09-01-2008, 03:11 PM
I see what they're trying to do, bit I do have some problems with the list:
1) They can't blanket that. Some people like person first, some don't. I don't. I say 'I'm aspie' in the same way I might say 'I'm white' or 'I'm a girl'. It might be better to emphasise that autism is only part of the person. They are an autistic person, but there is more to them. If there wasnt, then they'd just be walking autistic traits, and nobody is like that, so it's safe to say that auties have traits that are separate from their autism.
However, it seems that the logic behind the person first is to prevent people being underestimated because they're autistic. That's good, but it's better to realise that autistic people aren't stupid and can do well rather than pretend the autism isn't there.
2) OK, but it isn't all true in every case. People who know nothing of autism may think that every autistic child has ALL these different sensory problems.
3) Not sure I completely understand this, but it seems OK. Except for when it isn't relevant to the individual kid.
4) Maybe it's easier to just tell the kid what the idioms mean if he or she makes it clear that he/she doesn't understand? Good idea though. However, the 'idioms, puns, double meanings, sarcasm etc are lost on me' comment is a bit of a generalisation. Not every kid will have a problem with all of these.
5) Now, the big problem I have with this is the assumption that the 'Little Professor' types don't understand what they're saying. I suppose I was a Little Professor type when I was younger. (I know that technically Aspergers rather than Kanners, which is what the article is about, but the line between Aspergers and HFA is really blurred, so I think I'm an OK example) I didn't get the stuff I said from a 'stock', I spoke like an adult because I copied my parents' langauge rather than my peers'. Even now, at 14, I think like an adult and struggle to realte to people my age. I find the suggestion that this is only the case because I don't understand what's going on around me quite offensive.
6) Quite a good point. Most autistic kids are visually orientated. But again, not all.
7) Can't go wrong here. It would be better if parents did stop stressing over what their kids can't do and start focusing on what they can.
8) The first bit is OK- exceot for the fact that some autistic kids don't want to socialise and most won't want to join in with ball games if there's another option going. The second bit is wrong. People don't laugh because they don't know they aren't supposed to. They either laugh because they find it funny or because they get their reactions muddled up. If an autistic child laughs, it's a natural reaction like it is with others.
Also, don't teenage/adult NTs (and autistics, for that matter) often laugh or cheer if somebody makes a mistake, but I don't see anyone correcting them or trying to ban You've Been Framed.
The big problem with it is, basically, the sweeping generalisations. There is no common denominator to autism. Every kid will be different, and to speak of them as if they are all the same is probably damaging.
1) They can't blanket that. Some people like person first, some don't. I don't. I say 'I'm aspie' in the same way I might say 'I'm white' or 'I'm a girl'. It might be better to emphasise that autism is only part of the person. They are an autistic person, but there is more to them. If there wasnt, then they'd just be walking autistic traits, and nobody is like that, so it's safe to say that auties have traits that are separate from their autism.
However, it seems that the logic behind the person first is to prevent people being underestimated because they're autistic. That's good, but it's better to realise that autistic people aren't stupid and can do well rather than pretend the autism isn't there.
2) OK, but it isn't all true in every case. People who know nothing of autism may think that every autistic child has ALL these different sensory problems.
3) Not sure I completely understand this, but it seems OK. Except for when it isn't relevant to the individual kid.
4) Maybe it's easier to just tell the kid what the idioms mean if he or she makes it clear that he/she doesn't understand? Good idea though. However, the 'idioms, puns, double meanings, sarcasm etc are lost on me' comment is a bit of a generalisation. Not every kid will have a problem with all of these.
5) Now, the big problem I have with this is the assumption that the 'Little Professor' types don't understand what they're saying. I suppose I was a Little Professor type when I was younger. (I know that technically Aspergers rather than Kanners, which is what the article is about, but the line between Aspergers and HFA is really blurred, so I think I'm an OK example) I didn't get the stuff I said from a 'stock', I spoke like an adult because I copied my parents' langauge rather than my peers'. Even now, at 14, I think like an adult and struggle to realte to people my age. I find the suggestion that this is only the case because I don't understand what's going on around me quite offensive.
6) Quite a good point. Most autistic kids are visually orientated. But again, not all.
7) Can't go wrong here. It would be better if parents did stop stressing over what their kids can't do and start focusing on what they can.
8) The first bit is OK- exceot for the fact that some autistic kids don't want to socialise and most won't want to join in with ball games if there's another option going. The second bit is wrong. People don't laugh because they don't know they aren't supposed to. They either laugh because they find it funny or because they get their reactions muddled up. If an autistic child laughs, it's a natural reaction like it is with others.
Also, don't teenage/adult NTs (and autistics, for that matter) often laugh or cheer if somebody makes a mistake, but I don't see anyone correcting them or trying to ban You've Been Framed.
The big problem with it is, basically, the sweeping generalisations. There is no common denominator to autism. Every kid will be different, and to speak of them as if they are all the same is probably damaging.
)
