Philosophy Discussion Forums

Grunth wrote:

Greta wrote:You raise legitimate points but what is the alternative to breaking down the diagnoses? It makes sense to open-mindedly determine the specific problems a child may be having in the first instance, be it class behaviour, social issues or learning issues. From there counselling, coaching and mentoring in the deficit areas would ideally be provided as a first line of treatment. However, if that approach doesn't help, what should be done then in lieu of a diagnosis, especially if particular patterns are apparent?

Maybe the meds are being used because the hours of work needed to help vulnerable children is too expensive?

I disagree with the idea of categories of autism. Such categorization has not been achieved yet and there may well be good reason for this. After all, it isn't like cancer where it has different effects due to different areas and organs affected. Autism is diagnosed by behavior because there is only one organ involved. In effect autism is of the psyche. Due to being of the psyche, it (the person) will more usually respond or react to environment. If autism gets further broken up into various categories of autism then any environment change maybe of the institutional variety, rather than families finding ways of adaptation with some level of state support.

-- Updated May 27th, 2016, 8:17 pm to add the following --

Fortunately we have the internet and therefore less need for psychiatry. A psychiatrist for a diagnosis, but beyond that I would generally stay away from them.

Trouble is, how does one gain state support without a diagnosis? That is the problem that SH has found himself in.

If we are to reject subcategories of autism, given that there is such a huge variance from high achievers to those severely disabled, then shouldn't we be rid of the term and diagnosis "autism" altogether? Where would that leave the children and parents?

Greta wrote:
Trouble is, how does one gain state support without a diagnosis? That is the problem that SH has found himself in.

That isn't a problem SH is having.

SH: "I am a father of 6. However, 3 of my boys have been diagnosed with autism. "

Greta wrote: If we are to reject subcategories of autism, given that there is such a huge variance from high achievers to those severely disabled, then shouldn't we be rid of the term and diagnosis "autism" altogether? Where would that leave the children and parents?

Currently we have the diagnosis of autism. We do not have a situation of having that diagnosis threatened by the non-existence of variant diagnosis.

I argue that if there were many various and separate diagnosis this would more likely water down the one diagnosis we use thereby threatening it (therefore realizing your fear of being rid of the term and diagnosis).

Grunth wrote:

Greta wrote:
Trouble is, how does one gain state support without a diagnosis? That is the problem that SH has found himself in.

That isn't a problem SH is having.

SH: "I am a father of 6. However, 3 of my boys have been diagnosed with autism. "

I was referring to this:

The new school brought in a school psychologist and determined that their multiple diagnosis by multiple doctors were all incorrect. They came to this decision for 3 boys in a matter of a few hours. Claiming that the one who is non verbal is just being difficult and defiant by giving them the 'silent treatment'. The one who can't keep quiet is just trying to disrupt class, just looking for attention. Ignorant comments on the report like, "When asked a question, the child is ignoring the psychologist" or "The child keeps changing the subject when prompted to respond to a question" and so on. And because the costs for services are paid for by the school, then the only diagnosis they have to honor is the one they give out themselves.

If we are to reject subcategories of autism, given that there is such a huge variance from high achievers to those severely disabled, then shouldn't we be rid of the term and diagnosis "autism" altogether? Where would that leave the children and parents?

Grunth wrote:Currently we have the diagnosis of autism. We do not have a situation of having that diagnosis threatened by the non-existence of variant diagnosis.

I argue that if there were many various and separate diagnosis this would more likely water down the one diagnosis we use thereby threatening it (therefore realizing your fear of being rid of the term and diagnosis).

I don't need a diagnosis, Grunth. I am retired, independent and usually a bit of a hermit. All I need is family to come over and help me organise my home to keep it from turning into something akin to the leftovers of Frankenstein's experiments.

My concern re: diagnoses is only for kids coming up and the support they receive.

[quote="Greta"]
SH "The new school brought in a school psychologist and determined that their multiple diagnosis by multiple doctors were all incorrect. They came to this decision for 3 boys in a matter of a few hours. Claiming that the one who is non verbal is just being difficult and defiant by giving them the 'silent treatment'. The one who can't keep quiet is just trying to disrupt class, just looking for attention. Ignorant comments on the report like, "When asked a question, the child is ignoring the psychologist" or "The child keeps changing the subject when prompted to respond to a question" and so on. And because the costs for services are paid for by the school, then the only diagnosis they have to honor is the one they give out themselves."

Mmm, well the problem there seems to be a lack of qualification. A school psychologist sounds like nothing much more than a school counselor. I imagine their training to be pretty limited. These school psychologists were looking at these kids only on how they related to the school environment which only goes to show they are not qualified to diagnose autism. So they were comparing the psyche, therefore adaptability, of 'normal' and, therefore, programmed kids to those whom, because of autism, fall out of the program. The 'program' exists before school even begins. In fact the 'program' is what a school itself is modeled on as 'school' is a reflection of 'society'. The autistic, however, struggles to comprehend programmed society. Typical of society, society's limitation, is the comparison of one school child vs another, thereby reflecting competition.

It appears that all the school psychologists had done was compare SH's children with the society-programmed units thereby judging them most cruelly. This is not something I would imagine a psychiatrist doing as he or she would be independent from a school. If its one qualification vs another one would think the independent-of-school one would hold sway.

I do remember Charles Heston in the ten commandments. The water parted and his people crossed the sea. I did not think anything when they gather the animals and the chickens and the grain. I thought they had many things. They also had Moses. Remembering the movie: Did I see myself? Hurry!, hurry!, the water is going to get you! Did you see the ass running? Where did he go? The question stayed without answer. Please, don’t tell me about Harry Porter and his magical wand. I went to school myself. I remembered well and it is not Harry Porter who I remembered. It is (forgot his name). He knew what day of the week it was you were born if you told him your birthday. I also remembered the one that told me about him. I remembered many of the ones sitting in the back. I get the willies thinking of few. The one with the cat noises, they call Ovinnik.

The Beast wrote: I remembered. It is (forgot his name).

Along with Charles Heston and Harry Porter.

OP, your point is quite correct.

The problem is that modern science doesn't know psychology, hence the terms they invent within this discipline are bound to be arbitrary and centered around getting paid for their "services"....

Atreyu wrote:OP, your point is quite correct.

The problem is that modern science doesn't know psychology, hence the terms they invent within this discipline are bound to be arbitrary and centered around getting paid for their "services"....

Well yes and no, depending on the practitioners. Its the old 80-20% thing. 20%, or somewhere thereabouts, are committed to their field and have genuine empathy which informs them in conjunction with science. Committed to the extent they will keep up with new neuroscience discoveries. But man! there are some cold psychologists in our midst and which whom are rather too convinced of the reason they got their degrees in the first place, consequently still believing in the content that made up their degrees (which will be much outdated). These will be the lower 20%. So we have the committed and empathetic higher 20%, the mid 60% who are are ordinary in their practice (middle of bell-curve), and then the low 20% arrogant bunch. This formula seems to operate in every field, whether it be car mechanics, judges, teachers, or psychologists.

Its like how in politics we get the low 20% seeking and gaining the highest political positions because of their psychopathology.

Grunth wrote:Well yes and no, depending on the practitioners. Its the old 80-20% thing. 20%, or somewhere thereabouts, are committed to their field and have genuine empathy which informs them in conjunction with science. Committed to the extent they will keep up with new neuroscience discoveries. But man! there are some cold psychologists in our midst and which whom are rather too convinced of the reason they got their degrees in the first place, consequently still believing in the content that made up their degrees (which will be much outdated). These will be the lower 20%. So we have the committed and empathetic higher 20%, the mid 60% who are are ordinary in their practice (middle of bell-curve), and then the low 20% arrogant bunch. This formula seems to operate in every field, whether it be car mechanics, judges, teachers, or psychologists.

Its like how in politics we get the low 20% seeking and gaining the highest political positions because of their psychopathology.

Yes, but even the sincere ones do not actually know psychology.

And part of your post succinctly illustrates what I'm talking about ---> neuroscience is physiology, not psychology....

