I really don't mean this to be insensitive toward the autistic. Some folks with that condition seem to have really offbeat and interesting experiences of life and neat perspectives which I like hearing about.

But this is not the first person I've heard of who's got a "special" way of seeing or interacting with the world that really isn't all that profound. I recall a lady I heard on the radio who went on and on about he she doesn't think in words, she "sees pictures" when she thinks. She also thought this made her more or less a totally new species of primate, more animal than human, but I struggled to see how it was different than anyone else, really. My brain isn't a teleprompter, either.

And this is the part I am afraid will sound awful: smoke enough marijuana and you will also trip out on ordinary cognitive functions, see them in new ways, and think you've discovered something totally profound. I'm not pointing the finger. I've been there enough times myself to know. Sometimes these ramblings sound like the high guy over on the couch babbling about the lava lamp.

CitrusFreak12, I don't think you're missing anything, and I think scarbic has it about right. It looks to me like folks are romanticizing autism a bit, trying to not view it as a disability, trying to see it as "special." I understand the impulse, I suppose, but, yeah, I don't see it as anything spectacular.

If it's true that other people with autism respond to it, than it is a "language" of sorts. If someone without autism could crack the code, we could learn new ways to communicate with those with autism. That's pretty exciting.

Whew. Thanks guys. I thought I was just being a cynical jerk.

You may very well be a cynical jerk, but, at least, scarabic and I are there with you.

I think it's interesting when people share their world view, especially if it's different from how I think. Her comment about body language and how in general people sublimate the signals their receiving is pretty accurate. It doesnt seem like she thinks there's something paranormal or pseudoscientific about what she does.

Sometimes these ramblings sound like the high guy over on the couch babbling about the lava lamp.
Does the fact that these observations sound crazy to "sensible, sober" people make them less valid? I dunno, maybe I just have a high tolerance for "teh crazy", but it might be unnecessarily dismissive to say that our experiences while high (or the experiences of people with autism) aren't profound in their way.

Although, I am endlessly fascinated with the human "mind" and its connection to the human "brain". Your mileage may "vary".

As someone who not only commented in the thread, but thinks it's pretty interesting by any MeFi standards, I'll say that I'm unimpressed by the video as a revelation of new ways of communicating, and I'm really suspect of the urge to romaticize people with autism into something that opens up new worlds. I do find the video really fascinating as an attempt by someone with autism to explain herself, and I'm impressed with her obvious intelligence in doing so (even though I completely disagree with her conclusions). She does make a good case that the intellectual capabilities of people with autism are frequently underestimated. I essentially agree with peacay's comment.

I do think that some of the conversation around it is interesting, and made more so by the participation of the video maker. A lot of the ideas about language seem based on a whoa, groovy view of the world that doesn't seem very sophisticated to me, but that's ok. In general, I find the notion that "the world", by which is explicitly meant the Western world, doesn't recognize the special genius of folks with cognitive limitations to be offensive on several levels, and I've yet to see a really good defense of the notion that doesn't rely on bad misreading of no reading of Foucault. A Foucauldian reading would be interesting, these ain't that.

I do think that what seems to a central impetus to the video maker, the notion of full and equal rights for people with disabilities, is something always worth talking about. What I find interesting in the thread is a kind of paradox that's presented, in which full rights are advocated, but only authorized by expanding the definition of "normal" to include people obviously abnormal. It's a paradox because it suggests that we cannot both see someone as abnormal, and grant them full human rights, which presents all kinds of problems for legislative efforts (like the ADA) that seek to do just that (what's to accommodate, if everything is so normal?). I much prefer a position, like lh takes in the thread, from which human rights are innate, and not tied to whether or not we can expand our definition of normal enough to encompass everything under the sun (making the category taxonomically useless).

If it's true that other people with autism respond to it, than it is a "language" of sorts. If someone without autism could crack the code, we could learn new ways to communicate with those with autism. That's pretty exciting.

Wouldn't that suggest that they'd have to be born with the ability to communicate with one another without being taught how? Can animals even do that? I'm pretty sure that animals learn from example just like we do.
So I'm somewhat doubtful of the ability for other autistic people to communicate with eachother in this way, especially since she says outright that her 'language' "is not about designing words or even visual symbols for people to interpret, it is about being in a constant conversation with every aspect of my environment, reacting physically to all parts of my surroundings. In this part of the video, the water doesn't symbolize anything, I am just interacting with the water as the water interacts with me."

See then, it's not that you don't "get" it, it's just that you don't agree with most of the other posters. Which you certainly could have discussed with them in that thread.

I also commented in the thread, and thought the META thread was awesome, but the video didn't do very much for me, so no I don't think you're being snarky, I fully understand why you are mystified.
However, her contributions to the thread were far stonger.
I understand the romanticisation of autism, but to be frank, it needs it.
Autism raises very solid questions of what is normal, same as any disability, although many autists are militantly opposed to that label.
I'm on the borders of their world as the partner and mother of people who inhabit part of that spectrum, and it is genuinely fascinating, different, challenging, sad, depressing, exhausting, lonely, (in other words- human!) to be autistic in society.
I think we do need a lot more discussion (see particularly Dios' responses in the META for what I mean)

But I agree that just on the basis of the video, you weren't being sarky to respond as you did. In fact I'm glad that the bunch of Mefites who probably fell about the place laughing and mocking didn't comment.

I kind of agree (though much less smartly) with what OmieWise is saying about the thread.

The commentary on the video challenges viewers to interpret her behavior in an unaccustomed way: as a language of its own. There was some discussion in the thread of whether something which is noncommunicative can be called a language, or whether the actions in the video were noncommunicative or not. Interesting questions.

In my original comment, I was trying to address some of the implied criticism or resentment she expressed in the video commentary, against a world that does not understand this 'language'. Though it is unfortunate not to be understood, I was taking the position that autism is rightly classified as a disorder - not just different - because the majority of human beings do learn to negotiate the gap between their own feelings, wordless thoughts, and perceptions and those of others, by using physical and verbal language. The frustration of autism seems to be that something neurological will not allow that gap to be completely, comfortably bridged, but I see that as disordered, not just different.

And then the question arose as to whether having a disorder makes a person less intrinsically valuable, and that was worth looking into a bit. And then the maker and subject of the video showed up. And the whole time, the discussion stayed thoughtful and respectful.

So, questions of consciousness and being? Difference vs. disorder? Individual in the context of society? Comments with thought behind them? Commentary from the subject of the post and from others with the same disorder, or experience with it? All in a respectful, calm tone? That's a great day on MeFi, IMO.

Though by now, the discussion as it winds down has taken on sort of a self-congratulatory air - 'aren't we thoughtful and sensitive!' . Reminds me of the Seinfeld where Kramer doesn't wear the AIDS ribbon. But maybe that's just me.

Just noticed your other comment on preview, CitrusFreak1: animals learn from example just like we do.

This actually varies a lot. Humans have the least cognitive pre-programming in place of most species, according to what I've been taught. Most (maybe all? It's been a long time since my cognitive science class in college) other animals have a greater number of behaviors built in at birth - what we'd call instinct. Humans actually need to learn a great deal more from interacting with their environment and with other humans than many animals do.

It may even be for this reason that we have such prevalence of disorders compared to other species. Their systems are more tightly controlled, ours more open-ended; therefore, more can go wrong in the development of our cognitive systems.

But I agree -- your comments would all have been useful in the MeFi discussion, and there's no reason you couldn't have brought them up there. Others said similar things.

Thanks for the responses everyone.

I didn't want to post this on MeFi because I felt it would be taken as a snark, and I didn't want to spoil the others' discussion by being the guy who just steps in and says "I have no idea what the heck you guys are going on about. I don't get it." But thank you, Miko, I now see what was so good about the thread. It was just that I was looking in the wrong place (the video, rather than the thread that followed), and that I couldn't get past the misuse of the word language. (That is to say, I could splash water and hum and flap paper and so forth, but if doing so is "not about designing words or even visual symbols for people to interpret," or if "the water doesn't symbolize anything," I don't think many people would disagree if you were to tell me "Citrus, that isn't a language. At all.")

However, watching the video and her actions as a way to peer into how she views and interacts with the world is pretty interesting.

Miko - You're right on about the current tenor of the conversation. A lot of people went from never thinking to full respect pretty quickly.

I think it's interesting when people share their world view, especially if it's different from how I think. Her comment about body language and how in general people sublimate the signals their receiving is pretty accurate.

I agree, and I find her challenging comments toward that which is "normal" are illuminating and interesting. She comes from the perspective of commenting on normal perception from somewhere outside it, offering responses to the critiques she often gets from the world around her. This is in fact quite cool and a welcome check on ordinary thought.

She emphasizes the fact that her interaction with the world is wider and richer than that of others, resisting their demand to interact only with a "limited" set of the information available to the senses. But from another POV, we are all bombarded by interesting sensory information, and filtering is a necessary (and even artful) part of cognition, the opposite of being overwhelmed by meaningless input.

I was thinking generally of the "seeing pictures" woman, above, who was quite enraptured with her own way of experiencing the world, and far from just seeking equal consideration, had romanticized herself quite a bit. The woman in this video is making a plea for equal consideration, which is definitely fair.

