Myths about autism

So wait, the burden of proof is not upon the one making the diagnosis, it's on me? That kind of science is new to me. Thank you for your input. I did plenty of research, I only hear of the keywords 'chemical imbalance in the brain' (or for autists 'atypical brain structure' or whatever) but whenever I dig deeper, I return empty-handed because nobody can explain to me coherently what is missing, what is wrong, and how it's supposed to be fixed. I actually have a great interest in psychology so my request for information was genuine.

I have first hand experience of raising a child with Autism and with ABA therapy.

The myth element dealing with ABA is a bit strange. The first statement seems focused on the prohibitive nature due to the commitment. Then it points out the implementation as being a form of abuse and lastly hints of discrediting the practice on the whole. Not sure what part is myth here...

I am not an expert but I know how it's worked for my kid and several other families. It's my understanding that Lovaas and early practitioners of ABA were much more strict in their approach. Children were made to sit for long periods through repetition and there was an element of "correcting" that could include a slap or stern language. From my understanding and experience this is just not the case anymore. ABA has adopted a lot of the methodology of other treatments such as floortime where the session is a play environment. There are discrete trials and it's still very data driven but it's structured into activities that the child (or adult) are motivated by. If ever my child was not enjoying their time or was being "abused" in any fashion we would be the first to stop the therapy.

We've encountered a number of older adults who work with children who are horrified that we chose to go with ABA as treatment. Their views are largely based on decades old information of the implementation. We've had those same people sit in on sessions and by the end they are taking notes and asking questions about ABA.

We do 20+ hours a week. It's intense but the intensity level is governed by my child's enthusiasm and willingness. If you have an ABA provider who is punishing, pushing or not creating a fun and loving atmosphere for your child then please speak with someone else (though I know this is not the case for vast majority of people).

Also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-s-greenspan/autism-concep...

There are indeed a lot of myths about autism in the press, and they should be dispelled. Unfortunately Silberman doesn't really know what he's talking about, despite what are surely his best intentions. (He's a journalist, not a scientist.) Many people with autism diagnoses do lack empathy for others; it's part of the condition. Labeling that a "myth" is simply incorrect.

We need more coverage of scientific journal articles, such as the many papers that point to cerebellar involvement in autism, which Silberman does not discuss at all. The lack of hard science in the debate makes it too easy for myths and vague superstition--even among doctors--to fill the gap.

See https://medium.com/p/we-don-t-do-autism-d6de9d4f8913.

Where you're coming from is a valid avenue, to me, considering that you're starting from a skepticism position and asking for some quality materials to review. I'm going to share some personal perspectives that might be relevant to your interest. As it's not peer-reviewed or an empirical study, but rather one based on 30+ years of experience, I do feel it's kind of in line with a personal psychology study. I don't get too specific out of personal reluctance.

For reference, I've got a physical handicap that is part of a spectrum. There are folks like me who can't go a couple weeks without medication, and others who have such a minor expression they would never know they had the condition unless in certain medical circumstances. In reality, some of those who would fit the diagnosis on a medical basis have lifestyles which would indicate they do not have the condition. On the flip side, my lifestyle has been forced to conform to the condition, so to speak, in order to appear "normal" on a day-to-day basis.

Because I received some special accommodations over the years, I got first-hand interactions with kids/youth with other conditions as well. When looking back at those years, I'm reminded of the (very real) condition labeled Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Again, it's a disorder along a spectrum, not necessarily testable by blood, but there are methods for a diagnosis.

As the condition itself got more commonly known, the phrase "I'm a little OCD" started to seep into the US lexicon. In my experience, these were (most often) people who genuinely didn't have the condition who felt that by saying they had some symptoms, but, more than likely, would never fit the diagnosis. This was brought to my attention by a drummer friend in college, who genuinely had OCD tics (silverware arrangement before eating) and shared with me his frustration at the, well, minimizing of his condition.

The whole gist of this musing is that based on my upbringing, I've never wanted my condition / disability / handicap, nor would I want to be public about it and seek special treatment as a habit. As society in the US has changed to be more understanding and accepting of individual issues (to an extent), be it a handicap, socially progressive sexual preference and expression that used to be highly taboo, or a food-type allergy, I see there is a genuine trend towards special accommodations as a right to be fought for. It's a benefit to those who need it, but it's also an avenue for exploitation by those who feel compelled to do that...and when criticized, there's an immense push-back.

So, without being too glib, first it was OCD, then it was ADHD, and now it's Autism. Each one is genuine, and each has measurable symptoms with respect to functioning in daily life. However, unlike my condition, which nobody in their right mind would want or advertise unless for straight up bullshit sympathy, there are some benefits to over-stating one's personal affliction.

I've no doubt some people would take issue with this perspective, but if I'm framing it properly, that would potentially be the avenue for more research via psychology: Studying human behavior relating to adopting a negative for access to a positive. In the most extreme case, I'd reference when a person fakes cancer for sympathy and/or financial gain (of which there are documented cases), and compare that to parents who simply want to understand their child and will look all over for answers, or convince themselves that somehow what they've come across is the answer.