"The Spectrum" How Autism was Hijacked by Narcissists by Hannah Spier, MD at Psychobabble.
The comments are long but include some good talking points. There are plenty of people with nothing but angry and ignorant opinions (on several sides of the debate), but there are also some genuine disagreements from people who have some evidence and persuasive reasoning on their side. And there are some who are both angry and knowledgeable.
From the essay:
When Leo Kanner first defined autism in 1943, it was estimated that 4 to 5 children per 10,000 were affected. Today, the CDC puts that number at 1 in 36, almost one child in every classroom. If any other medical condition, blindness, epilepsy or paralysis showed a spike like this, it would trigger a pandemic-level outcry. But with autism, we see at best a curious murmuring as to what this is, and at worst, a growing chorus of people insisting, they too, belong in the group.
From experts, instead of raised alarms or calls for serious public health investigation (as would be expected for any other childhood disorder) we get calls for inclusivity and a self-congratulatory attitude toward their advancement in diagnostic understanding and tools. Another example of ideological capture of psychiatry by cultural sentiment.
A few commenters with some solid points disagreed with nearly every part of that statement above. Of particular interest to me was a reference to the pioneering work of Grunya Sukhareva in the 20's and 30's, who identified autism and described what was clearly the same pathology quite differently. I will have to look into this. Stay tuned.
I will warn you that you will be entering a world of accusation, counter-accusation, and ill-will. So of course my comments will spread oil on troubled waters.
7 comments:
If you had the patience to scan through all those comments, I salute you. The signal to noise ratio looked very very low.
Not all. The top six and a few of the comments under those, plus the last ten and their followup comments.
Scarlett OHara and a Technicolor big screen roomful of swirling crinoline ballgowns comes to mind.
Or maybe Hollywood -Atlanta burning.
We are to believe Clark Gable/Rhett Butler’s appropriate response is not appropriate? But it is the best response, earlier and accompanied by hearty laughter.
I'm very good at hearty laughter, but I have had problems with placement.
No one in my family is strictly autistic in the sense I grew up with, but I've come to believe we're all on what's come more recently to be called "on the spectrum." That ranges from rather severely introverted, but functional, to barely able to hold down a menial job. The functional among us spend our whole lives wondering why we're so uncomfortable with what most people seem to take for granted. During the lockdown I had a hard time understanding what people found difficult; it wasn't very different from what I was used to and actually prefer. (Not, of course, minimizing the horrible problems with requiring elderly relatives to die alone in hospitals while loved ones tried to look at them through windows.)
But I really dislike conflating my family's level of introversion or social awkwardness with the severe illness of autism that will strain practically any family right to the breaking point all day, every day.
Exactly my situation. I worked with literal nonverbal headbangers and it is not the same as eccentric people with some ability to overfocus and some social clumsiness. I have tried many models in my head of multipolar traits rather than a liner spectrum, dividing the presentations more sharply (but nearer to which end, eh?), or trying to work out some interplay explanations. Nothing quite satisfies.
Post a Comment