Exploring the boundaries of AS and autism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Defining Autism 

Differential Diagnosis of AS and HFA: Harder than it should be 

These links used to be on my main page, but they have been superseded by this article so strongly that I moved them here as a reference.  I think this article tops them both.  Even so, each of them contains information not presented here, so I thought they would still be worth having available. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been thinking about the AS-HFA dichotomy for some time, and I cannot find any compelling evidence that the two differ in any meaningful way.  Obviously, the lesser number of symptoms needed to satisfy the AS criteria means that the average person diagnosed as AS will be less significantly affected than someone with HFA, but that does not imply that the conditions are different.  Like anything else, autism varies in severity, from the BAP (broader autism phenotype) person, who has some AS-like traits but does not meet the requirements for AS or PDD-NOS, all the way to the low-functioning autistic, who is severely disabled by his condition.  AS, as best I can tell, simply represents the milder end of the spectrum, and all of the attempts to define differences and establish traits as indicative of one or the other condition miss that point.  I have attempted to define AS as a separate condition, as the diagnostic manuals seem to, but my attempts to find any compelling evidence for that theory have been fruitless. 

The way I would look at autistic spectrum disorders is to see each trait as being on a spectrum, from normal to very heavily affected.  As such, a person that is severely autistic will be on the severe end of the spectra for the various traits, and someone who is less affected, like an aspie, will be more toward the mild end.  Let me give some examples of these spectra.

<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 
Normal  Awkward but      Aloof but can   Mostly  Rarely interacts  Never interacts 
        desires friends  be social       aloof   with others       with others 
 
 

Self-stimulation 

<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 
Normal   Paces but   Rocks, paces   Rocks, paces,    Rocks, paces,  Rocks, paces, 
         not much    maybe          flaps a bit      flaps a lot    flaps, injures 
         else                                                       self 
 

Language delay 

<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> 
Precocious     Normal         Minor,              Clinically             No verbal 
language       language       clinically          significant             language 
development    development    insignificant       delay 
                              delay

Similarly, the trend for aspies to have average to above-average intelligence, whereas the majority of autistics are retarded, can be shown to be related to autistic traits that are more severe in the low-functioning autistics.  Specifically, it appears that the sensory integration problems, especially those regarding hearing, may be responsible for the lack of development of normal intelligence and speech in low-functioning autistics.  The relatively normal auditory and other sensory processing in very high functioning autistics and aspies is probably directly related to their often superior intelligence. 

As I hypothesize in my article Autism, Genius, and Greatness, I think that autism, when accompanied by normal or nearly normal sensory processing, is a cause of abnormally high intelligence.  It is well-known that the child's brain develops very much according to the usage patterns of its various subcenters.  Neural connections are made in such a way that they reinforce and strengthen areas of the brain that are exercised.  Absent the normal intuitive and social means to make sense of the world, the autistic child with minor sensory problems relies on analysis, trial and error, and logic to figure out what is going on around him.   This reinforces the developing analytical and logical parts of the brain, while allowing the social centers to wither from relative disuse.  The child with severe sensory problems cannot make sense of speech, and the world remains a jumble of confusing sounds and sights.  The brain cannot figure out what is going on by any means, and it overloads very easily.  This results in a chaotic pattern of neural development. 

With no distinct patterns of thought, the severely autistic brain does not develop logical or social abilities, and this lack of development occurs as long as the severe sensory problems exist.  In many autistic children, the sensory issues do clear up somewhat in a few years, and at that time the brain begins to make sense of speech and other sensory input.  The brain then begins to develop as it should have years ago, including the development of verbal abilities (receptive and expressive).  The neural development is most rapid in the first few years, though, and the chaotic neural patterns caused by severe sensory problems will tend to remain and underlie the belated verbal and intellectual development.  The longer it takes for the sensory problems to clear up, the longer the delay in receptive verbal development (and thus speech), and the greater the loss of potential intelligence.  As such, I propose that the sensory difficulties that come with more severe autism are the cause of the mental retardation that is so common in severely autistic people. 

Of course, there are exceptions to the inverse link between speech delay and intelligence (and verbal ability in later years).  In these cases, autistic (spectrum) people with high intelligence have a history of significant language delay.  I think that these delays were not caused by auditory processing problems.  It is likely that those people developed receptive verbal ability much earlier than expressive verbal ability, thus allowing the brain to develop much as if the child were verbal.  In these cases, the speech delay may be related to motor coordination difficulties rather than the inability to process auditory data.  As such, speech delay is not as useful in differentiating between AS and HFA as it seems.  A more useful measure would be the development of receptive verbal ability, which is much harder to measure. 

Asperger's Syndrome is normally defined as autism with preserved language skills, including a lack of significant language delay.  I think that the good language skills that define the condition are related to the high average intelligence of people with AS, as well as their relatively minor central auditory processing problems.  As I have hypothesized here, the lack of severe auditory processing problems, in the context of an autistic spectrum disorder, is causative of abnormally high intelligence.  The lack of severe auditory processing problems is also likely to result in normal acquisition of speech, if there are no motor or coordination problems present in the face, tongue, mandible, or diaphragm. 

It is, thus, quite clear that a less severe expression of the autistic condition in general will result in a very AS-like pattern of strengths and weaknesses.  A child with autistic traits but with minor sensory difficulties (including little or no central auditory processing problems) will tend to be unusually intelligent, develop receptive speech on schedule if not precociously, and will tend to be less "stimmy" and exhibit fewer stereotyped behaviors, since the sensory problems that cause such behaviors are less severe.  A child of this type will usually, but not always, develop speech on schedule, and will be more socially aware than more severely affected children, although the lack of understanding of social convention will make him awkward and clumsy in social attempts.  As he develops, the child will probably show the trademark pedantic speech of higher-functioning autistics and aspies, since his analytical, rule-oriented brain can better comprehend the stiffly structured formal language type than the more vernacularized social language type that normal people use most of the time.  His greater intelligence will cause him to be more obsessed with academic subjects than with parts of objects as is frequently seen in lower-functioning autistics, and his strong verbal abilities will allow him to give long monologues on the object of his interest. 

Now, if we took that same child and gave him severe sensory problems, he would develop much differently.  Unable to make sense of anything he sees or hears, the young child will be in a constant state of distress, and will act out with fits of screaming and possibly self-abusive behavior.  The social overtures made by his parents and by other adults will overstimulate a nervous system that is already on edge, and will make no sense to the child.  Severe auditory processing problems will prevent the child from developing an understanding of speech.  The child will exist in a nonsensical, frightening world as long as the sensory problems continue.  Years could pass by, and the child will still have no ability to understand language or to speak.  The constant stress of the jumble of stimulus from the senses will have caused a semi-permanent state of overload, which the brain uses to protect itself from excessive levels of input.  The child may show many forms of stimming, including self-injury, in an attempt to vent some of the stress from the confused senses.  The lack of any sort of ordered thought prevents the developing neurons from connecting in any meaningful way, and the child develops into what will be mental retardation. 

It appears that the core conditions of autism are deficits in social relatedness and restricted patterns of interest, which (not coincidentally) are the two areas of abnormality needed to diagnose AS.  I do not think communication impairments are really a core deficit in autism, although communication abnormality is needed for a diagnosis of autism to be made.  It seems that the only difference between AS and autism is one of severity of the condition, which includes sensory problems.  It appears that the sensory problems are the main factor in development of speech and intelligence.  The other factors, social relatedness and restricted patterns of interest, do not appear to be a function of the sensory problems.  Very intelligent aspies that had early speech and no detectable audio processing problems often show very profound social difficulties and tendencies to become obsessed with one topic or another.  It may well be that finding a way to mitigate the sensory problems will end low-functioning autism, which is a much more laudable goal than ending autism in general, which would have the effect of depriving the world of people like Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, and Thomas Jefferson. 

Since the primary difference between AS and HFA seems to be one of severity, I can see no reason why a separate diagnosis is warranted.   Outcome is usually better with those with AS, but that is related to the level of affliction with autism.  Those with HFA show better prognosis than those with LFA, too, but there is no clinical distinction between LFA and HFA.  They are both simply 'autistic disorder.'  Of course, 'AS' and 'autism' are synthetic constructs, so they can be defined any way we want to define them.  I am not sure what the use of that would be.  If we wish to have a three-tiered view of autism, which is how it already is with many doctors, then I would prefer that the existing criteria for AS and autism be scrapped, in favor of a new definition that fits all three.  The "breakpoint" between LFA and HFA is an IQ of 70; perhaps another breakpoint would be defined as "very high functioning autism," or something of that type, which would signify the contiguous, spectral nature of autism.  Having AS defined as if it is a separate condition, as it is now, makes no sense, and creates an artificial line for ignorant politicians to use as a limitation as to which children should be given assistance.  A more unified view makes much more sense. 
 

Aspie Advocacy 101

Ever since learning of AS, I have been an advocate for the autistic person and the autistic pattern of thought.  There are a lot of aspies that, sadly, share the NT (neurotypical, a fancy word that means "normal") view that being different is bad and shameful.  It is not innate in the autistic mind to be intolerant of people that are different... that is an NT trait.  I would love to see the day when such NT pollution is driven from our minds.  Unfortunately, as long as we autistic types are exposed to wholesale NT ostracism and medical doctors that use words like "dysfunction," "impairment," "disability," and "disorder" to describe our unique minds, we're probably never going to see that happen.  Still, I feel compelled to do what I can to spread the word that there is nothing wrong with thinking the way we do, and that we're actually better off than NTs in a lot of ways.  The single biggest "disability" we have is being such a small minority... so small that we can be mostly ignored by the populace at large, and so misunderstood that we can be written off as mentally incomptent.  As a result of this and the sad propensity of NTs to abuse and torture those that are not JUST like them, many or most aspies and other high-functioning autistics have, or have had, problems with depression. 

I don't dislike NTs... I am related to a number of them, and I get along with them just fine.  I only dislike individuals with whom I have had negative personal contact, online or otherwise.  I do not assume that I will dislike any person, NT or AS... nor do I assume I will like anyone.  People are individuals... even NTs.  Now, disclaimers out of the way, allow me to get a little muddy. 

I dislike the fact that NTs, unlike those of us on the spectrum, are neurologically programmed to maintain and defend a social order.  They are biologically programmed to learn and adopt a complex set of unwritten rules.  These rules are not innate within the NT mind...  they're a learned behavior, but the ability to learn them at a very young age and to adopt them fully is neurologically-based.  Those of us on the spectrum not only lack the ability to automatically determine what these rules are, but we also lack the ability to apply them appropriately and without thought.  Unfortunately, another innate NT trait is to enforce these rules, and to punish anyone that violates them.  This, presumably, served to keep groups of people cohesive back in the pre-civilization days.  However, from the perspective of one person on the spectrum, these NT traits have outlived their useful life.  I see them as vestigial remains of a less civilized existence.  However, they are as innate in the NT as our traits are in us. 

What this means to the average aspie is that there is a set of rules in place in society at large, and it is a set of rules that no one mentions but everyone is expected to know, and to obey.  NT people would have learned the rules as children, and incorporated them into their personae.  That's peachy for them, but it is no good for those of us that lack the "detective skills" to figure out what these rules are.  As can be expected, we violate these unknown rules from time to time.  The NT mind, designed to punish any such transgressions, will become angry at the violation, and the abuse will start.  This is innate; it is not about who the NT is, because all NTs are biologically programmed to maintain the social order by any means available.  Our problem is that we look enough like them that they (NTs) assume we are just like them, and treat us accordingly. 

The problem of ostracism is IMHO the biggest issue that aspies face in dealing with our difference.  We can try to educate NTs that we come in contact with frequently, but most of us that have tried this have noticed that many NTs are very resistant to the notion that we are not the same as them, and that we don't always come off the way we feel.  And certainly we cannot educate every NT we meet.  As you can see, contact with them is bound to get rough at times, given their programming to enforce the rules, and our ignorance of them.  The problem is compounded by the fact that we are very sensitive to criticism, and we can get emotionally hurt very easily... and the more hurt we accumulate, the lower our self-esteem and resistanc for the next attack.  Is it any wonder that so many of us are depressed, and put ourselves into a relative exile? 

It's a good thing that we require less social contact than NTs, because many of us (self included) spend a lot of time alone.  It's not that I do not like to socialize... I do, within safe parameters and when stress levels are low. I have no close IRL friends now, but when I was in college (where my weirdness was accepted), I was very social... I probably spent 5-10 hours a day with other people, often groups of four or five.  It was safe for me... no one attacked me for my weird aspie tendencies, and the "anything goes" atmosphere meant that the societal rules were at least relaxed. 

Anyway, most of us have to deal with living in a hostile NT world, and it is not easy.  Unless we completely isolate ourselves from NTs, which is not practical, we are going to feel the wrath of their enforcement attempts.  We can try to emulate NTs, and this can and does help to reduce the transgressions of the rules that trigger the attacks... but notice that I said "reduce" and not "eliminate."  Even NTs violate the rules fairly regularly, but they usually get back in line pretty quickly.  That leaves only one choice, and that is to develop "armor" against NT comments. 

At first, this concept seemed a little weird to me.  I went to a psychologist when I was in high school... he worked to break down the emotional walls I had erected to shield me from the abuse.  That was back in the mid to late 80s, which was before AS was well known... so the therapist never did figure out why I was different.  Now I am advocating erecting walls very much like the ones he tried to get rid of!  Well, let me try to explain why. 

That therapist had no idea what AS was.  He had no idea that my "weirdness" was a function of my biology.  Likely he thought that once those walls were removed, I would begin to heal and become more normal, thus negating the need for the walls.  Yes, I will heartily tell you that we would be emotionally healthiest if we lived peacefully with no walls at all... but that is not realistic in an NT world.  Without the walls, we will get pummeled by those around us... and that is less healthy than having walls. 

This is how I put it.  NTs have a biological drive to abuse us.  We have to assume from the beginning that any contact with NTs will result in abuse.  Be ready for it... expect it.  Don't be shocked if we are abused... be pleasantly surprised if we are not.  This does mean that NTs will be held figuratively at arm's length.  Be proud of who and what you are, and never forget the differences... which is not to say to dwell on them. 

The other part of my spiel is that I like (prefer) the way aspies think.   We have a lot of things of which we should be proud!  We tend to be more intelligent than the the norm, we're very honest, we're straightforward, we think logically, we use language precisely.  We don't play any of the insipid games that most folks play.  So many of us are unhappy... we hate who and what we are.  Most of this is a function of the ostracism as discussed above.  I love my good aspie features!  They make me who I am, and I like that regardless of what others think. I wish all of my kind would see it this way!  The AS is not going to go away, so we are going to have to deal with it one way or another. 
 

By the time you get to a page about advocacy, I would guess that you already know what Asperger's Syndrome is, and you probably know what the hardships are as well (especially if you are an aspie).  However, the problem goes a little deeper than that which is obvious, I think.  When I write of 'the problem,' I refer to the dislike that many aspies have for their affliction with Asperger's. 

Aspies have, by definition, difficulty relating to others.  We lack the ability to comprehend much of the nonverbal cues that convey a surprising amount of information among normal individuals.  As children, we lack the innate "detective skills" that allow us to automatically learn the unwritten rules that govern speech and behavior in normal individuals.  It is easy to see how we might inadvertently violate these unwritten rules when we don't even know what they are.  Unfortunately, the normal or "neurologically typical" person does not react well to seeing the rules violated, and they feel a powerful urge to coerce us into compliance with the rule. That works if you know the rules, but if you don't, it is abuse.  NTs do this automatically, and are generally unaware that they are doing it.  They become angry when one of the rules is violated, and they lash out at the violator.  They may ascribe all sorts of motives to your violation-- they might claim that you were being aggressive, arrogant, mean, or something else that would serve to justify their abusive reaction toward you. 