Actually I may have been biased by this post and the verbiage of the video's title "my language" toward thinking that this was anything more than an autistic person reaching out across the divide to make a bridge to the mainstream. That is a noble effort and actually there is little that is pretentious about hers in particular.

I'm on the borders of their world as the partner and mother of people who inhabit part of that spectrum, and it is genuinely fascinating, different, challenging, sad, depressing, exhausting, lonely, (in other words- human!) to be autistic in society.

I'm curious if most of the challenge comes from society, in the form of stigma, etc, or if living with autistic family members just carries intrinsic challenges. Someone who resists the teaching of new behaviors (in any language) I would call intrinsically difficult, for semantics' sake. If autistic folks can absorb teachings, but only if delivered in the right language, then things get more interesting. But I'd thought there were fundamental problems with info retention and good habit forming, as well as control of emotions, etc. I'm interested to hear more and don't know a whole lot in any case...

She emphasizes the fact that her interaction with the world is wider and richer than that of others, resisting their demand to interact only with a "limited" set of the information available to the senses.

Yes. The logical problem with that, though, is that she is describing the perception of non-autistic people as 'limited,' but she can't possibly know what non-autistic people perceive and thus can't really characterize its limitations.

By definition, being autistic means that there is much that you don't perceive about social interactions and communications. Of course most people's experience of the world seems limited to her, because she can't perceive the way you or I perceive; she can only judge by her empirical experience what we're perceiving, and it doesn't look like much to her in comparison with her inner world and her means of communication or interaction with the outside world. In essence, the rich world of interaction and communication and connection that most of us experience falls within a blind spot for autistic people. If we say 'Believe us -- we're experiencing valuable things through our social interactions, and you're missing out' it may sound like mumbo-jumbo, because the autistic person can't perceive the value we perceive there. It's also true that we might actually have access to some of the experience of the physical world that Amanda talks about, but it would be hard for her to know what we are experiencing internally because we typically don't pursue the video's type of physical 'conversation' with the environment past childhood. We may still have access to the feelings or perceptions of that time, but deal with them using abstract mental modeling instead. Lots of possibilities.

So if we are to take it on faith from her that she perceives things in a different but valuable way, then it's fair to ask that she logically recognize that we also perceive in a valuable way, not a 'limited' way.

But scarabic, I do agree that the reaching across the divide is remarkable and interesting. Especially after she describes the effort it takes to read and to write responses (in the MeFi thread). And the questions she raises about how we know what we know are always interesting.

In case scarabic is still reading this, it is both. Society's discomfort with ASD behaviour can lead to bullying, social exclusion and unemployment. This can cause serious problems for the NT partner in the equation. And internally living with an ASD person can be intrinsically difficult simply because we all make certain assumptions that the people close to us more or less see the world the way we do.
I could give you lots of examples.
For example even the way you choose to frame your question "people who are being difficult"... "If autistic folks can absorb teachings, but only if delivered in the right language, then things get more interesting."
misses the main point a little. Autists are not being difficult, they veiw things very differently. And yes certain behaviours can be acquired by some autists which may help their survival skills, but I know many autists who have "learned" to behave as society expects them to in order to not have so many problems, who really resent that. I'm very torn by this as I sometimes feel I would give my eye-teeth if my SO acquired the most rudimentary ways of not telling his boss how wrong he is. (for example)This has caused us as a family several job-changes, careers changes for me, changed countries and a lot of heart-ache. But since the issues he raises tend to be around patient safety, I almost feel like a don't have a right to complain. Anyway there was no e-mail in your profile to respond, but have a look at some of the reading list SilentMiaow posts in her last comment on that thread.

Thanks for your reply, Wilder. I did read it just now.

"Autists are not being difficult, they veiw things very differently."

I didn't say autistics are "being difficult," FWIW. What I said was:

"Someone who resists the teaching of new behaviors (in any language) I would call intrinsically difficult, for semantics' sake."

My point was to try to look beyond the subjectivity debate, beyond the stuff that's just a question of point-of-view, and look for an objective measure of what enables someone to be sociable at all, with anyone, autistic or not. Let's say everyone in the world has their own personal language, and no one is more "normal" than anyone else. Some people will learn and respond when you speak to them in a language they understand. Others will not.

I'm just looking for some way to agree that yes, some people may have a different communication style, but they are still in there, still intelligent, still responsive and alert and able to interact. Or they're not, because both their language AND logic centers are "different."

You may very well be a cynical jerk, but, at least, scarabic and I are there with you.
*sits in the cynics' corner*