Re: Temple Grandin stuff

[Guest guest]

Rakus wrote:

> Interestingly, I had a similar discussion with my son's TSS last Thursday.

What is a TSS?

> After the huge improvements we have seen in 's abilities as compared

> to before he had OT, I am pretty much convinced that sensory issues play a

> huge part in AS. I can definitely see how, without intervention,

> would have continued to withdraw more and more into his own world because

> that had already started to happen.

Please elaborate. I do not know what you mean by " withdraw into his own little

world. " Is this meant that he increasingly rejected human contac and outside

stimulus?

> Starting OT shortly after he turned 3

> made a huge difference in his ability to process sensory input, and the fine

> and gross motor skills work caught him up to the level where he should be.

That is quite early... If I may ask, what behaviors was he exhibiting, and when

did they start? Onset before three is more characteristic of autism than AS,

and so is the " withdrawing into his own world, " or so it appears. I have heard

that expression before, but it has always been used in conjunction with

classical autistic children.

> His social skills are catching up...although he tends to emulate adult

> social behavior more than that of his peers. I'm convinced that any kind of

> intervention that didn't start with sensory issues would have had very

> limited, if any, success. Helping him learn to process all kinds of sensory

> input...sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, tactile, vestibular and

> proprioceptive...was the key to the progress he has made.

Fascinating. I wonder if this is the elusive " core " deficit in autism, or if

it is just one aspect. Could the lack of stimulation early-on be the primary

deciding factor in the severity of the autistic condition? What sorts of

things have improved in , and what things remain?

> I'm not saying that he has been " cured " (since that isn't possible), but he

> has orders of magnitude more potential to be able to fit in and be happy.

> Not that fitting in is requisite for being happy, but I think that he will

> be able to fit in without having to deny who he is...which will give him a

> better chance at being happy.

I understand what you are saying here. Autistics don't feel any overt need to

fit in with everyone else, but everyone else feels the need to force us to fit

in, and if we don't, they make us miserable with their abusive conduct. Thus,

not fitting in can prevent happiness even in those that do not specifically

desire to fit in.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

>

>One concept that Grandin brings up in Thinking In Pictures is that of

>sensory dysfunction being part of the reason for incomplete emotional

>development. If the brain cannot tolerate sensory input, especially

>tactile input, in the early years, there will be incomplete development

>of the neural pathways that relate to that sort of stimulus. The brain

>is too complex to be fully controlled by genetics... genetics control

>trends of neural connection, but the individual connections themselves

>are based in part on the patterns of data flowing over/though them

>during the formative years. Thus, a child that successfully resists

>being held and caressed may be setting the stage for incomplete

>development of that part of the brain. The brain compensates for this

>lack of stimulus by being very sensitive, which results in tactile

>defensiveness, which many or most of us here will probably have. This

>results in general anxiety and discomfort, which can interfere with

>development of attachment to others, which in turn impacts development

>of empathy. Similar things happen with the other senses.

>

>It's a fascinating theory, and I cannot fault it logically, based on

>what I know. Grandin surmises that the differences in language

>difficulty may be based on two things: the severity of audio processing

>problems and the age at onset of autistic symptoms. More severe audio

>processing problems mean that the brain is unable to make sense of the

>jumble of syllables that the developing child perceives, which delays

>the onset of speech. Also, the sooner the onset of speech occurs, the

>more the neurons have time to adjust to the high flow of neural traffic

>through the language processing and expression centers. She

>hypothesizes that the length of speech delay or regressive period may be

>directly and causally related to language and cognitive impairment later

>in life.

>

Interestingly, I had a similar discussion with my son's TSS last Thursday.

After the huge improvements we have seen in 's abilities as compared

to before he had OT, I am pretty much convinced that sensory issues play a

huge part in AS. I can definitely see how, without intervention,

would have continued to withdraw more and more into his own world because

that had already started to happen. Starting OT shortly after he turned 3

made a huge difference in his ability to process sensory input, and the fine

and gross motor skills work caught him up to the level where he should be.

His social skills are catching up...although he tends to emulate adult

social behavior more than that of his peers. I'm convinced that any kind of

intervention that didn't start with sensory issues would have had very

limited, if any, success. Helping him learn to process all kinds of sensory

input...sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, tactile, vestibular and

proprioceptive...was the key to the progress he has made.

