Helen's questions, long [was: Re: Roche ... etc]

[Guest guest]

helen_foisy wrote:

> <snipped>

>>> Okay. Do you think there ever will be? (a biological marker for

>>> autsim)

>>

>> No, I don't. ...Not in the senses implied by today's " disability

>> model " of autism.

[ snip ]

>> Please note an *important distinction*: Autism as a recognizable

>> physical/medical/neurological entity is one thing. Autism-like

>> behaviors *as a co-morbidity* is quite another.

>

> I agree .. mostly ..

>

>> The former has no identified and agreed upon " cause " . Often it can

>> be recognized readily enough. But - like " porn " - it has no

>> agreed upon " satisfactory " definition.

Hang onto that " like porn " idea, please.

Like " autism " , *everybody* " knows " pornography when they see it.

But *nobody* has a definition of it that *reliably* and everywhere

withstands all reasonable legal tests. ...In US courts anyway (most

western courts, I bet).

That's where we are with " autism " . Also why we have so many different

opinions (that's all they are) of *what* autism is.

>>

>> The latter *might* accompany e.g. Fragile-X syndrome or Rett

>> syndrome, inter alia, but are *not* necessary and sufficient

>> conditions for either syndrome.

>

> Here is where I get stuck. This isn't to say that I can not be

> persuaded, but it would take a lot of convincing arguments and

> proofs. There are some traits, behaviors, etc. that are common to

> just about ALL folks on the spectrum, some good, some not good, and

> yes, much depends on environment, but still, while I agree some

> tendencies or vulnerabilities, eg. anxiety disorder and meltdowns may

> be co-morbid conditions, others like sensory integration - now there

> you and I have had many go-rounds about this, mostly over semantics

> but, let's just say nearly ALL folks on the spectrum do respond a

> little bit differently to the physical environment than no spectrum

> folks do, and I think that's inherent in " autism. "

Sure. I agree. But there is NO *uniquely* autistic character to any of it!

IF THERE WERE something unique - we'd have a " marker " , a " test " for

autism. And we don't have one. Period, ...full stop.

>

> We also process unspoken cues differently from non spectrum folks.

Sometimes. Not always. And/but it's *not* a uniquely different way of

processing. Like 'autism' itself, it's distributed along a spectrum.

Some NTs do it.

It's merely *relatively uncommon* among NT/NS, and/but rather a lot

*more common* among AS. " Like porn " , it's *not* an absolute thing.

Beauty is - or is not - in the eye of the beholder.

> The older we get the better we are at picking up on them, but if you

> ask a non spectrum person how they do that, they say they just " know "

> or they just " feel it. "

I can say the same thing, today. Sometimes. And for me mostly it's

true, today. But sure as hell it wasn't always.

And sometimes *still* #@! & ?%#$ I make big boo-boos. So much for a

fine schooling, great fund of knowledge, and the Wisdom Of Age!

My NT friends say *exactly* the same thing. Hmm... ??

> For us, we consciously collate the incoming

> stimuli and, based on previous experiences and learning, come up with

" Consciously " ? I think not. The " speed of thought " (or something) is

measurable - and it's way too slow.

I have an alternate explanation, but like Fermat's " remarkable proof " ,

my " margin is too small to contain " it. Somewhere " out there " I have at

least one web page which makes a start on it.

> the best response. Sometimes our response may be better than a

> non-spectrum person's response because it's not being processed

> through the filters of our emotions or " intuition " - it's fact-based

> or at least based on the best probability.

>

> We don't suspend our disbelief. Our decisions are logic driven, not

> emotion driven (well, at least not for the most part, anyway LOL.)

> This doesn't make us machines or Mr. Spock, we have feelings, we have

> emotions .. but the way we think and do is a little different. I

> think that we can either say well that's inherent *or else* we could

> say it's because we are deficient somehow and therefore we compensate

> by relying on our memories. I prefer inherent.

Bingo! Or... *of course*!!

> For us, logic trumps

> emotion, most of the time. We are Simon Baron-Cohen's " systemizers "

> and non-spectrum folks are Baron-Cohen's " empathizers. " And the world

> needs both kinds.

IMO, it's not " logic " -- but it *is reasoning*, just " of a different kind " .

>

> (Re. Rhett syndrome and Fragile X syndrome)

>> Both those are known and distinct chromosomal problems; sometimes

>> but not always accompanied by " autistic " traits. Both now are

>> *defined* by presence of the relevant chromosome abnormality - not

>> by " traits " .

>

> Well yes, true. And " chromosomal abnormality " is not the same as

> " genetic trait " (presumably not what you meant by " traits " above -

> you were talking about behavioral traits.) But when you get two folks

> on the spectrum having children, often the traits and behaviors of

> the spectrum parents are similar or amplified in some of the

> children, and in some cases lead to full blown low functioning autism

> with extreme behaviors that are shared by other full blown low

> functioning autistic people. What would you say has happened there?

