https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKkzC4KDz3E
This is probably the single best explanation of autism I've ever found. It contains a very brief explanation of autism's history, explains the problematic parts of our past understanding of autism, and even included the latest development with Hans Asperger.
He also includes a better explanation of the autism spectrum (ie: not a linear spectrum), a mention and unpacking of the autism adage, a much-needed reminder that meltdowns are not tantrums, commentary on the gender distribution of autism, and some interesting points about sensory differences.
He's remarkably careful about his language choice. Paired with the early introduction, the fact that he "gets it," and mention that he has personal connections and interest in autism, I suspect this speaker has some significant connections with the autistic community. Also some significant debates or discussions, possibly heated ones. I also laughed at around 27 minutes, where he starts to apologize for taking such a long time to describe autism, then stops and corrects himself to note that he's not sorry. That's a very autistic thing to do and it made me very happy to hear someone so respected and valued be so thoughtful, honest, and direct about his thought process.
The speaker explains autism in three sets of characteristics: social and communicative differences (mostly what the DSM focuses on), sensory differences (like touch or sounds hurting), and what he calls systematizing differences.
I found this last category/trait set fascinating. I've never heard autism described in this fashion, but the way he explains it makes perfect sense to me and also unifies my ability to predict people and see how mental/emotional cycles work with people that adore train schedules and putting objects in order. It's so much of a better explanation than Temple Grandin's "some people think in pictures" theory. (She's since revised it into several different types of thinkers, in fairness.)
Not included in his definition of autism was anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, etc. He does make mention of these things, and notes their incidence rate is higher in the autistic population, which is quite accurate. But he doesn't include it as a core feature. This is correct, because most often our depression and anxiety is externally caused. We don't fit in, people treat us poorly because we don't meet their expectations, and suffering results. Too much of that, and you get anxiety, depressive disorders, and suicidal thoughts.
I also appreciated his explanation of person-first language and his note that most autistic people prefer to be called "autistic people" rather than "people with autism." He didn't quite nail the full reason why we tend to prefer that, which is that with all the fearmongering and searching for a "cure" for autism, some of us really have to emphasize that without the autism, we wouldn't be who we are. You can't just peel the autism off, it is intrinsic to who we are.
Please note, the autism adage applies here. Some autistic people do prefer the person-first language. It's always best to ask a person's preferences. I tend to use both, but favor "autistic person" over "person with autism." If you somehow pulled the autism out of me, I would not be the same person. Actually, I suspect I would be a significantly more boring, less thoughtful, and less valuable person. Like pulling all the ground meat out of the meatloaf. What you have left is technically edible, but the substance is gone.
I was somewhat surprised Mr. Macaskill didn't address specific parts of the Bible that directly deal with disabilities. There's Jesus healing the sick, the blind, the lame, etc. Disability in the past (and somewhat, the present) is considered a failing on the affected person's part, even a sign of insufficient faith or sin. Perhaps he didn't feel the issue was widespread enough to address? He did address the value and worth of autistic people, our support people, and other disabled people, which addresses the issue somewhat, I suppose.
Lastly, I really appreciated the speaker's take on reading and interpreting the Bible. I'm more used to the fracking approach he describes, but what he describes as the better alternative is far superior. I wish that every Christian would learn and internalize this method of interpreting the Bible.
Overall, I loved this talk. It gets so much right, and I wish it was searchable on YouTube properly. But apparently Wheaton College didn't want it to be, so you can only find it if you're linked to it, the way a friend did for me, and I have now done for you. Enjoy!
(Further resources from Wheaton College, including ones for schools, churches, and families, are located here)
This is probably the single best explanation of autism I've ever found. It contains a very brief explanation of autism's history, explains the problematic parts of our past understanding of autism, and even included the latest development with Hans Asperger.
He also includes a better explanation of the autism spectrum (ie: not a linear spectrum), a mention and unpacking of the autism adage, a much-needed reminder that meltdowns are not tantrums, commentary on the gender distribution of autism, and some interesting points about sensory differences.
He's remarkably careful about his language choice. Paired with the early introduction, the fact that he "gets it," and mention that he has personal connections and interest in autism, I suspect this speaker has some significant connections with the autistic community. Also some significant debates or discussions, possibly heated ones. I also laughed at around 27 minutes, where he starts to apologize for taking such a long time to describe autism, then stops and corrects himself to note that he's not sorry. That's a very autistic thing to do and it made me very happy to hear someone so respected and valued be so thoughtful, honest, and direct about his thought process.
The speaker explains autism in three sets of characteristics: social and communicative differences (mostly what the DSM focuses on), sensory differences (like touch or sounds hurting), and what he calls systematizing differences.
I found this last category/trait set fascinating. I've never heard autism described in this fashion, but the way he explains it makes perfect sense to me and also unifies my ability to predict people and see how mental/emotional cycles work with people that adore train schedules and putting objects in order. It's so much of a better explanation than Temple Grandin's "some people think in pictures" theory. (She's since revised it into several different types of thinkers, in fairness.)
Not included in his definition of autism was anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, etc. He does make mention of these things, and notes their incidence rate is higher in the autistic population, which is quite accurate. But he doesn't include it as a core feature. This is correct, because most often our depression and anxiety is externally caused. We don't fit in, people treat us poorly because we don't meet their expectations, and suffering results. Too much of that, and you get anxiety, depressive disorders, and suicidal thoughts.
I also appreciated his explanation of person-first language and his note that most autistic people prefer to be called "autistic people" rather than "people with autism." He didn't quite nail the full reason why we tend to prefer that, which is that with all the fearmongering and searching for a "cure" for autism, some of us really have to emphasize that without the autism, we wouldn't be who we are. You can't just peel the autism off, it is intrinsic to who we are.
Please note, the autism adage applies here. Some autistic people do prefer the person-first language. It's always best to ask a person's preferences. I tend to use both, but favor "autistic person" over "person with autism." If you somehow pulled the autism out of me, I would not be the same person. Actually, I suspect I would be a significantly more boring, less thoughtful, and less valuable person. Like pulling all the ground meat out of the meatloaf. What you have left is technically edible, but the substance is gone.
I was somewhat surprised Mr. Macaskill didn't address specific parts of the Bible that directly deal with disabilities. There's Jesus healing the sick, the blind, the lame, etc. Disability in the past (and somewhat, the present) is considered a failing on the affected person's part, even a sign of insufficient faith or sin. Perhaps he didn't feel the issue was widespread enough to address? He did address the value and worth of autistic people, our support people, and other disabled people, which addresses the issue somewhat, I suppose.
Lastly, I really appreciated the speaker's take on reading and interpreting the Bible. I'm more used to the fracking approach he describes, but what he describes as the better alternative is far superior. I wish that every Christian would learn and internalize this method of interpreting the Bible.
Overall, I loved this talk. It gets so much right, and I wish it was searchable on YouTube properly. But apparently Wheaton College didn't want it to be, so you can only find it if you're linked to it, the way a friend did for me, and I have now done for you. Enjoy!
(Further resources from Wheaton College, including ones for schools, churches, and families, are located here)
As I am the one who put this event together at Wheaton College, I was delighted to read your thoughtful and helpful commentary. Thank you for all you are doing to deepen the dialogue about difficult issues with honesty, clarity, and grace. Keep writing...I will be reading.
ReplyDelete