I'm not saying that he has been " cured " (since that isn't possible), but he

has orders of magnitude more potential to be able to fit in and be happy.

Not that fitting in is requisite for being happy, but I think that he will

be able to fit in without having to deny who he is...which will give him a

better chance at being happy.

[Guest guest]

>

>I picked up Temple Grandin's books " Emergence: Labeled Autistic " and

> " Thinking in Pictures " today. I read the former entirely and half of

>the latter. I am struck by several things in these books.

>

>In " Emergence, " I was rather amused to read Bernard Rimland's foreword:

> " Very few autistic persons even manage to enter high school,and fewer

>still manage to make their way into college. Those who do usually major

>in math or computers, not psychology. And here she was, telephoning and

>planning to visit another city on her own. Such competence is extremely

>rare in autistics, and the initiative required by such individuals is

>even rarer. "

,

That foreword was probably written in 1986 or earlier,

which is a light year back as far how people saw the potential

of our peers. Temple's was the first published personal account

and at the time, she seemed very unusual.

For someone who is HFA, she still is unusual.

>Dr. Grandin's newer book " Thinking in Pictures " has several references

>to autistic (and keep in mind that we are talking about autistic people

>as in meeting the definition of autism, not AS) people that have not

>only gotten into (and even GRADUATED) from college, but can even take on

>the daunting task of calling a travel agent to get a plane ticket. What

>else would I expect from a man that believes autism can be cured by

>taking lots of vitamin B6 and C? He may have been onto something when

>he argued in favor of a genetic, rather than a paychological, cause of

>autism (some forty years ago) but I think that must have been the last

>lucid moment he had.

>

I think you are forgetting when he wrote that foreword and

what was known at that time.

>I wonder what definition of autism Dr. Rimland is using. On the one

>hand, if this sort of thing (entering high school, et cetera) is so rare

>for autistics, he must be talking about a variety that is rather

>low-functioning. On the other hand, he endorses Dr. Grandin as a bona

>fide " recovered " autistic.

Temple herself used to describe herself as that and doesn't

any more. She knows better. Dr. Rimland is careless with that

term and I have to agree with you on that.

In the back of the book is Rimland's E-2

>scale for autistic diagnosis, filled out with Grandin's information.

>Know what? Except for my shorter speech delay, I appear on that form as

>more autistic than she is. I do not have the scoring key, but I know

>which traits are autistic and which are not, and I have more than she

>does. So surely I must be autistic, too, which I am if you believe the

>DSM-IV criteria. Yet I managed to graduate from high school, go on to

>college... I did not graduate, but I have planned trips cross-country

>numerous times. I once made plans to get my VW Bug repaired at a shop

>3,000 miles away, on the opposite end of the country... drove there,

>stayed in motels along the way, then got a ride back to Chicago from a

>friend while the work was being done. I then caught a plane to

>Washington DC and took a cab to Manassas, Virginia, where I picked up

>the car and drove back to Chicago, then on to California.

>That was certainly more difficult and required more initiative than Dr.

>Grandin's trip to Sandy Eggo. VWs, at that time, were my perseverative

>interest, so it was not hard to do. Actually, the hardest part was

>getting the repair estimate written and getting the money for the trip

>together. I had to have the money before I left, so certainly I had to

>know what the cost would be. I took photos of the rust damage to the

>car (that is what I was having repaired) and sent them, with a detailed

>description, via US Mail. I then called and we discussed the estimate

>on the phone.

>So, apparently, I am also exceedingly rare.

No, but you are being exceedingly dense about your interpretation

Also, in some ways, you are much more well

rounded than Temple. I say that as one who has met both of you.

Temple has succeeded in a very narrow way by focusing almost

entirely on her academic pursuit and blowing off any social

interests.

The other thing about Temple, compared to the rest of

us, is that she has always been filthy rich. She had a privileged

childhood although her father was very abusive.