At any rate, the cumulative effect of all of this abuse is a loss of self-esteem.  If you are abused and in effect (or in fact) told that you are worthless enough times, you eventually start to think that all of these people could not be wrong.  After the loss of self-esteem, depression is sure to follow.  Almost all aspies experience depression at some point in their lives.  I don't mean being "down in the dumps" or unhappy-- I am talking about profound depression. 

It is my thought that most of the difficulty that aspies face in dealing with their AS is a function of this depression and the resultant low self-esteem.  After all, if one has good self-esteem, it would stand to reason that he likes himself, and that would include his AS.  Thus, I think it reasonable to conclude that depression is the primary problem.  If the depressed aspie is ever to be happy, the depression must be controlled.  This, in my own experience, hopefully will bring about a change in self-image, and accepance of the condition. 

Defeating depression is hard enough when one is normal, but aspies face an even harder battle.  The normal things that are suggested to help break the grip of the depression, like going out and being social, are less likely to work for aspies.  In fact, they may cause so much stress (and reinforce the 'fish out of water' feelings) that the person is worse than before.  Contrary to what many may think, aspies do desire to be in the company of others, but many have no idea how to do so with positive results.  This isolation only makes the depression worse. 

I wish I had some more answers, but I don't.  For me, the use of antidepressants (specifically, Zoloft and Paxil) has made a huge difference.  I don't know how (or if) I could have beaten it without them. 
 

Sad, Sad Aspies

As you well know by now, I am particularly bothered by the self-loathing attitude that many of my fellow aspies have.  It saddens me to see so many good, intelligent, wonderful people hurting so because they see themselves with NT eyes.  If you just stop and look at it objectively,  which I KNOW can be hard to do at times, you will see that having AS is not a curse... it is not a disease, and it is not a disability.  The depression it causes is certainly a disability, as is the post-traumatic stress, but I really do not see being different than the NTs as a disability.  Further, I see no benefit in considering AS a disability, unless of course you have a thing for being unhappy. 

I have been attempting to show my unhappy compatriots on the spectrum that AS can be a good thing, and that simply wanting to be 'normal' for its own sake is not necessarily something you want to do.  Some people confuse that with being hateful towards other people, which it most certainly is not.  Other times, though, AS people reject it out of hand, for it contradicts their preconceived notions of themselves. 

I recently entered into a thread over on Delphi with a woman that claimed that she was a misfit, that she was unwanted, and that she would never be able to work or amount to anything.  This same person has a web site with a few of her articles available.  In these articles, she seems to be an advocate for AS, but if you juxtapose that with her statements as paraphrased above, you begin to see that she feels the same about AS and the people with it as the NTs she claims do not want her around.  She wants desperately to be accepted, so she writes to the effect that AS people should be accepted as-is... but since that has not happened, she hates this condition that prevents her from being accepted.  Why someone would so desperately desire the love and affection of those that have made her feel like a useless misfit, I don't know. 

The woman I refer to is one of the more extreme cases of NT-eyes syndrome, as I will now refer to the phenomenon.  She views herself through NT eyes, even though she is AS to the core, and sees the rest of the world with AS eyes, much as we do.  I don't know specifically where this begins.  It might be with the psychological counseling industry, which itself does not accept autism as an acceptable thing to have.  It might just be the effect of all of the rejection over the years.  I know how this feels... at one point, I internalized the loathing others had for me too.  This is called "depression."  Most aspies have or have had problems with depression, and NT-eyes is a part of that. 

I attempted to tell her that there is nothing wrong with being nn aspie... that AS is not the disability she makes it out to be.  I will heartily admit that AS makes it harder to live in the world, dominated by NT norms and rules as it is, but it is by no means impossible.  She quoted some figure that 95% of autistics and aspies are unemployable.  Well, that's just nonsense!  I question where such a figure would be feasibly computed.  Many aspies are not formally diagnosed, or even diagnosed at all.  I don't mean to get into a statistics discussion, but you can use facts and figures to say anything. 

Now let me interject this: I myself have been unable to work in the past, and I am not too far from that now (I can't seem to get out of this nothing job).  However, that does not mean that it is the AS causing the problem!  This is the age-old dilemma of correlation vs. causation.  If I were to say that 95% of the homes of individuals with type I diabetes had insulin in them, the obvious conclusion that could be drawn would be that insulin causes diabetes! 

Depression is a horrible thing.  It's far more debilitating than a lot of people think... certainly more so than AS.  It's also nearly universal among our kind.  It's not hard to see why, given the abuse and ostracism we seem to attract.  Could this be why many aspies can't function in their daily lives?  Mmm... I think so!  Unfortunately, depression is a disease of the mind, and the mind can find ways to ensure that the depression is not removed.  If instead of blaming the depression, which is a tough but treatable mental illness, you blame a neurological condition, you've just made it permanent.  If you scream that you can't be happy as a person until the rest of the world accepts you, you have just taken any responsibility for yourself away from your own hands.  It's the rest of society that has to come to you, and there is nothing you can do to make that happen. 

Depression is a crafty, insidious enemy.  It is a destroyer, and it is self-perpetuating.  It makes you hate the very things that will help you... exercise, your favorite activities, social contact (well, that one may not be for us), et cetera.  It makes minor problems seem massive, and it eliminates your drive and your ability to cope with them.  And finally, it brings denial.  Denial that you have any value; denial that you can improve your lot in life; denial that things can ever be better; denial that depression is the cause of your problems as 
much as the result of them. 

Well, after my message to this sad woman, she says that I just don't understand.  What??  How do I not understand?  I am aspie myself, and I was severely depressed for the better part of a decade.  I don't understand.?  No, the problem is that I DO understand, and that goes against the self-defeating, self-perpetuating nature of the depression.  Depressives often resist efforts to get through to them... I know I sure did!  No one understands you; no one knows your pain.  Not even those people that *just* got done telling you that they've experienced it all themselves. 

Maybe it is a good thing that I was not diagnosed as AS when I was taken to the neuropsychologist back in 1986, when I was fifteen.  I was diagnosed with ADD, which is very common when the PDD aspects of AS are overlooked.  Maybe if I had entered the system back then, after years of indoctrination that I am broken and in need of repair, I would begin to feel as she does.  Maybe I am better off just thinking I was the weird (but still fully capable) guy.  I wonder how much damage the psychology industry does to us versus the amount of actual help we receive. 

I think it is impossible to be happy when you hate a part of yourself... and AS is a part of us.  It's not like a rind on a watermelon, with the nice, sweet stuff in the middle, if only you can cut away the hard, bitter shell.  It is more than what we have; it is a big part of who we are.  It's like we are a different species from the NTs.  You can't strip away the elephant and come away with an armadillo, and you can't strip away the AS and come up with an NT.  If you transformed that elephant into an armadillo somehow, the elephant would be lost.  Let me be even more blunt.  An aspie that wants to be cured is, in fact, suicidal.  To remove the aspie is to kill that person.  I hate to see my kind wish to destroy themselves rather than accept AS for the gift that it is. 
 

The Roots of Abuse

A good, smart mother of an AS child wrote: 

> She too always read two to three grade levels above her current grade. 
> The teachers always complained that she wouldn't "share her reading skills 
> by reading out loud to the class".  I know why now, she didn't want to do it 
> publicaly. 

My reply: 

And she is very wise to be reluctant.  As a youngster, I was one of only two children ever to finish the entire reading textbook series, which ended in level sixteen.  The other student was far slower at reading than I (I pass "speed reading" tests, but have never had any training in speed reading), and with lower comprehension.  Additionally, I was in every gifted program the school district offered. 

Teachers loved me, and I suppose they tried to use me as an example to inspire the other kids.  Let me tell you, it failed miserably.  What it did was create a sense of resentment and elitism that only exacerbated the negative feelings the other kids had about me.  Beyond that, I never, ever got in trouble.  It was simple for me... the rules were the rules, and you did not question them.  The other kids violated them regularly, and they were sanctioned accordingly. 

It was surprising to me that the other kids blamed the teacher for disciplining them, because to me it was very clear that violations of the rules would bring consequences.  So, in their minds, the fact that I never got any sort of punishment (which to them was something beyond their control) meant that I was some sort of favorite... thus reinforcing the idea the others had that I somehow fancied myself as better than them.  Never mind that I had absolutely nothing to do with the rules or their enforcement... nor did I have anything to do with the teacher's decision to continually wave my abilities in front of the class like a matador's cape before a bull.  I actually wished that they would just let my achievements pass silently. 

There are many ways that NT kids enact their own social hierarchy, and it is different for boys and girls.  Neither gender, though, uses academic achievement or intelligence as a means to get ahead.  For boys, popularity is predicated primarily on two things, I think: athletic ability and the ability to dominate, abuse, and humiliate others.  I think girls value beauty and appearance more than athetic ability.  Either way, though, getting the approval of the teacher is not going to improve a child's treatment by his or her peers.  Challenging authority, at least with boys, is seen as a "cool" behavior. 

NTs are much like any other social animal, really.  Think of wolves... the alpha male rules the pack, and the other males maintain a pecking order under the alpha. The way to move up is to show courage or strength.  Challenge the alpha and you are respected more by the lower levels, even if the alpha himself does not appreciate it.  If a wolf dominates (abuses, beats up, humiliates) another, he is feared more by the other wolves, who are less likely then to challenge him or to resist him.  Thus, the bully wolf moves to a higher level of prestige... and he can do this even without overt challenges to higher level wolves.  If he dominates enough lower-order wolves, he is considered fearsome enough to get the higher level almost automatically.  Showing any kind of compassion, which would even include ambivalence toward the weak, is a sign of weakness, and too much of that will lower your standing. 

It's a sad state of affairs, but aspie kids are almost universally going to be abused by NT kids.  There has to be a TON of adult intervention and 100% supervision to protect the kid.  Not being accepted is painful enough, but being ostracized and living the whole school year in fear of sudden, unprovoked physical or verbal attacks is horrible and is one of the big reasons that almost all aspies have problems with depression.  You can't force the other kids to accept your child, but you can protect them from the abuse, at least in theory.  In practice, school officials do not want to help, and they would much rather deny that a problem exists than have to take action to fix it.  And this supervision must be transparent with regard to the unpopular kids!  If the other kids realize that there is one particular kid that is being protected, they will target this kid that much more.  And by NO MEANS should an unpopular kid EVER do anything that would get him/her labeled as a "rat."  That violates the "code of the playground," and it will make even the kids that do not know the child hate him or her.  The abusers' opinion of the "rat" will turn from dislike to hatred, and the abuse will get much worse. 

It's daunting, and probably it will not be possible within the context of a public school.  I was taught not to fight... you know the speech: "Civilized people talk things out.  Fighting never solves anything." Blah, blah, blah.  So I didn't fight.  I was caught completely off guard the first time I was assaulted, and fighting back never even occurred to me.  You can't reason your way out of an unreasonable attack.  I did what my mother had told me to do: I told an authority.  Like I said above, that was a HUGE mistake.  The authorities do nothing to the abusers, and next time the attacks are worse.  After a while, I learned that my mother was no help (she just told me to go tell someone), the school officials were no help... and I already knew that I was not to fight.  So I just shut up and became a punching bag (among many other creative ways to torture a child) for several awful years. 

Parents... all this stuff starts in earnest when your child leaves the structure of the "one teacher all day" setting of elementary school and goes to the middle school/junior high format.  In my district, as in most, this starts in the seventh grade.  Be ready for it.  The PTSD and depression may haunt the child for a decade (as in my case) or longer. 
 

Something is Wrong Here

I intend to expand greatly upon the issues I raise in this article... this is just a framework of what is to come.

I've seen the kind of hatred that people can have for autistic types, and it is that knowledge that has made me want to become an advocate for my kind.  Since my headlong leap into the online autism community, I have learned of even more horrifying and senseless abuses of autistic people of all types, including torture with dangerous (and totally useless, as far as autistics go) neuroleptic drugs and other forms of abuse at the hands of psychiatrists that think (or at least claim) they are helping.  Some of these treatments have caused brain damage and death in people like me.  Let me tell you, every time I hear of one of my kind being abused for nothing more severe than being who he or she is, I get angry... I get a tightness at the back of my throat, a sickness in the pit of my stomach.  I am getting very tired of that feeling lately! 

If you do not already know, there is a LOT of torture and deprivation of basic civil rights going on against people on the autistic spectrum.  No more, I say!  No more tolerance of bullying in schools, or in the workplace.  No more institutionalization of fully capable human beings that happen to be a little eccentric.  No more neuroleptic (anti-psychotic) drug regimes for autistics.  No more aversives or restraints.  No more LOVAAS or other means of torture that are supposed to make us act like normal people (which we are lucky enough not to be).  No more eugenically-oriented advocacy groups like CAN ("Cure Autism Now.")  No more using AS as an excuse for the child abusers at CPS to destroy families.  Most NTs and many autistics cannot see how destructive many of our "friends" as listed abovc really are.  There is a crisis here, and it is not going to be fixed by making us seem normal or by selectively aborting likely autistic fetuses (which is not an illogical progression of the CAN agenda).  It's a crisis of intolerance and hatred. 

We are people, we are real, and we have a right to exist.  We are not defective, we are not in need of a cure, and we do not need to be told what is best for us.  Behind the behaviors that NTs see as weird or inappropriate, you will find that a great many of us have very intelligent, very lucid minds, and we do not need anyone to try to change us.  If you want to help us overcome the huge number of obstacles erected by NTs, we certainly will appreciate your effort.  Don't confuse this with us being anything less than worthy of treatment as your equals.  We may not be that good at functioning in your NT world, with all of its NT rules and expectations of NT conduct, but you would do just as poorly in a world where we represented 99.5% of the population.
 

An Aspie's Advice to Parents of Aspie Kids

Before I begin, let me give you a little bit of background so you know exactly what my "qualifications" are (and are not).  My name is Frank, and I am a thirty-year old aspie male.  I do not have kids, and at this time I do not plan to have any.  Despite my non-parent status, though, I think I have some insight to offer to parents of AS children.  In the year or so that I have known of AS, I have learned quite a bit on that topic, and I have had the privilege of communicating with many other aspies online.  Some of them are living relatively normal lives, with a spouse and kids, and some are living on SSI or other forms of welfare, unable (or convinced thy are unable) to work.  I fall somewhere in the middle... I am employed, but as someone that probably would qualify for Mensa, I am very much underemployed.  The job I do is a relatively low-stress, low-responsibility job that I can do half-asleep, and that is the reason I am able to deal with the strain. 

Like most (if not nearly all) aspies my age, I was never diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum as a child.  Until very recently, everyone thought that autistics were uncommunicative, mentally retarded lost souls that just sat and rocked all day.  That's the stereotype for low-functioning autistics, which are the most common  of the classic Kanner-type autistics.  Certainly no one would diagnose a bright, talkative child as being autistic... and the more specific diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome did not gain notoriety in the western world until around 1990.  AS was not included in the DSM (psychiatrist's diagnostic manual) until 1994.  Thus, aspies like me grew up with no special consideration at all, and with no AS-related treatment or counseling. 

I always knew I was different, since about the third grade.  Starting in the seventh grade, I began to be the target for more adolescent abuse than most people would ever care to imagine.  I never knew why I was always singled-out as a target... I really tried to be nice to everyone, and it just did not work.  That ostracism tore apart my self-esteem, and by the time I graduated from high school, I had adopted the idea that I was a worthless piece of refuse.  Those years are such a bad time to have this sort of thing happen... it is right at that time when kids are trying to fit in and find their place in the group.  Well, it is not surprising that I suffered through the better part of a decade in a deep depression.  Although I still struggle with issues of self-confidence and motivation (I still have no ambition at all), the depression is finally under control (at least as far as the dysphoria is concerned) due to the wonders of modern pharmaceuticals.  It is this experience that has allowed me to see something that is really quite obvious, but somehow rarely mentioned: Depression is THE primary disability for aspies. 

