Hypothesis about autism and evolution

I've been doing a lot of research lately on evolution, including reading Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Dawkins is a biologist, but he uses his knowledge of biology and Darwinian natural selection to disprove god (he is an atheist).

I got to the part in his book last night where he talks about monists and dualists. In short, dualists are people who "believe" that there is a consciousness that is separate from the brain (like a soul). Monists do not hold this "belief". I put belief in quotation marks because people don't choose which one to believe in. There is scientific evidence that points to this thought being ingrained in a person's mind at birth or a few months after. Natural selection has determined that the dualist point of view is the one that should be propagated because it allows for theory of mind, which aids in social interaction (this is where the autism theory comes in). Autistic individuals are thought to lack theory of mind. There is a lot of speculation surrounding this as to what causes this. There are people who think it's genetic, there are those who think it's caused by something that was recently added to our environment, people who think it's caused by vaccines, etc. There are many hypotheses out there. I think autistic people are people who were born monist instead of dualist. They lack the innate knowledge of a "soul" that most people have. I heard somewhere (I don't remember where, and I don't think it was based on any study) that most autistic people are atheists. If this is true, then it would align perfectly with this hypothesis. They don't believe in a soul that travels to a place after death, so many religions that cater to people who do have this belief don't make sense to autistics. It would also align with the thinking that autism is just another way of thinking, not a disease or a disorder.

As for my own experiences, I can't remember what I thought about a soul when I was very young. I was indoctrinated into christianity as a very young child. I think I accepted that I had a soul because that's what I was told by my parents. I don't remember looking at another person and think that he/she also had a soul, though. I am now an atheist, and deconverting from christianity wasn't that difficult for me. I think it's because I never really believed in a soul to begin with. I was just trained to believe in it. Other people who I've talked to who have deconverted said that it took a very long time and a lot of convincing to be able to do. There are even atheists who have deconverted from christianity who go back to it. Maybe it's because they were born dualists and they can't get past that.

So what do you think of this hypothesis? Is it a valid one? I'd like to hear from autistics on this subject. Do you believe in a soul?

Take that, Mothering magazine!

For Mother's Day, my fiance got me a subscription to Mothering magazine. It's a magazine about natural family living and Attachment Parenting. I had been reading the magazine for some time and I liked it. The one part that really bothered me, though, was that they kept putting ads and articles in the magazine about how autism is a "disease", perpetuating the vaccine myth, and, the worst part, including information and even ads about treatments like chelation and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy. Well, enough is enough. I was able to overlook it the first and even second time, but lately, every magazine they've put out has something nasty to say about autism. I haven't paid the bill because I was putting it off, but then I got a catalog in the mail from Hannah Anderson, a natural clothing company. I had gotten one about a month ago from a natural toy company. Yes, they sold my name. That is another thing that I can't overlook, and is the reason for the nasty email I sent them today:

To whom it may concern,

I am no longer interested in purchasing a subscription to Mothering
magazine. I originally loved the magazine, but, after buying a few
issues off of the newsstand, I found that the magazine has many
problems, including running ads and articles on the treatment and
"cure" of autism. I have Asperger Syndrome, a mild form of autism. To
me and to many other people on the autism spectrum, the notion that
Autism is a "disease" that is caused by vaccines, which has not been
scientifically proven and is a myth that both your magazine and people
who post on your forum perpetuate, is extremely offensive. I am
morally outraged that your magazine would recommend treatments for
autism, such as chelation and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, that not only
do not work, but are very dangerous and even lethal, to the parents of
autistic children. To me, this speaks volumes about your magazine and
the beliefs that the members of the Attachment Parenting society hold,
and it absolutely disgusts me. Add to that the fact that you sold my
name to Hannah Anderson and a natural toy company, which I do not
appreciate. I am boycotting your company, I will tell all of my
friends to stop buying your magazine, and I have discontinued using
your forum. I, however, am happy to pay for the first magazine that
you sent, but after that, I would appreciate that you take my name
from the billing list and from the lists at the places where you sold
my name.

