Autism and Asperger Syndrome

The question arose as to whether one could, or should, label a certain individual "autistic".  Here are my thoughts on the matter.

Autism vs. Asperger Syndrome

I think this reflects an unfortunate problem with terminology. This is nothing new with the medical profession, which is always redefining ailments, sometimes for good reasons based on research and clinical observations, but sometimes with an agenda – typically having to do with things like research funding, medical insurance, certifications (of doctors, hospitals, medical schools), etc. – even politics. Everyone wants to “belong” – to be part of the “in group” – and medical professionals, being only human, are no different.

Autism:

It wasn't all that long ago (as recently as the 1960s, and maybe more recently) that “autism” described a well-known set of symptoms and conditions. It was typically diagnosed at an early age (pre-school or even infancy), and found more in boys than in girls for some reason (I don't think they've figured out that part of it yet – it probably has to do with differences in brain and neurological structures). Typical symptoms included inability to relate emotionally (and therefore socially) to others, including one's own parents... no signs of affection... minimal or no verbal communication... low threshold for over-stimulation (by lights, sounds, other people, activities, etc.)... what verbalization there was tended to be “flat”, i.e. uninflected or monotone... a tendency toward repetitive activity (concentrating on one thing for hours at a time)... physically passive in some cases, in other cases a tendency toward rapid, random and unfocused movements... basically just out of contact, in their own world much or all of the time. (Paradoxically, while not showing signs of obvious affection, some autistics can be physically “clingy”, which I take to be based on need for contact comfort.) (Think about it – if you don't understand the world and it doesn't understand you, some sort of physical comfort and security can be good.)

And this was – as one might imagine – a pretty easy condition to spot. The problem came not with diagnosis but with notions as to causality. For a long time, blame was placed on “cold, uncaring, non-nurturing” mothers – this has been debunked, fortunately, but it caused a lot of stress and heartache in many families. (If anything, there might have been some degree of causality in the other direction, i.e. the mother of an autistic child might have distanced herself to some degree as a matter of emotional defense, as if to say “if the child doesn't care about me (or anyone else) why should I care, or pretend to care, about him?” Thus, a way of avoiding or lessening chronic emotional stress and frustration.)

In terms of relating to the world, autistic people typically showed little or no competence, and therefore could never be left to their own devices for long, and certainly could never have been expected to live independently or make a living. So they always had to be cared for by others – and since they were incapable of showing much appreciation for that care, it could be a cause of frustration on the part of the caregivers.

But here's an interesting part. Some autistic individuals showed remarkable talents in certain very narrowly defined areas – especially music, and particularly piano playing. They could do things like hear a piece played on the radio or a record, and reproduce it perfectly on the piano after just one hearing. Some were also very good at certain mathematical operations, figuring out calendar dates, counting by just glancing at an array of objects, etc. – all having to do with numbers, you'll notice. Numbers in the basic sense, not concepts or theories or models, just plain numbers and things that had a mathematical basis. They may also show remarkable abilities in memorization – things like sequences of cards, phone books, train schedules, etc. So in that sense they (some, but not all) had extraordinary abilities in a very limited area, but when it came to everyday things not so much (being unable to dress themselves or perform any but the most rudimentary personal care actions, e.g.).

So this was the picture when it came to autism and autistic individuals – easy to spot, well-defined set of symptoms, incapable of independent living, and so on. And as to treatment, the best bet was always to find things that they would respond to, that would “wake them up”, so to speak – and let them spend time with those things, and not worry about the rest. And the condition, however it came about, was not amenable to cure – it was a fixed condition, basically, which would persist throughout adulthood.

Asperger Syndrome:

Now – somewhere along the line, someone decided that that substantial group of people who were, among other things, socially awkward, “shy”, over-sensitive to sounds and light, who avoided crowds (and other people in general, in some cases), who enjoyed finely-detailed activities and could concentrate on them for long periods of time, who tended to be socially isolated or prefer the company of others like themselves, who tended to be uncommunicative or, on the other extreme, talk people's ears off about some very narrow topic, who could be somewhat OCD – and so on – had a “syndrome” called Asperger Syndrome.

