Marginalised Researchers In Neurology

Richards comment about school is spot on this time around. I should have been recognised from an early age and treated with some sort of understanding. Instead I was left to struggle and sometimes taunted. As much by teachers. I often wonder why hardly any teacher couldn't see there was an issue that needed to be looked at. My only saving grace at school was my reading. Lots of Asperger kids seem to learn to read quite well. So, I often read those old Famous Five books. After that came Marvel comics - Spiderman and so forth.
One thing I can state for sure is that undoing all that damage requires a higher level of understanding. You have to undo years of negative programming. When you were, for example, seen as "stupid", you start off believing it is true. So, you have very low confidence. To counter that you may go in the opposite direction and become very self-reliant. Some people with autism can become narcissistic. There's likewise a very real danger of developing anti social tendencies. Fortunately, over time, I learned to view the whole experience in overall context. I met various people who were supportive and can see part of my school experience was bad luck. There was little awareness at the time. Mine was a working class area - a pretty rough school, I suppose. Maybe too the experience of struggle gave me something in return. I take a certain pride in how far my research has come and how easier it is now to face up to life with knowledge to draw from. It was a big turning point. In the past I used to blame myself for being a failure but now I know it really is a medical condition. Not as severe as the more handicapped sphere of autism, of course, but definitely a disadvantage in the real world. To deal with it you need to be able to admit to your own shortcomings and be honest but also exploit any advantages. Even Forest Gump played great ping pong.

One major advantage I believe I have over most other researchers: the capability to eliminate emotion from evaluation. This is a big stumbling block in research. Autism affects human beings and, therefore, deals with very sensitive issues. What I notice so often is debate over autism has to be conducted in the same way as debate over transgender or perhaps race. Therefore, to attempt to be factual and analytical for most is not possible. Views that go against what people want to hear may well be rejected because - as ever in science - people don't like it. This immediately becomes counterproductive. For me, a major part of the self-therapy I devised requires absolute honesty. You have to look at the whole issue from a purely analytical point of view. This is not the same issue as race or transgender because both of these latter refer to diversity in human beings. Autism, however, is a deviation from normality. The genes involved are more than likely advantageous to a species but that depends upon rare factors of proportion, environment and severity. The overwhelming majority don't benefit from autism conditions My recommended system in diagnosis is to make a clinical list of the problem symptoms and also the favourable symptoms. I also highly recommend study into information processing. Take for example linguistics. I happen to be quite a good linguist but much earlier on I realised my talents wouldn't be as an interpreter or teacher. What I'm good at is spotting errors in translated texts, such as subtitles in movies. Someone also shared her ideal area of linguistic study would be ancient language or cuneiform as she lacked attention span for down-to-earth language. Anyway, after this sort of analytical evaluation, there remains a more realistic framework to fit into. For me, my main problem areas are requirements to think quickly and move fast. Social interaction is pretty much out as it teaching (couldn't tell the students apart). Mechanical work is pretty problematic. Pure maths and linguistics, as well as music comes quite easily.

davidbanner99@ wrote:One major advantage I believe I have...

Great. You believe that you have an advantage. This has ZERO to do with the topic of the thread...it has ZERO to do with your claim of autistic researchers being marginalized.

Over the course of the thread, you have posted example after example of research produced by those on the spectrum, disproving your own claim. And you have posted ZERO evidence of your own work being marginalized.

I guess, given all of the positives you have presented, I fail to understand how you justify your belief.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:One major advantage I believe I have...

Great. You believe that you have an advantage. This has ZERO to do with the topic of the thread...it has ZERO to do with your claim of autistic researchers being marginalized.

Over the course of the thread, you have posted example after example of research produced by those on the spectrum, disproving your own claim. And you have posted ZERO evidence of your own work being marginalized.

I guess, given all of the positives you have presented, I fail to understand how you justify your belief.

I was about to point out something I noticed last night. Seemed to me research papers or sources in English language are guarded from general access. All my own sources are Russian translations of German texts. I often wonder whether original texts of Asperger are open to general scrutiny. Of course I may be wrong.
Richard, I think like most academics today you are making your case through emotion and personalising your attempt to understand. Block letters and random evaluations as to intent or purpose show lack of objectivity. So far, Temple Grandin was referred to so with Paul Cooijman that makes two known researchers who have autism.

davidbanner99@ wrote:Richard, I think like most academics today you are making your case through emotion and personalising your attempt to understand.

It is not my case to make. YOU are the one claiming marginalized researchers. I am not making the claim. You are.

Where is your proof?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:Richard, I think like most academics today you are making your case through emotion and personalising your attempt to understand.

It is not my case to make. YOU are the one claiming marginalized researchers. I am not making the claim. You are.

Where is your proof?

Maybe you should ask for feedback from a wider source? Or maybe search for information on the topic. My own view is autism research as it stands today lacks input from within more articulate autistic people. And here I don't mean functional people who are a bit quirky. I mean those who experienced major impairment in school and employment. Due to the condition outlined by Kanner and Asperger.
My essays also continue to be developed. Anyone at all is free to comment or challenge interpretations I put forth.
The essay I'm working on now will be asking some very difficult questions and illustrating a lot of contradictions. Certainly most experts and pioneers in the field rarely agreed with one another. That's why we need more insight from people like myself and Cooijman.

davidbanner99@ wrote: My own view is autism research as it stands today lacks input from within more articulate autistic people.

I understand that this is your emotional opinion, your emotional belief or view.

Again, where is your factual, non-emotion based evidence?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: My own view is autism research as it stands today lacks input from within more articulate autistic people.

I understand that this is your emotional opinion, your emotional belief or view.

Again, where is your factual, non-emotion based evidence?

Already gave you a list of recognised researchers.
Leo Kanner.
Eugen Bleuler
E. Kretchmer
G Suhareva
H Asperger
S Munhin
V Kagan
T Atwood
Simon Baron Kohen
Van Krevelin
Lorna Wing
Steve Silberman

Could go on. All clinical researchers. All neurologically typical. Few of them agree with one another.

Yes, I read most of these researchers.

Maybe you know their country of origen and contribution to the subject matter.
What test did Baron Cohen devise? Why was it criticized?
What group of researchers did Van Krevelin belong to? Clue, he had this in common with S Muhnin.
Why was Wing's diagnosis abandoned more recently?
Why was G Suhareva similar to Asperger in approach to research?

Just to suggest if I'm writing through emotion I'd not be able to make factual questions or have read any of the background material.

So a list you created of 12 researchers you personally believe are "neurologically typical" is what you offer as evidence that work by autistic researchers is marginalized?

You see no flaws in the above evidence?

hello richard, hope you are doing well. i saw your answers on many other threads related to childhood sexual experiance.

i would really appreciate if you could say something about this followin thread. i am sorry if i disturbed you but i am really suffering a lot . thankyou

viewtopic.php?t=109031&p=920490#p920490

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

littlebrowndragon wrote:Indeed, you commented that one of my posts was well written.

I did not make that comment.

.

I refer you to your post #36 in reply to mine. You said, and I quote: "It was well written but I hardly agreed with a single point. Will elaborate later." So, oh yes you did!

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

littlebrowndragon wrote:Indeed, you commented that one of my posts was well written.

I did not make that comment.

littlebrowndragon wrote: We have not met face to face. We have exchanged only a few written communications. In short, you do not know me. How, then, do you know that I have no idea about good communication?

There is no requirement to (1) meet face to face or (2) to know someone, in order to determine if they have any idea about good communication. Both assertions you made are false.

All that you are now doing in response to my assertions is to flatly contradict me, without providing any reasons. (And please don't say: oh no |I'm not!) And any further discussion with you is pointless. I put in a lot of effort with my replies. Since all you are able to do is to flatly contradict me, then it is clear that you have no answers, but are not prepared to admit to having no answers.

littlebrowndragon wrote: I refer you to your post #36 in reply to mine. You said, and I quote: "It was well written but I hardly agreed with a single point. Will elaborate later." So, oh yes you did!

Post #36 was not my post.

littlebrowndragon wrote:All that you are now doing in response to my assertions is to flatly contradict me, without providing any reasons.

The reason that I do not need to meet you face to face in order to determine if you are a good communicator is fairly simple.

I have never met Marcus Aurelius face to face. He died long ago and any communication by him has been related through translations. Still, I am confident in making a judgment that he was good at communicating. I can say this about many people I have read throughout history.

I never met Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Einstein, or Stephen Hawking face to face, yet I think they were arguably good communicators.

In other words, your point that since we have not met face to face means that I cannot draw an accurate conclusion about your ability to communicate is not valid.

I refer you to your post #36 in reply to mine. You said, and I quote: "It was well written but I hardly agreed with a single point. Will elaborate later." So, oh yes you did![/quote]

That was indeed my comment and not Richard's. However, please don't take it the wrong way. I was stating you communicated your views very well in your post but I disagreed with your opinions as stated. Disagreement is, of course, not a problem in discussions. I make a point of never removing from my blog opinions that differ from my own. Everyone is entitled to a point of view. I appreciate whatever views you state especially given the case they were polite and well stated.