Customer Reviews

Autism, Pre Rain Man: Pre Rain Man Autism

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As dearly as I rue the release of the 1988 movie "Rain Man," the one thing I can say in its defense is that to a certain extent, it sparked an interest in autism/Asperger's (a/A). My chief complaint about "Rain Man" is that it has reinforced a stereotype. Savantism affects less than 10% of people with autism, so I admit to getting frustrated with the liberal application of the "Rain Man" term and description being so readily applied to people with autism. In fact, the very term "Rain Man" is offensive and considered a slur among many a/A circles. Many is the time I've wished I had an umbrella with the Autism Jigsaw pattern that said, "Rain Man Myth Busters."

To this author's credit, the issue of people with autism not knowing what their "undefined social differences were" and groping and coping with social cues that seemed elusive is valid. I like the author's claim that neurotypical (NT) people can learn from their autistic counterparts just how confusing the Tacit Social Codes & Rules can be. This knowledge can hopefully help children with autism today.

However, I take issue with the stereotypes. Not ALL people with autism have avoid hugs. Not EVERYBODY with autism has a high threshold for pain or thinks in pictures. Applying these features to the entire a/A population is just as misleading as that tired image of Rain Man. These stereotypes are no less offensive. Saying that one knows about autism because they watched Rain Man, which is about one fictional character with a very rare form of autism is tantamount to saying they are a gourmet chef because they watched one cooking show.

Autism, as with any condition is on a spectrum. There will be overlapping behaviors in people with Asperger's; that is, people at the higher end of the spectrum will exhibit behaviors that are readily identifyable as autistic. The assumptions this author makes are very misleading indeed.

A generation ago, people with autism were often misdiagnosed and this in turn led to harmful treatments and inappropriate placements. How on earth can Shull support the claim that misdiagnosis and its resulting problems, e.g. inappropriate treatment ensured a better life is a mystery to me.

Sadly, the term "autistic" often resounds a death knell to "normalcy" and a "fulfilling life" to the NT population. Low expectations are often placed on people labeled with autism which in turn leads to inappropriate treatments and placements. Each generation has its individual issues and problems, and this seems to be the unfortunate underbelly of this generation of diagnosticians.

I am among the first to encourage people to work with the a/A population based on areas of strength as opposed to areas of opportunity and to his credit, Shull appears to do this in his fashion. While accounts of picture thinking are fascinating, it is misleading and just plain wrong to say that is the way all people with autism think. That just isn't true. Autism is as varied as individuals who have it and saying that one has to fit a certain paradigm hurts all and helps none.

One size does NOT fit all. Shull's operational definition of success doesn't apply to all autistics OR to all NTs, either. I found myself wishing he'd give the "picture thought" concept a rest - not ALL people with autism think in pictures! The other part of this book that bothered me was that "picture thinking," according to him is "abnormal," which means any other type of thinking, e.g. language based is "normal." I don't think one can measure such a thing. While there are people, most notably Dr. Temple Grandin, who has publicly described her "picture thinking" and even titled one of her books "Thinking in Pictures," it does not mean that everybody with autism thinks that way. Donna Williams, another author with autism does an exemplary job of addressing the language interpretations of conversation and of language based thinking in "Autism: An Inside-Out Approach." Many people I know with autism as well as NT will say that their thoughts are language based.

I also did not like his claim that people who don't think in pictures can expect a better social outcome and are entitled to a "fuller" education, whereas picture thinkers do not. How does he explain Dr. Grandin, a self-admitted, self-avowed picture thinker?! How does he explain Georgiana Thomas, the daughter of Annabelle Stehli, who writes of Georgie's stellar progress in "The Sound of a Miracle?" Georgie, herself an author, has written "Overcoming Autism" which is currently available on her website. She is fluent in 6 languages including Arabic and she says her thoughts were always language based. How does Shull explain that? Georgie had severe autism as a child, but successful Auditory Integration Therapy (AIT) helped her progress to a point where her autistic tendencies had receded.

Another thorn in my side was when the author said that people who don't fit his criteria are not autistic. Nobody would choose to be autistic, but for those who are, Shull appears to negate their experiences. There are many people with autism who have no common ground with the author's accounts and whose life experiences with autism just don't apply to the rules he has given. While this book starts out with a seemingly sound premise, it degenerates into sophistry and is very misleading.

First of all remember Rich is autistic himself, beginning with that premise, this book is really an amazing work. But add to that the provacative, entertaining and cutting edge work, and this young man equal genuis. Read it for yourself!

I am so glad that I found this book. I have learned so much from reading Rich's detailed explanation of picture thinking. This has opened my eyes to completely new ways to view teaching Autistics. I realize that not everyone picture thinks, but gosh what a great opening for those who do picture think, this could change their future. I work with an autistic young man, he has much more potential that he is presently able to perform. I have been using the picture thinking approach with him and I see some definate improvement in his communication. That speaks volumes.

As dearly as I rue the release of the 1988 movie "Rain Man," the one thing I can say in its defense is that to a certain extent, it sparked an interest in autism/Asperger's (a/A). My chief complaint about "Rain Man" is that it has reinforced a stereotype. Savantism affects less than 10% of people with autism, so I admit to getting frustrated with the liberal application of the "Rain Man" term and description being so readily applied to people with autism. In fact, the very term "Rain Man" is offensive and considered a slur among many a/A circles. Many is the time I've wished I had an umbrella with the Autism Jigsaw pattern that said, "Rain Man Myth Busters."

To this author's credit, the issue of people with autism not knowing what their "undefined social differences were" and groping and coping with social cues that seemed elusive is valid. I like the author's claim that neurotypical (NT) people can learn from their autistic counterparts just how confusing the Tacit Social Codes & Rules can be. This knowledge can hopefully help children with autism today.

However, I take issue with the stereotypes. Not ALL people with autism have avoid hugs. Not EVERYBODY with autism has a high threshold for pain or thinks in pictures. Applying tthese features to the entire a/A population is just as misleading as that tired image of Rain Man. These stereotypes are no less offensive. Saying that one knows about autism because they watched Rain Man, which is about one fictional character with a very rare form of autism is tantamount to saying they are a gourmet chef because they watched one cooking show.

Autism, as with any condition is on a spectrum. There will be overlapping behaviors in people with Asperger's; that is, people at the higher end of the spectrum will exhibit behaviors that are readily identifyable as autistic. The assumptions this author makes are very misleading indeed.

A generation ago, people with autism were often misdiagnosed and this in turn led to harmful treatments and inappropriate placements. How on earth can Shull support the claim that misdiagnosis and its resulting problems, e.g. inappropriate treatment ensured a better life is a mystery to me.

Sadly, the term "autistic" often resounds a death knell to "normalcy" and a "fulfilling life" to the NT population. Low expectations are often placed on people labeled with autism which in turn leads to inappropriate treatments and placements. Each generation has its individual issues and problems, and this seems to be the unfortunate underbelly of this generation of diagnosticians.

I am among the first to encourage people to work with the a/A population based on areas of strength as opposed to areas of opportunity and to his credit, Shull appears to do this in his fashion. While accounts of picture thinking are fascinating, it is misleading and just plain wrong to say that is the way all people with autism think. That just isn't true. Autism is as varied as individuals who have it and saying that one has to fit a certain paradigm hurts all and helps none.

One size does NOT fit all. Shull's operational definition of success doesn't apply to all autistics OR to all NTs, either. I found myself wishing he'd give the "picture thought" concept a rest - not ALL people with autism think in pictures! The other part of this book that bothered me was that "picture thinking," according to him is "abnormal," which means any other type of thinking, e.g. language based is "normal." I don't think one can measure such a thing. While there are people, most notably Dr. Temple Grandin, who has publicly described her "picture thinking" and even titled one of her books "Thinking in Pictures," it does not mean that everybody with autism thinks that way. Donna Williams, another author with autism does an exemplary job of addressing the language interpretations of conversation and of language based thinking in "Autism: An Inside-Out Approach." Many people I know with autism as well as NT will say that their thoughts are language based.

I also did not like his claim that people who don't think in pictures can expect a better social outcome and are entitled to a "fuller" education, whereas picture thinkers do not. How does he explain Dr. Grandin, a self-admitted, self-avowed picture thinker?! How does he explain Georgiana Thomas, the daughter of Annabelle Stehli, who writes of Georgie's stellar progress in "The Sound of a Miracle?" Georgie, herself an author, has written "Overcoming Autism" which is currently available on her website. She is fluent in 6 languages including Arabic and she says her thoughts were always language based. How does Shull explain that? Georgie had severe autism as a child, but successful Auditory Integration Therapy (AIT) helped her progress to a point where her autistic tendencies had receded.

Another thorn in my side was when the author said that people who don't fit his criteria are not autistic. Nobody would choose to be autistic, but for those who are, Shull appears to negate their experiences. There are many people with autism who have no common ground with the author's accounts and whose life experiences with autism just don't apply to the rules he has given. While this book starts out with a seemingly sound premise, it degenerates into sophistry and is very misleading.