Atreyu wrote:

Grunth wrote:Well yes and no, depending on the practitioners. Its the old 80-20% thing. 20%, or somewhere thereabouts, are committed to their field and have genuine empathy which informs them in conjunction with science. Committed to the extent they will keep up with new neuroscience discoveries. But man! there are some cold psychologists in our midst and which whom are rather too convinced of the reason they got their degrees in the first place, consequently still believing in the content that made up their degrees (which will be much outdated). These will be the lower 20%. So we have the committed and empathetic higher 20%, the mid 60% who are are ordinary in their practice (middle of bell-curve), and then the low 20% arrogant bunch. This formula seems to operate in every field, whether it be car mechanics, judges, teachers, or psychologists.

Its like how in politics we get the low 20% seeking and gaining the highest political positions because of their psychopathology.

Yes, but even the sincere ones do not actually know psychology.

And part of your post succinctly illustrates what I'm talking about ---> neuroscience is physiology, not psychology....

Sure, but there is overlap here and there depending on the practitioner. After all, there has been the use of mdma in conjunction with talk therapy and one would, presumably, need to be cognizant of the effect of mdma neurologically.

Alec Smart wrote:

The Beast wrote: I remembered. It is (forgot his name).

Along with Charles Heston and Harry Porter.

Did you commit to this one? I will not win any Smarties Prize with my double/double distractions. It is like magic of the unconscious. John Charles Carter (the actor) and Harry Porter is a children’s writer (likes dogs).

The Beast wrote:
Did you commit to this one? I will not win any Smarties Prize with my double/double distractions. It is like magic of the unconscious. John Charles Carter (the actor) and Harry Porter is a children’s writer (likes dogs).

Nobody calls Charlton Heston Charles and you meant Harry Potter when you said Porter. It's not a big deal, there was no need to scurry off to Google to find something to cover your mistake.

Grunth wrote:Its like how in politics we get the low 20% seeking and gaining the highest political positions because of their psychopathology.

Yes, and much like politics, it comes down to a dollar amount. When it comes to a school, the welfare of the child comes second to a budget that needs to be protected. Hence, the school psychologist has the final say over the amount to be spent on a child. (special transportation, 1 on 1 aids, sensory tools etc.) This is why in the school environment, their "psychologist"can trump the diagnosis given by a specialist who practices autism related issues on a daily basis.

The principal at my kid's former school admitted to me that the struggles to provide services were so intense because of one reason; each school is allotted a set dollar amount for special needs. Their bonuses are issued out from the money left over that they did not spend. The bonus is an incentive to take a lower salary. But when 3 kids show up in your district that threaten that dollar amount, it's naturally going to upset the higher ups who have to sign off on the expense. But that is just an issue with the school system itself.

But I agree with the 80/20% reference. Not everyone is good at their job. Even less actually care about their job.

My personal philosophy is no matter what the issue is - be it autism, schizophrenia, faulty wiring, any label that is accurate or just the closest educated guess. You can take advice, hear suggestions, try your own ideas... The only ones who can assist them throughout life and set them up for success in this society, are those who are emotionally invested. Relying on paying someone to "fix" the problem, is not going to get you anywhere. They are people with unique differences and individualized triggers, not machines with manuals.

Alec Smart wrote:

The Beast wrote:
Did you commit to this one? I will not win any Smarties Prize with my double/double distractions. It is like magic of the unconscious. John Charles Carter (the actor) and Harry Porter is a children’s writer (likes dogs).

Nobody calls Charlton Heston Charles and you meant Harry Potter when you said Porter. It's not a big deal, there was no need to scurry off to Google to find something to cover your mistake.

You are sounding almost human. Autism is a rejection by the unconscious of a teaching problem written in the DNA. You should learn your lesson and move on. However I will research through Goggle the Ancient Bestiary for any almost normal creatures.

The Beast wrote: You are sounding almost human. Autism is a rejection by the unconscious of a teaching problem written in the DNA. You should learn your lesson and move on. However I will research through Goggle the Ancient Bestiary for any almost normal creatures.

OK, whatever you say, not that I've got the faintest Idea of what you did say.