A friendly definition of autism?

Post Reply New Topic

Hello,

I am trying to come up with a definition for autism and autism spectrum without using the word disorder or any other negative words.
I usually use 'different wiring of the brain', but since this is for a kid's show on television, the word 'wiring' might be too difficult, and also, it has to be translated in Dutch, and 'wiring' doesn't translate that well (it sounds really literal). Does anyone has any ideas?

Thanks!

How about: The brain gives an autistic person a different picture of the same thing than a non-autistic person.

that's good! I think the solution might indeed be not to begin with 'autism is...', because that just limits the possibilities.

My definition is: "Unmitigated auto-feedback due to an overly connected brain."

I know, too "scientific" for most people's taste. But once you understand it, you know everything there is to know about autism.

eikonabridge, I also use 'overly connected brain', or hyperactive brain sometimes. To my son I sometimes say: you just see, hear and feel more.

The feedback element is fascinating. I took a look at your homepage, your book looks very interesting!

Blank Slate?

Gah! Won't work for children will it...

Hmmm...

Specifically focused?

These are big words.

I don't think that describing an internal bodily organ would resonate with children. Their eyes would likely glaze over.

Obscure topic elite?

I hesitate using the word strange.

Is there a simpler way to say it?

Autism's like a 'sunny with a chance of clouds' forecast.

Disinterested with a chance of hyper-interest.


I assume that if it's targeted at children, then it's educational.

If you want to assist autistic children by informing their peers of something, then you'd probably want to concentrate on how communication is achieved via verbal clarity?

Tough one.

I am weary of attempting to tell children of how autism works with words. An animated representation would be more humanizing, which i assume is the purpose.

I doubt this helped at all :/

lol @ Leletch.

Thanks for the feedback. It is a documentary about three kids on the spectrum, for a kids television show aimed at 6-9 year olds. I saw the announcement, and the intro was terrible, so I contacted the production company and politely asked to remove the definition ('x, y and z have autism. Autism is a disability in the brain. From the outside, you can't see anything wrong, but.... etc.)
They understood and asked if I had an alternative.
But it was decided to skip that whole sentence completely and just go with 'x, y, and z have autism. You can't tell from looking at them, but they think and communicate in a different way'. Better, right?

Yeah, go with that.

That last thing a classroom needs is for some of the children to go around identifying their quieter peers as having a mental disability?

Hmmm, this is shady ground.

Some autistic individuals prefer and need the protective mantle of having a disability.
Some operate better as simply being viewed as being different.

I sway towards your sentence, because the less disadvantaged children capable of operating more passably don't need their peers categorizing them as as disabled.

I tried to have this conversation with my autistic friend.

Sadly, when you have autism, you basically have to choose as to whether to present yourself as autistic or normal.

It's a nightmare for those on the borderline.


Overall, good work. Thanks for calling them up. It's an improvement.

-LeLetch

thanks, Leletch! It is a hard subject. There are guidelines in Belgium for journalists and media people on how to communicate about autism; made by the national autism society. They're not bad- but in my personal opinion, not that good either. E.g.: 'don't say: disease / disorder, do say: disability / handicap'. I still cringe at those words, but then again, I've heard some people on the spectrum say they find it offensive when someone refuses to use the word disability, because it implies that they could do whatever they set their mind to, and minimizes the problems they face.

It's all very complicated, but I find it interesting and necessary to think about definitions, labels and semantics. I strongly believe language and semantics have a notable influence in how we look at other people and how we deal with differences culturally.

Thanks, people.

...aaaaand they still used the words 'disorder'. Like 20 frigging times. I contacted them again and they said 'the psychiatrists and psychologists recommended it, as did the national autism association'.

I spend an hour writing why I think it is wrong to use the word 'disorder' when explaining autism to kids. Apparently, that needs explaining. Ugh.

Autism is a neurological CONDITION. It's not necessarily a DISORDER.