There are a lot of aspies that say they cannot work, and I don't doubt that to be true.  Every single one of them I have spoken to (well, typed to) has also been very depressed.  Depression is a very real, very powerful disability that can and does make it impossible for so-affected individuals to function in any meaningful manner.  It's too easy to blame the AS itself and to overlook the role of the depression in making daily life impossible.  The AS causes ostracism, which causes a loss of self-esteem, which causes depression, which causes disability.  Cut off the depression and the disability goes away too.  It's hard, but it has to be done.  And if my own experience is any indication, the recovering depressive will find that he is more resistant to the kind of abuse that caused the depression in the first place.  You really do come out of it stronger.  Even so, it is an uphill struggle, and the after-effects can last a long time... maybe a lifetime.  It's a much better idea to prevent it in the first place. 

Now I am not going to try to tell anyone that it will be easy for a non-depressed aspie in the work world.  It won't be.  Every office has the whole office-politics thing, and aspies by nature do not play that game.  We always end up being the losers in social-positioning games.  Further, we don't relate to others the way that we are expected.  There's such a big emphasis on the "team player" stuff, and we can never measure up to NTs in that regard.  I will admit that it is harder for us, and that there are less options.  We will, by and large, be at low levels for the duration of employment at any given site.  This is NOT because we are disabled, impaired, or in any way incapable.  It's because it is an NT world, and they make the rules to suit themselves, and almost no one is going to give us a break because we are different.  On the other hand, we are natural innovators, and we make great entrepreneurs.  We have to be realistic in our expectations of what we will and will not be able to do. 

Now, let me dig into the causes of depression for aspies.  Well, obviously, anything that causes a normal kid to become depressed can do the same to an aspie kid.  That does not explain, though, the near 100% incidence of depression in aspies.  In a nutshell, aspies are depressed because they believe that they are defective people... unwanted misfits that people wish would go away.  This certainly was the case for me!  There are only so many times you can be told that you are worthless garbage before you begin to believe it.  After all, could all of those people be wrong?  (Answer: YES!) 

From what I understand, my own experience is absolutely typical of aspie boys in regular schools.  It starts in the seventh grade, because that is the first year that the structure and control of the "one teacher all day" class environment is dumped in favor of the "change classes every 45 minutes" pattern of middle/jr. high and high school.  There are literally hundreds of opportunities for mean kids to attack their classmates in a single school day, and they get away with it 99% of the time.  I wish I could suggest an easy way to end the abuse, but I don't know that there is one.  The school officials will NOT want to help you... oh, sure, they'll give lip service... "We don't tolerate abuse at all..." but when the rubber hits the road, it is all talk.  Encouraging your unpopular child to report abuse to school authorities is a bad idea, because the bullies just hate the "rat" that much more, and the abuse gets worse.  Trust me; I've been there. 

The only thing I can offer is to teach the kid to defend himself, and to ignore the rules against self-defense.  In my school, the bully and the victim were both punished equally if the victim tried to defend himself.  I knew this, and I followed the rules.  I just stood there and took my beatings as the school officials pretended they did not notice ("Boys will be boys," they say... "They have to learn to settle their own differences."  That's what they are thinking as they stand there and let bullies ruin your aspie kid's life.)  I am truly sorry that I have nothing better to offer than that, but a mainstream school is just going to remain a hostile environment for autistic kids of any flavor.  It's worse if your child is small or uncoordinated, which make effective self-defense harder, if not impossible.  Home-schooling is a good idea, if you're up to the challenge. 

Bullies are not the only source of depression for aspies.  Unfortunately, the other is much more insidious, and the damage may be more pervasive.  It's the psychiatrist that you think is helping your kid!  Most of the psychiatric industry operates from an assumption that normal is good and everything else is bad, and that everything else should be eliminated.  They use words like "dysfunction" and "impairment" to talk about your child's aspie traits.  Rarely do they focus on the good points... and there are a lot of reasons to be happy you have AS.  You would never know that from the way that most shrinks talk, though.  I am not saying that all of them are bad, but you have to be aware that the likelihood is high that the doctor can make things worse as he tries to help. 

AS and other forms of autism cannot be cured, and even if they could, the person being "fixed" would be gone.  There is no normal person inside the aspie, waiting to be set free.  The aspie characteristics go all the way to the core.  It can't be stripped away.  What good does it do to have a doctor make your child hate his autistic condition when there is nothing that can be done about it?  This certainly is not the intent of the medical community, but it happens anyway, and with alarming frequency.  When a person hates the fact that he is autistic, he hates what he is and who he is.  That's not a recipe for a good life!  There is so much that is good about AS, but so many people just refuse to see that. If your child's therapist or psychiatrist is one of them, find another. 

There are some treatments designed to help aspie kids fit in, and I do not hold a high opinion of them.  They basically teach the kids to suppress their natural selves, and to act like the NT that everyone wishes that they were.  I've talked to a number of aspies that live behind such a facade, and they tell me that it is very stressful and demeaning.  Nothing like having to hide who you really are all day, every day, right?  Anyone want to guess whether these kids start to think that their natural autistic state is bad and shameful?  These are not going to be happy kids.  They'll be self-conscious, living behind a lie, afraid to show who they really are.  It's a bad deal. 

Now do not get me wrong... I am not against teaching aspies and auties some simple "tools" to deal with living in an NT world, but it MUST be made clear that these are just tools to deal with having to live in a hostile world in which aspies are seriously outnumbered, and NEVER should the child be allowed to get the idea that being himself is bad, shameful, or unacceptable.  We (aspies) are different, NOT bad, NOT inferior, NOT broken.  That message has to be repeated... make sure it gets through.  Treat AS as a gift, not a disability.  If you don't know what the good points of AS are, please have a look at some of my other articles.  If your child is seeing a psychiatrist, be sure that the doctor only intends to help the child deal with living in a world that is not his own, and not to try to "fix" the child in any way.  Being a "fish out of water" is hard enough!  Please humor me even if you yourself wish your child could be "fixed" and made normal... it is not going to happen, and if you try, you will make things worse.  People can and do live happily with AS, but no one lives happily with a sense of self-loathing. 

That brings me to some suggestions as to what you should, and should not, do.  Don't try to suppress your child's autistic behavior... things like like pacing, flapping hands, rocking, obsessing on one thing, et cetera.  In a calm, rational, logical manner, you can explain why the child should curb such behaviors when in public places, but don't punish the child if he slips and does something embarrassing.  He really is not trying to embarrass you!  He is far too wrapped up in his own needs to even consider that you have feelings too.  Do allow your child to have "alone" time each day, if he so desires, and do allow him to stim when he needs to.  These are natural, real needs for autistic people, and stifling them will make your child seek more extreme ways to release stress. 

Aspie kids, by the way, respond best if you tell them exactly why they must, or must not, do certain things.  Be specific with your reasons, and make them as concrete as possible.  The perennial favorite "Why? Because I said so" is not likely to work.  That may work on NT kids (although not always that well) that understand social hierarchies, but aspie kids are more logical, and do not respond as well to pure domination.  Yelling is even less likely to work... it is likely to put the kid in overload, or even cause a meltdown.  Calm and rational is the order of the day.  Very often, you will find that your child's "rebellious" or "bad" behavior is not motivated by any sort of malice at all!  It might just be the autistic child's natural way.  Remember, your ways are just as bizarre and unusual to him as his are to you... but he does not have the benefit of your years of life experience. 

In short, and I repeat this point to emphasize its importance, you really need to be careful that the aspie kid is never given the impression that there is anything wrong with having AS.  Not from his peers, not from his doctors, not from you or other relatives.  Jealously guard the notion that AS is a good thing, and that most people just do not understand.  If the child can grow up with self-image intact, he will be much better able to deal with the stresses of real life.  Yes, it is true, the kid does need to learn how to deal with the world at some point, but that time is not until the mid-20s at the earliest, IMO, for an aspie.  No 18-year old is really mature enough to deal with life, but an aspie does not usually reach a similar level of maturity until about 25. 

I cannot overstress how easy it is for an aspie kid to lose self-esteem and get depressed.   It is much easier for aspies to get depressed than NTs, and look how many depressed NT kids there are.  That depression is the cause of most of the inability to deal with life that so many aspies display.  And it sure makes more sense to prevent the depression than to try to cure it later!  It's a very real concern, and it is almost universal among aspies. 
 

Ewis Eno: An Allegorical Tale

There once was a race of beings from a planet far from Earth.  Somehow, the gene pool of these aliens had been polluted, and the species was dying off.  The scientists of the planet decided that what they really needed was a shot of some fresh DNA, which had been lacking for scores of generations.  Unable to find the much-needed fresh blood on their own planet, one alien, by the name of Ewis Eno, decided to lead a space voyage to search the galaxy to find genetically compatible beings to provide the fresh DNA to save their species.  After a number of volunteers were recruited to form the crew, the ship departed, and the search was on. 

Ewis Eno and his crew encountered many different species on the trip, but none proved to be compatible.  The quest continued for years, and many of the crew members were growing discontent with the search, and had given up on finding a genetic match.  "They're aliens from different planets," said one crew member. "What are the chances that we will actually find a compatible being?" 

"Better than you think," replied Ewis Eno.  "Have you not noticed the similarities?  That they are bipedal, as we are, and that we all look somewhat similar?  The theory is that we had a common ancestor that travelled the skies, much as we are doing right now.  We may yet find a match." 

The ship continued for several more weeks before coming upon a pretty blue and white planet, the third of nine orbiting a common yellow star.  A quick scan revealed a multitude of life forms on the planet, including billions that roughly resembled Ewis Eno's people... two hands, two feet, et cetera.  "I have a good feeling about this," noted Ewis Eno, always perceptive seemingly beyond his senses.  He sent down a team to recover DNA samples from the aliens from the blue planet.  It was not difficult, as the beings left flakes of skin and other particles wherever they went.  The natives never even noticed Ewis Eno's people. 

The samples were quickly taken to the lab, where the discovery was soon made that the DNA of the blue-planet aliens was indeed fully compatible with Ewis Eno's people.  Excitedly, Ewis Eno gathered the crew and made the announcement.  "My friends, we have found a species compatible with our own.  But before we get too excited, we must first examine their culture and their ways of life to see if the resulting offspring will be genetically compatible with our culture and our way of life.  We don't want to save our species just to see the millennia of progress eroded in a few generations.  So I will break you into groups... study these blue-planet aliens, and don't let them know you're doing so.  We must observe them acting as they normally would.  Report your findings to me daily, and when I have enough data, I will make my decision."  With that, the crew commenced to study the blue-planet aliens. 

After the first day of collecting data, Ewis Eno noticed that the blue-planet aliens, which Ewis Eno had learned called themselves "humans," came in many different forms.  Some had brown skin, some had lighter skin. Facial features were different from region to region.  Some were larger than others.  But under all of those different aesthetic characteristics, it was obvious to Ewis Eno that the individual underneath was still the same.  There were cultural differences, but it was obvious that these were merely a function of the environment.  Those would not make any difference to the offspring that would be raised on his world.  No, it was only the genetics that mattered to Ewis Eno. 

Days later, a small bit of data that Ewis Eno initially overlooked caught his eye.  There was a small group of blue-planet aliens that were a little different than the rest.  Fascinated, Ewis Eno instructed some of his crew to gather data pertaining to the differences between the relatively rare variants and the more typical humans. 

Soon Ewis Eno began to receive the data he requested.  He decided to call one group the "uncommon humans," and the other would be the "common humans." 

"Fascinating," said Eno.  "Many of the uncommon humans are not aware that they are fundamentally different than the common humans.  They all live together, even though they often don't get along very well.  The uncommon humans come in as many sizes and colors as the common humans, too." 

The first big thing Ewis Eno noticed about the uncommon humans was that they were generally more intelligent than the common humans.  Their logic skills were excellent, and they paid a great amount of attention to detail.  The uncommon humans had a strong preference for accuracy and precision, and it showed in the way that they spoke and wrote.  Ewis Eno noticed that the speech from the common humans was full of incomplete thoughts, partial truths, hidden meaning, and outright lies.  Often it appeared that what the common human was trying to say was at odds with the actual meaning of the words themselves.  Further, the common humans seemed to talk in a brief way, with much of the meaning left out, with the intent that the listener would fill in the missing pieces.  "Bizarre," mused Ewis Eno.  "How can the common humans communicate effectively when the actual meaning is so well camouflaged?" 

By comparison, the uncommon humans were very direct and precise in their speech.  There was no camouflaged meaning... what was said was what was intended.  The uncommon humans showed no tendency to lace their communications with lies or misleading statements.  "Much more precise," noted the alien. 

Ewis Eno noticed that the uncommon humans had less of a tendency to congregate in groups than the common humans.  "The common humans seem to require frequent contact with other humans, or else they become very unhappy," noted the wise alien.  They seemed to be very dependent on others for their own happiness.  He also noted that the common humans sometimes had a difficult time getting adequate sensory stimulation to keep their brains satisfied.  They often had to invcnt activities, usually with no practical purpose whatsoever, to give their brains the needed stimulus.  "The uncommon humans, though, seem to get the stimulus they need just from daily living," noted Ewis Eno. "That's much more logical than having to invent otherwise useless activities to achieve the same end." 

It soon became apparent to Ewis Eno that the common humans seemed preoccupied, even obsessed, with maintaining a social hierarchy.  Nothing in life was as important as climbing in the social ranks.  "Much like those animals that the humans call 'wolves,'" remarked Ewis Eno to himself.  "They are constantly jockeying to be the next to be promoted to a higher level of social status."  In the schoolyards, the kids had several levels of "coolness," and almost all of the kids spent an inordinate amount of time, to Ewis Eno's way of thinking, trying to be "cool" or popular enough to move to a higher level.  In the workplace, Ewis Eno saw the same phenomenon, but then it was called "office politics."  The jobs for which the common humans were hired meant less to each of them than this constant scrambling to be the next to be promoted. 

Ewis Eno was very disappointed to see that the common humans only wanted to do as much as required to get by on the job, and that the only incentivc to do a passable job was to impress others.  They seemed to be more prone to back-biting and attacking those humans that did a better job than they did, rather than to do a good job themselves.  They would lie, cheat, and betray supposed friends.  "How crude and primitive," noted Ewis Eno. 

By contrast, the conduct of the uncommon humans was notable.  They did not compete by trying to destroy their closest competition.  In fact, they really did not compete at all.  They just did the job for which they were hired, and they did the best they could.  There was no thought of popularity or the social order... it was all about the job at hand.  "Commendable," noted Ewis Eno.  There was no jealousy or concern about others being promoted ahead of themselves.  They just did their job diligently and to the best of their ability.  Often, though, this meant that they were easy victims for the sneakier of the common humans.  In fact, the common humans often victimized the uncommon humans... and not just in the workplace. 

Ewis Eno became rather upset when he learned how often the uncommon humans were abused by the common humans.  He noted that the common humans often abused anyone that was different from themselves.  Common humans of different colors often did not get along, for example.  This puzzled Ewis Eno.  "Can't they see that they're really the same?  Even the animals they keep as companions, which they call dogs and cats, recognize and accept other members of the same species, even if they look different."  The uncommon humans, to Ewis Eno's watchful eye, did not exhibit the abusive behavior. 

It was also obvious to Ewis Eno that the common humans had a strong tendency toward following the crowd.  There was always some trend or some sort of fad that all of the common humans seemed to want to follow.  Even the words that the common humans used were subject to the trends of that moment.  They generally restricted their interests, and the expression thereof, to subjects and times when other common humans thought it was acceptable.  "They're hive-minded, like a colony of bees," noted Ewis Eno.  "They often think as if they were drones, not individuals."  He noted that a disproportionate number of the innovators in human society were actually uncommon humans. 

"Well, that's all of the data," said Ewis Eno to himself.  It was time to decide from which group of humans he would draw the much-needed DNA to save his species.  Which group would he choose? 

Which group would you choose, if you were Ewis Eno? 
 

My Position on ABA (Applied Behavioral Analysis)

Warning: I made no effort to subdue my autistic bluntness on this one.  Some people are going to be offended.  If you read on despite this warning, please remember that you have been warned.  Any abusive email sent to me based on this article will be passed around and goofed upon. 
 

ABA is a type of intervention strategy (I am reluctant to call it 'therapy') used to assist some autistic children to overcome their impairments.  In this paper, I intend to discuss my opinions of this strategy, when I think it may be appropriate, and (more importantly) when it should not be used.  I will not go into any in-depth description of ABA; such information is readily available on the net, and can be easily found with any search engine. 

ABA, in connection with autism, is often associated with Dr. O. Ivar Lovaas, the originator behind the notorious Lovaas method.  Lovaas has claimed that autistic children that successfully undergo his treatment will be "indistinguishable from their peers."  His pioneer work included the use of aversives, which is a euphemistic way of saying punishments, for "undesirable" behaviors.  Most ABA today supposedly does not use aversives, but it is still morally questionable in my mind.  For one thing, I don't see most autistic behaviors as being particularly "undesirable."  The use of that term as such implies that normality is good, and that all else is pathological; all that is not normal has no right to exist and must be extinguished immediately, in other words.  I find that reprehensible, and I am personally insulted that Dr. Lovaas and his minions find me and some of my behaviors as "undesirable." 

One of the things that the ABA folks consider undesirable is stimming, which is short for self-stimulation.  This can take the form of hand-flapping, uttering noises, running a blanket or piece of cloth between the fingers, et cetera.  These things serve to give the autistic person a specific kind of sensory stimulus that he needs at that moment.  The complaint about stimming that ABA people have is that it is abnormal (and therefore bad), and also that it detracts from the person's need to relate to others, by providing sensory stimulus that normal people presumably get from socializing.  The implication of the latter point is that an unusual means to get the necessary stimulus is incorrect, and the child must be forced to use more conventional means.  In practice, this is precisely what they intend to do.  They will often withhold a favorite stimulatory object, and not allow the child access to it until he has showed some "desirable" behaviors.  Anyone thinking of a trained seal with a ball balanced on his nose?  I am.  By denying the child his most efficient means to get the needed sensory input, they are in effect coercing the "desirable" behaviors out of him.  I do not see this as morally defensible at all!  It's no different than denying a prisoner of sleep, while he sits in a darkened room with a light in his face, until he gives in and confesses.  We generally hold coercion to be unacceptable in this society, even if the desired end is socially acceptable, but the general populace is unconcerned about such things when they are done to "abnormal" people, who presumably deserve such treatment.  Stimming may be unsightly to the NT hordes that seem to think that their majority allows them to arbitrarily define which harmless behaviors are acceptable and which are not, but it is a part of what makes autistics what we are, and no one has the moral right to force us to stop, or to use our needs as a tool to force us act more like them. 

I question the motives of any person that thinks that a cure or an amelioration of a child's autism is a good thing.  This includes the parents that wish for a cure for their child.  What that says to me is that they wish that their child would go away, and be replaced with a new, better, improved, less defective child-- one that that acts and thinks more like they do.  Such a parent may answer by telling me of the extreme difficulty their autistic child is having, and a cure would eliminate that strife.  My response?  Sure it would, and so would killing the child.  Is an end to the difficulty all that is desired?  Perhaps more cogently, WHOSE difficulty, precisely, are we talking about?  That of the child, or that of the parent that is unable to accept that he/she has a child very different than was expected?  Is the child having difficulty in general, or is he having difficulty because he is forced to live in your world, which is foreign to him? 

That said, I am not against giving the child the tools to live in this world.  I am not against teaching the child to communicate his needs when he cannot.  I am not against helping the child!  That does not mean that I am in favor of molding the child in your own image, just so you can deal with his presence more easily.  There is nothing wrong with being autistic, and there is nothing wrong with having an autistic child.  There is something wrong, though, with trying to quash the unique individuality and purity that autistic children have, and carry into adulthood IF you let them.  Teach the child to live in the world, just as you would teach a normal child to live in the world.  The methods you must use to do so may be different than those you would use with a normal child, but that is OK.  Do that, but do not try to make the child into something he is not.  There are all sorts of "success" stories floating around on the net, about parents that have "cured" their child's autism by means of early and intense intervention, but don't believe everything you hear.  The parents may be happier with their trained seal, NT clone children, but I have serious doubts about whether such a child will remain happy as the social demands on him increase.  I received no intervention at all, and I was quite happy being autistic (highly functioning, undiagnosed until adulthood) until I was in the seventh grade.  That's when it all "hit the fan" for me.  Don't fool yourself-- an autistic child that is trained to act normally is still autistic. 

Some people will still try to justify trying to normalize the child.  They may state, correctly, that it will be tough to grow up being different.  They may observe that normal people won't accept someone that is different.  Well, that is certainly true; look at what the child's parents, who are supposed to love the child as he is, are willing to do to him because he is different!  They are asking him to suppress his natural self and to take on a persona much more acceptable to themselves.  Autism is a neurological difference; you are not going to teach it all away.  ABA does not change the physical differences in the autistic brain, which are now starting to be documented in the literature.  Your child can learn to seem more normal, but much of it is just going to be an act.  The neurological differences that caused those behaviors initially are still there.  You're asking the child to live his whole life acting against his neurological makeup.  It's like training a cat to be a dog.  Cats (like autistics) are not pack animals; dogs (like NTs)  are.  It's unreasonable to expect a cat to become what he is not.  Humans, being much smarter than cats, can learn to act like that which they are not, but the key point is that it is an ACT.  I think it takes a lot of contempt for what a person is to ask him to bury his true self, to bury it so deeply that no one will ever know the real person inside.  I would not wish that on my worst enemy. 

Please do not buy the sales pitch that the autism is "overcome," "cured," or anything like that.  It cannot be cured; it can only be hidden.  Please don't make your child live a lie just so his existence is more acceptable to you.  There is no normal child hidden inside of an autistic child.  The autism goes all the way to the center; it affects every experience, every thought, every feeling the autistic person has.  Appearing normal and being normal are not the same thing!  The autism is intrinsic; inextricable and permanently bound to who the autistic person is.  To remove the autism would be to eliminate the person and to replace him with someone else.  The majority of autistic people with whom I have communicated do not wish to be cured, and that includes the ones that have had a rather horrible life because of their autism.  Not every autistic child has to suffer because of his condition, though, as they generally did in years past.  It is up to the parents to advocate for their child, and to make sure that the child's needs are met.  There will be many people from whom the child must be protected, including a number of them that pose as people that are trying to help.  Jealously guard the child's well-being, and never forget that there is nothing wrong with being what he is. 

Now allow me to surprise you.  I am not against the use of ABA techniques in general (although I am no fan of aversives).  I am against any attempt to make the child into that which he is not.  There is no need to suppress the child's autism... once again, there is nothing wrong with being autistic.  It's a difference, not a disability.  Yes, even in the lower-functioning cases of autism, this is true.  The sensory problems can be disabilities; the self-injurious or aggressive behavior can be a disability; the mental retardation that comes with low-functioning autism is a disability.  Some of the things associated with autism are disabilities, but that is not what autism is.  I am all for helping the child to overcome those things!  I am not at all opposed to the child learning how people act, how they think, what they expect, or anything like that.  Give the child the tools to live in this world... as an able autistic person, not as a phony-baloney normal person.  That may mean using ABA techniques.  Teaching the child is fine; just do not coerce or force the child to be what he is not.  Have a look at these articles for a slightly different view than you may have already seen (external links; not my works): 
 

Autism, Genius, and Greatness

When early treatment of autism is discussed, the word "intervention" is almost always used.  Obviously, the use of the word as such gives the impression that autism is a path toward something awful, and by intervening, the autistic child can be helped.  That is offensive to autistic people that do not hold that they are the result of something awful.  Indeed, there is good that comes from autism, even though the distraught parents of newly-diagnosed autistic children may not be able to see it.  For example, Albert Einstein may have been just another patent clerk if it hadn't been for autism.  His autistic traits, and his near-certain place on the autistic spectrum, are well-known in the autistic community.  What if autism had been known at the time of his birth?  What would have become of him if his parents had recognized the signs and sought intervention?  How much of his greatness may have been jeopardized? 

Albert Einstein was typical as far as higher-functioning autistics (for the purpose of this article, AS and HFA will be considered to be the same thing).  He was extremely logical and analytical, though socially awkward.  He could deal with people, but he was a loner, and he felt a need for considerable solitude on a daily basis.  He was extremely perseverative, spending more time on a given problem (of interest to him) than any normal person would have been capable of giving.  These attributes are what gave Einstein the ability to think as he did.  These abilities are rather common in higher-functioning autistics, although few achieve the greatness or prominence that Einstein has.  One may wonder, though, if Einstein's autism had been treated successfully, would he have lost the abilities (which are often called "impairments" by those that see normality as the only acceptable way) that made him the thinker he was? 

Autism has been described by some as a condition wherein people have an affinity for objects (tangible or otherwise) rather than people.  This was clearly the case with Einstein.  In his case, the object was physics.  As far as people went, Einstein was somewhat aloof and indifferent, but when it came to science, he was very much engaged.  Would he have been as dedicated to his science if his indifference for people had been eliminated, or would he have been just another person toiling at a boring job, thinking of the weekend's social gathering?   Normal people generally do not recognize the extent to which their thoughts and desires are dictated by this innate need to be the social beings that they are, but it is quite evident to autistic people, who see such "odd" behaviors very clearly.  The aloofness reported in autistic people frees their minds from the social protocol that occupies the majority of the time of the normal person, thus allowing time for other activities.  Autistic people often get the same satisfaction from working with a favorite idea or object that normal people get from chatting with a close friend. 

High-functioning autistic people perseverate, or think repetitively (or even obsessively) on an object or a concept.  This perseverative interest is often described as an impairment or an abnormality by normal people, who think themselves free of such obsessions.  The reality is, though, that normal people have a perseverative interest too, and that interest is in being social.  They perseverate on being with others, even if no information is to be exchanged.  They become bored and lonely very quickly, by autistic standards, if they are alone with their thoughts.  They are just as perseverative about socializing as any autistic is about a physical or theoretical object, but they are so accustomed to this being the case that they do not see it so.  In other words, the desire to be social is so well-accepted and ingrained that it is not seen as a fixation; it is seen as normal and desirable.  Even normal people that claim that they often prefer solitude have no idea how great their innate social needs are.  They hold that the autistic is defective because he perseverates on physics instead of chatting about the weather or about the latest ball game.  The difference is that being social, as most people are, does not bring greatness.  It does not result in the formation of new ideas or concepts that advance humanity, or that make our lives easier.  Perseverative social behavior does little, if anything, to advance society.  That sort of thing is the domain of abnormal minds, to a large degree. 

The brain is a highly complex piece of equipment.  Having billions of neurons, it is far too complex to be described in detail by DNA.  Genetics controls the general layout of the brain, but most of the actual connections are a matter of the environment.  Prenatally, this means that drug use, disease, and nutrition play the largest nongenetic roles.  Postnatally, though, is when the underpinnings of intelligence are laid.  The infant's brain is far from fully developed at birth.  The connections that are made depend on the patterns of usage those neurons see.  In this manner, it is assured that the child's brain will be attuned to its environment.  This is also where genius begins. 

Einstein's intelligence may have been a function of his autistic brain.  Absent the intuitive means to make sense of the world, he, as is usual with autistics, may have relied heavily upon his analytical, logical abilities.  Thus, the neural pathways related to analysis and logic were reinforced, and his adaptable human brain grew in its ability to do those things as a result.  Einstein's relative lack of interest in people, and his great thirst for knowledge, would have again reinforced the analytical parts of his brain, while allowing the relatively unused social areas to become deficient.  As such, his genius is part and parcel of his autism, and indeed is directly related to his lack of interest in convention and social activities.   As Temple Grandin put it in her book Thinking in Pictures, genius itself is an abnormality. 

Einstein was perseveratively interested in physics.  He could not stand the idea of the unknowable, and he spent much time thinking about things that most people would have declared hopeless, or never bothered to think about in the first place.  This feverish devotion to knowledge and fact is not uncommon in the higher-functioning autistic community, but among normal people, it is strange and unusual.  The normal mind's primary function is to be social, not to think about physics.  That is, after all, what the normal mind is supposed to do; humans, like wolves, are pack animals, and in the pre-civilization days, survival depended upon group cohesion. Society may have changed since then, but basic human neurology has not.  As such, social interaction is the only thing the normal mind can handle for extended periods of time (perseveratively, in other words), which limits its utility with regard to science and academic knowledge.  The autistic mind is capable of focus on areas of interest for extremely long periods of time, day after day, without boredom.  Normal people may not truly understand the depth of focus or the length of attention span that the autistic person has when dealing with his special interest.  It would not be surprising to see an autistic person spend virtually every waking moment, day after day, for months at a time, thinking about, researching, and otherwise involving himself, with one very specific subject, without ever becoming bored or weary of that subject.  In the sciences, this feature is an asset of indescribable worth, and it was doubtless of great value to Einstein. 

In short, Einstein was one of the century's top thinkers because of his autistic condition, not despite it.  His success in physics is directly related to his autistic profile of strengths and weaknesses, as was his intelligence, in all likelihood.  If we could go back in time and inform Einstein's parents of his condition, and that it could be treated, how much treatment should he have received?  Would we want to risk "curing" one of the brightest men in the last hundred years, if it meant that his genius would be cured as well?  Would it be a good idea to change anything at all, lest we inadvertently eliminate one of the greatest minds ever known?  In short, would it be advisable, in hindsight, to treat him at all? 

If the answer to that question is NO, that would lead directly into the next question: Is it advisable to try to normalize autistic children today, even a little?  Do we really wish to eliminate people like Einstein?  Do we really think that autistic behaviors are so unsightly and bothersome that we would be willing to rid the world of genius to eliminate those behaviors?  The next question would be for the parents of an autistic child.  Do you really wish normality on your child, so much so that you would eliminate potential greatness?  Genius is, after all, abnormal. 

Autistic-type behaviors have been noted in many historical figures that, like Einstein, have achieved greatness.  All of these people have done so with no treatment at all.  Now that people are discovering more about how the human mind develops, there has been an increase in the reports of children whose autism has been "cured" or reduced in severity by one means or another.  If these children would have ended up as apparently low-functioning, possibly self-destructive, non-communicative people, this would seem like a very good thing, but it is often very hard to tell those people from high-functioning autistics early on, when such treatments are most likely to have an effect.  Even if early treatments, like sensory integration or ABA, are eventually proven to be effective in reducing autistic behaviors, do we really wish to do that?  Even the seemingly unquestionable practice of reducing sensory difficulties may have the effect of reducing the qualities that cause genius.  Whether that is the case would make a great topic for academic research, but for now, it seems that the thrust of the research is to prevent or cure autism, rather than preserving the autism and attempting to help or prevent the often associated features like mental retardation, mood disorders, and severe sensory difficulties. 

It would be inhumane and cruel to allow an autistic child to suffer with extreme sensory problems (like severe auditory processing problems, which are possibly a major cause of difficulties with spoken language), or to be forced to live in constant fear and anxiety.  However, helping to overcome those burdens is not the same as trying to make the child normal, or to make him "indistinguishable from his peers."   Similarly, an autistic child can be given the social tools to live in what is really an alien world to him, without being trained to act like something he is not-- normal.  There is nothing wrong with teaching such a child about the peculiar way that normal people react to statements that are insufficiently vague, or that are not wrapped in enough verbal candy to sufficiently obfuscate the main point.  There is nothing wrong with teaching the child that normal people often mistake such things for rudeness.  That is not the same as teaching the child that simple, direct statements are rude.  The difference is subtle but important.  The former method is akin to teaching an American how to relate successfully with Japanese people, while the latter is more like teaching him that being an American is undesirable and wrong, and that he should become Japanese (which he cannot do). 

