The gist of what he's saying is good: don't ignore your child's other problems just because the child has high IQ.
There are a number of smaller nitpicks, such as calling Einstein, Mozart and Nash (who wasn't autistic but schizophrenic) aspies when there is evidence or consensus for it. Also, the idea that if you feel stuck at work, it's always entirely your own fault, and that IQ doesn't matter (it does; in some professions more than others, and not as much as some like to think, but it does, because it's an integral part of being a person).
Overall, though, it's sound advice.
What's the point of life when you can't follow a passion because social skills training got in the way?
It won't; it's not designed to take away anyone's passions.
Social skills training programs obviously takes alot of time, and I'm not sure how helpfull they really are.
It kind of feels like this article wants to put it that persuing one's own interests is worthless for aspies if they don't have these interaction skills.
It's simply saying that it would be in aspies' best interest to know social skills, as that, for better or worse, is what makes society tick.
It is however a problem when we can't advocate for ourself, or if we act inappropriately somehow. I don't know how well these social skills training programs for children attack such problems, but I know that if having someone else to advocate for you, someone whom you trust who tells you when you've acted inappropriately, can be very helpfull.
Is advocacy all you care about? Many aspies do want interaction, they're not sure how to do it. And even if they don't, if they're going to have the opportunity to do what they want to do, they need interaction skills.
There are a number of smaller nitpicks, such as calling Einstein, Mozart and Nash (who wasn't autistic but schizophrenic) aspies when there is evidence or consensus for it.
Remember that this could only be called an opinion. That these people were or were not autistic is infalsifiable.
Exactly. It's a highly speculative opinion that shouldn't have been represented as fact.
The article is correct by and large. It is their world, they are a majority by far, maybe 70 to 1. Even if they aren't doing it on purpose, they can do enough damage by ignorance of the issue by itself.
I take major issue with the assertion that "learning to read book so fast consumes the part of [the child's] brain that should be learning to read social cues".
a) Not all autistics/Aspies are early readers.
b) Many non-autistic gifted children are early readers, and have no problems reading social cues later on.
c) Early reading, or early learning of any sort, doesn't cause inability to interact well socially. The idea that children who learn too much too early turn into humorless little bookworms who don't like to play is a myth.
Personally, I'd be more concerned about early TV-watching and video games leading to a sedentary lifestyle and subsquesent impairment of children's social skills (since they're more popular among many kids, and usually require only passive participation.)
d) Neither early reading nor too much TV/Xbox is going to somehow "make" a child autistic. It's an inborn neurological state. This article implies that early reading might somehow turn children autistic....a harmful and misleading statement with no scientific support.
I suppose all of us early-reading Aspies are the way we are because *sob* the books ate our little brains......LOL
The gist of what he's saying is good: don't ignore your child's other problems just because the child has high IQ.
There are a number of smaller nitpicks, such as calling Einstein, Mozart and Nash (who wasn't autistic but schizophrenic) aspies when there is evidence or consensus for it. Also, the idea that if you feel stuck at work, it's always entirely your own fault, and that IQ doesn't matter (it does; in some professions more than others, and not as much as some like to think, but it does, because it's an integral part of being a person).
Overall, though, it's sound advice.
Does schizophrenia not share some characteristics with autism in common?
Some, yes. I don't see how that makes Nash aspie.
It's simply saying that it would be in aspies' best interest to know social skills, as that, for better or worse, is what makes society tick.
Are you really saying one stupid article knows what's in an Aspie's best interest?
Some of us do not want social skills training--I agree, if it works, it would be useful. But the problem is I do not change myself to fit anyone else's idea of "sociable." That is fundamentally against my approach--I think people should be who and what they are.
You might then argue that successful social skills training would simply give you tools that you could turn on and off at will, and would not change you. But I digress.
It's simply saying that it would be in aspies' best interest to know social skills, as that, for better or worse, is what makes society tick.
Are you really saying one stupid article knows what's in an Aspie's best interest?
It is a general article, purporting to tell what is best, in general, for a certain group of people. Yes, you might find corner cases, but I agree completely that in general, knowing social skills is in the best interests of everyone, including aspies, because that's what you need to function in society. Even if you don't want social interaction yourself, others do, and even if you don't care about that, you need some social skills to be able to do what you do want to do.
So, no, I'm not saying one stupid article knows what's in an aspie's best interest. I'm saying one pretty wise article states some sound, commonsense advice that I pretty much agree with.