If you emphasize "condition," I believe it might solve your dilemma.

That's a great suggestion, but it doesn't work in Flemish. Condition only is used as a temporary condition, or 'state' someone / something is in.

The damage is done, it was aired already. But I'll keep thinking about it, I want to get both 'disorder' and 'handicap' out of the official media guidelines.

I just wanted to say - well agree with - your comment before about this all boiling down to semantics. I often see people get upset about words like "disability", "disorder", "abnormal", but then ironically suggest words that are synonyms to them and that hold the same stereotypes (i.e, disability vs disease, abnormal vs atypical, and disorder/disease vs condition).

I truly don't believe you can please everyone when it comes to sensitive matters such as these. For example, I don't consider autism a disability, but it's unfair when people try to claim (or not allow it) to be able to be called one. For many people, perhaps even most (since those of us that are higher functioning aren't exactly representatives of autistic people in general), it most certainly is a disability. I personally don't consider it a disability - for me - because I don't feel I'm as affected as some people are - I am not disabled. However, I'm well aware that many people - including quite a few on here - are actually on disability because of their autism. Therefore, it makes no sense to not refer to it as such simply because some people get offended by it. It's unfair for some people's (especially since they're probably the majority) experiences to be diminished by the minority's; a condition can be both a disability and a disorder. There are plenty of examples - depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, and even schizophrenia. I personally find it selfish for people to get so upset by words because people's opinions differ on this matter. (Obviously offense is a natural emotion, but going as far as not wanting people to use the word at all - just because it offends you - is too much.) People really seem to be too sensitive in this community (if you know what I mean). In other communities, something like this would not even be something to be discussed because it wouldn't be a big deal. To use rheumatoid arthritis as an example because of personal experience with it (my mother has it), it's obviously both considered a disease but also a disability. Is it always disabling? No, but many are in fact disabled or severely impaired, so for them it is a disability. Many other diseases are the same way: lupus, MS, and even diabetes.

The fact is, dictionary speaking (in the U.S.), these words all mean the same basic thing: that something is wrong. The only difference between them is that they often emphasize different severities (a disability generally seems to be thought as more serious than a disorder) or specifically refer to a type of issue (for example, disease is generally associated with physical issues). A condition is just an (extremely) broad/general term here; disability, disorder, and disease would all fall under it. However, it's best to be specific though - "Autism is a neurological condition" or "Autism is a neurological difference" (because some prefer to define it as such) would likely leave people (who perhaps aren't knowledgeable about the subject) wondering about the specifics of how it affects people. You may be interested in reading this blog post. It brings up how disorder and condition are both often used as "neutral" terms. (I personally disagree with that though - I don't see any serious differences between the words because they all emphasize that something is wrong or different. You could also read this article.) I suppose one suggestion would be to explain how autism varies so much while it is a disability for some, for others it may be less serious and considered a disorder. (As for the whole autism not being a disorder thing, I'm not really sure how you can argue that when it's in the diagnosis' name.)

Good luck.

Yeah, something is wrong. But the question is who is wrong and what is wrong? Let's see two examples.

(1) Humans wear clothing. There must be something wrong with humans, because typical animals don't wear clothing.
(2) Humans go to schools. There must be something wrong with humans, because typical animals don't go to schools.

I remember seeing a documentary of baby turtles just hatched out of their shells. Not only could they run, they jumped into the ocean and started swimming. They developed all the skills they needed even before they got out of their egg shells. However, these turtles never wrote any poems, composed any symphonies, or made any rocket ships to go to the moon.

Fact is, what you define as abnormal, becomes the new normal when people get used to it. What you think is wrong, becomes right when most people have it. Period. Same thing with autism.

I meet and see underdeveloped autistic children all the time. You may call them low-functioning, disabled, whatever. I call them underdeveloped. Underdevelopment is an issue. The solution is development. As simple as that. "Underdeveloped" is a passive-voice adjective. What's not being pointed out is the hidden part: "by whom?"