I hope someone from that department writes back and tells of how she's going to kiss my feet, but seriously, is that going to happen? She *might* apologize, but depending on who reads the email, I might be in for a nastier email. Who's to say? I honestly don't really care what they send back. I'm just glad that I was in a position of power over someone who is spreading lies about autism and potentially harming children. I hope that they get the message and stop printing articles and ads that are focused on the "disease" and "cure".

I also want to add, because I know there are people from the Special Needs Forum at Mothering who read this, that I really appreciate that you hold the opinions that you do about autism and don't just choose to side with the status quo of that site. The things that a lot of members of the site, especially the ones in the vaccine board, say about autism really disgust me, and that's a large reason why I'm not posting there anymore. I'm sick of the wars and the controversy over it and how the moderators at Mothering seem to side with the people who say these things, even though they're extremely offensive. I'm really glad to know that there are parents out there, though, who do value their children regardless of neurological status and don't seek to "fix" them. You have my utmost respect.

Update: I got a reply from Mothering magazine. It reads:

The subscription is cancelled, you don't owe anything.

Also, I forwarded this email to the Editorial Dept. for you.

As far as selling your name, yes, most magazines do generate revenue from
their mailing list. We, unlike most, only sell to like-minded companies
whose products we think our readers would appreciate. All you have to do is
to tell us and we will gladly remove your name from the list.

Happy Holidays

If I get a response from the Editorial Department, I'll post it here. My email might even be in the magazine, but I kind of doubt that would happen. It would be awesome, though, even though I probably wouldn't be able to see it because I'm boycotting them. Maybe I'd just buy that one magazine for the letter. That is, IF I get in the magazine, which is highly unlikely.

A cool experience

I wanted to post this even though it's not about autism. I went to Target today and the lady at the check-out was deaf, maybe even Deaf. Deaf with a capital D is different than deaf with a lower case d in that anyone can be Deaf without being deaf. It's about being part of the Deaf culture, and a big part of that is using sign language as a primary means of communication, which is what she did. At first, I thought she just had laryngitis because she would gesture but not sign. Then I thought, "Hmm, maybe she's nonverbal?" But then when she was telling me the total, I noticed she used sign language to tell me how much it was. I think she did that because I helped her get the attention of someone who left their purse behind. She seemed really grateful and I was glad to help out. She said thank you, and even though I was too flustered to do any of the rudimentary sign language that I do know, I think she could read lips or at least tell by my expression that I meant well. I thought it was so cool to see a deaf person not only working around people (I don't really see deaf people often) but also using sign language even though most people would probably not understand it or think she was rude for not trying to speak. To me, that seemed extremely brave and makes me think that she's part of the Deaf culture. I was also really surprised and happy that she was able to work at the check-out instead of having to stock shelves or do other work that most people with difficulty in a certain area stereotypically do. It was great to see a person who you would think would have a bit of difficulty doing the job out there doing it and doing it well. Most deaf people that I see, usually on TV, attempt to speak while they're signing. I noticed, too, that she didn't sign for the other person but she did for me. It made me feel really special, like she knew that I understood her in a way that most other people wouldn't. It was a really cool experience and it definitely made me want to learn more sign language. I may also call the manager of that Target and give her a compliment.

Allergies and toddlerhood

Sorry I haven't been able to write lately. I've been dealing with my 11 month old son's food allergies and I've been chasing after him because he's learned how to walk. Toddlerhood is interesting so far and he's not even two yet. Heck, he's not even a year old yet! The only autism-related thing I have to blog about is that I've applied for a part-time job as a paraprofessional. I'm not sure if I'll get the job or not but I hope so.

Autism: the Musical

The first time I saw an ad for this movie, I thought it was quite possibly the dumbest idea ever. I had no idea what the movie was going to be like, but my first thought was, "Oh my God. What will they think of next?" It was even worse that I came to find out that the movie is supported by Autism Speaks. After that, I decided that I would never watch it. Well, I have seen it, and it's a great movie. Some people on a forum I read started a thread on it saying that it was a good movie and I watched it. Now, it's by no means perfect, but it is a very good movie nonetheless.

Autism: the Musical is a documentary about The Miracle Project, a program in California started by Elaine Hall to teach kids on the spectrum and their siblings about acting. It follows five autistic children as they prepare for the musical that Coach E, as Elaine is called by the kids, is planning to put on for the parents. The spectrum is well represented by the cast. There is one kid who is nonverbal (Neil), a teen who communicates primarily using echolalia (Lexi), an Aspie (Henry), an autistic child with savant talents in music (Adam) and a kid who I'd describe as PDD-NOS who has sensory issues and seems to have more social intuition than the other kids (Wyatt).

The story starts out with Elaine talking about when she adopted Neil from Russia. She recalls how he finally received the diagnosis and that she started him on Floortime therapy. She learned to first go into his world by letting him take the lead while playing. Then she got some actors to come to the house to do the same because they were fine with doing things that were kind of eccentric. Slowly, he started to interact more with Elaine, which is how she got the idea to start The Miracle Project.

If you've seen Autism Every Day and are thinking that this movie will be exactly like it (like I did), please be assured that it isn't. A lot of the kids' parents are really cool. When Elaine explains what autism is, she covers the entire spectrum. She doesn't say that it's a disease; she says that it's a neurological disorder that affects the way kids think, and that autistic kids' brains are "wired differently" than typical kids' brains. Lexi's mom was kind of devastated at first and wasn't very accepting, but now she's learned to accept her daughter. She says at one point in the movie that the reason for all the negativity toward autistic people is that they aren't valued, and that it's a civil rights issue, which I thought was awesome. Adam's mom, dad, and aide at school, though, are not at the point where Lexi's mom is, unfortunately. At one point in the movie, the aide is talking about how the girls in Adam's class seem to like him and she says, "If only he wasn't autistic, he'd have so much more potential." She says the word "autistic" in such a nasty way. It was just disgusting.

What I loved was seeing the kids' talents and how they learned to cooperate and interact with each other. I also loved seeing the parents and how they started to accept their children and see that, although they have difficulties with certain things, they have awesome talents. Lexi is an awesome singer and her mom was crying when she saw her sing in the musical. I think it really helped her to understand that while Lexi may not be at the same level with her peers in a lot of ways, she's a lovely young woman and she has a lot of talent. Adam played Twinkle Twinkle Little Star on his cello in the musical and his parents got a kick out of that. At the point where this was filmed, they were having a lot of difficulty accepting that Adam is just Adam. His mom referred to autism as a disease. I really hope that seeing the kids in this program has started something in them where they can understand that autism is just another way of thinking.

Despite the support from Autism Speaks, I really recommend this movie. I've seen it a few times and it's just a really awesome movie. You can get it on NetFlix and it might even be at a library near you. Please just give it a chance like I did. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

Hyperlexia, splinter skills, and savant syndrome

What do these three things have in common? They're all examples of how psychologists can take skills that would be praised and seen as talents in a typically developing person and turn them into further evidence of a problem in a person with an ASD.

I have hyperlexia. I didn't know that that was a diagnosis when I was little, and my mom didn't know, either. She just knew that I could read at a fifth grade level in first grade and she praised that. That was my talent. It made me feel confident and gave me self-esteem. I also have echolalia. Just like with hyperlexia, neither of us knew that there was a such thing, and that both of these are indicative of Asperger syndrome. My mom just thought I had a good memory for remembering certain TV shows and she thought it was really cool that I could remember the entire script of a thirty minute show from beginning to end. If I had a psychologist telling me that these things were indicators of Asperger Syndrome and equating them to a problem, I probably wouldn't have taken such pride in them while growing up. It probably would've taken away a lot of my self confidence and I hardly had any while growing up. I was bullied constantly; at school, in the neighborhood, and sometimes at home. I didn't have any coping skills that were socially acceptable, so I would blow up at my parents and my sister and get in trouble.

These same things are true of people who are more on the Kanner's autism side of the spectrum. The skills that they might have, such as math, drawing, etc., are sometimes referred to as splinter skills. To me, "splinter skill" is a euphemism for "freak accident". The child isn't really supposed to be as adept as he is at this skill because of his impairments, so it must be another symptom of his autism.

This also occurs in savant syndrome. I was watching a video on YouTube of a blind and autistic teenager whose "savant skill" is playing the piano. He was brilliant. Being able to play the piano is already amazing to me, because I can't do it, but it would be much harder for someone who can't see the keys or read a music book. Of course, though, people had to make comments like, "Yeah, he's good at the piano, but he's still retarded. Don't praise him. It's not worth it." Some of the comments were much worse, but I won't put them here. People watch documentaries on Kim Peek, who can remember every zipcode in a state, remember all the royalty of England, and tell what day a certain date fell on or will fall on. He also has agenesis of the corpus callosum, which is, specialists say, where he got these talents. He has trouble with life skills and still lives with his father, so while he may be exceptionally brilliant, and people may envy that, people can also look at this difficulty and instead of recognizing that it's okay to have this difficulty and also admire his talents, they might say, "Well, I'd much rather be normal than a retarded genius." People can use this to pity him, poke fun at him, and ultimately dehumanize him.

Why can't we see these as talents and take pride in them? Why do they have to be pathologized in kids on the spectrum when in other kids they would be celebrated? These talents bring self worth and confidence to kids who get that taken away daily by bullies and people who underestimate them because of their shortcomings. Why can't they have something to be good at and take pride in, just like every other child does?

Person first language

I've been thinking lately about person first language and how it relates to disabilities and autism spectrum disorders in particular. I'm not one to agree that the phrase "child with autism" sounds better than "autistic child". I've heard that person first language was started because people need to remember that people with disabilities are people first and that a diagnosis is only part of a person. I agree with that, but I also agree with the autistic/disabled person's point of view: a disability is part of who I am and it can't -- and shouldn't -- be taken away.

Another thing to think about with person first language is parts of speech. Words like "autistic" and "disabled" are adjectives, and adjectives describe nouns. If a person has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, it wouldn't be incorrect to use "autistic" as an adjective for that person. To fully understand this, you need to take it out of the disability realm altogether. Let's say that you are talking about a child who has exceptional talent in the field of art. Would you say that that child is artistic, or would you say that "the child has an exceptional talent in the field of art"? Both of these are used to describe the child, but one is a little more labeling than the other. On the other hand, the former sounds a lot less pedantic, as is the case with "child with autism". I saw one video that is used to teach elementary school children about autism and they never once used the phrase "autistic child". They always said "children with autism". And autism experts frequently say that we're the ones who sound pedantic! As Rick Lavioe often says, "Circle the slow learner in this scenario." At the end, there was a follow-up where the kids were repeating what they learned. There was about ten sentences all beginning with the phrase, "children with autism." It got so tedious I ended up stopping the tape then and there. So while person first language can be positive and may be considered more politically correct, it can definitely be overdone.

Getting back on the subject of parts of speech, though, I would much rather hear an adjective or a phrase used in place of a noun. Examples are: child with Down Syndrome rather than "mongoloid", developmentally/mentally delayed or "has a developmental/mental delay" rather than retarded or "retard", etc. That's where I find much of my person first language comes into play. One word I've always had trouble accepting as a term is "mute". Mute is a setting on your TV. It should not be an acceptable way to describe how a person does or doesn't communicate. I prefer nonverbal because it implies that the person may be able to communicate in other ways. An older and somewhat politically incorrect word that doesn't bother me, though, is "slow". I wouldn't use this word to describe people with more serious cognitive impairments (actually, I don't use it to describe anyone), but, for me, it might be slightly acceptable when used to describe a child with a learning disability. "He's kind of slow at learning to socialize with other kids, but he'll get the hang of it." This, however, should be paired with the realization that the individual might eventually learn this skill, but it will take a lot longer and it will take a lot more effort than it would for his "typical" peers to learn the skill, and that the learning disability will never go away even when he does master the skill.

The argument over whether to use person first language over disability first language is one of those things that is never really talked about, but when it's brought up, it creates a minefield of an argument. Hopefully, parents, educators, and disability advocates (and self-advocates) can put this aside and concentrate on what's important: building a society that values everyone, disabled or not.