My, my. So many of you who also grew up in the 1940s, and have vivid recollections of what growing up was like, and it was so terrible that you all grew up to be the same mean and insulting bullies that you were as children, continuing even as grown ups to call people stupid just because they did not see things the way you do.
No one is calling you stupid. They are saying what you said is stupid. You may think that children are naturally fair, but that’s not the experience of the vast majority of people in the world. Your ideas are based on your experience and no actual facts.
It is just well known that anyone on the autism spectrum is often oblivious to social nuances. Which makes more sense: that the guy with such a disorder didn’t notice things, or that the behaviors we’ve all observed didn’t happen around you?
I mean, I’ll go so far as to say I was never bullied, but I know that some people were bullied.
And nothing anyone is doing here is remotely bullying. Saying something you said is stupid is not bullying. I sense no hostility from them. And you can ask anyone here. If I thought they were bullying you, I would tell them off. I have no tolerance for people who are bullied for their mental disorders.
They aren’t bullying you.
^^^^ BigT, I thought this was really mean, hostile, and unnecessary and almost responded to say so immediately after seeing it, but I figured I’d be similarly insulted and accused of “white-knighting” or some such, so I didn’t.
And directing it at someone who had every reason NOT to perceive social order in the same way as most others seems quite bullying to me.
I’d be inclined to agree with you…if he hadn’t turned around and posted what he did in response. I know that if I ever admit to everyone that I have a blindspot about an issue, but then I go on to pontificate about said issue so that everyone yells at me that I’m wrong, then I would try to humble myself enough to stop acting as if I’m an expert and STFU. Which jtur88 seems to be unable to do. Thus, he deserves to be scolded. That’s the only way some people learn.
Anyway, I wouldn’t trust someone who self-diagnoses themselves with an ASD but then uses their good fortune in life as a cudgel to shame others . If life was so grand that such a person didn’t need special intervention or assistance, then he most likely doesn’t have a disorder. He may have a certain personality. He may be quirky. He may be eccentric. But that’s not the same thing as being disabled or disordered.
The stakes are much higher in life than they were in the 1940s. It was possible to drop out of school in the ninth grade and bring home a paycheck sufficient to pay the rent and keep the lights on. Now that simply isn’t true. Thus, it makes sense that more and more children are being officially labeled as “disordered” and receiving special services. I don’t like that it is this way, but it is understandable.
Maybe he says he is self-diagnosed in another thread, but I don’t see it in this one.
Demanding that someone ignore their own perceptions and substitute other people’s is a tall order. This guy lived his life and none of us were there, so why should he take anyone else’s word for it?
My daughter didn’t realize people were ever mean until she was fourteen or so, and she has no diagnosed disorder. She apparently thought when people said mean things they were just kidding around. Sure, she was living in a delusional bubble, but it was surely very nice in there, and it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mean people quickly gave up on being mean to her because she was so oblivious.
Wait, I thought you just said children weren’t bullies, because “playing nice” was in their hearts? Which is it? Do children instinctively play nice, or are some children bullies?
Then maybe he should stop speaking like he’s the expert of the 1940s and just speak from his own experience without all the crazy generalizations.
Part of the diagnostic criteria for autism is that the symptoms interfere with daily living. If your life is just fine, you don’t have autism. This is also the reason that quirky, but very successful historical figures, like Robert E. Lee, were not autistic. Not to mention, the people making these post hoc diagnoses are never psychologists, psychiatrists, or neurologists, they’re usually people who read some internet articles on autism, then posted something on their blog. Now it’s supposedly common knowledge that Einstein was autistic, even though a lot of the “evidence,” like his not speaking until he was five, and his failing in school in his early years, are urban legends, but parents of autistic children get asked if their children can do things Einstein did, until they are ready to punch the next person who mentions Einstein to them.
Anyway, I worked with autistic people for years, and I’ve read most books on autism that weren’t published by a vanity press, including slogging through The Empty Fortress.
Personally, I think there are two things that have contributed to the false rise in autism rates, apart from a broader definition.
One was that children were misdiagnosed, and I think a lot of children were misdiagnosed on purpose. Since about the 1930s (it ranges anywhere from the 1900s-1940s, and depends on the state), states have had schools for the mild-moderately mentally retarded, and they were actual school that taught them trades, taught them to read and write to the extent that they could. These schools didn’t take autistic children, because autism was thought of as “emotional disturbance,” and not an organic impairment. Autistic children went to private hospitals, if their parents could afford it, where doctors used Freudian psychoanalysis to try to cure them by getting them to talk about the (non-existent) trauma they had experienced. Otherwise, they were institutionalized with people who had serious psychoses.
So, knowing this, doctors (mis)diagnosed moderately and severely autistic children as retarded, and didn’t diagnose the mildly autistic children at all, just let them go to school with no diagnosis, and be “the weird kid.” They’d get picked on, and be in trouble a lot, but it was better than an institution.
That was the 1930-1960s. Something else happened in the 60s and 70s. A disorder was invented called “childhood schizophrenia.” It doesn’t really exist (there is very early onset schizophrenia, but “childhood schizophrenia” was another label for a certain type of autism). For a while there were certain truisms of autism, and one of them was that autistic children didn’t like to be touched. This was based mostly on observing children who had been institutionalized for several years, and most of the observed behaviors were a result of long-term institutionalization, not autism itself, but nevermind-- some autistic children sought odd types of physical stimulation from other people, and they usually had some speech, but their cadence was odd. It was actually very similar to what Leo Kanner described, and before people decided to call everything “Autism spectrum disorder,” it was called Kanner’s Autism. But it went through a period of being called “childhood schizophrenia,” because of the superficial similarity between the way these children and some schizophrenic adults interacted with other people.
So, in the 1980s, public law 94-142 (the education of all handicapped children) had been in effect for almost a decade, and people stopped being afraid of the autism diagnosis, because it no longer meant a choice between expensive treatment or an institution-- autistic children now had to be educated at the local public school along with all the other children in the neighborhood. So, no more deliberate misdiagnoses, and fewer “weird kids” trying to get by. Now, any kid who was clearly struggling, even if it was mainly socially, got referred for a check-up.
Also, a lot of adults who were still carrying the “schizophrenic” label from childhood finally had their diagnoses revised to “autism.” They didn’t suddenly become autistic, but they did contribute to the numbers of new cases of autism.
I believe Dan Ackroyd was diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia until he was diagnosed with Asperger’s later in adulthood.
Good info, btw.
From the descriptions my mother has provided - nearly every family had a weird relation - maybe a sibling, maybe a cousin - who was different. And required some special handling. You were taught from a fairly young age that you needed to provide special handling to your cousin Ricky - he was a little different, and you needed to look out for him. And when you saw someone like Ricky on the playground, you tended to treat him differently and look out for him.
Some kids are, of course, bullies. But when you have some sort of critical mass of kids who have a cousin like Ricky, there is a protective shield.
A number of things happened by the time I was a kid in the 70s. My family wasn’t big enough or local enough that I saw my cousin with autism. I have one, and a close family friend with a daughter with a different diagnosis but similar sorts of oddness - but I didn’t need to regularly interact with them. We also got hyper competitive starting sometime around there (and its gotten worse with my kids). If you aren’t good enough in third grade, you don’t make the traveling baseball team. Exclusion is not only permitted, its something my kids have grown up with as behavior adults model. We can be quick to shun kids who are strange as adults - playgroups are invite only and if you are going to invite three people over, you are going to invite three people who play well together - my mother still can’t figure out why my kids don’t know every kid in the neighborhood from running into each other at the playground. Most of those kids never WENT to the playground or met other kids in the neighborhood without an introduction. We extended “don’t talk to strangers” right down to preschool age kids meeting in playgrounds - and we certainly didn’t encourage our kids to talk to strange strangers. My mother and mother in law are both astounded at the sorts of exclusion that is perfectly normal to my kids (even if I don’t model it, almost every other adult and child they are around does - the exception is kindergarten through third grade teachers still trying to teach these kids that all their classmates are their “friends” - the kids know better - they know that at home they’ll only have to have the two people they like over on Saturday - the weird kid is only their “friend” while the teacher is looking.)
Yes, if someone put it that way. It’s the gratuitous meanness I object to.
As others have implicitly notes, jtur88 describes his memories of growing up in the 40s. Until others come along and add in their descriptions of growing up in the 40s, he does seem to have more expertise than the rest of us. As for his second post, I don’t remember reading (outside of the pit) comments as harsh as those posted about his first post. He has some reason to be upset.
And one should also note that jtur88 describes his experience as perhaps the last generation of children who didn’t grow up being mean to their peers. Judging by the universal opinions of other posters here, is is certainly correct that subsequent generations of children grew up mean. That is what everyone else is saying.
I personally believe that he is unlikely to be correct in his description of the 40s. I can’t think of any reason why the 40s would be special in this regard. It was a special decade, so I guess it isn’t impossible, but I don’t believe it.
BTW, I was born in the early 50s and certainly don’t remember any of my peers being mean or cruel to me or anyone else until well in to high school. I don’t go as far as jtur88, but I have no personal memories of bad behavior. That doesn’t support jtur88, but it certainly goes against what others have posted.
I love many of your posts. They are often thoughtful and filled with very useful info. You really add a lot to this board. I am very glad you’ve decided to join us.
Aw, shucks.
[quote=“RivkahChaya, post:28, topic:695511”]
Part of the diagnostic criteria for autism is that the symptoms interfere with daily living. If your life is just fine, you don’t have autism. This is also the reason that quirky, but very successful historical figures, like Robert E. Lee, were not autistic. Not to mention, the people making these post hoc diagnoses are never psychologists, psychiatrists, or neurologists, they’re usually people who read some internet articles on autism, then posted something on their blog. Now it’s supposedly common knowledge that Einstein was autistic, even though a lot of the “evidence,” like his not speaking until he was five, and his failing in school in his early years, are urban legends, but parents of autistic children get asked if their children can do things Einstein did, until they are ready to punch the next person who mentions Einstein to them.
Anyway, I worked with autistic people for years, and I’ve read most books on autism that weren’t published by a vanity press, including slogging through The Empty Fortress.
How was Robert E Lee quirky? Looking at this wiki he is the very definition of a super stable, non-quirky, high achieving person.
Praiser be to our lord and saviour, BigT.
I have no idea. I just know someone wrote an internet article theorizing that he was autistic, or has Asperger’s syndrome, or something. The person was not in a position to diagnose anyone (ie, not a doctor, psychologist, or even someone with a degree in US history), not to mention anyone who actually is qualified to make such diagnoses knows better than to diagnose people he or she has not met.
Basically, no matter who it is, if the person has any historical importance, someone, somewhere has written an internet article theorizing that they had, ADD, OCD, dyslexia, autism, or bipolar disorder. Some people are a twofer: you can find articles theorizing that Lincoln had depression, and Marfan’s syndrome. Also, occasionally bipolar disorder. And his wife was a hoarder, with OCD.
Welcome, traveler from an alternate universe!
In this one, I grew up in the 1960s, not the 1940s, but it was still an era where kids ruled their own play. During the summer, you came home for meals, but roamed freely in between, that sorta stuff.
Bullying was a thing back then. Unlike now, when schools regard it as a problem, it was strictly your own problem if you were on the receiving end of a bunch of it. Like with autism, I suspect that there may appear to be more bullying nowadays simply because adults are taking more notice of its existence in an organized way. And I say good on them.
I would like to note that I am others did not ridicule or mock jtr88 himself, please find an insult directed at the poster. We mocked his post, which indicated that kids in the 1940s in the USA were enlightened saints of inclusion. Hell maybe they were, but I doubt it. We attacked the post as bullshit, we did not bully the poster. I mean if I posted a post saying homophobia was non-existant in the 1980s I would expect be called out on it, cuz it is bullshit.
Calling a post bullshit is waaaay different than bullying a poster.