>

>Now about being a " recovered " autistic... is that like being a

> " recovered " black person, or a " recovered " female? How can one recover

>from something she intrinsically is? It's not a disease; you don't

>recover from it. You can learn to mitigate the particular behaviors

>that stick out as being autistic, but that does not mean the autism is

>gone. This point is evident in the latter chapters of the book; despite

>her assertion that she is " recovered, " she seems to understand that she

>is not. This point is galvanized in what I have read in her other

>book. If I train my cat to fetch a stick and bark, will she then be a

>dog? The whole notion is preposterous.

Agreed on that.

>

Jerry

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Gerald Newport wrote:

> That foreword was probably written in 1986 or earlier,

> which is a light year back as far how people saw the potential

> of our peers. Temple's was the first published personal account

> and at the time, she seemed very unusual.

I neglected to notice the early date of the book. Autism was only externally

validated as a distinct neurological entity in 1980, so it was still largely

unknown.

> For someone who is HFA, she still is unusual.

Quite right; there are not many HFA Ph.Ds around. Aspies, sure, but not

autistics proper. It was, though, Dr. Rimland's idea that most autistic

children do not enter high school that frosted me. It occurs to me that Dr.

Rimland was indeed thinking of the lower-functioning autistics when he wrote

that foreword... but Temple clearly is/was not low-functioning. If Rimland

accepted her as autistic, that means to me that he accepted the concept of

HFA... and as such, he failed to realize that there were probably a lot of them

out there, languishing undiagnosed in normal classrooms, as I was. 1986 was

one year after I was taken to the pediatric neurologist and diagnosed as ADHD.

The doctor missed my ASD totally-- which was not surprising in those days.

Fortunately for me, I was not violent or self-abusive, so my condition was

never scrutinized that carefully. I have no idea what would have taken place

if I was not so passive. It seems that most anecdotes of HFAs I read involve

either self-abuse or lashing out against others, and it is often those

behaviors that prompt evaluation. Certainly, Dr. Grandin was violent, not to

mention the whole feces-sculpting incident. That might have raised a few

eyebrows, had I done it.

> I think you are forgetting when he wrote that foreword and

> what was known at that time.

Not forgetting it-- neglecting to notice it. You are quite correct. I should

have been clued-in by the disparity in age reported in each book; she was 47

IIRC when she wrote Thinking in Pictures, and thirty something for Emergence.

> Temple herself used to describe herself as that and doesn't

> any more. She knows better. Dr. Rimland is careless with that

> term and I have to agree with you on that.

I gathered that. It seemed even by the time that she finished writing

Emergence, her tune had changed.

> >So, apparently, I am also exceedingly rare.

>

> No, but you are being exceedingly dense about your interpretation

I take it that the emoticon signifies a joke or good-natured intent. Still, I

am not sure what you refer to here. I did neglect to take into account what

was known at the time that was written... without specifically paying attention

to the date, I kind of assumed that they knew then what they know now. That's

kind of like a theory-of-mind error, isn't it? In fact, I think that is

precisely what that was.

> Also, in some ways, you are much more well

> rounded than Temple. I say that as one who has met both of you.

Yes; despite my comment as to how I am " more autistic " as measured by the E-2

scale in her book (which is true), I do not believe that I am actually more

autistic than Temple is/was. I do think I fit better in HFA than AS, but I am

very close to the line. I do not have Temple's ability to (almost arbitrarily)

decide to be solitary her whole life, and to be able to do it without a sense

of loss. I wish I did, since I probably will be anyway, but that is not the

case. I was only able to stick to my similar proclamation for about five years

before I realized it was not compatible with my neurology. Also, I do not

believe that I experience the childlike, limited repertoire of emotions Temple

describes. I can't tell for sure, though... I've never been NT, so maybe mine

are limited.

> Temple has succeeded in a very narrow way by focusing almost

> entirely on her academic pursuit and blowing off any social

> interests.

Well, to be clear, I have mostly been like that myself. The group meeting

Saturday was the first social contact I had since the last group meeting.

Other than having my mother in town to help me move, I talked to no one vocally

other than to answer questions like " paper or plastic. " This has been my

general way since I first was exposed to other children. When I was two or so,

my mother noticed that I totally ignored other children my age... did not look

at them, make gestures to them, play with them or alongside them, or even

notice that they were alive. I was probably in kindergarten or first grade

before I verbalized socially with other children, and even then it was limited,

and I didn't care too much about them. I can remember the first grade fairly

well, actually.

