Correction to Re: nonverbal language (YIKES!)

[Guest guest]

>

> Off the top of my head, I tend to agree with most of this. What

> really worries me is the fact that " the rush is on " to teach the

> young spectrumites that autistic behavior is, itself, inherently

> " sociopathic " or " bad " (or whatever term might apply), thus

> effectively alienating them from their true identity on basis of

> " autism = bad " . (Obvious, yes, but ...)

>

OUCH!---CORRECTION: When I said " (Obvious, yes, but ...) " I

was referring to the fact that the *above scenario* would appear

obvious to this Group. I was NOT saying the " autism = bad "

thing was " obvious " , or even true at all! (Ouch! Sorry!)

So save those rotten eggs for later, please! :-)

--DKM

>

> It is the long-term effects of this that really give me the

screaming

> heebie-jeebies. Specifically, it will be that self-alienation which

> WILL lead to the very " sociopathic " behavior that intervention

> purports to " correct " . But the effect will them be *blamed* on

> autism itself---NOT on the imposed self-alienation (emotional

> abuse) which led to the " bad " behavior. The effect of this will

be

> that the " autism = bad " view will have much more ample

(though

> inherently false) " eveidence " that autism itself is responsible

for

> " bad " , and even criminal, behavior. Obviously, this will lead to

> exacerbation of the anti-autistic backlash presently being

> fostered by the ABA/curebie crowd.

>

> In short, by compulsively botching their own cause/effect logic,

> they will create a " self-fulfilling prophecy " which will further

> endanger all of us.

>

> Now, the real big-picture is obviously a bogglingly complex set

of

> dynamics, so anything could happen. And I certainly hope

things

> don't unfold as I am predicting here. But frankly, this scenario

> worries the hell out of me when I consider the long-term

> " prognosis " for autism in society, to say nothing of the more

> " short-term " consequences for today's autistic children and

> adults.

>

> I hope I've done justice to my point here. It's a pretty loopy set

of

> individual and social dynamics, so it's hard to explain clearly,

> and impossible to grasp for those who want " simple "

> rationalizations for everything they feel like doing. But to me,

this

> is yet another example of how " folk morality " could easily

destroy

> some of the most inherently benign human beings in

existence.

>

> But don't tell Digby Tantam I said that! :-O

>

> Here's hoping for the best. We're gonna need it.

>

> :-\

>

> Dave March