This post really infuriated me. Am still trying to word my response. i wish
I could find a way to contact "Maribth kramer" and tell her what I really think of her efforts to "work" with her son.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-revi...centReview
0 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Not what I was hoping for, January 26, 2007
This book held a lot of promise for me. As the mother of a 7 year old son with autism, I was hoping to read about how these children started on the path of intervention and therapy at a young age, and had terrific outcomes. What I got was instead rather depressing. First, it is not an easy book to read. The author seems to get mired in side information, such as the use of the word "genius" for far too long, distracting from the stories of the lives of the characters.
While I know my son will live with autism for his whole life, we always hold out hope that some of the behaviors that manifest in his place on the spectrum will be outgrown. That did not seem to be the case for some of the people in this book. I was very disturbed at Andre and his use of puppets as an adult. I fully understand that as an autisic person, he needs to use whatever strategies he can to cope, and I have no judgement on him. I can only keep working with my own child to try to lead him out of these behaviors.
I would not recommend this book to parents of young autistic children. I think it has the ability to dash some of the hope we need to have.
i don't think these people need to wipe out these behaviors entirely, but instead help them learn to control themselves in public places. i do things that i would not think of doing in public and some of the things i do at my house, some would consider weird. i think teaching them to control that into something more productive as well as telling them which ones aren't good in public would be better instead of getting rid of his unique actions.
An adult using puppets. What a horrible, horrible tragedy.
Ok, let me get this straight, she doesn't recommend you read this book, because it tells the truth. If she had read a book that lied through it's teeth, would it have been a better buy?
The book for me confirmed what Kanner had recognised long ago: That a certain percentage of autistics thrive amazingly without any intensive intervention. I guess those people who see such intensive interventions as a sort of holy grail don't like to hear that at all...
Hmm, in fairness it's a human trait I'm coming to understand more recently as I keep crashing headlong into it this week... most people can't accept the world for what it is and need to lie to themselves to stop themselves going insane, whether that be a God to act a saftey blanket, a creation myth to help them wrap their minds around the compelxity of the universe, or believing an untruth because it's so much less painful than reality.
Of course,it's the equivalent of burying your head in the sand, but mainstream society seems to rely rather heavily on just that kind of behaviour to keep itself together.
I just can't decide if ultimatly it's damaging to let people live in that kind of fantasy world, or whether it's needlessly cruel to take that safety blanket away from them as long as it isn't hurting anyoen else...
"Does my *** look fat" is a trick question. The correct answer is "You're beautiful".
I think people should be told the whole truth about autism, though in a diplomatic manner: i.e., "Yes, he'll always be autistic; but he'll improve, probably learn to communicate, and can be happy just like anybody else." That sort of thing.
"Not hurting anyone" is bull, because it hurts the child. The difference between being molded into a faux-NT and being taught to cope with the world is a crucial one; and the "fantasy world" referred to can keep parents thinking they can "cure" their children, thus missing the valuable first years during which the child's mind can learn the aforementioned coping skills much more easily (before things like tantrums become the default reaction, for example).
I just can't decide if ultimatly it's damaging to let people live in that kind of fantasy world, or whether it's needlessly cruel to take that safety blanket away from them as long as it isn't hurting anyoen else...
I guess as long as they aren't hurting anyone, yeah leave them alone... BUT if they are the parent of an autistic child, their attitude is more than likely to hurt the child.
Well that is the obvious response, but sometimes you cause problems down the road.
For example, a die hard Christian, you leave them to their strange beliefs and respect that they need to believe that to keep themself sane. But a few years down the lane you find that same Christian petitioning to ban the teaching of Evolution and make the teaching of their beliefs as fact mandatory, in the process harming the development of dozens if not hundreds of children.
Sometimes if you give people room, they try and grab more of it. Which is why it;s more complex than it firsts looks.
As long as said die-hards are in the minority, then the democratic system takes care of their extremism--the same way as it takes care of leftist extremism. Since they are, in fact (even among Christians), the minority, there's no danger from them. Additionally, evolution and creation are both theories held by many, with some evidence for each viewpoint; many more believe that both should be taught in schools (along with Creation legends from other religions), usually in high school when children can make their own decisions. This is the moderate Christian viewpoint, and the one I hold... There is little danger to children from such a procedure.
That's the beauty of a republic... People pull on the extreme ends; and we end up somewhere in the middle. (A republic, rather than a pure democracy, slows the process and keeps fads or temporary emotional decision-making from resulting in permanent changes.) No wonder everyone--no matter what side they're on--is annoyed with the government! It is always too liberal for some, too conservative for others... but that's why it works.
Sorry but, now you've said there is evidence of Creationism you're going to have to explain that XD
There really isn't any at all.
Irreducable complexity still falls down at the last hurdle.
It attempts to disprove evolution scientificlly, which is absolutely fine, that's the point of science you test theories and see which comes out more solid, if the previous idea buckles then you have a new theory to look into, which is good.
Irreducable complexity is just a sophisticated God of the Gaps arguement, it goes at amazingly long lengths to disprove evolution. Then after all this excellent scientific sleuthing says:
"Seeing we can't explain the mechanism behind, it must be an external intelligence (A god or panspermia) that has done it"
Which is unscientific as hell and has no evidence (The absence of evidence for one theory doesn't prove another theory by default)
Confused. Is this an accidentally combined thread?
Anyway, I read the review, and I confess I agreed far more with the reply. The term "Not what I expected" speaks volumes in itself. Clearly the first reviewer began with unrealistic expectations.