College was the singular exception. I'd been rejected so long that being

accepted was a great novelty, and with the unprecedented comfort level, I

became very social by my standards. I have recently realized that what I had

previously called " very social " (in my autobiography page on my site) was

probably still not as social as the average person is on a regular day. That

only lasted a short time, though, after which time I moved into the high desert

of California, in a sort of self-imposed exile. I don't really know why I did

that.

> The other thing about Temple, compared to the rest of

> us, is that she has always been filthy rich. She had a privileged

> childhood although her father was very abusive.

I am not sure how that relates to this discussion. Certainly, I grew up very

poor. I think my relative success in normal schools was predicated upon three

things. First, I was nonviolent and not self injurious. Second, I had parents

that never tried to force me to be normal... they gently guided in areas in

which I was lacking, but never forced. The more I learn about how others like

me grew up, the more I appreciate the job my parents did. I never got the

impression that I was damaged or defective, as so many autie children do when

they are brought to all of the doctors their parents can find. Third, I am

above-average in intelligence for someone that meets the criteria for autism,

which goes a long way in allowing me to automatically compensate for areas of

impairment. For example, I learned how to figure out what people are thinking

on my own; I never had any theory-of-mind training, but I am confident that I

would pass such tests easily. I am, though, aware that it is not intuitive; I

have to think rather deliberately and intensively to arrive at the correct

answer. And, as I showed above, it's not flawless, but I don't think that the

NT intuitive method is flawless either.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>Gerald Newport wrote:

> 80, so it was still largely

>unknown.

>

>

> It occurs to me that Dr.

>Rimland was indeed thinking of the lower-functioning autistics when he

>wrote

>that foreword...

Like too many folks, Dr. Rimland has a real hard time accepting

the existence of anyone on the spectrum doing " better " than his

kid. He accepts Temple mostly because he has to.

but Temple clearly is/was not low-functioning. If Rimland

>accepted her as autistic, that means to me that he accepted the concept of

>HFA... and as such, he failed to realize that there were probably a lot of

>them

>out there, languishing undiagnosed in normal classrooms, as I was. \

For sure.

1986 was

>one year after I was taken to the pediatric neurologist and diagnosed as

>ADHD.

>The doctor missed my ASD totally-- which was not surprising in those days.

>Fortunately for me, I was not violent or self-abusive, so my condition was

>never scrutinized that carefully. I have no idea what would have taken

>place

>if I was not so passive. It seems that most anecdotes of HFAs I read

>involve

>either self-abuse or lashing out against others, and it is often those

>behaviors that prompt evaluation. Certainly, Dr. Grandin was violent, not

>to

>mention the whole feces-sculpting incident. That might have raised a few

>eyebrows, had I done it.

She had more trouble with speech than we did and the other stuff

happens a lot more when speech is not available to express anger.

>

>

> > I think you are forgetting when he wrote that foreword and

> > what was known at that time.

>

>Not forgetting it-- neglecting to notice it. You are quite correct. I

>should

>have been clued-in by the disparity in age reported in each book; she was

>47

>IIRC when she wrote Thinking in Pictures, and thirty something for

>Emergence.

>

> 39, I think. She is twelve full moons older than me: 8/29/47

or 356 days before me at 8/19/48. A funny coincidence since Babe

Ruth died three days before my birth and .356 was his batting

average in 1927.

> > Temple herself used to describe herself as that and doesn't

> > any more. She knows better. Dr. Rimland is careless with that

> > term and I have to agree with you on that.

>

>I gathered that. It seemed even by the time that she finished writing

>Emergence, her tune had changed.

>

>

> > >So, apparently, I am also exceedingly rare.

> >

> > No, but you are being exceedingly dense about your interpretation

>

>

>I take it that the emoticon signifies a joke or good-natured intent.

Yup, just a joke. Density is an autistic rite of passage.

>

>

> > Also, in some ways, you are much more well

> > rounded than Temple. I say that as one who has met both of you.

>

>

> > Temple has succeeded in a very narrow way by focusing almost

> > entirely on her academic pursuit and blowing off any social

> > interests.

>

>Well, to be clear, I have mostly been like that myself. The group meeting

>Saturday was the first social contact I had since the last group meeting.