For the autistic person without retardation (high-functioning autistic), often it is the unyielding social norms that cause the greatest difficulty.  Perhaps it is more logical to strive for greater acceptance of individuality than for the curing (or reduction of) of autism.  As uncomfortable as autistics often make closed-minded normal people, their positive traits are vital for innovation and societal growth.  Rather than attempt to cure autistics, we should try to figure out whether those that are destined to become lower-functioning autistics can be helped to become high-functioning (in the early years), to overcome the difficulties presented by severe anxiety and sensory dysfunction, and to celebrate autistic people as being part of the genotype that includes Einstein and many other people of genius... people of greatness. 
 

Thanks, Mom: What My Mother Did Right

I would like to take this opportunity to express my thankfulness to my mother, who did not seek intervention for my autistic traits.  At the time I was a toddler, which was in the early to mid 1970s, autism was not thought of as a spectrum disorder.  It was synonymous, for the most part, with what we now call "low-functioning" autism.  Certainly I did not present as low-functioning, so I never would have been flagged as having been autistic.  The condition we now call high-functioning autism did not gain any real notoriety in the English-speaking world  until after the publication of Lorna Wing's 1981 review of Hans Asperger's work.  The debate as to whether Kanner's autism and Asperger's autistic psychopathy, which Wing dubbed "Asperger's Syndrome," were completely separate or related conditions led directly to the concept of the "autistic spectrum," which is now considered to be factual by most.  As far as de facto autistics go, I am very much on the "mild" end of the spectrum.  Still, as a child, my behaviors were pretty obviously autistic. 

I do not blame my mother a bit for not making the connection between my unusual childhood behaviors and autism.  Even most doctors at that time knew little, if anything, about autism, so I would not expect a young, first-time mother to know what her physicians probably did not.  She knew from the beginning that I was unusual, but as long as I seemed to be thriving, she was not too worried.  As I learned more about my first three years, as a result of pestilent questioning, I realized that my first signs of autism went right to my date of birth.  I could not suck from a nipple (of any kind) and coordinate the swallowing movement.  I lost nearly a pound of my premature six pound weight before this was remediated.  At one month of age, which would have been my due date, I learned to suck and swallow.  Still, though, things were not normal.

I learned to turn over early, but it was not a graceful movement so much as a flopping over by flapping my spindly limbs.  Soon I lost that ability and did not regain it until much later.  Babbling was limited, and other than fits of screaming for unknown reasons, I was a quiet baby.  I did respond to tickling and such things with a smile, though, and no one ever thought I was deaf.  If anything, my hearing was hypersensitive, and I noticed every little noise, even if others initially didn't.  Before my first birthday, I began to resist being picked up, and I did not like to be held.  I never crawled; I rolled, right up until I began to walk in the fourteenth month.  I still hadn't uttered any words.  I continued to make noises and verbal stims, but no words, until about the twenty-fourth month, at which time I began to speak... in sentences.  Many of them were echolalic, including instant and delayed parroting of TV commercials.  As my ability to express myself grew, I began to do the pronoun reversals, and to call myself by my first name instead of "I."  At about that time, I was first introduced to children my age.  I ignored them totally, as if they were not there.  I could be "in a room full of kids and still be totally alone," my mother tells me.  I would also spin any object I could get my hands on, sometimes causing frustration in adults. 

Through all of this, there were no worried visits to the doctor, or fears that I was some genetic freak.  When I was about thirty months old, my mother enrolled me in Montessori preschool to try to get me to be a little more social.  The curriculum did not stress group achievement much, but at least I would be exposed to other kids, my mother thought.  I did pretty well there, aside from screaming fits when I was first dropped off. 

Years later, I began at the local public elementary school, and I began to experience shutdowns in class.  The special-ed teacher somehow knew what to do, and would come and get me and give me short breaks from class.  That problem was solved, as far as everyone was concerned.  It was in about the first grade that I made my first real social overtures toward other kids without prompting. 

At home, I did the toe-walking all the time, and I did all sorts of stim behaviors like hand flapping.  I still preferred to be alone.  I would get obsessed with certain subjects, and I would want to talk about nothing else.  I never did that with my peers; I still had little interest in them.  Adults, though, would often listen to my precocious lectures, probably very amused by them.  I struck everyone as an amazingly bright little boy, and I suppose that I was.  That goes a long way in having people excuse your bizarre behavior, at least in the early years.  My status as a "gifted" child seemed to be a handy explanation for all of my strange behaviors, including my notable hyperactivity.  Certainly, no one thought that there was anything "wrong;" if anything, something was very right about me.   Had I not been hyperlexic, I am sure that my autistic behaviors would have been much more objectionable.  Fortunately for all involved, I was not self-destructive, and my angry impulses, while obviously present, were well-controlled.  I suspect that my mother's acceptance of my unusual behaviors may have been a significant cause of my nonviolent character.  If she had tried to change me, I may not have exhibited such control. 

My mother never pushed me to be social when I did not wish to be, and I am glad she didn't.  Some autistic children (aspies especially) want to have friends, but do not know how to make them.  These children should be helped to make friends, but never should the issue be forced.  Some children, like me, did not really care about their peers at all, and these children should not be forced to socialize against their will.  In time, most will begin to desire social contact in their own way, and forced social interaction will not make that happen any sooner.  In fact, it may feel so unpleasant to the child that he associates unpleasant feelings with social contact, and he will be more asocial in the future. Parents often think it is "so sad" to see the little boy or girl playing alone in the corner of the yard, but it is not sad at all if the child is happy that way.  I have always preferred solitude, and I am most happy when I am alone.  Even now, as an adult, people think it is "so sad" that I spend so much time in my apartment alone.  I do it by choice; it is not sad... it is just different. 

Similarly, I was never forced to make eye contact or to stop stimming (which my mother called 'fidgeting').  My mother gently suggested that I might want to stop hand-flapping, so that my peers would not give me a hard time, but never made an issue of it.  She never tried to get me to stop rocking; in fact, at one point she bought a rocking chair.  These stims are harmless behaviors that help an autistic child release stress and get back in tune with the world.  The autistic child's experience is a bewildering one, full of motions, lights, noises, and odors, and the sensory input sometimes gets to be way too much for the child.  At these times, an autistic person may stim, pace, or seek a quiet place with no one around.  This is a necessary thing for any autistic person, children included, and by no means should a child be deprived of his outlets to release stress.  Normal people have no idea how stressful it is to be autistic.  Things that you do not notice may cause more stress for your child than an unfinished 1040 on April 14th does for you.  Never underestimate the stress your child experiences in noisy, bright,  crowded, or social environments.  It can be brutal, and the tantrums that may result are beyond your child's control.  This is what autistics often call a meltdown, which happens when you have ignored the signs of stress too long.  They are there if you look for them: increased covering of the ears or eyes, increased stimming, increased restlessness or hyperactivity, complaints of upset stomach, increase in that glazed-eye, "million mile away" look... the signs of impending overload or meltdown are numerous, and each child will have his own set.  Be aware of them, and do not underestimate them. 

In retrospect, my early childhood was quite unusual, but I was accepted for the odd child I was.  In my case, that was the best thing for me; I am firmly convinced of that.  I began to realize I was different in about the third grade, but it never bothered me.  I was never given the impression that unusual was bad, or that I had a problem.  No matter how well-intentioned a parent may be, taking a child to a doctor to see why he is so "weird" tends to implant the idea that there is something wrong, something "bad" about the child.  I never knew why I was taken to the special ed classroom to play on the balance beam, but I knew that I was being singled out, and even though it apparently did me some good, I did not like it, and I wondered what was wrong with me.  Imagine how much worse it would have been if I had been taken by my mother, whom I trusted more than anyone, rather than a teacher.  Imagine if I had to stand there listening to her tell a doctor about how weird and unacceptable I was (which is the message the child gets).  Imagine how much more "weird" I would have felt if I was taken to special classes, or gone to a special school.  I am not saying that such things should never be done; on the contrary, in some cases, such things are vital.  All I request is that you be aware of the effect these things have on self-esteem.  Please, don't discuss your child's behavior with the doctor while the child is listening! 

As it turned out, at least in terms of academics, special education was not necessary for me, as it is not for a lot of aspies, and a few high-functioning autistics like me.  Sometimes parents overreact and put their kids in all sorts of programs just because those programs are there, though.  They listen to the doctors make wild guesses about prognosis (and that is all they are-- wild guesses), and they panic about their children's future.  Don't panic!  This has to be approached rationally and logically.  If the child cannot function in normal classes, then alternate plans must be made, but don't make use of resources that are not needed just because you can.  Doing so can easily prove to be far more destructive than helpful.  An autistic child's self-esteem is going to take a beating in the years to come, no question about that, so it is imperative that things that will hurt that self-image be avoided if at all possible.  Only a very strong self-image will be adequate protection from the self-esteem clobbering that is to come.  You must daily work to build that self-esteem. 

Depression is an ever-present menace in the autistic community, and this must never be forgotten for an instant.  Even if the child does require special education, be sure that he never gets the idea that he is broken or defective.  This means going to what you may consider to be ridiculous extremes to prevent this idea from forming in the child's mind.  Never allow the child to think that "different" is not a good thing.  This may even mean prohibiting exposure to certain relatives that do not understand that autism (including AS) is neurological, and not a sign of bad parenting.  Some relatives may take it upon themselves to "correct" your child's behavior... things like pulling the child's face to theirs and saying, "Look at people when they talk to you, or else they will not like you," or things like that.  If that does happen unexpectedly, rebuke the relative immediately, in front of the child.  Explain to that relative, in private, that parenting is your job alone, and if that is not something that relative can accept, they will not be allowed exposure anymore.  This may be very tough to do if the relative is one that you have typically been intimidated by, but it is imperative that you do so. 

Anything that makes the child feel bad or embarrassed by his behaviors will cut away at his self-esteem.  Please be aware that even when you do all you can to prevent this, the child will begin to notice his differences on his own, and if you allow anyone to plant the smallest seed of doubt regarding the validity of those behaviors, the child will begin to think of himself as lesser than his peers.   The child's peers, especially in a regular school, will pick on a child who is different, and this is tremendously damaging, especially for children that want to have friends.  This cannot be prevented fully, and that is why you must do all you can to prevent that which can be prevented.  Be sure the school is aware of the problem of bullying, and be clear that the only acceptable amount of abuse is NONE.  You may have to get rather belligerent with the school to get them to stop the bullying.  Through elementary school, it is reasonable to expect that bullying will be stopped.  It's much harder to prevent in the multi-class middle school environment. 

Middle school is the worst.  My mother tried to help me here, but she lacked the experience I now have.  In my school district, fighting back was just as unacceptable as attacking someone, and I was taught to respect the rules.  I did, but the other kids did not.  As much as you may not want to hear it, your child should be allowed to disregard the rule against fighting back if he is physically attacked.  If your child is attacked, it is a sign that the school is not doing its job in preventing bullying, so the child that fights back is not the one at fault-- the school is at fault.  If the school suspends your child for legitimately defending himself, use the day off to take him to get some ice cream.  Your child's self-worth is more valuable than some arbitrary rule.  The bullying in seventh grade is brutal, and it is unrelenting.  I am not really sure if it is possible to stop all of the abuse in the middle school years, and if you are at all up to the task, I strongly recommend home schooling from the first year of middle school through the end of the first year of high school.  Those are the most abusive years, by far, and the level of brutality and intentional terrorism of which middle school-age children are capable is astounding.  In my case, this abuse destroyed my self-image, and I suffered depression that lingered eight years after I graduated from high school. 

My mother did the best she could in middle school, but it was not enough, which we both know now by experience.  She told me that if I was attacked or threatened, I should go tell an authority figure.  That only made it worse, and after more complaints to my mother resulting in the same advice, I quit telling her.  I suppose she thought that the problem cleared up, but it didn't.  I suffered in silence for years, with only the occasional obvious bruise or food stain on my clothes giving testament to the abuse of the day.  Be sure to tell your child to tell you ALL of the bad things that were done to him, and be sure he understands that it is OK, and that it is NOT his fault.  He may be embarrassed, and may not want to tell you.  Keep in mind that autistic kids are generally stoic, and the actual abuse is probably a lot worse than you think from hearing the child's reports. 

All in all, my mother did a great job of raising a strange kid.  Before I knew I was autistic, I used to think she did a rather mediocre job, but as I have learned about the things parents do to their autistic children, I have become very appreciative that my mother accepted my weirdness and did not try to make me into a normal child.  Too many parents and professionals try to do this to autistic kids.  Take my word for it: your autistic child is not normal, nor will he ever be.  There is no recovery from autism-- the stories you hear about that are not as they appear.  Temple Grandin claimed to be a recovered autistic when she wrote her autobiographical book Emergence: Labeled Autistic, but in her next book, Thinking in Pictures, published nine years later, she simply refers to herself as autistic.  She has improved in her ability to function, but she realized that she was still autistic, and that she always would be.  Recovery from autism is a wishful-thinking fantasy borne of denial.  That does not mean that there is no hope for a bright future!  If your child is allowed to grow up appreciating himself, his differences, and is given the tools to live in this strange world, WITHOUT trying to cure or remove the autism (which won't cure the autism, but will instead promote self-hatred), he can grow up and do things the doctor said would be impossible.  You may be really surprised at how much is possible if the child never gets the idea that he "can't."  Can't is a horrible word, perhaps one of the most disabling words in the English language.  Don't concentrate on what your child cannot do; concentrate on what he can do, and build on that every chance you get.  As you do, "can't" will get smaller and smaller with the passing of each day. 
 
 

Practical Problems with ABA Programs

The biggest problem with most programs designed to assist autistic children is, as far as I can tell, that they were designed by NTs, and for NTs.  The latter part of that statement may surprise some people, but these programs are very obviously designed for NTs; specifically, the parents of the autistic child.  They are, after all, the ones that will be paying the considerable bill for these programs, and it is their wishes that are catered to with regard to goals of that program. Mostly I am speaking of ABA (applied behavior analysis) programs here, but some others have these problems too.  Since ABA programs are the worst offenders in this way, I will use the term "ABA programs" to denote any teaching method that uses a behavioral approach to teaching children, or that attempts to make them normal. 

I recently had it pointed out to me that the standard "goal" for ABA programs is to have the child instructed for forty hours a week, which makes for a pretty minimal childhood.  I had not thought of that, but it is a very good point to ponder.  If it really helped prepare the child for a better life, it would not be such a bad thing.  School takes a huge chunk out of a child's life too... this just starts it earlier.  Of course, forty hours a week seems like a terribly convenient work week for the ABA worker, doesn't it?  I wonder if that handy coincidence is based on efficacy or making money.  Maybe so much time would not be required if the Lovaas minions did not think that the goal was to make the child indistinguishable from his peers. 

Neural develoment is rapid in the early years, and it can be helpful to reinforce verbal neural pathways during that time.  It is important to get the verbal processing going as early as possible if usable language skills are to be developed.  The goal should be to help the autistic child develop in a way that will make a relatively decent life possible, not to make him into an NT clone.  That's not real; a cat trained to fetch and wag his tail when happy is a trained cat, not a dog.  I am not in favor of forcing the issue, either; if it has to be forced, the person is not ready for that stage yet.  Remediations should be based on a neurological model; in other words, the goal should be to get the language processing centers working as soon as possible, even if language is not acquired at that time.  The more these areas of the brain "exercise" early in life, the stronger the neural pathways become.  As the language (expressive and receptive, including auditory processing) centers develop, speech will come more easily.  There is nothing wrong with using behavior analysis at this point; that can give valuable insight into the child's areas of deficiency.  That does not mean that treating autism as a behavioral problem is a good idea, and that is what ABA programs typically do. 

