulating intricate data is a good example of an imbalance toward left brain function.

How does what Marybird wrote relate to the subject of object relations? It took me a day or two after reading it to digest it. Apparently unbeknownst to "me" it worked on my unconscious mind during this time. Then I started noticing something had fallen into place for me (a kind of in some ways tormented person), and something was feeling very right (not choice of the word "right"). Things, meaning literally, physical objects, anything, were starting to make more sense, and I could not understand what was the pivot for this besides all the work and active thinking I have done, but the latter would not have been enough...what was the actual pivot--why did something suddenly fall into place?--and I then looked back and realized it was reading this particular message.

So I would like to look at this particular material in regard.to object relations theory.....

But I will have to approach this subject gradually and will be touching on it on other threads, also.

For now, to continue, each person is putting various material into his own subjective context. Hard science cannot discover certain facts, but really cannot touch on the subjective nuance. However, if a person is kind, if a therapist or anyone listens deeply and in a nonjudgmental and accepting way, a person will generally positively respond. If a mother slpas a child a lot and yells or is frozen off, ignores the child, the child will form in a certain way and his future development will be built upon this. Because of not being nurtured he may not thrive.

Of course the way this child's brain is at birth will play into all of this, as will the way the parents brain is functioning at present, but to say the mothering of a child does not have an effect upon the way this child learns to relate to the world is ridiculous. By the way, whatever the present trend of thinking, most psychologist I know of any persuasion would not say something so black and white as the explanation of autism is that a child is born with a different kind of brain. . As far as I know it is mainly autistics themselves who have taken this up as a mantra.

I don't know of anyone who says that the mothering of a child does not have any effect upon the way the child learns to relate to the world.

What is said is that how the parents raise a child will not cause or prevent autism.

It will effect people. Of course. There are differences between feral children, between abused children, between children who were raised seeing abuse, between children who were raised in environment where they were taught that only females were acceptable people (whether they were female or male), between children who had more family interacting and who had less family interacting.

None of that causes or prevents autism. Some leads to PTSD. Some leads to personality disorders. But, its not causing autism, and its not a mother failing to care for the child that causes when a child "regresses".

Someone who grows up poor will have a different life than someone who grows up rich. That's not a question. So why is this suddenly a thing to talk about when you're talking about someone with autism?

Yes, people with autism learn from the environment they are around. We do that.

But we are Autistic.

And the number of brain scans that have been done that show the differences between a normal brain and an autistic brain rather support that are brains are rather significantly different.

So yes, we do in fact have different brains than NTs
and yes, we do in fact learn from our environments including how our parents raise us.

I don't see why this is a thing to even talk about.

Tuttle, for some reason I love your messages...cannot put my finger on exactly why...