>Other than having my mother in town to help me move, I talked to no one

>vocally

>other than to answer questions like " paper or plastic. " This has been my

>general way since I first was exposed to other children. When I was two or

>so,

>my mother noticed that I totally ignored other children my age... did not

>look

>at them, make gestures to them, play with them or alongside them, or even

>notice that they were alive. I was probably in kindergarten or first grade

>before I verbalized socially with other children, and even then it was

>limited,

>and I didn't care too much about them. I can remember the first grade

>fairly

>well, actually.

>

>College was the singular exception. I'd been rejected so long that being

>accepted was a great novelty, and with the unprecedented comfort level, I

>became very social by my standards. I have recently realized that what I

>had

>previously called " very social " (in my autobiography page on my site) was

>probably still not as social as the average person is on a regular day.

>That

>only lasted a short time, though, after which time I moved into the high

>desert

>of California, in a sort of self-imposed exile. I don't really know why I

>did

>that.

>

>

> > The other thing about Temple, compared to the rest of

> > us, is that she has always been filthy rich. She had a privileged

> > childhood although her father was very abusive.

>

>I am not sure how that relates to this discussion.

I mentioned it to point out that despite her fame, she is not

a perfect role model. Most of us will not be able to succeed with

such a narrow focus and most of us had it a lot harder as kids.

Jerry

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

> I do not have Temple's ability to (almost arbitrarily)

> decide to be solitary her whole life, and to be able to do it without a

sense

> of loss. I wish I did, since I probably will be anyway, but that is not

the

> case.

This point interests me, because I have a lot of mixed feelings and

experiences on my need for solitude vs. being with people. I need both

alone-time and interpersonal contact; in that I'm like most other people.

When I'm with people, I don't enjoy doing a lot of the normal things that

most people of my age and education/socio-economic status do. It's been a

long hard road, through school, college, and graduate school, for me to

accept that about myself and say that I _won't_ enjoy activities A, B, and

C, so I just won't participate. I do pretty well if the social situation

is an interest group, especially a nerdy one like quiz bowl. With friends,

I prefer to have time to talk about significant/important things -- so, for

instance, what's the point of going to a movie, where you're with someone

but can't talk for two hours?

Spending a full weekend alone, as I do fairly often, can get me down and

make me long for some, any human contact. I too sometimes go for days

without speaking to anyone, if I'm on break from work etc.

>Also, I do not

> believe that I experience the childlike, limited repertoire of emotions

Temple

> describes. I can't tell for sure, though... I've never been NT, so maybe

mine

> are limited.

I honestly don't think mine are limited. I don't express them in some of

the same ways other people do, and I'm introverted on top of it, so I can

_appear_ this way, but inside I have plenty of strong emotions, the whole

range.

>When I was two or so,

> my mother noticed that I totally ignored other children my age... did not

look

> at them, make gestures to them, play with them or alongside them, or even

> notice that they were alive. I was probably in kindergarten or first

grade

> before I verbalized socially with other children, and even then it was

limited,

> and I didn't care too much about them. I can remember the first grade

fairly

> well, actually.

I can't! I have very few memories from before I was 15. Maybe it was so

boring that I just block it out. I had one friend from age 11 through high

school graduation, and I didn't really desire any more; other than him, I

never felt the desire to play or otherwise socialize with people my age.

It was only when I went to Penn State Univ. that I discovered there's a

world of interesting people out there. That's another issue -- I wanted to

become friends with some of them, but my upbringing and AS combined to make

it so I had no friggin' idea how to do so. That's been another long, hard

road: accepting that a lot of people out there won't be interested in me as

a friend, but having confidence (that I'm a worthy person etc.) when

seeking out those who will. Through college and grad school most of my

good friends weren't people in the same town, but those I met at one time

or another and kept in touch with by e-mail / letter / phone / occasional

visit.

> For example, I learned how to figure out what people are thinking

> on my own; I never had any theory-of-mind training, but I am confident

that I

> would pass such tests easily. I am, though, aware that it is not

intuitive; I

> have to think rather deliberately and intensively to arrive at the

correct

> answer.

