On (22 Oct 05) Cindy Haglund wrote to Janis Kracht...
 CH> Thank you Janis. I was going to look it up (blush).... I suspect the
 CH> doctor didnt' want to say 'autisim' to the inquiring person... it can
 CH> be a frightening word. It struck me that the child is simply shy ...
 CH> I'm not so sure it's right to force people to be what we expect as
 CH> long as they're accepting of it themselves and don't want help to
 CH> change and are able to function ; take care of themselves...

And some parents feel that they're not getting the full amount of
benefits for their children, and if labelling them with an identifiable
"disorder" will get them some extra attention at school, and/or extra
allowances made so that natural failings can be overlooked and their
child can achieve the artifically-set accomplishment levels of the
public school system.

 CH>  Human behavior is vastly complex. I recall from a course in Human
 CH> Behavior Development it is said behvior expresses on a continum. That
 CH> implies all behaviors manifest in degrees and overlap with each other.
 CH> There's no set and dried set of 'symptoms'.. It's amazing isn't it? I
 CH> mean a small dose of shyness is regarded as healthy: it's 'caution'
 CH> but too much of it well , can impede our ability to get on in life and
 CH> be happy (because society expects us to be sociable- some people are
 CH> shy and don't mind it at all....)

Yup, and there's no telling where the "disorders" come into it!
A mother is breastfeeding her child, with the accompanying
"bonding"(eye-to-eye contact) and she's interrupted(eg. doorbell(and
nobody else to get it so she can finish what she's doing in a
proper/natural way)

Little does she know(or can help) that this interruption(with others,
perhaps) could cause permanent damage to the Dopamine-producing part of
the brain, so the child grows up with chronic clinical depression, ADHD,
and other brain chemistry disorders. . .

Yes, it's THAT simple sometimes! :(
And that's life -- parents can be perfect all the time, but when these
"sh*t happens" situations occur, they can be overcome through loving
commitment/patience/etc. (eg. when the child starts manifesting
hyperactivity, the parent needs to patiently and directly address the
behaviours, before they become reinforced by habit/tolerance into a
permanent and worse disorder.

Some wonderful mothers can't do so because the home environment is too
stressful (drinking/drugging/adulteros partner, for example), and/or she
can't devote the one-on-one TIME that infants/toddlers need so much from
their MOTHER(not nannies, not daycare staff, not babysitters, not a VCR,
etc.), and/or "sh*t happens" with a next child who requires a lot of
extra attention (health troubles) but even then the damage can be fixed
over time, because you generally have your kids around for years. . .

But, if the Dopamine-damaged kid gets hyperactive, and this becomes too
much for her(& dad's) patience, and the kid just gets yelled at lots,
locked into his room, etc., there's no solution/repair happening!

Eventually he discovers self-medication(drugs/alcohol), and/or runs away
from home(which leads to its own set of disorder-inducing
paths/decisions), and/or commits suicide.

Darwin was a dummy in a lot of ways, but even a broken clock is right
twice a day, and he made some valid points. . .

The kid who gets depressed, and hooked on heroin, and gets a "hot fix"
and dies has done his part in the betterment of homo sapiens!

The kid who overcomes, either by self, and/or with the help of others,
may well endure to breed and pass on his/her ability to overcome. (might
be as simple as having the right "look"(beauty/handsomeness) which
invites compassion from others.

Or it can be as simple as being in the right place at the right time
(eg. finding a fortune in gold)

But even luck has its limits in providing survivability/superior
evolution -- if he's a dummy, or otherwise weak, his found fortune will
be quickly expended or just usurped by more powerful types.

It sounds harsh, but the facts are that strength/power(usually
manifested as cruelty/selfishness) works and provides much advantage!

Don't think that humanity is so far out of the jungle!

If you want to know/understand human beings, watch wild animals in the
wild (not necessarily just primates, either! Even spiders teach us more
about humanity than do the psychology textbooks!)

