Debunking the Myths

Post Reply New Topic

A while ago I started a thread seeking responses about what people on WP thought the biggest myths/lies
about Aspergers were. The thread attracted a lot of replies, and now I'm starting this thread as a follow-up.

What do you think of this article? And if you have been politically or personally active in debunking any or all of the myths, would love to hear what you did, however large or small your action was.

http://sovereignresearch.org/autismmythsdebunked.html

Thus far one of the debunkings seems to contain a myth of its own....Just saying I do not blindly follow rules as long as I can't understand them, and then only question it once I understand it, I initially question a rule if I don't understand it as well as if I do understand it but disagree.

Do the rest of you follow a rule as long as you cannot understand it?

At this stage of my life, I don't follow nor believe any claim about ASD on trust alone, wherever it is coming from, and especially so in the case of so-called breakthrough research with extravagant claims.

When I was a young person I tended to believe people who seemed more educated and knowing than me - they certainly acted as if they knew everything and I knew nothing, and that intimidated me in my early years.

During tertiary education I met a critical theorist who taught me philosophy of science (brilliantly) and it was a life changing piece of learning. And he completely encouraged me to think for myself, he wasn't one of those teachers who try to stuff your head with his own beliefs.

The myth I have most challenged in my personal encounters is that all children on the spectrum are violent, dangerous to other members of their families, because they are inherently defective and incapable of appropriate behaviour. (A myth that shows like Dr Phil's perpetuates.)

I can see that list being more applicable to me as a child. I wonder if there's a generalized thought that autistic development remains static, because I think that would be the most negligent.

I'd say this is countering inaccurate generalizations with more inaccurate generalizations