I have no trouble guessing what others are thinking when it's obvious. For

instance, I'm aware of when a person doesn't know something I know because

s/he has never had the chance to observe it. I used this (and was a little

deceptive) last week at work to circumvent a stupid administrative

headache. But you're right: it's not intuitive when it's more subtle. I

don't have a great feel for what a person's emotions are at a particular

moment, and usually theorize based on how I would feel in the same

situation. I'm not sure how typical or atypical this is.

Doug

-------------------------------

" The sweetest flowers, the fairest trees / Are grown in solid ground "

-- Wilbur/Bernstein, after Voltaire http://www.cobweb.net/~doneal

[Guest guest]

Doug wrote:

> This point interests me, because I have a lot of mixed feelings and

> experiences on my need for solitude vs. being with people. I need both

> alone-time and interpersonal contact; in that I'm like most other people.

> When I'm with people, I don't enjoy doing a lot of the normal things that

> most people of my age and education/socio-economic status do. It's been a

> long hard road, through school, college, and graduate school, for me to

> accept that about myself and say that I _won't_ enjoy activities A, B, and

> C, so I just won't participate. I do pretty well if the social situation

> is an interest group, especially a nerdy one like quiz bowl. With

friends,

> I prefer to have time to talk about significant/important things -- so,

for

> instance, what's the point of going to a movie, where you're with someone

> but can't talk for two hours?

This sums up my social desires to a tee. I need intellectual stimulation and

a sense of worth. I enjoy talking about topics that deeply interest me and

feeling someone else is on the same wavelength and not just recycling

someone else's thoughts, but smalltalk and tittle tattle bore me. Sometimes

I have to act poorly to sustain a shallow relationship and am often at a

loss as to what to say. This makes me more AS than HFA, but over the years

> Spending a full weekend alone, as I do fairly often, can get me down and

> make me long for some, any human contact. I too sometimes go for days

> without speaking to anyone, if I'm on break from work etc.

My life is basically alone, with my kids and occasionally with my wife,

though I think since my AS diagnosis she has misunderstood even more. I

seldom talk to neighbours, my father has remarried and seems to want little

to do with me. That leaves my mother, who has always been a bit of an

embarrassment, but never mind. Other than that I have acquaintances and my

wife's friends with whom I somtimes talk, but if Stefania is around, she

stops me from monopolizing discussions.

> I honestly don't think mine are limited. I don't express them in some of

> the same ways other people do, and I'm introverted on top of it, so I can

> _appear_ this way, but inside I have plenty of strong emotions, the whole

> range.

>

> I can't! I have very few memories from before I was 15.

Odd, I vividly remember my childhood despite two traffic accidents, one

crossing a busy road to go swimming and the other on my bike. My memory

extends before I could talk. I recall my mum pushing me down the hill to the

local grocer's and expecting my younger brother, who died shortly after

birth. I recall my childhood obsessions and when I learned mind-boggling

concepts, like the world is a gigantic ball. Also I understood complex

spoken language long before I started to string together basic sentences.

> Maybe it was so

> boring that I just block it out. I had one friend from age 11 through

high

> school graduation, and I didn't really desire any more; other than him, I

> never felt the desire to play or otherwise socialize with people my age.

> It was only when I went to Penn State Univ. that I discovered there's a

> world of interesting people out there. That's another issue -- I wanted

to

> become friends with some of them, but my upbringing and AS combined to

make

> it so I had no friggin' idea how to do so. That's been another long, hard

> road: accepting that a lot of people out there won't be interested in me

as

> a friend, but having confidence (that I'm a worthy person etc.) when

> seeking out those who will. Through college and grad school most of my

> good friends weren't people in the same town, but those I met at one time

> or another and kept in touch with by e-mail / letter / phone / >occasional

visit.

Some people have been much more sincere and genuine by e-mail than in rl. At

school and college I lived dangerously mixing with the wrong crowd for

someone like me. I split my childhood into three phases: infantile innocence

when I lived in a cul-de-sac near a village and could explore the world as I

saw it and fared modestly at school lagging in language and doing rather

well at maths. Brain of the class from around 9 to 13/14, still trailing in

handwriting, but way ahead in maths and sciences. This was interrupted by an

accident, 5 months off school and severe teasing when I returned. At 14 I

discovered politics and started to philosophise my own problems on a macro

level. I got expelled and befriended leftwing activists in their late teens

or early twenties. I not only attended meetings, but got invited to my fair

share of parties. So I think I've seen the full range of neurotypical

deceitful behaviours. My two tricks were to enlighten someone with my unique

worldview or later to invent a new identity, change accents, pretend to be a

foreigner etc...

If only I had steered clear of social gatherings at Uni and studied, I

wouldn't be in the mess I'm in today. Indeed I should have stayed with

earlier obsessions, like astronomy. If only I had a cosy job, I could with

my new knowledge of AS build a new life around it.

> I have no trouble guessing what others are thinking when it's obvious.

For

> instance, I'm aware of when a person doesn't know something I know because

> s/he has never had the chance to observe it. I used this (and was a

little

> deceptive) last week at work to circumvent a stupid administrative

> headache. But you're right: it's not intuitive when it's more subtle. I

> don't have a great feel for what a person's emotions are at a particular

> moment, and usually theorize based on how I would feel in the same

> situation. I'm not sure how typical or atypical this is.

I wised up in my teens, but as I now know, nonverbal signals were always

alien to me. Sometimes I try to relive encounters and think if only I had

been more honest with myself and with others, maybe I would not have gone

astray. In the end my future wife came to the rescue, but tried in vain to

make me conform. I often just assume others are pursuing their agenda,

either theirs or their bosses, but as soon as someone warms up to me, I may

be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt, but sooner or later they

shy away. I don't need much social contact by NT standards as long as I know

people are there when I need them and I'm not purposefully excluded. Also

what applies to me does not necessarily apply to others, so I can't always

know for sure how I would feel in the same situation as it presupposes a

shared mentality. One of my faults in neurotypical terms is to say out loud

what others would express nonverbally.

Regards

Neil

[Guest guest]

>> Interestingly, I had a similar discussion with my son's TSS last

Thursday.

>

>What is a TSS?

For some reason, I can never remember. I meant to ask his TSS yesterday,

but I got sidetracked. The TSS is ther person who carries out the treatment

plan developed by the Behavior Specialist in wrap-around services.

Wrap-around is provided through the public mental health system. The TSS's

provide services in the home or school. has one TSS who goes to

preschool with him, and another one who works with him at home on the days

he doesn't have school. They work on things like motor skills, social

skills, stress management, etc. It isn't an academic support, but a " mental

health " support. His Behavior Specialist went to Tony Attwood's AS

conference a few weeks ago, and she is doing a great job of applying the

things she learned in 's treatment plan.

>

>

>> After the huge improvements we have seen in 's abilities as

compared

>> to before he had OT, I am pretty much convinced that sensory issues play

a

>> huge part in AS. I can definitely see how, without intervention,

>> would have continued to withdraw more and more into his own world because

>> that had already started to happen.

>

>Please elaborate. I do not know what you mean by " withdraw into his own

little

>world. " Is this meant that he increasingly rejected human contac and

outside

>stimulus?

His withdrawal would happen when he reached sensory overload. His threshold

varied, depending on the level of stress he was experiencing. Putting him

in any kind of unfamiliar situation would either kick him into a complete

meltdown, or into his own world. When we were going through the diagnosis

process, every single person who evaluated him asked, " Does he have

language? " on meeting him because he would completely ignore them, not even

giving an indication of being aware they were there, like stiffening of the

body or anything like that. It was extremely autistic-like. But he could

be brought out of that state, and he didn't do that at home. In fact, he

talked A LOT at home.

>

>> Starting OT shortly after he turned 3

>> made a huge difference in his ability to process sensory input, and the

fine

>> and gross motor skills work caught him up to the level where he should

be.

>

>That is quite early... If I may ask, what behaviors was he exhibiting, and

when

>did they start? Onset before three is more characteristic of autism than

AS,

>and so is the " withdrawing into his own world, " or so it appears. I have

heard

>that expression before, but it has always been used in conjunction with

>classical autistic children.