Yeah, there is something wrong all right. These are children from 22nd century born into a society that functions like 19th century. This forum is called Wrong Planet for a reason. Trust me, the children are perfectly fine. The problem is on the other end. We have gone 70+ years since Leo Kanner's paper on child autism, and for 70+ years we have been treating the wrong patients: the children are not the patients. The problem is on the other end. The children are not the ones with intellectual disability. We are.

Perhaps, I'm reading your post wrong, but I really don't get your point. Your analogies don't really make sense because you can't compare the norms of humans to animals. Infants are more delayed than other mammals (and yes, other animal classifications as well) at birth in the sense that it takes us longer to get around and develop in that way; however, obviously, our overall capacities are much greater than theirs are. The human brain alone has 100 to 200 billion neurons, which has a lot to do with it. And we actually share some of our genetic makeup with the simplest organisms, like bacteria and molds. We share a lot with other mammals too; for example, it's estimated that chimpanzee and human DNA is between 98% and 99% similar, while individual humans are only estimated to be about 99.1% genetically identical. So heredity alone doesn't explain what makes humans humans and what gives us our unique capabilities. If you want to compare the norms between humans and animals, you'd best start from a biological standpoint so that you can see the limitations (and strengths) both have, which contribute to our norms. (For example, actual animals - humans aren't "just animals", by the way - don't wear clothes or go to school because they don't have the need; they also don't have capabilities to do so the way we do. It would be quite difficult to put on clothes without having hands and fingers, for example, and without speech capabilities or a need to support a family financially, why get an education at all?) But what does this have to do with the overall topic of this thread - which words are you suggesting the OP (and others) use then?

If I understood your post correctly, your opinion is that nothing is "wrong" with autistic people? (Which would mean you're implying that something is wrong with NTs, because if nothing's ever wrong with anyone, then we'd all be perfect and that's not how the world works.) If so, fine, you're totally entitled to that, but research and professionals on this subject definitely disagree with you about that. We have developmental norms for a reason, like it or not. Wrong means that something is not functioning the way it is meant to function or in this case, someone is not developing normally. Children rarely experience delays in development unless there is a serious reason - hence, something is wrong - that is why parents take their children to be assessed in the first place. It's obvious when a child is not developing normally. Not to mention that if something (or someone) is being called "underdeveloped", then by definition of the word, whether you realize it or not, you're actually implying that something is wrong. If a fetus is underdeveloped or an organ is underdeveloped, isn't something, therefore, wrong with it and its development? (Whether you want to argue if the lack of development caused an issue - such as a complication that goes along with being underdeveloped - or the issue caused the lack of development, that's up to you - and you seem to be arguing something similar to that. I noticed on your blog Q&A that you said that autistic children don't have developmental issues. Yet again, you're being hypocritical; by calling them "underdeveloped", you're also implying that they have developmental issues. Yes, children progress and develop at different rates, but those who are falling severely behind the norms without a doubt need help and interventions. Does that mean someone should try to change them and make them like everyone else? No, that's not what I'm saying - but it does mean we need to provide them with services that will allow them to reach their potential - whatever it may be. There is nothing wrong with a child having developmental issues; it doesn't imply that it's the child's fault. What's wrong is that some parents deny it - especially with higher functioning autistic children - and their children lose out on services because of the stigma the parents attach to the word.)

I don't really understand your point about development being a "solution" either. What kind of development are we talking about here (what are you defining it as: for example, how do we then "develop" severely autistic - or as you say "underdeveloped" - children)? What is it a solution to and how is it solving the problems you see?