 CH>  I'd feel the same way. Even being deaf if I see people's body
 CH> language means they're arguing or otherwise being out of control or
 CH> potentially so, I want to get awawy from there. Avoidance of conflict
 CH> is a flight/flee instinct. If you know how to deal with such a
 CH> situation : find out what's going on and if necessary help to get
 CH> things back under control: fine. If not the smart thing to do is to
 CH> remove yourself from the situation. Nothin' MS about that. :)

There're ways to deal with it, even for someone deaf, if it was part of
your personality/interest to do so -- not saying you SHOULD necessarily
do so, but just pointing out that there are always alternative
responses.

Some people might be more extroverted and it would be natural to head
into the fray and force others to communicate understandingly and
establish a rapport and defuse the situation. . .

I tend to respond as you do to conflicts in my environment, but I'm
working on becoming more of a peacemaker (it's tough going -- mistakes
are a little more painful than it was making mistakes learning roller
skates! *G*)

Not because I have to, or even because it's necessarily a good idea, but
because it fits in with who I am & where I want to go & who I want to
be. . . :)

The overriding 'rule' has always been, & remains: "to each his own" :)

Some people LIKE conflict, and are happy to meet someone else who is
likewise -- I identify those and get the hell out, because it'll amuse
both too much to rope me into their sick game!

(it's part of THEIR particular disability set!)

I'm all for tolerance (actually, I hate that word -- ACCEPTANCE) of all
people, regardless of disability, but there are times when one person's
disability can be nothing but a danger to you (eg. you're drowning, and
a spastic person is trying to drag you to safety -- it's just as likely
thiy're going to drag you BOTH under the drink, so shove off from them
and strike out on your own for shore!)

Do you remember swimming classes as a child?  One of the first lessons
taught to us (as 8-year-olds) was that if you're out in the water & the
person you're trying to save from drowning is panicking and going to
pull you both under, slug them in the face, choke them, whatever it
takes to get away ASAP and get yourself to safety (where you can
evaluate further assistive options(eg. toss lifesaver, phone for help,
etc.)

People who aren't identified/labelled as "disabled" or having a
"disorder" still DO have them, they're just different!

A man who would kill to steal your wallet is ethically handicapped --
they're like the panicking drowning man -- you MUST respond with
unequivocal self-defense.

The problem occurs when people overrate the need for such extreme self
defense against ANYBODY's disability or disorder

eg. Quarantining someone with Bubonic Plague is very appropriate.
eg. Euthanizing people with the flu is certainly not!

Some people have fear as a disability/disorder, and can't comprehend how
someone different(eg. disabled, ethnically-other, differing religion
etc.) can/should be allowed to share space on the planet and they deem
it life or death, when it's clearly not!

Like how the religious at one time deemed athiesm worthy of death
penalty -- and hundreds of years later, with all this supposed
civilization of humanity, the athiests subconsciously believe that the
religious shouldn't be allowed to live!

Which is worse?  The attitude/actions done out of unintended ignorance?
OR
the attitude/actions done out of wilful refusal to learn from the past?

 CH> BTW. I have a balance problem due to my ear situation. When I'm very
 CH> tired or upset it's harder to walk straight. So I try not to stay
 CH> rested and stress free. That helps...(and avoid walking when I'm
 CH> tired/stressed because people might think I'm drunk. :( ))

I used to start building a resentment against blind people who were
given preference in the front seats of the bus.  My thinking was that
these seats are for those with MOBILITY(standing) problems/weakness.

I could've done as so many do, and started a campaign against the
drivers allowing blind(otherwise abled-bodied) passengers a seat in the
priority seating area, and might even have succeeded in rallying up a
bunch of anger at the status quo, so that any time someone sees a blind
guy sitting in the front, he will angrily light into the blind guy and
force him to stand!

Well, I didn't go with my first impression/resentment, and let it go
until such time as I befriended a blind fellow and asked him about this
habit/practice of his fellow sight-impaired community, and he explained
that with blindness comes a certain disorientation, and standing in a
rocking/moving bus can be quite difficult(as much as in the manner of,
possibly, as it is for me, with the lame leg)

I already knew about how balance can be a problem for those with ear
problems, so I tend to now just assume that those in the front have a
right/reason to be there, and if I need to wait for another bus, c'est
la vie!

(This is why I aim to be 1-2 hours early for important appointments!) (I
carry a book or 3, and enjoy my waiting time catching up on my
recreational/etc. reading!)

I've learned(taught myself) not to respond with
resentment/impatience/anger at seeing what seem to be people taking
unfair advantage of reserved seating! :)

Because I have lived long enough(finally!) to realize y hat I *CAN* well
be wrong no matter how certain(through common sense, assumption, etc.) I
feel about something! :)

 CH>  It's too much stimulation. That's the key. I don't like crowds for
 CH> exmple. But I know many people don't. It's not a 'disorder' at all.

Exactly, but maybe it IS a disorder!

For a social creature, not wanting/able to be part of any/all groupings
that might naturally arise may well be a disorder? :)

But even if so, I don't care -- I'm quite content avoiding crowds, as
much as possible(amazingly easy to realize that we don't usually HAVE to
be in them!)  :)

(unless one has a job as crowd control, but I tend to avoid those kinds
of jobs, as I'm sure you would, too! *G*)

Because I care,
<+]::-{)}  (Cyberpope(the Bishop of ROM!))





 CH> It's just not liking to have to deal with crowds. (especially the kids
 CH> darting in and out everywhere and the idiots walking around blissfully
 CH> with cell phones glued into their ears...)
 CH>
 CH>  JK> Asperger's is yet another neurological disease, and what I've
 CH>  JK> described above is really only a small part of what some with it
 CH> go
 CH>  JK> through.
 CH>
 CH>  But is it really a 'disease' or just a 'difference'? That's what
 CH> puzzles me. To what degree does a condition have to be to be
 CH> considered "just a difference"? Maybe if the person can function
 CH> independantly ?
 CH>
 CH>  JK> They are sometimes obsessed with a certain routine (maybe because
 CH> they
 CH>  JK> know it, there are no surprises, and it's therefore safe)..
 CH> there's a
 CH>
 CH>  That's something like a seratonin deficiency isn't it? When we don't
 CH>  have enough we tend to obesses and it's hard to break the cycle
 CH> without one of those drugs that helps keep it in supply (seratonin
 CH> reuptake inhibitors.)
 CH>
 CH>  JK> lot more to it than I've described above and hopefully the show
 CH> you
 CH>  JK> watched gave you some references where you can find out more
 CH> about it.
 CH>  JK> If not, just use google to find asperger's syndrome.
 CH>
 CH>  I will look it up. Thanks. :) I've been fascinated by autism in the
 CH> past. That there's different levels of it. Remember that book by
 CH> Owen... oh (name escaping).. It will coem back. He wrote a book about
 CH> autism and his treatment for his son. It involved intense behavior
 CH> modification. It worked too; for his son anyway.
 CH>
 CH> One of the 'obessions with routine' as you may know is that with say
 CH> spinning a plate on end over and over and over for hours and hours...
 CH> Being caught up in the pattern and unable to break away from it.
 CH> ((I think the book was "Son Rise"...
 CH>
 CH>  JK> > What do you think? Is medical science defining conditions based
 CH> on
 CH>  JK> > status quo?
 CH>
 CH>  JK> > I always thought conditions were 'disorders' if they interfere
 CH> with
 CH>  JK> > being able to function in a way that lends to self support...''
 CH>
 CH>  JK> Asperger's certainly can interfere with being able to function
 CH> "in a
 CH>  JK> way that lends to self support" in some  cases..
Autism itself is
 CH>  JK> incredibly hard to live with..
 CH>
 CH>  I've read about autism enough, yes to agree. :( It's hard for US to
 CH> live with it. The patient is quite happy in his or herown little
 CH> world. The only problem is of course depending on the severity of the
 CH> autism- they can't function in OUR world. The world they need to learn
 CH> to function in if they're going to survive.
 CH>
 CH>  Cindy
 CH>
 CH> --- PPoint 3.01
 CH> 138/146 140/1
 CH> 2613/118


--- PPoint 1.76