He was always one of those " difficult " , " touchy " , " reactive " , " explosive " ,

" rigid " , " picky " , " head-strong " , " sensitive " kids. I just happened to read

an article about Sensory Integration Dysfunction in Twins magazine at the

pediatrician's office shortly before he turned 3, and immediately recognized

his behavior as sensory defensiveness (of all senses). I took him to a

private OT, and he was diagnosed with SID. We started therapy, and I made

an appointment at the Pittsburgh Children's Hospital's Child Development

Unit, but the waiting list was six months long. OT helped an amazing amount

with his sensory defensiveness...for all his senses (including his " food

issues " )...but SID couldn't account for all his behaviors. When he was in

stressful situations he would toe walk, flick his ears, chew a blanket, flap

his hands, etc. I read many interpretations of why SID can cause that kind

of behavior, but I wasn't satisfied with them. When we finally got into the

Child Development Unit, he was seen by a developmental

pediatrician/developmental psychologist team, and he was diagnosed with AS.

So his diagnosis was a result of me fortuitously picking up a magazine in a

waiting room. I knew that there was something " different " about him (how

many times have you heard that phrase?), and I had worked out on my own how

to " handle " him, partly because I have the same kinds of sensory issues that

he has, and partly because life with him in the family could be pure hell at

times, and I was trying to preserve my sanity.

>

>

>> His social skills are catching up...although he tends to emulate adult

>> social behavior more than that of his peers. I'm convinced that any kind

of

>> intervention that didn't start with sensory issues would have had very

>> limited, if any, success. Helping him learn to process all kinds of

sensory

>> input...sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, tactile, vestibular and

>> proprioceptive...was the key to the progress he has made.

>

>Fascinating. I wonder if this is the elusive " core " deficit in autism, or

if

>it is just one aspect. Could the lack of stimulation early-on be the

primary

>deciding factor in the severity of the autistic condition? What sorts of

>things have improved in , and what things remain?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about those very things. It makes sense

to me that if a developing child's brain processes sensory information in a

non-optimal way, that child will not be able to relate " normally " to his

environment. I think that all autistic people have certain hardwired

" differences " in their brains, the effects of which can be exacerbated by

conditions such as sensory integration issues or food allergies or heavy

metal poisoning, or who knows how many other things. But if those things

can be either removed or at least improved, then a higher degree of

functionality will be possible.

The analogy that I use most often when describing is a balloon.

Before OT, he was like a very tightly inflated balloon, with all his sensory

issues and reactions spread out on the surface. If you pushed on one spot

(stressing a specific area), it would cause another area to bulge out (which

would result in things like ear flicking, chewing, or walling out external

sensory input). If he was pushed too hard, he would pop (melt down). Now

he's more like a partially deflated balloon. He can absorb more stress

without reaching a critical point, and in the rare occasions when he does

" pop " it doesn't take as long for him to reach his equilibrium state

(partially inflated as opposed to stretched tight). Specific improvements

that I've seen are in his ability to process complicated visual input (like

in the grocery store or Wal Mart or any crowded place), and to process

combinations of sensory input. But when any additional stressor is added

(like the anticipation of Christmas, or rearranging the living room

furniture, or starting school, or being sick, or...) then something will

bulge. Sometimes he stops eating everything except cheese crackers and

certain other crunchy foods. Sometimes his " personal space " expands to

about a five-foot radius, sometimes smells (either specific ones or any

smell at all) become overpowering. That one makes him refer to things as

" too smelly " ...one of those not-so-acceptable social behaviors. Sometimes

certain sounds are unbearable to him. Sometimes the result is a stim like

chewing.

Another improvement is in his motor skills...both fine and gross. I think

that since it doesn't require such intense concentration to control his

movements (which is so closely tied to things like tactile, vestibular, and

proprioceptive senses), he can devote a larger chunk of processing capacity

to other things like analyzing social behavior of other people.

>

>

>> I'm not saying that he has been " cured " (since that isn't possible), but

he

>> has orders of magnitude more potential to be able to fit in and be happy.

>> Not that fitting in is requisite for being happy, but I think that he

will

>> be able to fit in without having to deny who he is...which will give him

a

>> better chance at being happy.

>

>I understand what you are saying here. Autistics don't feel any overt need

to

>fit in with everyone else, but everyone else feels the need to force us to

fit

>in, and if we don't, they make us miserable with their abusive conduct.

Thus,

>not fitting in can prevent happiness even in those that do not specifically

>desire to fit in.

Exactly.