Higher functioning auties like me are really not in need of ABA or any "heroic" kinds of intervention.  I am just as normal and verbal as I need to be, and I received no intervention at all.  Those children that are destined to become lower-functioning (I do not know that it is really set at 2-3 years of age) probably have more severe sensory problems, including significant auditory processing problems, and that may be why they do not develop receptive or expressive verbal skills.  The continued disuse of the verbal processing parts of the brain will eventually allow them to wither away before they ever develop, and if that is not remediated by about 8-9 years of age, it will be relatively permanent.  That is about when neural development is complete.  This is why I think it so vital that instruction be based on a neurodevelopmental model, not the behavioral model as in most, if not all, ABA programs. 

Of course, it is not impossible to remediate developmental problems later in life, just more difficult.  I have seen reports of mostly nonverbal, angry, sometimes violent, self-destructive autistic youths and young adults making significant progress.  They still need sheltered, supervised living, but they are much better off than they were before.  If there was more emphasis on making use of the abilities they have rather than trying to make them more superficially normal, as not to offend the delicate sensitivities of the NT populace, even more progress might be possible.  The more I learn, the more I realize that there is no such thing as hopeless... unless your goal is to make the person something he can never be, which is normal.  Too many parents see anything short of recovery as a failure (and the salesmen for ABA, vitamins, etc., are only too happy to oblige in that fantasy).  That attitude is not going to help any.  These people need to throw away their preconceived notions of what their child should be, and deal with what is possible. The doctor's prognosis, by the way, is not a good model for what is possible.  Too many times have I heard of doctors pronouncing autistic children as hopeless... children that went on to be rather high-functioning, wonderful people that are anything but hopeless. 

Part of the problem is that ABA techniques, like most methods for teaching autistic kids, do not start from the idea that the child should be helped to be the best autistic child he can be.  They want to fix us, right down to their obsession with eye contact, and they never stop to get our opinion.  I know many aspies and auties that were taught to make eye contact, but I have not 
found even one yet that makes REAL eye contact, in the sense that NTs do.  I learned to look toward the face and let my eyes unfocus.  It looks to most NTs like eye contact, but it is not.  It's an adaptive technique designed primarily to make the people that insist on eye contact shut up.  If I wish make real eye contact, I have to force myself to do it, and that effort prevents me from thinking of what they are saying or what I am saying.  I cannot talk or listen and make eye contact.  Not only that, but if I make true eye contact, it unnerves the other person, as I have no idea about how to modulate it properly.  It comes off as a stare, which bothers them more than not making eye contact.  You just cannot please them! 

As I understand it, they glance away and back in some sort of code.  They glance to and fro and move the eyelids in some sort of communicative dance. That is why "the eyes are the window to the soul."   Something more than "I'm listening" is expressed in eye contact.  That is something I cannot do.  My eyes are ocular input devices, nothing more.  The ABA folks can't teach me the eye contact code, nor would I care to waste my time trying to learn something like that.  Even if I learned the code, it would require so much thought, in practice, that I would not be able to listen or talk effectively.  My brain just does not do nonverbal communication... it's not wired that way.  NT minds do nonverbal processing in the background, subconsciously, while the conscious mind processes the verbal data.  My mind does not do the background processing.  If I imitate the NT nonverbal postures, it requires me to use the conscious parts of my brain, which then cannot adequately process the incoming verbal data. 

If I, as a very high functioning autistic, cannot do a passable nonverbal emulation, what are the chances that a lower-functioning person will ever be able to do so?  Why waste time and money trying to teach these relatively useless things to a child that would be much better served by focusing on areas that can be improved, like verbal skills, or by letting him have some time off?  The answer is that the real customers of the ABA people are the parents, and the parents want to see results.  They mistake feigned eye contact for evidence that the child is recovering from being who he is, and that pleases them. Parents all too often want to believe that autism can be eliminated, and they are willing to buy into the fantasy that the ABA people promote.  A program that aims to help an autistic child live in the word as an autistic person is much more realistic, but that is not what most of these parents want.  They want to believe their child can be normal. 

True communicative eye contact is something I cannot do, nor will I ever.  NTs do not know this, and they are the ones that design ABA programs, or that inflict them upon their children.  They probably are not aware of the amount of communication they do nonverbally, since it is so automatic and subconscious.  They think they can teach us to be normal; teach us the social skills to cancel out the autism.  They miss the point that simply looking at a person's face does not mean that we have the nonverbal abilities that are the reason for eye contact in the first place.  Sure, we can put on a show, pretend we make eye contact, think about body posture and try to use it in accordance with our feelings and thoughts, but it will never be even close to being as effective as that which an NT can do without thought.  Consciously, the NT teachers and parents may think they have successfully bypassed the autism, but that is obviously not so.  Any NT will still "read" the stilted and meaningless rote-learned nonverbal language, and they will still be unnerved by the lack of nonverbal expression, even if the eye contact and other nonverbal cues superficially appear normal.  As social demands increase upon the "recovered" child, and the superficially correct act falls short, it will become obvious that the recovery is a farce. I would not want to be in the room when a mother of a "recovered" autistic child realizes that her child is still autistic.  Recovery is not a realistic goal, nor a desirable one. 

I have no problem with ABA teaching methods, conceptually, for helping severely impaired children to be able to respond to the outside world, but I reject the concept that aversives are a good idea, or that any child should be taught that his true self is unacceptable and should be hidden forever.  What a horrible recipe for self-esteem that is.  I have seen far too many depressed, self-hating aspies and high-functioning auties.  For those of us that are quite high-functioning, depression and anxiety are often the biggest disability.  The power of positive attitude should not be forgotten.  Work to help the child be the best he can; do not try to bury the child's true self under all sorts of rote behaviors that attempt to mimic how NTs act spontaneously.  Would you want to spend your whole life thinking that your true self is horrible and undesirable, and that if anyone got to see the "real you," they would dislike you?  That is what training autistic children to be normal does to them.  I see that as a major impediment in the successful instruction of these kids.  Stop smashing the self-esteem with the hammer of "normality is the only way," work on the most critical areas like auditory and verbal processing, and there will be no limits to what an autistic person can do. 
 
 

Understanding Neurotypicality

Neurotypicality is a pervasive developmental condition, probably present since birth, in which the affected person sees the world in a very strange manner.  It is a puzzle; a enigma that traps those so affected in a lifelong struggle for social status and recognition.  Neurotypical individuals almost invariably show a triad of impairments, consisting of inability to think independently of the social group, marked impairment in the ability to think logically or critically, and inability to form special interests (other than in social activity).   It is my hope that this article will help us understand the very different world of the neurotypical. 

Neurotypical individuals show difficulty in forming an individual identity, or in thinking outside of the bounds of the accepted norms of their social groups.  It appears that each group a neurotypical belongs to will have its own set of "official" opinions, and each neurotypical within that group is expected to adopt those beliefs.  As strange as it sounds, they generally do so very readily, and are not hesitant at all to help enforce those beliefs and ensure group homogeneity of opinion.  There appears to be an innate drive for the neurotypical to fit in with groups in that manner, and their own innate opinions and desires are modified automatically to fit the group ideal. This bizarre lack of independence explains the tendency for neurotypicals to engage in fads of various sorts, or for the existence of certain trends.  Neurotypicals will change the way they talk or dress according to these trends, and other neurotypicals will admire and imitate such "trendy" behavior.  As such, neurotypicals are easy prey for TV commercials or other means of advertising that seek to portray the purchase or use of various products as socially desirable or "cool." 

The need for neurotypical individuals to "jump on" the latest trend is a function of their excessive level of concern of how they are perceived by others.  Neurotypicals form their self-image based at least as much on the opinions of their peers as they do on their own opinions.  They do not perceive themselves as individuals in the manner that you or I do; they see themselves as individual members of a group, but in practice, the opinions of others weigh heavily upon them, and there is a great drive to obtain the acceptance and admiration of others around them, including complete strangers.  There is a built-in tendency for neurotypicals to blend in, to become "one of the herd," so to speak.  Most of them never realize how much their opinions are dictated by the group.  They want the things that the group deems desirable, and they internalize that desire so fully that it feels to them as if it was an internally-motivated desire. 

The overdeveloped social centers of the neurotypical brain are also responsible for their odd, inefficient communication style.  We've all seen the strange tendency neurotypicals have to hide their true communicative intent beneath layers of often contradictory statements.  They tend to state things implicitly rather than explicitly, and with a level of vagarity that often results in miscommunication.  This appears to be an outgrowth of the neurotypical person's desire to maintain popularity and social status; they seem to believe that by stating potentially annoying or offensive things indirectly, their popularity will be better maintained.  This obsessive concern with social standing makes communication with neurotypicals rather difficult at times.  They are incapable of expressing things directly, in a manner that can be easily and unambiguously interpreted by anyone that knows the language.  They are also limited in their capacity to interpret statements directly without trying to find hidden meanings in them; they often misunderstand the most basic statements in this way. 

People with neurotypicality tend to communicate in a very vague manner.  They make guesses as to the level of knowledge of the listener, and omit parts that the listener is presumed to know.  It is rather obvious that this guessing will often be wrong.  Unfortunately, the listener that does not understand will generally not ask for clarification of such ambiguities, for fear of the speaker thinking that he is stupid or ignorant.  As is usually the case with neurotypicals, image and status is more important than effective communication and the truth in general.  Communication between neurotypicals is very limited in this way, and the fear of being seen as stupid prevents either party from verifying the content of the conversation.  As such, most miscommunication goes undetected by at least one, if not all, neurotypicals that had engaged in such a conversation. 

The neurotypical individual typically has a very limited capacity for logic or rational thought.  The most recent research on the topic suggests that neurotypical people are not able to separate their emotions from their logic, and they often confuse the two.  This is an obvious explanation for the sometimes appalling illogicality evidenced in neurotypical behavior.  Neurotypicals typically exhibit very limited critical thought, and they are easily led to believe some rather illogical things.  Sadly, most societal positions that require logic and rational thought are occupied by neurotypicals, which is a function of their sheer numbers more than any fitness for the job.  Such jobs include important functions like jurors, legislators, judges, voters, doctors, and many others.  If their herd mentality did not result in excessive rates of reproduction, their numbers would be smaller, and they would be of more use in job titles like salesperson, receptionist, cashier, and others where rational thought is less emphasized than social interaction. 

Neurotypicals have a very limited ability to concentrate on one topic for great lengths of time, or repeatedly.  The apparent absence of special interests in neurotypicals is notable.  Their concentrations on normal areas of interest like computers, machines, scientific interests, history, or other academic subjects, are limited, and are short in duration as well as relatively infrequent.  It appears that nearly all neurotypicals share one singular special interest, and that is socializing.  This is the only activity that the person with neurotypicality can engage in for more than short periods of time.  The stereotyped neurotypical mannerism of "chatting," or communicating verbally with others even where no relevant or useful information is exchanged, is notable, and can be observed very often in neurotypicals that are engaging in perseverative social behavior.  Why the neurotypical mind is limited in its flexibility insofar as selection of a special interest is not known at this time.  This social interest is not terribly useful as far as society in general is concerned, and the neurotypical is unlikely to be capable of significant innovation, or of fostering societal advancement. 

Without significant intervention, neurotypicals will continue to be dependent on us for generations to come.   Unfortunately, the neurotypical herd mentality results in an excessive rate of birth of offspring that are genetically predisposed to be neurotypical, and as such the incidence of neurotypicality remains frighteningly high.  Fortunately, the percentage of neurotypical births has been in decline recently, although it is still far too high for comfort.  As long as the numbers of neurotypicals are so high, it is unlikely that they will allow us to institute any remediative efforts to help them overcome their disability.  We may think it is so sad to see neurotypical children being trained to maintain a group mentality and to forsake true individualism, but at this point it is unlikely that the neurotypical parents of these children will be able to overcome their aforementioned logic impairments to realize how important intervention is if their children are to live to their fullest potential.  It is up to us to educate them, and to get them to see that every child is entitled to greatness, even if he was diagnosed with neurotypicality.  There can be hope for a better future if we can reach these children in time. 
 

Modified 31 January 2002

There has been much written recently about the supposed "recovery" from autism that some people alleged to have made, or to have caused in children.  Usually these people are those that sell some sort of treatment program, or else they are parents or autistic people that wish so very much for the autism to be gone that they blind themselves to the truth, and exist in a state of denial.  Though these people love to "debunk" the "once an autistic, always an autistic" truism, the fact is that autism is a lifetime condition, and you do not recover from autism.  That does not mean that significant improvement is not possible, or that there is no hope.  Quite the contrary, in fact; if there is one thing I have learned in recent months, it is that there is always hope. 

Autism is still largely unknown in terms of cause.  While there are a lot of suspected triggers for autism, the only thing that has been proven so far is that it is a condition linked to genetics.  Autism runs in families... there is no doubt about that, so I will not get into it here.  However, it is also obvious when looking at the evidence that there is more to it than genetics alone.  There is an environmental cause, or maybe there are many environmental causes.  Many things are suspected, but so far there has been no credible evidence for any specific cause other than genetics, and perhaps rubella infection of the mother during pregnancy. 

Whatever the cause, autism appears to be a condition that starts prenatally.  There have been many recent discoveries of abnormalities in the autistic brain, and in some of these cases, such unusual development could only have happened prenatally.  The autism is often unnoticed until around eighteen months, but that does not mean it was not there previously.  The best evidence refutes the idea that autism is caused by vaccines or other postnatal insults.  These abnormalities are permanent; the development that goes on during this time cannot be reversed.  At the most basic level, these specific abnormalities ARE autism.  The outward signals, like the familiar flapping, lack of eye contact, speech impairments, inability to be social, et cetera, are symptoms of the autism... but they are not the autism itself.  Some things, like mental retardation and inability to speak, appear to be neurodevelopmental abnormalities caused by other symptoms of autism, namely auditory processing problems.  It would be inaccurate to say that these things ARE autism, just as it would be incorrect to say that body aches, fever, and cough ARE the flu.  The flu is an infection of the influenza virus, primarily in the lungs; the aches, fever, and cough are symptoms.  The difference may seem unimportant, but it is not. 

To people that see autism as a set of behaviors, it seems that autism may be curable.  If the behaviors can be trained out of the child, the autism will cease to exist, right?  They seem to think that autism is a bunch of habits that have to be broken.  It is not.  Autism is a brain abnormality, and training out the tell-tale behaviors does not make it go away.  It hides it... nothing more.  Those people that say that they are recovered autistics, or that their expensive treatment programs can sometimes "cure" autism, are missing the point.  If any one of those "cured" autistics (assuming they were really autistic initially) were to be examined with fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) or other scanning technology, the brain would show up as being autistic, not normal.  The autistic behaviors are signs of autism, but they are not in themselves autism. 

Autism is not a behavioral abnormality.  It is not a set of nasty habits.  It is not something that any treatment program can cure.  Again, the most credible evidence shows that autism happens to a fetus long before birth, and that cannot be changed by teaching the child anything.  This does not mean that treatment is undesirable or futile... it is not.  However, the goal needs to be realistic.  I think that the biggest single factor in determining outcome in autistic children is the severity of the auditory processing problems.  Most, if not all, autistic children have these problems to some degree, but they vary greatly in severity.  Those with minor problems often end up hyperverbal and above average in intelligence, more in the Asperger's pattern than in the classical autism pattern.  Those with the worst problems may never develop receptive (and thus expressive) speech, and will be mentally retarded for life. 

