Re: CHAT: OT CHAT: Asperger's syndrome

John Cowan wrote:
>Don't be deceived: Asperger's is no joke.  Think of it as autism without
the
>usually associated low IQ.  Asperger's people typically don't have a clue
that
>other people are *people*, and if they do learn this later in life, they
have
>to conduct their social relations in a purely conscious and artificial
manner.>

I don't view it as a joke; I merely view this article with a great deal of
skepticism.
_Autism_ is indeed a serious disorder, apparently due to some faulty wiring
in the brain.  But the main problem of the kids in the article-- aside from
some odd behaviors like jumping up and down a lot,-- was _ failure to make
eye-contact_, and of course hyperverbalism.  The eye-contact thing is a
peculiarly American or at least SAE (Standard Average European) value, and
could have lots of causes: (a) I think you're ugly, or your breath smells
(b) I'm shy (but that's now thought to be a "disorder" too, eh?)  (c) I
think, or worse, know, you're stupid (d) you're interrupting me in the midst
of something more interesting.......etc. etc.

Interestingly, it seems that when these kids were placed in a class with
others similarly "afflicted", i.e their peers in intellect and offbeat
interests, the behavior problems apparently abated.

And "lack of social skills"-- means what?  Lousy at sports?  You make the
mistake of telling your playmates/parents/teachers/adults when they're wrong
about something?   If you do that as a kid, you're a smartass; as an adult,
well.... but at least someone will pay attention, some of the time.

Frankly, I saw a lot of myself in the article.  If there had been an
Internet in my childhood, no telling what I might have got into.  As it was,
I spent many an hour in the dusty attic reading my grandfather's ca1900
encyclopedia, and could compile a list not unlike Danny's.   Fortunately,
there were no shrinkers for miles around.  My "social skills" were not, and
still aren't, the greatest  There are so many, many possible causes.  But,
so what?  One does survive.

Chatting with a fellow some years back-- he had a _tremendous_ vocabulary &
command of the language, spoke in complete, well-organized paragraphs.  He
mentioned that when he was 10 or 12, some wonderful adult said, "Well, young
man, I see you've swallowed the dictionary."   How nice.

The "average" parents probably view an extremely intelligent child not as a
gift but as something terrifying.  "With all those weird interests, how will
little Junior ever grow up to be president of General Motors, as we expect
him to do?"    We are far too quick, in this country at least, to proscribe
any sort of "odd" behavior-- and lately, to seek some chemical remedy.  I
find both habits very disturbing, and would suggest we proceed with the
greatest caution; we don't know what we're messing with.  It may or may not
be a chemical problem.

For that matter, perhaps all "odd" or "excessive" ability could be due to
chemical/hormonal/whatever imbalances--   great athletic ability, political,
business acumen (any comments, Mr. Jordan, FDR/LBJ/RMN/WJC, Mr Gates, Mr
Jobs?)    I don't see any movement to eliminate that kind of behavior-- and
yes, I know, in _some_ cases it mightn't be a bad idea.....

Respectfully submitted.