Some of us do not want social skills training--I agree, if it works, it would be useful. But the problem is I do not change myself to fit anyone else's idea of "sociable." That is fundamentally against my approach--I think people should be who and what they are.
But if no one ever adapted, we wouldn't be able to live together. We need to adapt. But I agree, in essence, that individuals should be allowed to be who they are. But I don't agree that they should be able to be who they are if it hurts others (I suspect you agree with me on that one). I also agree with the article author's claim that it's in your own best interest--to be able to be who you want to be, you must be able to communicate this clearly, and you must be able to function well enough to deal with compromises, because everyone must compromise, otherwise we cannot have modern society, or indeed any society working.
You might then argue that successful social skills training would simply give you tools that you could turn on and off at will, and would not change you. But I digress.
I don't believe that acquiring social skills that one doesn't have previously will compromise one's individuality or self. We all change every day--it's that we change in a good way, a way that doesn't go against who we want to be, that's important. Don't you want to live a happy, successful life, for whatever your metric of successfulness? There are only a scant few who are deliberately counterproductive, who deliberately sabotage themselves from achieving their goals, and they're pathologically ill.
It should be completely voluntery (Damn this confounded lack of Spellchecking!).
if you force someone into a group activity, when they feel they could do it better or quicker, or even just prefer to do it on their own,then you are going to breed resentment at best.
Why are you and I alone in our beliefs here, pikajedi4. I do not want social skills training and yet everyone says it is in my best interest. I do not agree with that idea, either, so tough luck for every practical person who claims to know better. I believe in using natural strengths to cover a bit for weaknesses; seems to work, in my opinion.
I don't think my social skills are that horrible anyway, I *was* a cashier for years (what a crappy job) so that says I can handle a lot of basic things. It's the anxiety that kills me, and I can do very little to stop that.
And I guess I might be seen as impractical, but I am not a great believer in conformity, either. Really, I say "stuff it." These contrarian attitudes will not help to make me successful, and honestly, they have affected my life very adversely. But really, this is how I am--this is WHO I am--and I will not bother to change it to fit anyone else's ideas or even to help myself.
Oh well--too bad. So I'm not a practical person.
I am SO glad that I didn't have to do group work in school when I was growing up. I feel for you Erkelos.
Group work was the reason I dropped out of college, to be honest. There wouldn't have been any way to get permission to work alone.
Communicating anything through any medium can certainly be considered "social skills". I just used speech as an example because it is probably the most familiar one for many people (it is the most familiar to me anyway, as someone who is not a writer/painter).
I do agree that we cannot depend on our IQ alone. I am certainly someone who has "faltered" as an adult.
However, I really question whether these so-called social skills can be taught. You can teach a child to say please and thank you, you can try to train them to make eye contact (as a teen I decided to train myself to make eye contact, and I can do it, but it's unnatural, I just stare through people without looking away). But can you really "teach" someone to be part of the crowd? Being part of the crowd is one of those pack mentality things that is up to the crowd, not the individual. I swear people just sense something in me that makes them know I am "other." If it is not an innate reaction, then I am sending out social cues so subtle I could never manage to "correct" them. It would be like trying to breathe with something other than my mouth.
It is true even for NTs that those with better social skills will get farther than NTs with lesser social skills. It's just not something you can teach beyond the rudimentary basics. You can't tell a person, "Okay, I'm going to teach you to be likable and before you know it, you'll be likable and you will get ahead." (Well self-help gurus claim that all the time, but they're charlatans.)
So I think the emphasis should be on THEIR acceptance of US. Not our trying to squish ourselves into a mold that will never fit us anyway.
Does schizophrenia not share some characteristics with autism in common?
Yes there are similarities, and sometimes a person with one will be misdiagnosed with the other, or they will be in a gray area so to speak between the two.
Not completely. There is always going to be some element of conformity on the job, and yes, that includes uncomfortable clothes (starched shirts, pressed clothes, shined shoes). But will not let the NTs off the hook.
On a similar note, how do women stand wearing thin, sleeveless dresses when it is freezing outside?
Yes, most men do wear shirts pressed with either your choice of either light, medium, or heavy starch. I don't know what the ladies all do for dry cleaning but they probably pay more.
You can loosen up, upbutton the top button, don't have to buy tight sizes. And good heavens no, haven't you heard of air conditioning? That's what is wrong with America, using most of the world's air conditioning because we dress up so warmly!
Maybe it is being so close to a major major world city, or the fashion sense that goes along with the politick (gee I will be glad when King George Bush II goes back to Texas and has a Welcome Home barbie back in Crawford)