As I discussed in my article Practical Problems With ABA Programs, the brain develops according to patterns of usage, especially rapidly in the first few years of life.  If the child's brain cannot process the auditory information coming in from the ears, he will hear a confusing jumble of noise, rather than coherent speech, when someone talks to him.  The innate ability for a child to automatically learn language cannot proceed if the incoming auditory messages are scrambled.  Thus, the neurons in the growing brain develop randomly rather than in patterns that result in verbal ability, and the ability to reason.  The longer this auditory deficiency continues, the longer the neurons will continue to develop in a haphazard (and useless) manner, and the harder it will be to remediate the growing language difficulties.  The longer the audio processing problems continue, the lower the child's intelligence is likely to be.  It is vital to get the language processing centers working as early as possible in childhood. The most logical way to do this is to help the auditory processing centers to do their job.  Any early treatment program for autistic children must center on getting those two areas of the brain working as soon as possible.  In other words, the treatment program must take a neurodevelopmental approach rather than a behavioral approach, for maximum benefit. 

Even if such a program is applied with maximum effect, the brain will still be an autistic brain.  The child may end up with a condition closer to Asperger's Syndrome (a mild form of autism), and there is a good chance that he will go to normal schools and be quite successful in life, with little or no external assistance most of the time.  These people may learn to imitate normal behavior quite well, and it may seem to them, and to others around them, that they are no longer autistic.  Of course, though, they are.  Inside the skull, the brain will still have a thinner posterior cortex, a smaller cerebellum, an abormally sized amygdala and corpus callosum, and be ~10% larger than the comparable normal brain (as well as have other abnormalities that are too complex to describe here).  Changing the behavior to a more normal type does not change the abnormal "wiring" in the brain, and it is that abnormal wiring that IS autism. 

I think that the majority of reported cases of recovery from autism are a result of the inability to really define what autism is.  People that were diagnosed as severely autistic often are not expected to ever live independently, or even talk.  Thus, it seems like a remarkable recovery when a "hopeless" person as such does learn to speak, to relate to others, and shows above-average intelligence.  To that person's doctors, parents, and to himself (when he learns of how "bad" he was before), it appears that there has been an amazing recovery.  In many of these cases, what really happened is that the person was high-functioning, but presented initially as low-functioning.  This is quite common; it is often very hard to tell a high-functioning autistic from a low-functioning autistic during early childhood (since many of the differences in function level relate to development that takes place later in childhood).  IQ tests that attempt to measure the abilities of nonverbal children as such are a joke, and not a funny one.  The child that goes from "no hope" to a very high level of function seems to be recovered, but that is not the case.  Similarly, a child that has severe auditory problems will present as very low functioning and nearly totally disconnected with the world.  He will often seem to recover if his auditory centers and verbal centers are helped to function.  These people still have autistic brains, though, and although the signs are more subtle, they are still present.  In later years, the still-autistic child can be trained to emulate a normal person, but that does not mean he is one. 

There have been a lot of tales of normal parents claiming to have cured their autistic children circulating on the internet lately.  I have read these accounts, and it really saddens me.  Since parents think (erroneously) that autism is a set of undesirable behaviors, they believe that training the child to act more normally (in other words, to act in accordance with NT neurology, not his own) is the same as curing autism.  Those kids are not cured.  They are trained seals.  They are autistic as they ever were, living behind the mask that was forced upon them by unaccepting parents and professionals.  Autistic children can be trained to act normal, just as normal children can be trained to act autistic.  Do you think that if someone successfully trained a normal child to appear autistic, that he actually would be autistic?  In other words, is it possible to cause autism in someone by training them to act autistic?  Of course it is not.  And in the very same way, it is impossible to remove the autism by training it away.  The autism is still there, hidden under the normal-like concealing behaviors that were drilled into the child's mind. 

When social demands on the "recovered" child increase, it will be evident that the autism is still there.  I have heard some sad stories of bewildered parents saying, "How can this be?  We cured that years ago!"  They see it as a relapse, but it is not.  It is the autism, which has always been present, showing itself yet again.  This can be terribly distressing for parents and for the child, who often believes himself that he has been cured.  It is like a second traumatic loss for the parents, who mourned their child's condition once already, years ago.  Don't set yourself up for this letdown.  Puberty and increasing social demands make the autism appear to come back. 

You can see the autism in adults that claim to be recovered, too.  No matter how hard they try, it is just not possible to maintain the illusion of normality all the time, even if they themselves believe they are cured.  It just takes too much effort to pretend to be something you are not.  There is a reason autistic people behave as they do... it is because their behaviors are normal for the brain configuration they have.  This relationship is seen all over the animal kingdom.  Cats act like cats because they have cat brains.  Wolves act like wolves because they have wolf brains.  Normal people act like normal people because they have normal people brains.  And, of course, autistics act like autistics because they have autistic brains.  No matter what they have been trained to act like in public, autistics are what they are, and that is autistic.  Autistic brains are wired differently than normal brains, and that is permanent. 

Some autistics make it into adulthood, still believing that they have been cured.  Make no mistake, though; inside those heads is a brain that is as autistic as it ever was.  Outwardly, the behavior may be superficially normal, but it is just an approximation, a poor facsimile of normality.  Eye contact, body language, and other things like that are forms of communication, and autistics do not have the wiring in the brain to communicate that way.  Sure, they can fake eye contact, but they still do not communicate with eye contact.  They still do not know the normal person's "code" of nonverbal communication. If they do, it is something that must be processed cognitively, with a great deal of thought and effort-- so much so that they cannot process what the person may be saying verbally.  As such, it is rather obvious that the "recovered" autistic adult is, in fact, autistic still.  No matter how ingrained or habitual the normal-like behaviors have become, the fact is that they are still foreign behaviors to anyone with an autistic brain, and the autistic will never be able to use them as will a person for whom they are native behaviors. 

Temple Grandin thought she was, and referred to herself as, a recovered autistic when she wrote her autobiographical book Emergence: Labeled Autistic in 1986.   When she wrote her second book (nine years later), Thinking in Pictures, she simply called herself autistic, as she does to this day.  Like all other adults who claim to be recovered (and who were really autistic in the first place), her autism was never really gone.  But look at her today... she is a success, a leader in her field, a Ph.D. holder.  Autistic people can succeed if they are allowed to do so.  The time spent in futile efforts to teach away the autistic brain could be better spent preparing the person for a successful life as an autistic person.  Most "intervention" for autistic children today aims to obliterate the autism, and this severely limits the efficacy of those programs.  Although many of them have good effects in several ways, they are crippled by this ill-conceived notion that autism can be cured or reduced.  It cannot... and it should not.  Most autistics to whom I have communicated with would not wish to be cured.  It is who we are; to cure the autism is to destroy the autistic, and most of us do not want to be destroyed.  There is no normal person inside the autistic, waiting to be let out.  The autism goes all the way to the center; strip away the autism and there will be nothing left. 

I hold that autism itself is not a disability.  That does not mean that many autistic people are not disabled by their condition;  I know very well that many of them are severely incapacitated.  However, I do not consider these incapacitations to be by the autism itself as much as the surrounding syndrome.  I do not think that the sensory difficulties are a core part of the autism, although all autistics seem to have some of one form or another. I do not think that retardation or low IQ is a part of autism either, since it is a function of the sensory problems, not the autism itself (and not all autistics have such problems).  I do not think that the anxiety and depression so common in autistics are part of the core condition either.  In essence, all of the really nasty things about autism are not actually the autism itself-- they are the things that come with it, but are not core features in themselves. 

Autism, when stripped of all of the negative things as above, is a condition where the person has more of an affinity for things or concepts than people.  Absent the auditory processing problems, autistics (including those with AS) are often well above average in intelligence.  Such people become inventors, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and innovators, if they are permitted to use their unique abilities and not have their self-esteem crushed by the unyielding pressure normal people exert to conform and to be social.  People that like to think about science and engineering rather than parties and socializing are vital for the advancement of humanity.  Far from being impaired or disabled, these people simply have abilities in different areas than normal people-- abilities that are vital for society. As such, autistic people, and autism in general, should not be pitied or cured (as in the elimination of autism).  By all means, we should help autistic children to use their senses in a useful way, which will connect them with the world and allow their speech and intelligence to develop.  They will not be normal, but that is OK.  Genius and greatness are abnormal, after all. 

Being autistic is not like being mentally ill... it is not a disease that should be cured.  Autistic people are just another equally-valid variety of human.  If it would be objectionable to wish to prevent, "cure," or defeat certain races of people, it should be equally bad to advocate those things with regard to autistics.  Imagine the furor that would be caused (and rightly so) it a university attempted to do research into preventing or "curing" the black (negroid) race, for example, in order to fix problems like sickle-cell anemia that are much more common in that group of people.  If it is unacceptable to rid the world of any race, whether by eugenics or any other means, then it should be just as unacceptable to do it to autistics.  Cure the problems that are genetically common within the group, eliminate the discrimination against the group, but do not try to wipe out the group. 

Autistic people are a different kind of human... unique and wonderful people that are much more than the defective individuals that normal people see them as.  As such, I find it extremely hard to support the idea of preventing, curing, defeating, overcoming, or recovering from autism.  The idea that successful people that were diagnosed as autistic have overcome their autism presupposes that autism precludes success.  That is a horrible thing to think... not just because it needlessly feeds into the idea that autism is tragic, but also because it simply is not true.  They have not recovered from, overcome, or defeated their autism any more than a normal person has overcome his neurological typicality to become a success.  To define autistics as inherently lacking of success potential only seeks to define the condition in terms of poor outcome, and to limit the aspirations of those with autism and those that care about them. 

The people that claim to be recovered autistics are mostly high-functioning autistics that have been trained to hide their true nature and act like normal people.  If this was done early enough in life, the person may have become so accustomed to the learned behaviors that he himself does not realize that his normality is a façade.  That does not change who and what people like that are, and it is a shame that they have to act like that which they are not to get treated like human beings.  This points to a problem with society, not to a problem with autism.  It puzzles me why people never stop and consider why it is so acceptable to ostracize autistics for being different.  They blame the autism or the autistic person himself for not being accepted by the crowd; essentially, for not being normal. 

I cannot see how it would be moral or right to teach a group of people to hide their true selves and live a lie for a lifetime so that they can be accepted and live a relatively normal life.  There is an implicit acceptance of discrimination against these people inherent in that philosophy. Many people claim that by curing autism, or by preventing it in the future, such horrible treatment of people can be avoided.  Yes, that is true.  If we were able to develop a surgery that would make all races of people look like whatever race predominated in an area, and were to genetically engineer all future children to be like the norm, then racism could be eliminated too.  Does that make such forced homogenization a justifiable goal?  Elimination of racism by the elimination of differing races is not something any enlightened person would consider, so why should they consider elimination of discrimination against autistics by eliminating autistics to be any better? 

I say that we should quit viewing autism as a horrible, tragic thing, and start seeing autistics as different, but still quite valuable and worthy.  They are not defective, pathetic people that are a burden on society.  We do need to work on finding a solution to the sensory difficulties that occur disproportionately in the autistic population, which are probably the cause of the all-too-common retardation and lack of verbal ability... just as we should find a solution to other problems that happen most often in certain groups of people, like sickle-cell anemia.  Let's stop this silly and harmful practice of treating autism like a behavioral disorder rather than a neurological difference. Like it or not, autism is permanent, despite what some parents, teachers, and even some "former" autistics will tell you.  That does not mean that a very high level of function is not possible.  That should be the goal... to help the autistic person learn to be the best autistic he can be, not to make him seem normal.  The autistic mind is too valuable a resource to waste by occupying it with such mundane tasks as presenting the appearance of normality. 
 
 

About me

This bio is also available in a condensed version, if this one is too long for you. 

My name is Frank.  I'm thirty years old, and I am a little bit different than most folks.  I've only known I was on the autistic spectrum for a year and four months as I write this in October 2001.  Since then, a lot of things have made sense for the first time since I can remember. 

Now that I have learned quite a lot about autism, I know that the signs of my autie-ness go way back into my childhood.  From birth, I lacked the coordination to suck from a bottle.  I was a month premature, though, so this raised no red flags to any of the doctors.  My babbling was limited in "vocabulary" and in amount of output, and other than the hours of screaming for no apparent reason, I was a quiet baby.  I did not speak single words when I was supposed to, nor simple phrases.  At around my eleventh month, I began to go limp and resist when being lifted, and squirm and wriggle when I was being held.  There was still no speech (only nonsense utterances) of any sort until around two years of age (as a reference, single words should be spoken at nine months or so).  At that time, I suddenly was able to speak in sentences, fully skipping the other steps.  From that point on, my speech (superficially) was on or ahead of schedule. 

From the beginning, my speech was echolalic in nature; I often would repeat things said to me rather than respond to them.  My mother tells me that I would repeat TV commercials all day long.  When the family car passed by a McDonald's, I would always sing, "You deserve a break today."   I also did the classical pronoun reversals; for example, I would say, "Yes, you would," when asked, "Frank, do you want to go to the park?"  Also, I would sometimes fail to use "I" when appropriate, referring instead to myself as "me" or in the third person.  I would spin any object I could pick up, and watch it whirl round and round.  Spinning fans and other moving objects have always been similarly alluring. 

My mother started to worry (sometime between my second and third birthdays) that I seemed to have no interest in other children my age at all.  I would not attempt to interact with them, to play with them, or in fact even notice that they were alive.  It was as if they were part of the landscape to me.  My mother said that I could be in a room full of children and still be alone. 

Although my communications with peers were completely absent, I did talk to adults, but even then it was essentially limited to asking for things I wanted or giving monologues, once I was able to do so.  I was not able to, or willing to, converse in a normal "back and forth" way (to the extent that toddlers are normally capable of conversation).  I can remember fragments of that period of time, and the impression I get is that it never occurred to me to talk to any of the other children.  They could not give me anything, and the idea of giving a monologue to a child was nonsense. 

Sometime around my fifth year (plus or minus a few years) , my mother recalls having told a babysitter at one point that I had to be talked to in a very literal way, and that I would interpret exactly the words that were said.  I was also hyperactive, and she (my mother) tried dietary modifications to normalize my behavior.  I remember not being able to eat anything with BHA and BHT preservatives, added sugars, etc., for a while.  I do not recall exactly how that regime ended. 

Around that time, perhaps in kindergarten or the first grade, my mother says that, in class, I would sometimes inexplicably "lock up" and become unresponsive to any stimulus.  I would not respond to having my name called, to movement... I was in a daze.  Somehow, the word of this got to the special ed teacher, who took me into a room with a balance beam and had me walk on it and do some silly things every once in a while.  My mother tells me now that she is sort of amazed that they figured out that this break was helpful for me to deal with the sensory onslaught of the school environment.  Keep in mind that this was in the 1970s, long before IEPs existed, and before anyone would have suspected that I may have been autistic.  Autism meant someone that was not in touch with reality... someone that was in "his own little world."  Certainly, that could not have been me. 

At perhaps eight years of age, I remember that I used to walk on tip-toes frequently (barefoot).  I never knew why I liked walking that way... it just felt right to me.  I also used to (and still do) flap my hands a lot, which my mother called "fidgeting."  I'd been stimming like that for years, but none of us ever knew why.  Most of the time, I was not all that aware that I was doing it... and when I was, I never knew it was anything unusual.  It certainly felt quite natural, and I never understood why my mother tried to get me to stop.  To her credit, though, she never forced the issue.  She seemed to realize that it was something I needed to do.  I think that her decision to let me be me was one of the luckiest "breaks" I ever got in life; I think things would not have gone so relatively smoothly in the elementary school years if she had not let me do the things I needed to do.  Unlike so many other autistic kids, I never was prone to violent or self-abusive behavior.  I wonder if this was an effect of not trying to curtail my unusual behaviors.  While my parents always knew that I was strange, I suppose that they had no real measure of how much so, since I was the first-born child.  I was not just odd, though; I was also "gifted," according to the teachers, and I surmise that was a big part of the reason I was never taken to the doctor to see why I was strange until I was fifteen.  It was also why no one seemed to notice the notable difficulties I had in a lot of areas. 

By the time I was eight, I had already gotten started on my lifelong pattern of obsessive interest with a particular topic (although the underpinnings could be seen before I was even three years old).  At that age, it was dinosaurs, then sharks.  I've had so many interests over the years, though... they've lasted anywhere from a few weeks to several years.  I don't think I have ever been without one since the pattern started.

The third grade is when I really started to notice I was different from the other kids.  We'd moved to a new town, and I just never got into playing with the neighborhood kids.  I never sought them out, as I was content to play by myself or with my brother, who was (and is) three years my junior.  In school, I did get the sense that the other kids were connected in a way that I could not comprehend, but it did not bother me.  I had little interest in them; all they wanted to do was play sports-type games.  I was much more interested in looking at things under the microscope, or talking about my special interest.  I found that adults were much more willing to indulge my obsessions with various things. 

This persisted for the rest of elementary school.  The start of the seventh grade, though, was when it all fell apart for me.  Suddenly there was a whole social universe that I could not comprehend.  It seemed very simple to me... you would arrive in the morning, go to your first class, then your second... there was no need for anything other than the task of school.  However, the other boys did not agree.  They had to form a pecking order of "coolness," and the way boys do that is to abuse and dominate others (like any other social animal).  I never knew why I was always the primary target... I never gave anyone a hard time.  I just kept to myself and tried to mind my own business, but they always found me.  I was punched, kicked, tripped, had things stolen from me, was spat upon, had gum put in my hair... if it was unpleasant, they did it to me.  At lunch, they spilled milk on me intentionally, or they took food from me. 

It never occurred to me that I should fight back.  I was so unaccustomed to such violence that I was completely in awe.  I had no idea what was happening or why.  I told my mother, and she iterated that I should not fight... civilized people solve their differences with words, you know, not fists.  Well, the difference I had with my attackers was that I thought I had the right to exist, and they did not.  How do you reason that point with someone?  I was told, then, to go tell an authority when I was getting picked on.  It only takes one or two times being a 'rat' before you learn the folly of that advice.  Nothing the authorities could do was horrible enough to mute the pleasure of pummeling some poor defenseless kid that you hate for no good reason.  Telling the authorities only made things worse. 

Left with no means to escape my fate, I resigned myself to enduring the punishment in silence.  And I did... for several years.  By the time I was fifteen or so years old, I was too big to physically abuse anymore, but the taunts and general ostracism continued until my last day in high school.  By that time, the bullies had won, and my spirit had been broken.  I no longer had any self-esteem... my plans of going to college and becoming a computer programmer were gone.  I wanted to drop out of school only two weeks before graduation just to prove how well I had learned the lesson of what a waste of a person I really was.  When the teacher passed out the transcript release forms for college, I threw mine on the floor and laughed.  At a time when other kids are making plans for their higher education, I had not given mine a thought for over a year.  I had been defeated.  There's only so much you can hear about your own worthlessness before you begin to think that it must be true. 

I graduated, and I just kind of existed after that... no drive, no plans, no goals at all.  One day, after my brother started school in the fall, my mother told me that I was going to have to get a job or go to school.  That was quite a shock to me.  I hadn't given my future a thought in years, and I certainly was not an adult, my age notwithstanding.  I was as shocked as if I'd been told that when I was twelve. Even so, I had to do something, so I applied to a university in California, some 1,700 miles (as the crow flies) from the northern Illinois town in which I lived.  I chose California mostly based on its climate, and the one university to which I applied came up at the top of the list in my "Perfect College" program for my Commodore 128 computer.  In early December, six months after I graduated, I was accepted into California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. 

As soon as I had that news, things looked brighter.  I was going to get out of this place where everyone knew me, where I had to be that weird guy.  It would be a fresh start.  I began to make plans for the move.  I had (and still have) a 1972 VW Beetle, which I would be driving on the 2,100 mile journey.  My spirits were very high.  I began again to think that I might just make something of myself. 

Once I was in college, I found that I was actually accepted by most people.  I became very social (by my standards-- I was still not as social as my peers), and that was the happiest time of my life.  Unfortunately, school itself did not come so easily.  My undiagnosed autism posed more of an impediment to success than I would have ever guessed, based on how easily I got through high school.  My attention span was short, and I could not concentrate in class with all of the noises and things to look at all around me.  Even though I had become more social, I was still nervous with all of those other students around me, and sometimes I just could not tolerate their presence.  Often I found myself just sitting there, gritting my teeth, enduring the class.  I somehow felt that being there was enough... I was not able to concentrate, but I could at least be present.  The biggest problem is that I could not get myself to care about the course work in those classes in which I was not interested. After my first year in school, I was already set to be disqualified for having a GPA of below 2.0.  The chair of the department of computer science was able to get me back in for one more quarter, but that would be my last chance. 

Right at the beginning of summer 1991, two other guys and I got a three-bedroom apartment near the university campus.  Inexplicably, one of them never fully moved in to the apartment, and after only five months (on a twelve-month lease) he decided to leave.  My remaining roommate and I tried half-heartedly to find a new roommate, but neither of us could really stomach the idea of living with a stranger.  We eventually decided to movc to a city quite some distance away, out in the desert.  There was only a community college within easy commuting range, but that was enough.  It was sort of a self-imposed exile.  I would be moving away from all of my new friends at Cal Poly, but that did not seem to matter.  Once the lease was signed at the new place, the groundwork was laid for my backslide into a horrible depression. 

Once we had finished moving, the grind of the new place began.  Again, I was out of a familiar environment, and it was both stressful and relaxing, in different ways.  It definitely felt like a hostile environment, and my roommate and I hid in the apartment all day, with the shades closed (for reasons unknown to me, he had become quite depressed too).  We avoided leaving the apartment when there were people outside, often delaying us for hours.  Even if the neighbors made a simple friendly gesture, it felt like an attack.  Feeling as if we were under siege, we withdrew deeper into our world of darkness and gloom. 

After two years in that place, I had managed to get a high enough GPA at the community college to offset my poor GPA at Cal Poly, thus raising my cumulative GPA enough to get admitted to Cal State San Bernardino.  We'd had enough of the old place, and again I found myself fleeing the familiar, seeking yet another opportunity to re-invent myself.  We moved into an apartment close to the new university, and spent another two years there.  Other than the scenery, little changed.  We would move twice more in the next few years, always looking for something we could not quite identify.  I had given up any idea of graduating from college... at this point, I was the proverbial professional student.  Life looked very bleak and hopeless, and I frequently wished I would die in my sleep.  I never considered suicide, but I fantasized about it.  All of the things I liked to do were gone... most of the time, I did not have the energy to get up and do any of them.  When I had energy, nothing was fun anymore.  There were bright spots here and there, but they were few and far-between.  As the years passed, my attitude got progressively worse. 

After several years with little to show for my effort, and all of the toughest classes still ahead of me, I decided to quit before any more money was wasted on tuition for classes I was going to fail anyway.  I had no idea of how I was going to support myself, since I could barely even take care of my most basic needs.  Eventually, my roommate got a newspaper route, and after a month of working every day (seven days a week), I took the route for three days each week.  It was not enough to live on, but I made do with what I had.  It was very stressful on two levels... first, I could barely handle the meager work load, and second, living on the brink of homelessness is no fun at all.  We continued sharing that paper route for three years. 

My mother had been trying to get me to see someone for the depression, but I resisted.  I had been depressed for so long that I considered it to be a part of me.  I thought that people that were not depressed were not in touch with reality; anyone that knew how bad life was HAD to be depressed.  I loved to shock people with how bleak my attitude was.  I considered myself to be a big walking pile of garbage, and I wanted everyone to know.  Depression was real; depression was me.  If I got help, I thought it would not be me... I thought I would become someone else.  As unhappy as I was, I was not suicidal, and to me, killing the depression would kill what I considered to be 'me.' 

Finally, though, my mother finally got through.  I could not go on in this way... this was not life at all.  That's when I began my regimen of Zoloft, a SSRI-class antidepressant. 

It was spooky how fast the miniscule 50mg dose of Zoloft worked.  Within two weeks, the depression lifted.  At first, I did not know how to feel... I could not wallow in self-pity as I was accustomed, and it was somewhat frightening.  In the first few weeks, I really missed my depression.  It was a very hollow feeling.  I did not know how to be happy or content anymore; all I knew was sadness, despair, self-hatred, and anger.  In a few weeks, though, I learned again how not to be depressed, and things improved immensely.  As the next few months passed, things only looked better and better.  I was not someone else... I still felt like me, only better.  My self-esteem began to build, and I found that I started to like myself again, for the first time in a very long while. 

As my energy levels grew, I was able to take on my own newspaper route, seven days a week.  Things continued to improve for the next nine months... and then my roommate had some personal problems and had to move out.  That is when I decided that I'd had enough of California.  It felt like it was time to go.  That chapter in my life had ended.  It began with my fun but fruitless first year in school, and descended into a morass of failed classes and horrible depression.  It was time to start a new chapter.  This time, I felt like I was running toward something instead of away from something.  I had a bright outlook for the first time in years, and I was going to get another chance. 

I've continued to make progress from that time forward.  I can't say that all of the damage to my psyche has been mitigated, but every day there is less than the day before.  The biggest epiphany came on 18th June 2000, when I saw an article in the Sunday New York Times magazine headlined as "The Little Professor Syndrome."  Since that is something I have been called myself, it interested me.  What I found in those pages was a description of me and of my childhood.  I was completely amazed... until then, I had known I was different than everyone else, but I never knew why.  Now I had a name to put to the condition: Asperger's Syndrome. 

It took me a few months (about seven) to use this new knowledge of my self to find others like me on the net.  At first, I was just somewhat interested to know why I was as I was.  I'd already gotten the upper hand on the depression by the time I found out about AS, so it was not as if I was in need of some sort of thing to make me "ok" in my own eyes.  However, a misunderstanding between an NT acquaintance and myself gave me the impetus to learn more.  This acquaintance had been upset when I told her that her pronunciation of a word was incorrect.  She authoritatively instructed me that I should have let it go, or else told her in a very gentle way.  I had just come straight out and said it, not in a mean or condescending way, but rather in what I thought was a helpful way.  She thought it was rude and mean.  I was puzzled.  Why would anyone think it preferable to remain ignorant rather than suffer the indignity of being corrected?  I get upset with people if they hear me misuse a word and they do not tell me.  I would rather be corrected now than to remain ignorant and make myself sound foolish at some later point.  Until this discussion, I had no real idea as to just how much of an NT's self-worth is contingent upon the opinions of others. 

That day, I went home and reread the AS pages I had bookmarked, and I found a few aspie places on the net.  I found lots of people like me... people that thought like me, acted like me, and some people that write like I do.  It was a very nice feeling to be in a virtual group of people and not be expected to curtail my real self to keep from offending the delicate sensitivities of the NTs.  Notice that I said "to be expected to" and not "to have to" curtail my real self.  I am me, and I don't make any effort to appear as anything or anyone else. I do not want to be NT... I am glad to be who I am.  I wish I could instill this same pride in self and in what we are in every depressed, self-hating autistic in the world.  I may not succeed, but I will continue to try. 

In the months following, I spent considerable time on the Internet, researching AS and autism, and attempting to crack the puzzle of how AS relates to HFA.   I assumed that I fit the AS profile more than the HFA profile, given my strong verbal skills.  I have, though, learned very recently that I easily meet the DSM-IV definition of autism, which precludes an AS diagnosis (the current DSM-IV definitions are problematic for me; please see my article for more on my evolving views on HFA vs. AS).  When I learned what was meant by "performance IQ," I did some tests, and realized that I am quite strong in visio-spatial skills, which are typically a weakness in people with AS (and a strength for those with autism).  My performance IQ related skills in general seem quite good based on the testing and evaluation I have done so far; stronger than in verbal, my writing ability notwithstanding.  In addition, the early onset date, language delay, and early (and continuing) echolalia are indicative of autism as opposed to AS.  As such, the HFA label is a more accurate label for me than AS. 
 

Today, I am an avocate for autistics at all levels.  Again, I am glad that I am as I am, and I think that autism is not the tragedy that it is made out to be.  Not all autistics can speak up for themselves; I can, though, so I will speak for them, as best I can.  No autistic child should have to be pummeled for being different.  No autistic person should be expected to go through life, living a lie (of faux normality), to make it easier for the normal people around him.  No autistic person should hate who and what he is.   No autistic person should be tortured by doctors that do not know how to differentiate autism from other conditions, or that do not know how to treat it if it is diagnosed.  I can make a difference. 

I live alone, with the exception of my two cats, in Tucson, AZ.  I am currently single.  I would like to find someone with whom to share my life, though.  I've tried the singles ads; the results were poor.  (Eligible females are encouraged to email me!) 
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, I have had parents of autistic children ask me (incredulously) how I could possibly have made it through thirty years of life with undiagnosed autism.  That is hard enough for them to believe when they hear about it happening with AS, but autism... that's impossible, isn't it? 

In a word, no.  It was the case for me, and that proves that it is indeed possible.  Some may debate that I am truly autistic and not "just" aspie.  I have examined that possibility, but the case for HFA is strong.   I easily meet the DSM-IV and ICD-10 definitions of autism... and the DSM-IV definition is supposed to be more exclusive than the older DSM-IIIR definition in use from 1987 to 1994.  My early history, as listed in my autobiography above, is very much consistent with autism, and not so much with AS.  As it is currently defined, AS is not synonymous with mild autism... it is defined as if it is a separate condition.  As such, milder expressions of autism will still be called autism and not AS.  I will be the first to admit that as far as autism goes, I am on the mild end of the condition.   Still, since AS is less severe generally than autism, most aspies are more "normal" than I am. 

So how could I get to be thirty, autistic and undiagnosed?  Simply put, the lack of diagnosis was mostly a function of my mother's acceptance of my odd behavioral profile.  She knew I was different, but that fact alone did not scare her so much that she would rush me over to the neurologist and have me examined.  My condition was not severe enough to "force" her to take me to a psychiatrist or neurologist (as would have been the case with a child that was violent or self-abusive).  As long as I seemed to be doing well, my mother was not too worried about my oddities, even where other mothers may have been terrified.  Doctors do not go door-to-door evaluating kids for autism; the parent has to actively take the child in for evaluation, and mine did not. 

It is unlikely that the "family doctor" would have known enough about autism to make the suggestion on his own, back then, based on the examinations he did for other medical reasons.   None of the pediatricians ever recognized the signs of autism.  In school, I walked strangely, was fidgety, had difficulties focusing, would "shut down" sometimes, did not work well in groups, preferred solitude, showed stim behaviors, interpreted things very literally, did not make eye contact, was obsessively interested in one specific thing at a time, liked to spin my pencils, showed echolalia (and maybe pronoun reversals... I do not know when I quit doing those)...  and none of the teachers figured it out.  If one of them had told my mother that she suspected autism, I probably would have been taken in for an evaluation.  Autism awareness was not what it is now; since I was able to keep up with the work and perform at least at grade level, my odd behavior did not especially alarm anyone.  I was always perceived as a very "gifted" child, and I suppose that goes a long way in excusing my odd behavior. 

When I was fifteen, right when "ADD" (attention deficit disorder) was the latest trendy thing, I was taken into a pediatric neurologist for evaluation.  He made the diagnosis of ADD without any examination of the patient (me).  The diagnosis was made based on my mother's testimony.  Of course, he did find the requisite signs of ADD/ADHD... they were there, for sure.  If he had examined me rather than make the diagnosis by proxy, or if he had realized that pervasive developmental disorders often have ADD/ADHD traits, he may have seen the full autistic picture, rather than the pie slice of autism that looks like ADD. 

And so it went... everyone knew I was odd, but no one ever suggested to my mother (or me) that I seemed as if I might be autistic.  I wonder if anyone ever looked at me and recognized that I was, but said nothing.  It was just chance that I happened to see that New York Times magazine article.  I could easily have continued to live my life, not knowing why I am as I am.