This person here talks about how her son, whom she seems to consider to have low-functioning autism, can pass as a high-functioning autistic person, and does so because he works very hard:
http://autismandoughtisms.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/passing-for-a-high-functioning-autistic-a-cause-for-celebration/
Of course, this brought up a debate on the usefulness of functioning levels, and in one of the comments she brought up a link where she defends the use of functioning levels:
http://autismandoughtisms.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/language-and-autism-the-impact-of-penumbra-and-generalized-instances-on-debates-about-the-existence-of-and-functioning-levels-within-asd/
In this post, she mentions how if one has the ability (i.e. the choice) to act in a manner considered high-functioning, then one must be considered high-functioning. I bring this back to where she mentions that her son, by working very hard, can act in a manner considered high-functioning. In that case, because her son is able to act high-functioning, then isn't he by the blogger's own definition high-functioning?
Perhaps if it takes lots of hard work, there is a difference? Perhaps we need to look at baseline measures? Nevertheless, a person, especially if they're young, will have the ability to work at a level much higher than their baseline measures. And since they have the ability, then they would have the choice, right? If what they can work at equals high-functioning, then they are high-functioning, right?
I don't know, and would like the blogger to clarify this apparent contradiction. Either way, I see some similarities with what Amanda Baggs wrote in the article, "Help! I seem to be getting more autistic!"
http://archive.autistics.org/library/more-autistic.html
You've misrepresented / misunderstood the second post. You are incorrect in the claim that I say or think the choice to act high functioning means you must be high functioning, and you've oversimplified the post in general; in that post I talk about the difficulties and potential functions of the terminology, which you have ignored. II don't think you've misrepresented my views on purpose, but you do appear to have taken simple and single ideas out of context. Please read more carefully.
返信削除Then how do you explain this paragraph:
返信削除"However, the way the term is commonly used among the professionals and parents I have interacted with, “functioning” references the ability to function within the world – that includes self-care skills, communication and social ability. Ability, and not just preference: Low functioning autistic people are not those who have chosen to (for example) not socialize or communicate, they are rather those who cannot do so (though this ability can change). I have seen high functioning autistic people claim that they are low functioning because they choose not to communicate by words, preferring the written word, or choose not to socialize, even though they could if they were put in a situation that they must. It seems to me that the ability to consciously make that choice – where many autistic people cannot – suggests they are high functioning."
Basically, per your other post, your son has the choice to act in a high-functioning way, so per this paragraph, he is high-functioning.
As clarification, I have read the whole post, but this paragraph actually seems to stand on its own, and doesn't need a whole lot of context to explain it. If you really meant something other than "choice to act in an HFA way means you are HFA", then multiple re-readings of your post does not seem to reveal it and IMO the post needs to be rewritten if so.
返信削除Or perhaps, you can provide the cliff-notes version of it, especially relating to what you think is HFA vs. LFA?
The quote you supply actually says something different that what you claim it did in your own post. In your post you said: "she mentions how if one has the ability (i.e. the choice) to act in a manner considered high-functioning, then one must be considered high-functioning." "MUST." In my post I said "suggests they are high functioning." "SUGGESTS."
返信削除Again, I must insist that you read more carefully, and in context, instead of cherry-picking controversies that simply are not there. There are enough real issues in the autism world, without having to manufacture new ones.
Thanks.
Oh, and, one final important point about how you have fundamentally misunderstood my post; there is a difference between choosing not to communicate in words, and being entirely unable to communicate in words. That was the claim in my second post, but you appear to think it was about "choice" and "ability" more generally, which is the only way you could have reached the confused conclusion that you have. There are other issues with the claims you make about my two posts, but I don't want to waste anymore time on this non-issue. Also, I find your blog very difficult to navigate and to comment on, which is not your fault, but it does make it hard to engage in on-going discussion, so I'm not planning to return to your blog to comment on this further. I hope I've managed to explain enough to not have to return anyway. Obviously I'm not impressed that you decided to start your own blog with an attack on mine, rather than establishing your own identity, but I still wish you the best with your blogging, it can be a very positive and educational experience if you choose it to be.
返信削除