Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

MysteryMammal said:
Why do you refuse to multi-quote? Honestly, this is about the third thread you've started that I've read and the only interesting thing that you do in each of them is just spam multiple posts in a row.
Click to expand...

I have him on ignore for that reason.
 
Jonesboy said:
Medics, the medical model.
Click to expand...

Yeah well get over it, there are people who fall along the autistic spectrum, and have the issues identified.

You forget the crucial part Szasz is wrong, and that brains are the vehicle of behavior.

People with autism need training in how to interact with humans from an early age, now yes we can just let them form their primary relationship with the floor, but then it makes it even harder for them to care for themselves.

Now the fact that one young man I know likes to lie on the floor and scream is not a real problem, he calms down and comes back to interaction. Nor is the fact that he has traits that are labeled as autistic, the real issue is he might run in front of a car and can't dress himself or care for himself.

It is not the words we use to describe his behaviors that are the problem now is it?

You are making **** up and forgetting that he will probably run in front of a car.
 
Jonesboy said:
You mean you aren't on the patient spectrum? That's coy.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant, the loss of language from the age of three on is a real thing, regardless of the label. It is not stigma that creates the issues.

Some people can't care for themselves regardless of the label.
 
Jonesboy said:
An "autism spectrum disorder"?
Is the spectrum the disorder?
I thought "autism" was a syndrome?
Click to expand...

The behaviors fall along a spectrum. Which may be characterized as the autism spectrum.

Now the real shame besides denial by some is the behavior of people who look at the criteria without understanding them and think they are on the spectrum, without any real understanding of the criteria. They miss some of the crucial bits of the criteria and think that social anxiety is the same as not understanding social cues, they especially mistake obsession for perseveration. They trivialize the issues that the people who do fall on the spectrum face by their misunderstanding.

It is the diagnosis de jure, just as bipolar was five years ago, now the incidence of bipolar is higher that the incidence of autism.
 
Jonesboy said:
So if you say to someone "you're autistic" then he'll know how to deal with it?
Click to expand...

No but is they can be taught social cues and skills when three years old and get the continued support they benefit from then their self care and functioning in social setting is better.
 
Jonesboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that is where you are wrong, those who fall towards the non-verbal end can benefit from early intervention, those who fall in the middle can benefit in school from their teachers . parents and peers understanding aspects of their behavior. They can benefit themselves from learning skills in tolerating their frustration with the lack of social cuing interpretation, some of the middle people have the best senses of humor ever.

But the 'rule based' behaviors can be very hard for others to understand, if you are wrong with this student and they say "I have to have that piece of paper", they really do, they will perseverate and be unable to continue until they have that piece of paper. Those with sensory overload issues may need accommodation to prevent flooding or distraction.

The label is just a label, but it helps in communicating the reason for these interventions.

So you are wrong right from the off.
 
Jonesboy said:
Because we identify people as a condition.
Click to expand...

How quaint, you don;t understand the functional behavioral models Watson then the wonderful Skinner.

Earth to Jonesboy, it is not a condition it is a set of consistent behaviors.

Then there is the functional approach, regardless of your personal stigma, people have tasks that they accomplish to live. The goals of intervention is to increase their abilities in the areas of functioning chosen by the individual (or parents for children).

Not only are you mesmerized by your neo-freudian twaddle, you don't even understand the models you critique.

have you even read Arron Beck 'Cognitive Therapy of Depression', seriously have you?
 
Jonesboy said:
Yes. I think that eugenics is the promotion of a perfect archetype. Old eugenics promoted that perfection by rejection and murder. New eugenics promotes it by therapy.
Click to expand...
So we're just inventing a meaning for the term. Sounds about par for the course here.

Eugenics is generally defined as the promotion of an archetype genetically, by discouraging or preventing those considered unfit from breeding, and promoting the breeding of others. So I repeat my question: in what way does the current treatment of those labeled autistic constitute a eugenic program in the proper sense of the term; what role does therapy have in making the autistic less able to reproduce than they would have been if left unlabeled, undiagnosed, or untreated. Let's see some actual facts, not semantic ramblings.
 
Jonesboy said:
An inability to speak can only be described as an inabilty if we expect to speak.
Click to expand...
So what? You're not answering my question, just playing dodgeball with words. So we are humans, and we expect to speak. A person speaks, is habituated to speech, used to speak, knows what he wants to say, wants to speak, tries to speak but cannot speak. It is determined by scientific investigation that a stroke has damaged the portion of his brain that is associated with the ability to speak. Let us stipulate for the moment that the scientists are not idiots, and know their neurology. We can say, using ordinary words in their usual way, that the man in question has had a stroke which makes him unable to speak. Are you, as it seems, or are you not, saying that the stroke and the inability to speak are the same thing? If not, what are you saying or trying to say. You may be able to tackle any philosopher on the planet, but you are, so far, unable to persuade anyone here of much of anything at all, and that is, I fear, a problem in the good old fashioned sense of the word. You're not gaining a lot of traction.
 
Dancing David said:
I think you have yet to show who says that they are suffering, some difficulty with verbal and non-verbal communication.

But you just make this **** up, don't you.

No evidence, no data.
Click to expand...

As an autistic person, I'm a living negator of the OP's argument.
 
Last edited:
Bram Kaandorp said:
So you ARE saying that autism doesn't exist, you just weasel your way around the point.
Click to expand...

I got something worse out of what the OP said. I got the implication that he believed autistics were not people.

Then the talk of eugenics.

Remembering history, Germany, and a certain leader's eugenics program, this is vomit worthy. All his talk of therapy sounds like perfume on :rule10 to me.
 
Last edited:
Jonesboy said:
An inability to speak can only be described as an inabilty if we expect to speak.
Click to expand...

An inability to move one's arm can only be described as an inability if we expect to be able to move our arms.

An inability to live can only be described as an inability if we expect to be alive.

An inability to produce insulin can only be described as an inability if we expect to produce insulin.

An inability to breathe can only be described as an inability if we expect to breathe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom