Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

[Kid Eager]

Autism is a recent invention, one of the many symptoms heralding the recent rise to power of The Clinic and its rebranded eugenics, following their disastrous association with war-time eugenics programs in the industrial west.

The autist is shadowed by his own eugenic image. One critical difference between modern eugenics and the old, rejected eugenics, is that the modern Clinic asserts that the eugenic image is within reach for those who do not match its parameters for true personhood. And help is offered to achieve measured steps toward this unreachable target.

Today, our New Clinic considers autistic people not so much as persons but as more or less ambulatory clinical conditions. Having a clinical condition for an identity puts them beyond the help of their god and beyond the understanding of mum and dad. Their personality is foremost a description of their brain. Who, what, they really are, only the doctor is said to know.

Alone among others who have also had the blight of the perfect eugenic image shadowing their lives (we can think of aspergers, ADHD etc in this regard), the clinic's autist is affected by his brain, he suffers from his brain, whether he is happy or not. The rest of us...the rest of us might be affected by our brain - but with one crucial difference, we declare: brain differences are their differences, not ours; behavioural differences are their differences, not ours.

The clinic's autist is encouraged to reach the clean eugenic image that is believed to shadow him. If he is not assertive his holidays can become therapies, his associates helpers, his home-life can become a tick-box activity of tasks achieved. Medicated for achievement, he is the permanent patient, if not in practice then by deed-poll. For the feisty and independent, denying the clinical shadow can meet life-long resistance from a public and Clinic who's help is often conditional upon accepting their labels.

I see even your fake sincerity didn't last very long:

Ah. So you read my post after all. Hmm. That's interesting. Sorry, but I'm just interested, er I know it's a touchy subject, I don't want to stir it up or anything, I'm only asking, but well oh it doesn;t matter.

 

[Jonesboy]

Is it bad to call someone a chatbot? I think a post of mine was edited when I expressed this opinion. I wasn't trying to attack ad hominem; I just felt the responses seemed canned, not really responding to points raised by others.

Especially when it happens on multiple threads and starts seeming to have a pattern, in this case questioning certain neurological diagnoses or learning disabilites.

I'm getting chatbot. What can you do about it? You're the expert.

 

[Jonesboy]

I see even your fake sincerity didn't last very long:

I have to tell you, I found that funny.

 

[Kid Eager]

I am Welsh. My word shall endure for an age sufficient to change the face of Mankind.

I am not Welsh. I know bollocks when I read it.

 

[Jonesboy]

Jonesboy thinks that the condition doesn't exist, and from that line of "reasoning", it's perfectly "logical" to say that "giving someone the label autism" is disempowering, in the same way as labelling someone "green-coloured, and therefore unable to vote satisfactorily" would be disempowering.

This is mainly because jonesboy thinks that "giving someone the label autism means that their problems, if they exist, can be hand-waved away, and you can just put then full of medication, and not worry about them any more". At least, that's what I got out of them, for as far as was possible.

However, autism, ADHD, dyslexia and PTSD (am I missing any names jonesboy denies?) DO exist and they AREN'T being shoved aside (in most cases), and that's where jonesboy's "logic" rather clumsily and loudly falls to the ground.

I wish I could still care enough to put together a comprehensive rebuttal of jonesboy's nonsense, but I am thoroughly past that point now, and I will merely punch holes where I can, showing how ridiculous it actually is.

I'm not saying that the condition doesn't exist. I'm saying that the idea of a condition is informatively empty, and aborted right from the off.

 

[Jonesboy]

I don't understand why identifying and naming a condition is disempowering. Could someone explain that to me?

I understand full well why referring to someone as their condition is disempowering, which is precisely why mental health services are transitioning away from doing such a thing, but what loss of power is there in identifying and giving name to the difficulties someone suffers?

Because we identify people as a condition.

 

[Jonesboy]

my god, it's like he saw how pissed off people got when he talked bollocks about autism yesterday, and decided to double down.

As I'm sure everyone here knows, autism isn't a recent invention, or an invention at all. The reason why it wasn't reported in the past is that in the past autistic children were just dismissed as feebleminded or (in considerably worse times) thought of as possessed by the devil.

Yeh.
did you know, by the way, that american slaves were the first to be diagnosed with ADHD after they made a run for it?

 

[Jonesboy]

'Them' of course.

In fact, having read most of jonesboy's OP's I'm guessing 'them' constitutes anyone anywhere anywhen that does not agree with his flashes of brilliant insight.

That's funny. You actually described yourself when you never intended to.

 

[Estellea]

An "autism spectrum disorder"?
Is the spectrum the disorder?
I thought "autism" was a syndrome?

You're not answering the questions.

Este

 

[Jonesboy]

So, Autism wasn't what the problem was back in the middle ages, i.e. the "touched by the fey" kids who were identical in behavior, you mean?

Sorry, the quote above is patent, gabbling nonsense, and is exactly opposite the truth of the matter.

Misinformation does not help your cause, whatever that is.

What's "identical to autism"? Are you going to tell me what an autism is?

 

[Jonesboy]

If I show that one is short because of malnutrition, and one is short because of a genetic mutation that caused dwarfism, are you going to argue that both are the same thing? Because that's what you're doing with dyslexia--you're arguing that because one symptom is the same, the cause is the same and the treatment should be the same.

You're going to argue that dyslexia is a GOOD THING? I guess that if you've never met a dyslexic you could see it that way. However, I know for a fact that dyslexia costs at least my company a fair number of lost person-hours, and has required them to re-do a few field surveys. I once spent two hours lost in an Alabama swamp due to someone else's dyslexia. It's harmful, whether you want to admit it or not.

So you're denying that problems with the brain can directly or indirectly impact a person. You are, in fact, denying ALL of psychology, a huge chunk of medicine, and the entire scientific method. Pretty impressive for one sentence.

If you don't feed something it doesn't get bigger.
Is that your theory?

And if you feed it, then some things get bigger quicker than other things? How would we know? Would measuring it give us knowledge? Of course not.

What counts as a "problem" of the brain? Does the brain have problems, quite apart from ours?

 

[Jonesboy]

Explain your reasoning, here, because I don't see how it follows. Are you saying someone with late stage Alzheimer's is no better or worse off than someone functioning normally? Seems to me you CAN single out certain things as being better or worse.



The fact it causes suffering and when you do the research you find out it serves no purpose tells you it is not a good thing.

Altzheimers is a problem.

Therefore, we say that there is a problem with their brain.
BUT NOT
There is a problem with their brain. Therefore altzheimers is a problem.

 

[Jonesboy]

Is it my imagination, or has Jonesboy's participation in this thread consisted entirely of

1, his posting "But what is dyslexia?";

2, someone, or some several, posting definitions of dyslexia;

and 3, his quoting back a phrase from one of those definitions and replying, "Yes, I understand what {insert quoted phrase here} is, but what is dyslexia?"

?

Yes.
So what's dyslexia?
A cause?
Or a re-spelling of "ropey reading"?

 

[Jonesboy]

No it doesn't. It means it has a wider description than just being poor at reading.

It's the same.

 

[Jonesboy]

Jonesboy: Please look at the images and read the article below. The MRI scans clearly show differences in the brains of dyslexics and non-dyslexics.

[qimg]http://hollergen677s09.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/2/1/1721114/5462470.gif[/qimg]

http://hollergen677s09.weebly.com/
Do you still contend that dyslexia has nothing to do with the brain?

If there are differences then it shows that we abnormal. Or is it them?

 

[Jonesboy]

Nobody is "inventing" causes. We are discovering them. Learning about them.

We used to think that infectious diseases were caused by evil vapors. That was "invented". We learned by methodical investigation and discovery that many of them were caused by bacteria. Then we learned that others were caused by viruses. We didn't "invent" bacteria or viruses, either. Or prions.

Not all diseases are caused by the same bacteria or viruses. Often the symptoms can be similar. Sometimes different approaches are required to deal with those symptoms.

We have discovered some of these approaches to treatment and healing. We are learning new ones. Some of them really are invented.

But the diseases are not.

There are no causes to be found. The brain doesn't cause changes in emotions. There is no physical interaction here at all.
Why say the brain causes an emotioon or difficulty? Are we saying that some emotions and difficulties are exempt?

 

[Jonesboy]

Good for you, Kitten.

There shouldn't be any shame, and one of the things that pisses me off the most about the kind of dismissive 'tough guys' we have seen in this thread is that they contribute to that sort of cruel, reprehensible meme.

Here in Wales we find ADHD funny, the province of quacks and believers.

 

[Jonesboy]

Many others have tried to tell you what dyslexia is. Your posts have either ignored or willfully misinterpreted their explanations. I'm a sucker and a glutton for punishment, so I'll try to give you a definition you can accept. This definition is from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Please note that they have people there who know more than you do about this subject:And information from NINDS on what a learning disability is:

Those definitions you quoted were examples of the reasoning I was arguing against.

You can hardly, then, expect me to take them as facts, and I suppose you can't either.

 

[Jonesboy]

People here keep taking care not to confuse the symptom with the cause, yet you continue to ignore this.

What if I define dyslexia as "a physical condition whose principal visible manifestation is difficulty in reading?" Forget for a moment whether my definition is entirely correct. Is it at least comprehensible to you?

You made my point, or showed it. Cause and symptom aren't related causally, they are the one and the same, one is a reduction of the other.

And your definition of dyslexia relied on what is in question - condition.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

By George, she's got it!

Yes, 'she' gets it. Adding gender confusion to the list of diagnoses?