Firstly I have to quarrel with the very concept of " low functioning " .

That's an *NT* designation, based more often than not on guesswork

" backed " by IQ tests. I've talked about that too elsewhere, and a

little bit (I think) on this very forum.

But see Mottron's recent NATURE article. I don't have the ref ready

to hand; it shouldn't be hard to find.

" What has happened... " direct answer: Fear, *overwhelming* FEAR,

finding an only outlet in blind, unreasoning, sheer black-faced RAGE.

I speak from personal experience. That is not rhetoric or guesswork. I

*KNOW*.

And *nobody* ever would call me low-functioning. There's a web page

(paragraph or two) on that as well.

>

> Having gotten this far into the discussion, I want to pause a moment

> and say I do hope our many new NT spouses will not feel intimidated

> by this discussion or fear offending us as you come forward with your

> stories.

MINE? ...?

>

> Now, back to you, Bill, the part that I get stuck on is the following

> .. and bear with me as I attempt to bring this discussion back to

> relationship issues. Over the years I have read so many stories on

> this board and others where there is a consistent pattern of

> behaviors and traits that functional or dysfunctional AS spouses

> exhibit, which are in my opinion, quite different from those of a

> functional or dysfunctional non spectrum spouse.

Sure. Absolutely! But remember " porn " ? The " consistent pattern " is

the one *you* (and me) see. Others may have a slightly/greatly

different take.

Sometimes I think it's the NT who's out-of-whack. Majority Rule (NT

population) doesn't mean they're right.

>

> Often, they are subtle, not overt, which is why the non spectrum

> spouse may, for many years, feel like they are the crazy one. Their

> AS spouse may be a really good person and yet, something is

> fundamentally lacking and without either partner knowing about the

> existence of AS in the dynamic of their marriage, a lot of damage can

> ensue.

Sure. And similar things can and have happened in cross-cultural

marriages. Inter-racial marriages. Etc., etc., etc....

>

> While we don't have to necessarily say this is all due to AS, can we

> agree that the problems arise because of the undiscovered

> *differences* between AS and NS spouses? Can we also agree that

> dysfunctional AS often exhibit very similar traits and behaviors to

> other dysfunctional AS folks, just as NS folks are similar to other

> NS folks?

Ye-e-s-s... But I'd not put so sharp a point on it - maybe.

>

> Now you and your wife have had a long marriage which was at one point

> distressed, until you both learned about these differences. Obviously

> you *both* had to work at bringing the marriage back to solid

> standing. Sometime I hope you will be willing to share some of your

> secrets. But again, yours was a collaborative effort with your wife.

I've *been* sharing. More in yesteryear than now, but I've done it.

Got in hot water for some of it, too. ...Remember???

Sometimes The Truth is simple. Sometimes people just don't want to see it.

>

> What would you say to folks whose spouse, due to being more severely

> impacted by theory of mind issues (and feel free to jump on that one

> if you like, that would be interesting, and hopefully not

> contentious, but illuminating) is just not *capable* of making the

> necessary repairs? Not because they are obstinate and in denial (tho

> no doubt there are a few bad eggs) but because they just *can not*

> " get it? "

The simple and obvious generality: People are *not* created equal. Some

are worse than others. Some are *wa-a-ay worse* than others.

Some we might want to say merely are " bad asses " - salvageable if we

just spend time on the relationship.

Some though genuinely are psychopaths. *Not* salvageable, no matter the

time and effort spent.

>

> The partners of these folks often do suffer from some variant of

> " affective deprivation disorder. "

Some of those partners *may be the cause* of - the triggers for - AS

" misbehavior " .

That's the dark secret that dares not speak it's name. Sometimes it's

the NT.

> Unfortunately, out in the real

> world, there are few trained therapists who understand the nuances in

> the dynamic of an AS/NS relationship that led to that outcome, never

> mind understand any more than the most rudimentary aspects of

> Asperger Syndrome as is included in the DSM or ICD. They might ask

> the non spectrum spouse, " oh, does he like trains? " LOL!!!!

One of the reasons for my recent squawk about disseminating

misinformation. Most " therapists " aren't any smarter than the rest of

us. Some are less so.

>

> There is something there Bill, definitely something.

Absolutely, Helen. Of course! Else we-all wouldn't be here; ASPIRES

wouldn't exist.

> I would love to

> hear your take on what has happened there, and maybe a possible

> remedy, as it may help folks here who are dealing with this (but are

> silent at the moment.) After this I'll try to (or you can) change the

> subject header if you do follow up on this particular tangent.

Like my last one, I really had to think about answering this email

openly. It really needs a whole book to do it justice. I've already

said too much *and also* nothing like enough.

But it's not a tangent. Everything we talk about on ASPIRES at root

depends on understanding the *realities* of autism. Grandin and a few

others understand. Mottron understands. Most shrinks and " therapists "

do not.

- Bill ...AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm