Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Psychoanalysis and Autism: the French situation

  • 29-01-2012 2:48pm
    #1
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,173 CMod ✭✭✭✭


    A few years ago, one of my lecturers alluded to this, but at the time I took his comments with a grain of salt as I figured they were from the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' school of thought.

    Anyway, the other day I caught wind of something about a French documentary trying to shine light on the subject.
    BBC Link

    New York Times report, which is more detailed.

    The documentary is almost an hour long and I've not watched it yet. If the video below doesn't work look for 'Le Mur: La psychanalyse a l'epreuve de l'autisme'



    I'll come back with more when I've watched it.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    I haven't got time to look at it currently, but Élisabeth Roudinesco is named in the article as a historian of psychoanalysis, and she is. She would be very objective in her accounts of psychoanalysis, so if she claims it is

    The film is unfair,” Élisabeth Roudinesco, a French historian of psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VII, said. “It is fanatically anti-psychoanalysis. But I don’t think she’s manipulated the film to make them look ridiculous; rather, I think she chose to talk with very dogmatic psychoanalysts who come across as ridiculous.”

    I guess that will be there when I get around to looking at it.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 2,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭dambarude


    First of all thanks Black Oil for sharing that.

    Wow. To be honest I'm a bit shocked after watching the video. I cannot believe how backward France is in this regard. I've taken a placement with children with autism so I've seen first hand how beneficial TEACCH and PECS methods can be. I haven't seen ABA being used, but I've studied it briefly (and will be studying it much more in the coming weeks), and it clearly has positive results also.

    The video has confirmed much of the suspicions and misgivings I have about psychoanalysis. The theory behind it is nothing short of ludicrous. I'm not basing that opinion solely on what I've seen in 'Le Mur', but it did solidify what I had previously thought. My encounters with psychoanalysis in my course (undergrad psychology) have been very brief, but have always left me perplexed. It was covered in Intro to Psych, and touched upon in other places. One particular lecturer who was trained abroad took a particular interest in it. The more she said about it, the more I was turned against it. Reading on its applications in abnormal psychology diverted me even farther from it.

    It enrages me to think that psychoanalytic theories on phalluses, incest, and maternal relations can be used to explain and 'treat' children with an ASD.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭sambuka41


    Odysseus wrote: »
    The film is unfair,” Élisabeth Roudinesco, a French historian of psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VII, said. “It is fanatically anti-psychoanalysis. But I don’t think she’s manipulated the film to make them look ridiculous; rather, I think she chose to talk with very dogmatic psychoanalysts who come across as ridiculous.”

    I've just watched half of it, hopefully I'll see the rest later. The analysts in it are quite dogmatic; the remind me of a few that I have met in Ireland!! ;)
    In fairness the interviewer does seem to have a good understanding/reading of psychoanalysis.

    I'm still reading Lacan at the moment and I have to say his text is very dense, it does seem open to misunderstandings. A big element of this documentary is the Paternal Metaphor; this is a huge concept that isn't a stand alone process, it's influential in and wrapped up in many of Lacan's theories; I think you'd need at least 10x1 hour documentaries to get a decent undertsanding of it!! :p

    In my opinion there is a place for psychoanalysis and this is probably not it, the same way I think there is some suffering that psychiatry or psychology cannot sort out and really only psychoanalysis works.

    Just a few things that I noted, and maybe Odysseus would know better if I am way off course. I've been reading The Formations of the Unconscious (1957/58) seminar, From it the my understanding of the psychotic structure is that it comes down to a difficulty with Metaphor (an inability to metaphorise their own existence, and thus an inability to accept/comprehend the law/ no-of-the-father)
    If I got this right (and really who knows with Lacan!!) then in a system like the P.E.C.S where the child is shown pictures and uses these to communicate and develop language, are they in fact helping the child to metaphorise their existence?


    (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the claim that autism is the same as a psychotic structure, I personally don't know where it fits in psychoanalysis, if it does at all)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    sambuka41 wrote: »
    I



    If I got this right (and really who knows with Lacan!!) then in a system like the P.E.C.S where the child is shown pictures and uses these to communicate and develop language, are they in fact helping the child to metaphorise their existence?


    (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the claim that autism is the same as a psychotic structure, I personally don't know where it fits in psychoanalysis, if it does at all)

    I hope to try watch it tonight, I know a few of the names involved I would have attended some of their seminars in Paris., a good few years ago. I actually have a paper on addiction by one of them on my desk.

    However, would the above not be helping the child with signified's not signifiers which is where the metaphor occurs?

    I haven't seen the doc so can't comment yet, but thankfully Lacan is big in France, Beligum, Holland, as well as Israel and of course South American.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Does anyone know how I could download this video, so I can view it on a bigger screen. It is quite difficult to watch.

    @Sambuka when I talk about it being at the level of the signified, it seem to me currently that the child is being taugh communication, which of course is different to language. What do you think?

    To the people who speak of science, if I was to post such a based upon two kids, but the child responsed to psychoanalytic tx better, would I not be told that this was not evidence based, as it is only ancedotal?

    If it gets a discussion on psychoanalysis going great, but if it is just an attempt to go Freud/Lacan bashing, I don't come here to defend psychoanalysis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭hotspur


    Odysseus wrote: »
    To the people who speak of science, if I was to post such a based upon two kids, but the child responsed to psychoanalytic tx better, would I not be told that this was not evidence based, as it is only ancedotal?

    You would likely be told that the sample size renders the findings irrelevant and overwhelmingly likely to be the result of individual differences in the kids. Do it with 200 kids for a specific problem, with randomisation to receive different therapy protocols with checks for treatment fidelity and the inclusion of objective assessments of progress and we are on our way to having a scientific experiment.

    I haven't watched the video yet, is it a report based on 2 kids? I'm guessing it is journalism rather than a scientific experiment though.

    Also, we like you defending psychoanalysis :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Having reviewed only once the tape these would be my thoughts on the matter, France is thankfully very open to the work of Lacan, I would not call it dogmatism though, as these words came on the screen before a word was spoken, it do signify a position. Secondly it refers to psychosis resulting from “a bad maternal relationship”. When we speak of the mOther this refers to the primary care taker, in most cases the mother but not always. The same with the father, the No of the Father can be taken up by a same sexed partner, anything that comes between the immediacy of the mOther and infant.

    Viewing the Oedipus complex through structural linguistics it is then seen as a failure at the level of language, all psychoses are viewed in this light. The place of language is fundamental here, hence, Lacan’s famous quote “the unconscious is structured like a language”, Freud’s condensation becomes metaphor and displacement becomes metonym. It is important for the viewer to be aware of this when trying to be objective about this documentary. Basically, and there is nothing basic with Lacan the infant [meaning non-speaker] enters the world of the symbolic through the Oedipus complex, after this everything [reality] is mediated by language. Hence, the emphasis we place upon speech and language. It’s a very basic introduction, but I do not think anyone can make an informed comment about it, unless they understand the above.

    Sadly there are people who are fundamental about psychoanalysis, but I have met fundamentalist from all types of therapy. Yet in the clinic I can work aside a CBT therapist to the benefit of our clients. Anyway apologies if I ramble off point a bit throughout this, I have a tendency to that a bit. The subtitling was very bad. Was anyone else bent over the screen trying to read the subtitles?

    I would expect someone who spent four years working on the topic to know the difference between other and Other. I have no French expect little bits I picked up from reading Lacan, One analyst in Ireland who studied under Lacan who spent over twenty years translating his seminars for us, so I know there is a significant difficultly in translating Lacan to English, I do wonder how well this is translated; if the person cannot make the above distinction. It may not sound significant to some, but within Lacanian theory it that capital O makes a major difference in the meaning of a sentence.

    When they speak of the penis, note the analysts use the term phallus, there is a significant difference between these terms, once again I would expect the translator to know this. I once use the net to translate a paper that was in French for me, it is also a good example of the ambiguity of language and the difference between the signifier and the signified; auto-erotic came back as car erotic!

    The interviewer seems to be trying to trap the analysts around the word sex, what I get out of it is she is going for the drama of equating the term sex to the genital act, whereas as I think it is safe to assert that most people can make the distinction between the sexual aim and object, the aim is always the same. The object can change into something non-sexual, fetishism being an example. She also uses terms like guilt, to attempt to signify that one of the caretakers is engaging in a conscious premeditated act, in other words it is used appallingly, the same with madness. The man who states that madness has no “bad” meaning for him, would hold the same view as me. When I treat someone with a perverse structure, I think nothing less of them. It is a diagnostic term.

    Now I have only watched it once, but it certainly has an agenda. I was thinking about the part where the interviewer asks what can a patient expect from a psychoanalytic TX, then I asked myself the same question about my addicted clients. As their drug use is only a symptom of their illness, I am not there to get them clean as some people think. So I had the same difficulties answering it myself. Though with saying that a number of my clients did get clean last year, but that is something that may or may not happen during treatment. Thankfully even the HSE understand that a lot of my clients will continue to use.

    I know little of the treatment of this particular disorder, but I do understand the psychoanalytic tx of psychoses, so my read of this documentary would be the interviewer did try to set up the analysts, especially around the concept of infantile sexuality and tried to compare it to genital sex. I would like to watch this a few times in order to have a much more informed response.

    But I would like to ask the OP why they posted it, prior to watching it? I am personally glad it was posted, and may actually use it in some lectures at some stage. Anyway I hope my post makes some sense.

    So have anyone else watched it yet? I know there are a few people here who have studied Lacan at various levels so what do you guys think?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    hotspur wrote: »
    You would likely be told that the sample size renders the findings irrelevant and overwhelmingly likely to be the result of individual differences in the kids. Do it with 200 kids for a specific problem, with randomisation to receive different therapy protocols with checks for treatment fidelity and the inclusion of objective assessments of progress and we are on our way to having a scientific experiment.

    I haven't watched the video yet, is it a report based on 2 kids? I'm guessing it is journalism rather than a scientific experiment though.

    Also, we like you defending psychoanalysis :)

    Cheers, thanks Hotspur. I had a feeling that would be the answer to my question. More people got clean with see me as their therapist in my centre last year, but that mean nothing really. Just because my numbers are up a little on the CBT therapist there. Anyway, as I stated above I don't see drug status as the goal of therapy.

    Yes, your are spot on it is journalism, but I think it is worth an hour of your time, as I would be interested in your viewpoint on it.

    I know your joking, but I have said the above since my first post here, that I am not here to defend p[sychoanalysis, from Daddy sorry Freud bashing. As you know I love to talk about psychoanalysis, but I avoid taking up the position of defender of Freud/Lacan. Unless of course people come out with sh!te like he was a coke addict and his theories are the result of cocaine inducded delusions:rolleyes: You know the type yourself

    EDIT:
    As you know I not really up on the various methods of reseach used for example in CBT, I have the basics but that is it. Even though I hold a Research MA in psychoanalysis, it is one area I keep meaning to address. However, due to health issues I have started but had to drop out of a post-grad programme two years on the trot. It was either work or study I couldn't do both, though hopefully I'm over the worest of it.

    Anyway, my understanding is that you cannot use the same measures that are used in CBT to measure psychoanalysis. Me and a few other Lacanian where forced by the HSE to do some training in CBCS a few years back, and the look of horror at the suggestion of videoing sessions in the room has always stuck with me. Are there are research methods that you could suggest to evaulate psychoanalysis? I remember posting a paper here, and you stating that only a psychoanalyst could call that a research paper;) it was one of Paul Verhaeghe's papers.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,173 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Odysseus wrote: »
    Does anyone know how I could download this video, so I can view it on a bigger screen. It is quite difficult to watch

    ~

    But I would like to ask the OP why they posted it, prior to watching it?

    1. If you have Firefox, try Videodownloadhelper. I'm downloading it at the moment at 480p, it's about 212MB. File is flv format, should run in VLC.

    2. Time constraints, largely. Heard the piece on the BBC first, looked up the story the next day. Am not usually a fan of video only posts in serious forums, don't worry. :) Also, I know little about psychoanalysis in general, hadn't heard much of it being connected to autism (apart from Bettelheim's perspective touched on in a documentary about Temple Grandin (link) and I wanted to see whether what my lecturer, of a few years ago, said had any basis in reality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭sambuka41


    Odysseus wrote: »
    @Sambuka when I talk about it being at the level of the signified, it seem to me currently that the child is being taugh communication, which of course is different to language. What do you think?

    This is where I get lost at time with Lacan! I revert back to psychology mode a bit, I was probably thinking more alone the lines of it cognitively, the picture symbolises something, it represents something in reality for him. That's where I deviated I think.


    There was one of the analyst's who's input appeared to be quite balanced and articulate (cant remember her name) but she always seemed to follow some of the more eccentric ones, which almost put her comments out of context. The problem is that there are some analysts who just love shocking people and they really don't go out of their way to explain terms, they just blurt out things like incestuous impulses without clarifying exactly what is meant by that. This interviewer found a couple of them.

    I was talking about this yesterday and some one else pointed out the problem is that what they were saying about the mother it was as if they were agreeing with Bettelheim about the actual mother, but instead its the symbolic mother that is in question.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Black Oil wrote: »
    1. If you have Firefox, try Videodownloadhelper. I'm downloading it at the moment at 480p, it's about 212MB. File is flv format, should run in VLC.

    2. Time constraints, largely. Heard the piece on the BBC first, looked up the story the next day. Am not usually a fan of video only posts in serious forums, don't worry. :) Also, I know little about psychoanalysis in general, hadn't heard much of it being connected to autism (apart from Bettelheim's perspective touched on in a documentary about Temple Grandin (link) and I wanted to see whether what my lecturer, of a few years ago, said had any basis in reality.

    Cheers, I managed it in the end:o I terrible at that type of stuff. I know little of Bettelheim's work, expect his work Freud and Mans Soul. That is about the difficulties in reading Freud in English, due to Jones translations; apart from that I know little.

    I must have a look at the documentaries I have on file, I use quite a few during my lectures, they are mostly on addiction but some people hear may be interested.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    sambuka41 wrote: »


    There was one of the analyst's who's input appeared to be quite balanced and articulate (cant remember her name) but she always seemed to follow some of the more eccentric ones, which almost put her comments out of context. The problem is that there are some analysts who just love shocking people and they really don't go out of their way to explain terms, they just blurt out things like incestuous impulses without clarifying exactly what is meant by that. This interviewer found a couple of them.

    I was talking about this yesterday and some one else pointed out the problem is that what they were saying about the mother it was as if they were agreeing with Bettelheim about the actual mother, but instead its the symbolic mother that is in question.

    I think it also needs to be taken within the context of the French education system, the general public would be much more aware of psychoanalysis that here. It is AFAIA taught at second level in a lot of schools along with various philosophies, taking that and we don't know what was edited out. However, your point is well taken.

    How are you finding Formations of the Unconscious? I currently back with Verhaeghe's On being Normal... And Ella Sharpe's papers on Hamlet


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭hotspur


    Odysseus wrote: »
    Anyway, my understanding is that you cannot use the same measures that are used in CBT to measure psychoanalysis. Me and a few other Lacanian where forced by the HSE to do some training in CBCS a few years back, and the look of horror at the suggestion of videoing sessions in the room has always stuck with me. Are there are research methods that you could suggest to evaulate psychoanalysis? I remember posting a paper here, and you stating that only a psychoanalyst could call that a research paper;) it was one of Paul Verhaeghe's papers.

    There are different aspects of therapy that one could research, and different methodologies depend on the different things one is trying to measure. Those concerned with evidence based practice wish to ask what works for which problems with which populations (we may now add - by what kind of person). After that general question of which treatments work best for which problems (the which population is rarely studied well) the question then becomes what is it about the treatment that makes it work?

    This leads to investigations of process, aspects of therapeutic alliance, generic factors etc. A lot of the psychoanalytic methodology has been at this stage, assessing process. This is fine and interesting to psychoanalysts who (presumably) already believe that psychoanalysis is effective, but it does little to convince those who doubt it. You logically ought to establish that something *is* effective at the macro level before investigating why it is effective at the micro level.

    So psychoanalytic psychotherapy needs more outcome studies, and really it needs ones with significant numbers involved (i.e. not a case study) and with rigorous methodology. Unfortunately the past few years has been plagued with lousy methodology from some from a psychoanalytic / psychodynamic persuasion engaging in meta-analyses of outcome studies which borders on scientific dishonesty.

    There is little practical reason why a lot of the outcome measurements from general psychotherapy research cannot be used for psychoanalytical therapy imo. There is a handy little book which you would read in a couple of hours which gives an overview of such methodologies called Doing Counselling Research by McLeod (you can find a pdf of it online if you know where to look).

    For methodologies specific to psychoanalysis I recommend reading Peter Fonagy's report for the research committee of the International Psychoanalytic Association in 2001:
    http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=international%20psychoanalytical%20association%20an%20open%20door%20review%20of%20outcome%20studies%20in%20psychoanalysis&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcapa-sevilla.es%2Fapp%2Fdownload%2F3506115302%2Fopen%2Bdoor.pdf&ei=Rh4rT4S0Bo6a-waUw9irDg&usg=AFQjCNHhEV7iyeOittse0sFxvbskBztccw&cad=rja

    I like Fonagy both for his theories and his honesty about the failure of psychoanalysis in respect of establishing that it actually works, and the intellectual dishonesty that many engage in in their retreat into hermeneutics. Here is a paper by him which articulates his stance:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525087/

    I meant to ask you, have you ever read the work of George Lakoff? He is not a psychoanalyst or therapist, he is a cognitive linguist. I am a huge fan of his work on metaphor and embodied mind, and he has influenced my thinking a lot about language and thought. As a Lacanian, given the things which concern you, I think you would like him. A few videos of him are online, albeit mostly concerning political discourse these days. Here is a decent lecture by Gibbs on metaphor and embodied cognition:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q22v23u-Uc


  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭ciarafem


    You might like to look up a recent article in the American Psychologist

    The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy.
    American Psychologist, Vol 65(2), Feb-Mar 2010, 98-109.
    Abstract

    "Empirical evidence supports the efficacy of psychodynamic therapy. Effect sizes for psychodynamic therapy are as large as those reported for other therapies that have been actively promoted as “empirically supported” and “evidence based.” In addition, patients who receive psychodynamic therapy maintain therapeutic gains and appear to continue to improve after treatment ends. Finally, nonpsychodynamic therapies may be effective in part because the more skilled practitioners utilize techniques that have long been central to psychodynamic theory and practice. The perception that psychodynamic approaches lack empirical support does not accord with available scientific evidence and may reflect selective dissemination of research findings."


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,173 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Have you looked at some of the responses to that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭hotspur


    Yeah this is where it pays to actually have your finger on the pulse in respect of how people react to academic studies rather than just reading them. Check out the pretty good psychotherapybrownbag posts on this study:
    http://www.psychotherapybrownbag.com/psychotherapy_brown_bag_a/2010/01/what-do-we-know-about-psychodynamic-therapy-a-closer-look-at-shedlers-in-press-review.html
    http://www.psychotherapybrownbag.com/psychotherapy_brown_bag_a/2010/01/abandoning-science-and-logic-in-the-pursuit-of-an-agenda.html
    http://www.psychotherapybrownbag.com/psychotherapy_brown_bag_a/2011/02/psychodynamic-psychotherapy-extending-a-published-debate-into-the-blogosphere.html

    Also, since this was originally about a film, I went to A Dangerous Method tonight - the film about Jung and Freud. Was utterly bored. And if I found it boring as someone who has read their books and biographies etc. then I can't imagine your average cinema goer finding it entertaining.


  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭ciarafem


    hotspur wrote: »

    Thanks for the links - I hadn't seen the response to the article in AP. Highlights some of the dangers with meta-analysis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    hotspur wrote: »
    Also, since this was originally about a film, I went to A Dangerous Method tonight - the film about Jung and Freud. Was utterly bored. And if I found it boring as someone who has read their books and biographies etc. then I can't imagine your average cinema goer finding it entertaining.

    What was it like historically, any reference to the cocaine episode? Also I presume your are aware of Gross's addiction and his treatment by both Jung and Freud any reference to that?

    Just from the bit I have read about it, it seems to be anti-psychoanalysis, would I be correct?

    I know we are a bit OT, but as you said it was originally about a flim.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭hotspur


    Odysseus wrote: »
    What was it like historically, any reference to the cocaine episode? Also I presume your are aware of Gross's addiction and his treatment by both Jung and Freud any reference to that?

    Just from the bit I have read about it, it seems to be anti-psychoanalysis, would I be correct?

    I know we are a bit OT, but as you said it was originally about a flim.

    There was a number of historically accurate things in it, and often little things such as Freud and Jung's having talked for 13 hours straight during their first meeting, on of Freud's fainting episodes, telling Jung on their ship to America when they were talking about their dreams that we didn't want to "Risk his authority" etc.


    The only time cocaine comes into it is Gross taking it. The Gross thing had a big part to play in the film, in respect Jung's treatment. Mostly because he encouraged his having a relationship with Spielrein (which unfortunately is the main focus of the film for some reason).

    I didn't see anything in it which might be regarded as antipsychoanalysis.

    I see Gerard Miller's film Meet Lacan is available now with English subtitles:
    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gerardmiller.fr%2F


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,173 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    I knew A Dangerous Method would get a mention in this forum. :pac: That psychotherapybrownbag site looks handy, though how can it put up stuff that's ordinarily probably behind a subscription wall? I found McKay's response listed here and then got it via my college login.

    On to the autism documentary. Firstly, the yellow subtitles - gah. Secondly, I do think there was perhaps a bit of clever editing going on here since some of the clips ended right at the moment someone had finished a sentence, slightly wary of that. Its thesis is pretty clear from the outside since it states how much psychiatry in France is dominated by psychoanalysis, so I'd agree with Odysseus about the doc having an agenda. A lot of it seemed mostly abstract stuff with the theories/approaches of psychoanalysis and it was only the final 10 minutes or so that appeared to address how each psych worked with autistic kids, not an optimistic picture there, at all. I would have liked the documentary maker to have come right out and said 'what if you're wrong?' to some of these people, most of whom were of a particular vintage. The whole incest business, bearing in mind I know little about psychoanalysis (so apply my ignorance to each point above), was...rather 'did they really just say that?' - "in all cases?, mais oui" and you could hear some of their resistance to more contemporary approaches.

    Good luck to the family featured, they've had to fight a few battles.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭cranks


    Update on film 'Le Mur' (The Wall) for those interested
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2012/0209/1224311507688.html


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,173 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    The video is now private. Hmm.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd


    I suppose since this thread has veered onto Keira Knightley, I can veer it back to something about autism.

    I was in an online discussion recently. It was in a general chat area of a large website, where there's a kind of community of regular users. There are two people with autism who are regulars on the site - they can communicate clearly with other users but off the internet they're not that high functioning. Their social life is largely on the internet, as their autism isn't as much of a problem, when they're typing text back and forth to other people - instead of say trying to have a face to face conversation.

    So there was a discussion the other night. Myself, the two autistics, a mother whose two children are on the severe end of the scale, and a bunch of other people who do not have autism.

    There are popular misconceptions of what autism is - or how an autistic person will seem to a non-autistic person. Like people believing an engineer who doesn't talk like someone working in sales and marketing is somewhere on the spectrum etc. It's like the popular misconception of dyslexia - people believe dyslexics literally see words written back to front.

    I was trying to explain to a woman, who wasn't autistic, but who actually works in sales, marketing and recruitment, what the actual experience for her would be like, if she met the two autistics who are regulars on the site. It's not something they could explain themselves - as that is part of their problem.

    One of the autistics is funny, and is always posting jokes - he has a sophisticated sense of humour. I said that if she met him face to face, and he tried to tell a joke, she wouldn't find it funny, instead, she might find the experience distressing. He would be sending out all the wrong signals and cues, and not see hers - it could be a distressing experience for both of them.

    Here is where I get to my point. Autistics who are on the mid-level of the spectrum - in that they have a reasonable level of function - they can cope with people who know their condition. A common problem they would have, would be causing distress in people who are not autistic - strangers they may meet. Even hostility. One of the autistics, who uses the site, dresses up in an elaborate costume when she leaves the house - high visibility jacket, hard hat, clipboard - it's to make her look like she's on some kind of official business - so no one bothers her (people shut up when they see a uniform) - if they get on a bus without the costume, there could be a bunch of young arseholes who notice there's something not quite right about her - and they'll harass her.

    It's amazing how much communication - or miscommunication is just taken for granted by people who are not autistic. Like getting on a bus. The autistic who wears the high vis suit, asked, how does everyone know how to sit where they do. It seems like a simple question, but it isn't.


    In the whole discussion something struck me. The distress many "normal" people feel, when confronted by "weirdness" - kind of mirrors the distress autistics feel when they're in a social situation they've lost the run of.

    People who are distressed by the strange and unusual - but who are considered "normal". Is this some kind of function/dysfunction similar to autism?

    I thought before, I had an understanding of why people can be hostile to the "weird". But I realise now, I don't understand. I don't even know what "weird" is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,582 ✭✭✭WalterMitty




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    I was mailed an interesting response about all of this by one of our psychoanalystic orgs. I will ask for permission to post it here; it offera different side to the story.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭sambuka41


    I'd be curious to hear another angle. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus




  • Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭cranks


    While we're on the theme of autism treatment, check this one out.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2012/0412/1224314636494.html

    Follow the cease-therapy.com link in the article for more

    (mods. if this is more suited to an existing thread, please move)


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,173 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    This came into my mailbox recently. Trailer for 'Shameful', made by one the founder the 'Wrong Planet' autism site.

    http://shamefuldocumentary.com/



    Don't know if the full doc will be available.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement