AHC: Autism Spectrum Rights concurrent with Civil Rights immediate post-WWII period?

If, for some reason, Sukhareva were to leave the Soviet Union then that might be a good start. Maybe have her relocated during the war due to her being born in a Jewish family? Possibly have Sukhareva and her family leave due to fear of being purged?
I can go with Sukhareva emigrating. Now, her 1926 paper is entitled:

Ssucharewa G. E. (1926). “Die schizoiden Psychopathien im Kindesalter”.
https://disabledaccessdenied.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/the-life-and-times-of-hans-asperger/

Notice the "schizoiden." She's probably asking whether autism is part of schizophrenia or schizotypal. And that's okay. Dovetailing with the point you made about lack of knowledge amongst both professionals and the general public.

Maybe if we could start by focusing on what a person can do, rather than what they can't, which to me is mostly just common sense. :)
 
Last edited:
about schizophrenia

Now, you might have heard that some tribal societies treated persons with auditory hallucinations respectfully, as having special insights into other aspects of reality, as a potential asset to the larger group.

With the rise of Christianity, yes, some definitely good aspects, but too readily called people witches or demon-possessed, with really bad consequences. Basically, things which were different just scared the shit out of people.

With the rise of psychiatry, why did they still view hallucinations as something to be squelched down at great cost? Rather than something which is to be worked around in much more matter-of-fact fashion?

PS Some contemporary discussion that schizophrenia and bipolar conditions have quite a bit of overlap.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/expert.q.a/02/02/bipolar.schizophrenia.raison/index.html
 
Last edited:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/people/philippepinel

"French physician Philippe Pinel was a founder of moral treatment. His family were country doctors. . . "

" . . . in Paris in the 1790s. Pinel transformed asylum practice over the next decades - he believed people under his care should be treated like patients rather than like animals or criminals. . . "

" . . . It was actually Pinel’s assistant, an ex-patient named Poussin, who first unchained the mental patients of Paris in 1797. . . "

" . . . asylum physicians in the 1800s used the story of Pinel ‘freeing the mad’ in order to strengthen their claim that medical men, not laymen, were experts in treating insanity. They made Pinel a hero and ignored Poussin."
Sounds like some pretty interesting history. And at least in some areas of France, finally a good chunk of some damn improvement.
 
about schizophrenia

Now, you might have heard that some tribal societies treated persons with auditory hallucinations respectfully, as having special insights into other aspects of reality, as a potential asset to the larger group.

With the rise of Christianity, yes, some definitely good aspects, but too readily called people witches or demon-possessed, with really bad consequences. Basically, things which were different just scared the shit out of people.

With the rise of psychiatry, why did they still view hallucinations as something to be squelched down at great cost? Rather than something which is to be worked around in much more matter-of-fact fashion?

PS Some contemporary discussion that schizophrenia and bipolar conditions have quite a bit of overlap.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/expert.q.a/02/02/bipolar.schizophrenia.raison/index.html
Are we talking auditory or visual hallucinations that need to be squelched down? Or both? In my personal experience, you have to be careful when dealing with individuals that have hallucinations and the times that I have spent working with a few patients there were some that had a tendency to be violent/unpredictable. Granted, in some of those cases there were other factors involved, such as drug/alcohol abuse. Each behavioral health professional has their own style of interacting with patients. Some are more straightforward while others are more observant and toned down. In the end, it's up to the doctor whose license you are working under that determines the course of action. If you are just a technician, then you can make some recommendations and the doctor can make a decision based off of your observations.
 

see about 21:15 into it

Develop Talents in the
Individual's Specialist Brain
-------------------------------

1. Visual Thinking — poor at Algebra

2. Music and Math

3. Verbal Logic Language Translation
— poor at drawing
And Temple says people can have mixtures. Well, of course.

But notice that she's saying not every Spectrum person is great at math. And that is kind of a breath of fresh air. :) Only one of three types. The world far richer than we previously thought! And if we look at famous persons thought to probably be on the Spectrum, that does kind of seem to be the case.

--------

The person she mentions at some point is Eric Courchesne at UC, San Diego.
 
@Behemoth, thank you for your medical work to help people.

Alright, what I'm saying is that we should be way past the 1700s where auditory hallucinations scared the shit out of us, were viewed as evidence of demon possession or something similarly wild. And we should also be way past the (?) 1940s where too much of psychiatry was as a means of social control and 'normalcy' was elevated as a value above all else.

I've read that with SSRI's for depression that it's trial and error in a respectful sense. Just that everyone's biochem is a little different. And also that it's important to phase down in steps. My guess would be that it's the same with atypicals such as Risperdal and Abilify and other meds for schizophrenia and bipolar.

If so, patients need to realize the first medication may not be the one which really works, need to have a little patience as it were ;-)

And doctors probably need to do a better job of listening and be willing to tinker with the medication. I think one reason patients stop taking their meds is that the doc isn't really listening when the patient tells them the side effects are sorry. And just because the side effects sometimes settle down, doesn't mean they always do. Again, probably better to wean off than go cold turkey.

I'm not any kind of medical professional, just to be crystal clear about that.
 
Last edited:
What time span is the immediate post war period? The 40s through the 70s was the golden age of psychology and its research in the United States at least, not so sure about the UK. Before this, there just wasn't a whole lot of research. I am quite sure that psychoanalysis was pretty much dead at this point and that behaviorism was all the rage. Remember, this is the era when a prefrontal lobotomy was considered a cure for many psychological disorders. For that matter, they did not have even remotely the same view of psychological disorders back then as we do know. Ethics, especially in regard to psychology was not a thing back then, just look at some of the experiments. They were pretty horrifying. Back then they viewed mental illness as deficiencies that needed to be cured or failing that hidden away. With this in mind, I don't see how the premise could be fulfilled.
 

jahenders

Banned
This is quite a challenge since Autism Spectrum Rights has been going on for maybe only the last five years and primarily just in the UK.

Your thoughts please.

To get momentum on rights you need numbers (or, at least, perception of numbers). To get the likely needed volume of numbers you need the medical folks to widen the definition and spectrum far earlier. The redefinition contributed greatly to the 10-fold increase in diagnoses within the last 40 years.
 
What time span is the immediate post war period? The 40s through the 70s was the golden age of psychology and its research in the United States at least, not so sure about the UK. Before this, there just wasn't a whole lot of research. I am quite sure that psychoanalysis was pretty much dead at this point and that behaviorism was all the rage. Remember, this is the era when a prefrontal lobotomy was considered a cure for many psychological disorders. For that matter, they did not have even remotely the same view of psychological disorders back then as we do know. Ethics, especially in regard to psychology was not a thing back then, just look at some of the experiments. They were pretty horrifying. Back then they viewed mental illness as deficiencies that needed to be cured or failing that hidden away. With this in mind, I don't see how the premise could be fulfilled.
With autism spectrum, classic Freudian psychoanalysis had a much longer afterlife! Including into the 1970s this horseshit that autism was caused by a 'refrigerator mom.' Which is both very inaccurate and very unfair. I think a lot of the current improvement has come from parents pushing back, saying, no I think we've done a pretty good job with our earlier children. This child is just really different. And we could use some specific help and advice as well as tangible assistance in caring for a child who's different in these specific ways.

I'm glad you're brought up the example of lobotomy. This is probably the all time example of the profession of psychiatry being a means of control.
 
To get momentum on rights you need numbers (or, at least, perception of numbers). To get the likely needed volume of numbers you need the medical folks to widen the definition and spectrum far earlier. The redefinition contributed greatly to the 10-fold increase in diagnoses within the last 40 years.
There may be another way. If someone is very rare, they're not a threat to the established social order.

I'm thinking of the few snippets I've seen of the movie The Heart is a Lonely Hunter about this middle-aged guy in the South who's deaf mute.

==========

When I was in public school in the 1970s the image of autism were the kids who couldn't speak at all.

Now, I think a commonly cited statistic is that 1 out of 68 persons is in the autism spectrum.
 
There may be another way. If someone is very rare, they're not a threat to the established social order.

I'm thinking of the few snippets I've seen of the movie The Heart is a Lonely Hunter about this middle-aged guy in the South who's deaf mute.

==========

When I was in public school in the 1970s the image of autism were the kids who couldn't speak at all.

Now, I think a commonly cited statistic is that 1 out of 68 persons is in the autism spectrum.


clasical autism vs the austistic spectrum ... there arearguments over whether ASDs and ADHD has pathologised the fringes of 'normalcy'
 
Okay, I do think there's something to the chain of reasoning, a school should not set up a situation where we have 20 kids and 1 teacher, and then it becomes the most exalted value of all for a child to be able to stay in his or her seat (more difficult for boys because boys on average have less padding in their buttocks!).

I'll let persons or families who've had a diagnosis of ADHD and maybe helped by medication speak for themselves. Afterall, we have to deal with the real school and corporate world, not some imagined ideal.

As far as Aspergers-Autism Spectrum, I'm in my 50s and comfortably self-diagnosed. It's been enormously helpful finding out about sensory issues. For example, a loud A/C unit where the fan seems to be catching or the stench of room "deodorizer" which is worse than the original smell! No, it's not that people are conformist fools (least not always! ;) ), people just aren't bothered as much as I am.

And then, patchy social skills. People think, well, if I can do this, I certainly can do this other thing. No, not necessarily. Understanding that and being able to matter-of-factly explain it, potentially a big help.

And then there's a delicious tension, the whole concept of 'normal.'

As a former Miss America contestant, who herself is on the spectrum said: 'Normal's just a dryer setting!
 
Last edited:
I've never myself heard of the term "Autism Spectrum Rights", despite my parents through legal means fighting school's or approaching universities about accommodations that might allow me greater success, but I don't really see how it could be pushed earlier, or at the very least in a way that would be truly beneficial. For example, if Hans Asperger's work were published or expanded on into the late 40's and 50's, then there is a good chance that by the 60's or 70's we might see society as a whole retooling in response, but very possibly in a negative way; Asperger did not believe the beneficial peculiarities of the Syndrome to be worth its detriments, and so there may well be a dominant class of thought during that early period which would try to "beat" that way of thinking out of the individuals or let them languish separately, without ever really treating the Syndrome or helping those affected. That might come in the 80's or 90's after the effects of a generation of such policies are now visibly clear. That means we would potentially sacrifice a generation of Aspers to help another.

So as a whole, though I personally would have strongly benefited, I think what we have now is about the best we could have realistically gotten, unless you kicked the entire field of psychology decades earlier. I'm not well enough acquainted in the field to make any suggestions on how to do that though.
 
For example, if Hans Asperger's work were published or expanded on into the late 40's and 50's, then there is a good chance that by the 60's or 70's we might see society as a whole retooling in response, but very possibly in a negative way; Asperger did not believe the beneficial peculiarities of the Syndrome to be worth its detriments, and so there may well be a dominant class of thought during that early period which would try to "beat" that way of thinking out of the individuals or let them languish separately, without ever really treating the Syndrome or helping those affected. That might come in the 80's or 90's after the effects of a generation of such policies are now visibly clear. That means we would potentially sacrifice a generation of Aspers to help another.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to sacrifice one generation of Aspers to help another.

And what's called "mental health" is often "means of control," that is, the harsh methods which sacrifice far too much even if they do occasionally "work." Or, if the "nice" methods are tried, somehow they're expected to work in some automatic fashion, and for example, we lose the sort of feel-and-texture a seasoned baseball manager might have.

Okay, there are a couple of openings. One is Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The idea that people really are different. He's a respected psychologist at Harvard. His book came out in 1983. He was born in the '40s, so I can't see this happening too much earlier.

Something earlier is the Myers-Briggs listing of 16 personality types such as ISFJ, ESFP, INTJ, etc. For example, the first letter of I or E is whether a person is an introvert or an extrovert. Now, this is criticized that it was developed by amateurs, specifically two housewives. Well, mere housewives have accomplished a whole lot over the years and should not be too readily dismissed! And Myers-Briggs did catch on with the corporate world and personnel departments, maybe even a little bit too much in this regard. What I like about it is that none of the 16 types is a majority. --> a change might be if several different professors at several different universities decided to dive into the theory and do it right? <--
 
Last edited:
I have been trying to come at this issue from a different angle and, just by observation, a lot of people have a tendency to look at negative aspects before/rather than positive. This leads back to the mention of Sukhareva and schizoiden. There is a connection between schizophrenia, termed in 1908, and the New Latin word autismus, brought up by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler in 1910. You could probably go back to Kraepelin as well but I will have to come up with something on him for a different post. It took roughly 60 years for autism to be established as a separate syndrome and distinct from schizophrenia. IMO, if an earlier distinction were made due to more research resulting in a better understanding, then one may see some improvement. Granted, most people at that time may not fully understand some of the aspects of psychology, but an earlier recognition of autism as a separate diagnosis would do wonders.
 
Top