Your logic, when applied to other disorders and diseases, makes even less sense. Does that mean nothing is ever wrong with anyone? So nothing is "wrong" with those who are OCD, depressed, bipolar, intellectually disabled, or schizophrenic? (Again, research says otherwise.) Nothing's wrong with those who have cancer, autoimmune disorders, and genetic conditions? The problem is with people (wrongly) taking offense to "something being wrong," as if they're supposed to be perfect or something. It has nothing to do with the problem itself; it's people's perceptions that are the problem. If you automatically perceive disorders/diseases/conditions and something "being wrong" as a horrible thing, then again, it's your perception. Others may simply see disorders, diseases, and conditions as differences. In fact, that's how many seem to perceive autism. Being different or having a neurological difference does not equate to the person being wrong and a disease, disorder, or condition does not solely define a person. People assume this all the time and often get mad, yet never seem to realize this even though it's quite simple: you chose whether it defines you (or your family) or not. And while we can't just change other people's perceptions by will, we can help do so by first changing our own perceptions. Words often have different meanings in different contexts as well; again, this is a simple thing that people don't realize. For example, "abnormal development" and "abnormal psychology" are not synonymous with "abnormal person", "disability" is not automatically synonymous with being "disabled" (does having a learning disability mean you are disabled and doomed in life? No! You can have a disability and not be disabled), and having a disease, disorder, or condition is not synonymous with being "diseased" or "disordered"; but again, people (usually ones without knowledge of what these terms mean in professional contexts) wrongly seem to assume this, and it's a shame, because that seems to be how topics like this come up and how people get offended.

"Fact is, what you define as abnormal, becomes the new normal when people get used to it. What you think is wrong, becomes right when most people have it. Period. Same thing with autism."
That's not a fact. A fact is something that cannot be disputed because it has been shown to have consistent results when tested, observed, etc... Believing something strongly doesn't make it a fact and it's wrong to claim opinions as such. What you're saying only applies in certain situations. Taking the same disorders and diseases that I mentioned in the previous paragraph, none of these will ever be a societal "norm" unless, as you said, a large percentage (a majority) of the population has them. (There's a "but..." coming though so see the below paragraph.) I should probably add however, that just as it's unlikely that a large majority of the population will ever have these disorders and diseases, the same can be said for a majority of the population being autistic. Therefore, what you're saying doesn't make sense. ("What you think is wrong, becomes right when most people have it ... Same thing with autism.")

A societal norm doesn't necessarily equate to being "right" (if you want to use that term) or even normal either, especially since it's being applied specifically instead of broadly. It's the norm in many developing countries to be extremely poor and lack access to adequate housing, food, and education, but that's not "right" or normal for per se (especially for those of us not in those countries), is it? Autism cases have risen, and again, it's not the norm, is it? In fact, the opposite has happened - it has not become thought of as "right" even though the cases are dramatically increasing. If it were true that something automatically becomes thought of as "right" when a majority of people have it, then you would see changing views about autism being the norm during the period where cases are rising.

(Also, by the definition and diagnostic criteria of "intellectual disability", no, a majority of us do not have it. I suppose I know what you were trying to say, but that's the wrong way to phrase it because it can be seen as belittling to those who actually have the diagnosis (but also to their families, friends, caregivers, and supporters). Not to mention that "wrong planet" has different meanings to different people, so yours isn't necessarily correct for other people. For some, it merely means that they feel they are on the wrong planet, but it does not necessarily mean that anything is wrong with everyone else - those who are not like them - on the planet.)

I'm sorry the show aired already, but I'm glad you're not giving up.

Do the words you're seeking have to take on the traditional dictionary form? If not, you might put the emphasis on the challenges (and strengths!) that some people with autism have, instead of trying to dissect something that's not necessarily that easy to explain even to adults. Of course, if you go that way, it'd be important to point out that, just like anyone else, no two people with autism are exactly the same.

Naturally, the words do matter, but overthinking them could potentially be as counter-productive as "under-thinking" them. If you know some kids who know someone with autism, consider asking them to describe what they think autism is to you. Have a little Q & A session; they could serve as your focus group!