Now, this was all well and good, in that it, for one thing, provided a basis for understanding that there were people who were simply “that way”, and that while intensive therapy or interventions weren't generally called for, certain kinds of support and, if you will, “benign tolerance” would make life easier for everyone. The danger, however, was that once you define something as a “syndrome”, you, by implication, are saying that a person isn't “right”, or that they're handicapped in some way, or need help, etc. In other words, they're no longer on the same spectrum with “normal” people but need to be given special attention (which should be positive, but which can also be negative). On the plus side, Asperger “types” can be relieved of the burden of thinking that something is seriously wrong with them, or that it's their fault, or if only they'd get their act together, etc. And in the social sense, Asperger types can form interest groups of various sorts without feeling like a bunch of geeks and losers.

So it's a mixed bag, but overall I'd say the definition of the syndrome has had beneficial effects. It enables people with the syndrome to feel better about themselves, to pursue their interests and emphasize their strengths without feeling like underachievers in other respects... and it enables other people to accept them as they are, and likewise appreciate their strengths and talents, and be willing to overlook areas in which they aren't quite up to par.

The Bad Marriage Between the Two

Everything could have been fine at this point, except that someone – over-functioning in the “syndrome” and terminology department – decided that, because of the observable similarities in symptoms (some, but not all – and certainly not in severity) between autism and Asperger's, they had to be lumped together on a “spectrum”, which became known as the “Autism Spectrum”. So, number one, they're taking a rare subset of people (autistic) and grouping them with a not-at-all-rare subset (Asperger's) and, in effect, calling them all autistic. What sorts of motivations went into this? Well, for one thing, there's the simple matter of money, i.e. funding for research, treatment, therapy, etc. – not to mention health insurance. There was always money in autism, because it was rightly considered a serious condition – but there was little or no money in Asperger's, other than the opportunity to sell books. But lump them together and call it autism, and the money starts to flow. (This may sound a bit cynical, but the extent to which “science” can be tempted by money has been demonstrated many times over the years – and more than ever in these times, with obsessions like “climate change”, gender fluidity, etc.)

Secondly, there's a political, or let's say social, angle to it all, the notion being that autistic people, and their parents and caretakers, won't feel so bad about their situation if they now feel more “mainstreamed”, and therefore accepted. If the truly autistic were a small minority before, they can now feel like members of – still a minority, but a substantial one.

(One could ask, terminology-wise, whether rather than coming up with the “autism spectrum”, they couldn't have just called autism “high-level Asperger's”. It would have made no less sense, but the political and social impact would have been less.)

Plus, there's a pretty good chance that most truly autistic people don't care one way or the other what “spectrum” they're on; some of them don't care about much of anything at all. But the much larger number of people who are Asperger's types, and who know it, and now find themselves on the “autism spectrum”? I can't imagine that's very good for their morale or self-esteem. But we're talking politics here, right? So non-preferred groups always have to make sacrifices, like it or not, in order to benefit preferred groups. (And the fact that this is all about naming, and nothing else, makes it especially cruel and unjust. Terminology can change overnight, and someone who is “sick” one day can be declared “well” or “normal” the next, and vice versa.)

But is it true that autism and Asperger's are similar? Well, yes – in terms of the types of symptoms, but certainly not in degree – and also not in terms of the nuances, or fine points. And also not in terms of the variety of symptoms that might be exhibited by any one individual – Asperger's types have a much more varied repertoire, if you will, within the bounds of that syndrome, whereas true autistics are much more limited. Overall, you can point to social issues, attention factors, mathematically-based interests, responses to the environment, preferred vs. non-preferred activities, and so on. But in terms of self-care, ability to operate in society, ability to earn a living, and so on, it's a world of difference, and it does no one any favors to pretend that it's nothing more than a matter of degree. Plus, one can point to many examples of high-achieving individuals – world-class achievers, in fact – in things like math, physics, music, chess... even the performing arts... and also art, engineering, computing and automation (a veritable den of Asperger's types), and so on. Many have risen to the top of their field. Can the same be said of the truly autistic? No. Some have made contributions – Temple Grandin comes to mind – but this is exceptional. (There's a history of what have been called “idiot savants”, or “calculating boys” who can perform remarkable math operations in their heads with amazing speed – and the chances are those have been largely autistic individuals. The question in those cases was always, given that they have amazing talent in one specific area, is there anything else they can do well, or do at all? And the answer was frequently no. All their brainpower was focused on one thing.)

I also suspect – although exactly how one would measure this is a good question – that if you arrayed all the Asperger's types and the truly autistic along the same scale, you'd get a gradually downward-sloping curve starting at the low end (next to the “normal” population), and there would eventually be a gap, followed by a “bump” or miniature bell curve representing the truly autistic (with their own spectrum, although much narrower than the Asperger's spectrum). In other words, you would find few if any cases where a person was part-Asperger's and part autistic – and I think this would reflect significant differences in brain physiology.

Some Thoughts on the Keeping of Family Histories

(from recent correspondence)

I think that people who have a family history that's been recorded and preserved in whatever way are lucky.  Of course some people -- the rich and famous -- have to live with a family history that might not be all that savory, but that everyone knows about, so a lot of their effort is devoted to living it down, or making up for it in some way -- paying society back for the offenses of their parents, ancestors, etc.  The children of rich and powerful tyrants frequently become humanitarians of some kind, for example -- Robert Kennedy may be an example.  But for others it's just too overwhelming and they either sell out and become an inferior version of old dad, or just go off on a different tack entirely.  (It's ironic that the rich and famous are, like it or not, "public people", and they have to go to great lengths to keep anything private.  The rest of us kulaks are so private we have to expose ourselves on Facebook and Twitter.)

But for us ordinary folks it seems like delving into family history can only be a good thing, even if some of the events were negative or even tragic.  The idea of "where I'm from" is important to a lot of people, especially -- I would say -- if they grew up in a traditional, intact family in a coherent culture.  They know about their past to some extent but would like more of a connection -- more material.  But even for those who didn't, there is a need to find "roots", some sense of grounding or place.  And look at the way "hyphenated Americans" go to great lengths to dig up info on their ancestors in the old country.  I almost think that, for many people, just being "American" isn't enough -- they need to feel like part of something older, more traditional, and more solid.  This is, as the stereotype has it, a nation of immigrants -- but just calling it that implies that it still is, even for people who have been here for many generations.   They still have the immigrant mind set.  (I observe that the only European-origin group that is never hyphenated is people whose ancestors came over from England.  There are no "English-Americans" (if there were, I would be one).  But there are Irish-Americans, so they have yet to be fully assimilated after 175 years.)  

This country has always been ideally suited for the adventurous -- pioneers, speculators, prospectors, etc. -- the iconic "lone gun" (Clint Eastwood) -- the man (or woman) with no past -- either rootless or perfectly content to leave the past, and even family, behind -- and for good reasons sometimes, let's admit.  (I used to joke that whenever some psychic does a "past life reading" for someone, that person always seems to wind up being a descendent of some European royalty.  No one is ever found to be a descendent of a horse thief.)  ("Cross my palm weez silver, und I vill tell you you are ze long-lost heir to ze trone of Bessarabia") 

Don't Even Think About Running for President in 2024 (if you're a Republican)

 

The conventional wisdom among the conservative commentariat is that Trump and his family, and various members of his administration, are being hounded by the government (at all levels – federal, state (NY and Florida), and local (NYC)) in order to insure that he doesn't run for president in 2024. With all due respect, I disagree, and here's why.

#1, he'd be out of his mind to run (even assuming he's not in jail by that time, or some law or Constitutional amendment hasn't been dredged up to render him disqualified) given the treatment he received the last time around – from the day of his announcement through the campaign, and though his entire time in office, and even afterwards up to the present day. (I made some related comments in a blog post, “4 More Years? Really??”, July 28, 2020.) Trump may have some less-than-stellar personality traits, but I don't think masochism is one of them.

#2, if Biden managed to win against Trump in 2020, he can win against him again in 2024. Period! Or – whoever the DNC chooses to replace Biden can win likewise. The counterargument is that Biden (or whoever) would, in 2024, be running not only against Trump but against his (Biden's) own record during his first term – which, to the same commentariat, is considered dismal, to put it mildly. The problem there is that Biden has not lost a bit of support, either politically or among the electorate, since his inauguration. His fan club in the mainstream media are unstinting in their support and in running interference for him, and have yet to publish, or broadcast, any “news” which would be detrimental to him or his administration. (If Reagan was the “Teflon president”, then Biden is the “new improved Teflon president”. Not only does nothing stick, nothing even gets close.) To put it another way, Biden is a roaring success at this point, going from one victory to another – and as long as the faithful continue to believe this, he's good to go for 2024. (And it's hard to imagine anything that could cause the faithful not to keep believing. I mean, if a simple comparison of the way things are now with the way they were in January 2021 isn't sufficient, then nothing is.)

#3, even if Trump returned from political Siberia and staged a comeback not unlike that of Napoleon when he returned from Elba, would he attract any support outside of his hard-core MAGA constituency – the ones who attend his rallies? My sense is that his former supporters among the Republican mainstream have suffered enough – they have a chronic case of “Trump fatigue” that will not be eradicated. (And this is not Trump's fault, by the way – it's just that they're tired of the endless domestic warfare that Trump's being in the White House led to and sustained for more than four years.) (Call Trump fatigue the flip side of Trump Derangement Syndrome, if you like – both very much with us, especially now that the latter is official government policy.) And if his erstwhile supporters among Republicans are demoralized and worn out, imagine where the “independents” who voted for him in 2016 stand; they don't even have any party loyalty to hold them together. They were the first to jump ship, and are nowhere to be found at this point.

So, bottom line, the Democrats have nothing whatsoever to fear from Trump in 2024, and I think they know it. If he should dare to run, they could run the proverbial yellow dog against him and the dog would win. So it's not about Trump at all, is it? At least not in terms of the election of 2024. So if it's not about him, what is it about, other than playing to the paranoiac crowd?

There are two factors motivating the War on All Things Trump. One is simple vengeance. Trump deserves to be punished severely, and in perpetuity, for even having run for president and – even worse – for having won, and – even worse – for managing to stay in office for a full four-year term, despite two, count 'em, two impeachments – not to mention being accused of treason and being Putin's lapdog, along with countless other crimes. Lest we forget, his candidacy started out as a joke (to the media), and no one except Anne Coulter took it seriously – at least in public – until the morning after Election Day, when the sky fell and the pillars of the temple crumbled to dust. Privately, of course, the counter-candidacy drive was on from day one, with various elements of the Obama administration taking a leading role.

And then there was the humiliation of Hillary Clinton, Empress-in-Waiting, who never hurt a fly and in no wise deserved such shabby treatment as to be defeated by this big orange guy from New York City (just down the road from Chappaqua, to add to the insult).

And then there was the fact that, once in office, he tried to run the government like a business, and actually make changes that were more than merely cosmetic. And this, of course, was a wake-up call for the bureaucracy, AKA the Deep State, which marshaled its forces in an all-out effort to thwart, neutralize, or at the very least ignore his every initiative – with signal success, I might add. But the fact that he didn't back down – no “walking back”, “clarifying”, or “reconsidering” with this guy -- caused the derangement to boil over into public view (the impeachment hearings providing a prime example, where one petty bureaucrat after another got up and said that they considered it their patriotic duty as Americans to sabotage any Trump programs).

So yes – for breaking all the rules, and never apologizing, Trump deserves all he's getting, and more. And clearly the “numbers” didn't count, i.e. the various measures of the success of his initiatives which continued to mount up, and which the mainstream media and the Democrats could only answer either with “It's a lie” or “It doesn't matter”. (Although it's funny how Biden and his minions spout the same sorts of numbers every day, and we're all expected to believe them without question.)

That's the punishment-vengeance-vendetta piece, perfectly understandable in this day and age. America at its finest! An entire administration devoted to one thing, the punishment of the previous administration. Can you say “banana republic”, class?

The second factor is, if you will, less emotional and more strategic, and that's to show anyone foolish enough to consider running for president on the Republican ticket in 2024 what will happen to them if they go through with it. Well, number one, they won't win for many of the same reasons Trump couldn't win, even if they are identified as never-Trumpers, anti-MAGA hatters... untouched by the outrages of the Trump “era”... pure as the driven snow. For one thing, the Democrats are the majority party now at the federal level at least, and it's delusional to think otherwise. So a Republican with all the finest anti-Trump credentials – let's say a reincarnation of John McCain – and not festooned with Trump cooties – has very little chance, because they will inevitably be lumped in with Trump anyway and called his clone, or Trump 2.0, or some such. (Plus, the chances are that their kids' nanny's brother-in-law once changed the oil in one of Trump's cars, and that is sufficient evidence to find the hapless candidate guilty as charged.) (This is no exaggeration. It's the way things operated on a daily basis in the Soviet Union, and in Mao's China.)

Now – one could ask – if the Democrats are sure-fire winners in 2024, why bother to intimidate the Republicans into... maybe even giving up and not running at all? If the Republicans managed to bring Abraham Lincoln back to life and put him up as a candidate, might they not stand a chance? Well, let's just call it “insurance”. The fact that the Democrats have an iron grip on the voting process (polls, machines, ballots, counts, novel voting procedures, and so on) in many states and in all major cities might have swung an election, or more than one, in the past. Nowadays it would be seen as redundant – a case of “overkill”, if you will. But the mechanisms are in place, and they have to be kept up to snuff – after all, there are state and local elections to think about, not to mention elections for Congressional seats. Besides, the intimidation factor trickles down to the state and local level; political correctness is now the law of the land, and there is no elective office so trivial or obscure that it will escape the attention of the PC police if anyone tries wandering off the reservation. (And, lest we forget, the sacred duty of any true believer in totalitarianism is not just to defeat those who disagree, but to exterminate the disagreement. This is right out of “1984” and is as true today as it ever was.)

So, bottom line-wise, who in their right mind would want to put themselves and their family through all that? The mainstream media have tasted blood, and they're unlikely to cover their fangs for any future Republican – not even for the ilk of Liz Cheney, a sheep in wolves' clothing who is more anti-Trump than most Democrats.

So basically, you can count anyone who proposes running on the Republican ticket in 2024 as (1) delusional, (2) masochistic, and (3) ready for the funny farm. But this doesn't mean plenty won't try, since those qualities seem to typify Republican politicians these days.

So now we know what's really behind the new, improved witch hunt being staged against Trump and anyone who had even the slightest, most trivial connection with him. (Note that not only his lawyers are being called up before Congressional committees, but their lawyers, and their lawyers. Before long half the legal profession will be headed for federal prison (and come to think of it, that might actually be regarded as a good thing).)

Then, given all of the above, why is the conservative commentariat insisting that it's all about keeping Trump from running in 2024? I think it's basically about denial. In their world, the following propositions actually have some truth value:

1. Trump could win if he ran in 2024.

2. Some other Republican could win in 2024 if Trump chose not to run or was prevented from running.

3. The Republican Party represents the majority opinion among the American citizenry.

4. Biden's record will count against him in 2024.

5. Trump is still, in some mysterious way, the leader of the Republican Party (in this, at least, they agree with the mainstream media).

6. The Republican Party has a future on the national level.

Did I say “denial”? “Delusional” is more like it. Also “smoking their socks”. And so on. My expectation for 2024 is very simple: If Biden should choose not to run, what are the Democrats going to do about Kamala Harris? (Who? – you ask. Precisely my point. This should be TV worth watching; the rest is drearily predictable.)

The Eternal Rebel: Beatniks and Hippies

 

(This is an excerpt from some recent correspondence – a bit of social history plus some thoughts on rebels and rebellion.)

There was always a kind of narrative among the free spirits of the 1950s (beatniks, jazz musicians, some authors, artists, etc.) that the regular people -- the "squares" -- just didn't get it.  But they were never quite clear about what Mr. & Mrs. America were supposed to "get".  Sure, the idea was to be hip and cool, and rebellious, but proving that their way of life was somehow superior and not just different?  I didn't sense that so much.  I mean, the hippies did the same thing -- You oughta be like us – "Turn on, tune in, drop out" -- but when asked why, there were no clear answers.  What I suspect is that hipness, and all of its cultural clones and manifestations at various times, is self-sustaining only as long as the vast majority are un-hip.  In other words, what's of value is simply being different -- it's self-sustaining on that basis -- and yet there is a certain predictability, if not outright uniformity, in the way subcultures, over time, choose to act out being different.  The hippies did a lot of what the beatniks had done 15-20 years earlier -- starting with sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll (or jazz for the beatniks).  But in a paradoxical way, most subcultures depend on the majority culture for support, to some extent -- in other words they really aren't living completely out in the middle of nowhere, off the grid -- although some of the hippie communes came close.  I don't think the beatniks spent much time away from LA or NYC (or the highways connecting the two).

And I'm not saying there weren't alternatives to the world view of the "normal" people.  A lot of the more intellectual beatniks became interested in Buddhism -- Zen especially -- and Hinduism to some extent.  They weren't so hot on monotheism, though -- that was religion for "squares", too hierarchical, too authoritarian, too moralistic, etc.  The Eastern religions were seen as being more along the lines of "doing your own thing".  And this is why they also appealed to the hippies -- with the Beatles making a pilgrimage to India and "love is all you need", the "summer of love" etc. -- all fueled by psychedelics, which were a rarity, but not unheard of, among the beats.  And the few of the old timers made the transition and sort of became icons for the 2^nd time around -- Alan Ginsberg comes to mind, and also William Burroughs.  So what some would call the escapism of the beatniks via alcohol, marijuana, and heroin morphed into hippie-style escapism via marijuana (again) and psychedelics, but also yoga, meditation, and all sorts of New Age practices and modalities.  And a few of them actually did convert and become Hindus or Buddhists -- thinking about Baba Ram Dass and the American Sikhs.  So there was much escaping "from" but also some escaping "to" -- although how long it lasted for most of these folks is another question.  (Some of the last remaining hippies got washed ashore at various Renaissance Fairs.  They're still into marijuana, maybe psychedelics -- Eastern religion not so much.  That takes too much discipline, as it turns out!)

It's a lot easier to escape from than to escape to.  It's basic human nature.  I can tell you what I don't like but may not be certain of what I want (except for less of what I don't like, but that's no help).  The hippies almost had a fetish for being different in every way -- and I imagine it was hard work at times!  Like there were some in Columbia, Missouri who pulled late 1940s cars out of junkyards and put them back on the road because they looked like the car Mr. Natural drives in Zap Comix.  (I kid you not, this really happened.  I saw it with my own eyes. I called them “Freakmobiles”.)  The hippie lifestyle was standardized to a degree I found ironic -- same clothes, same hair, same footwear, same foods (always in the general category of natural, organic, vegetarian... macrobiotic for the true believers), living conditions, etc.  (I think suburban tract houses had more variety in them than most of the hippie pads.)  But this, I think, was a sign of insecurity.  Sure, rebel against the "old folks" -- run away from home, maybe -- but find like-minded people asap!  Strength in numbers, etc.  (And this is still going on -- remember "CHAZ" in Seattle?