Analysis of Ari Ne'eman interview

I bet some of you have seen this recent article at Wired.com where Ari Ne'eman is interviewed by Steve Silberman about his recent appointment to the National Council on Disability:

Exclusive: First Autistic Presidential Appointee Speaks Out
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/exclusive-ari-neeman-qa/all/1

Considering the biased nature of some of the questions, not a lot of compelling answers resulted that differed from what has already been said by those on his side. I would have liked if he was asked about past achievements in advocacy of his that would justify his recent appointment, and if there were some follow up questions put to him based upon his answers. But what lack of bias can be expected of Wired, which is heavily generated by and viewed by super smart people in tech professions.

"Instead of focusing on things like quality of life and civil rights, the autism community has been distracted by narrow questions of causation and cure." Here we go again, as if quality of life has nothing to do with cure, particularly the mental capacity that often is lacking without a cure which lowers quality of life. And who is he to call such questions narrow? He can't resist continuing to blame the lack of help for autistics on the efforts toward cure.

"Groups like Autism Speaks have taken tremendous amounts of money out of local communities, but haven’t included the people they claim to be serving in their decision-making structure." What a lie ignoring the appointment of John Elder Robison to their scientific advisory board. These tactics are getting pathetic and cowardly now.

Then he deploys some cheap political tactic: "Very few of us wake up in the morning and think, “Have they developed a proper mouse model for autism yet?” Instead, autistic people and their parents worry about finding the educational and support services that they need." Trying to get others to see only short-term immediate possibilities and affairs and ignore underlying concepts and further-reaching goals, to get them to focus on scrambling for the few crumbs that are available to pacify them, is what I see here. Regardless of the likely limitations of results of mouse models, it is stunning to see this said by someone who arose from the aspie elite, the same bunch that has spent years gleefully discussing at times how neurological research could explain some of the neurological "gifts" (I call them unfair privileges or monopolies) held by well-off aspies and high-functioning autistics. I've sensed this attitude of the cure underminers for a while, that of leaving the complicated and deeper matters to the successful ones on the spectrum while insisting that the unfortunate focus on the immediate choices and options available to them and on petty, sappy, insignificant aspects of dealing with society.

Then when asked a question about how the technologically skilled, who make up much of the readers of Wired, could help autistics, I couldn't expect anything phonier from Ne'eman than what he came up with:
"If we put one-tenth of the money currently spent on looking for causes and cures into developing technologies that enable autistic people with speech challenges to communicate more easily — so-called augmentative and alternative communication [AAC] — we’d have a vast improvement in the quality of life for autistic people and their family members."
First of all, speech isn't simply the only thing that's involved in communicative deficiencies, but language capacity often also. Externally constructed devices can't interpret thoughts of a mind and translate them into language for a device to display as output. What could a machine do to interpret impaired language usage of someone into understandable statements, that an ordinary observing person couldn't? I think such wacky ideas for inventions would go way over the 10% of the money currently budgeted to causes and cures, and with very fruitless results. Just what we need, another racket that likely could end up as the facilitated communication hoax/scam did. I wonder if it's too much to ask for these intellectually privileged technology experts to devise products that would cure, and thereby increase the mental functioning of others who started out with so much less aptitude.

Then he continues on the possibilities of technology:
"Finally, there should be websites or apps that enable disabled people to rate their service providers and record their experiences, like the websites that already exist for college students to rate their professors." That would be a great idea. The entities that are supposed to provide these services contain a lot of the problems with service implementation for autistics, and making them accountable would help a lot. I think this would be a great idea for anyone who has had to deal with an inefficient, weakly operated government bureaucracy.

"We’ve barely begun to tap the potential of handheld networked devices to assist with the kinds of deficits in executive functioning and life skills that many of us on the spectrum face. Mobile devices and apps could be very helpful in improving prospects for employment and education"
Falling for this exaggeration seems to me to come from being mesmerized by the power of technologies, while consequently losing sight of the skills necessary to come up with a beneficial task for the technology and consequently to understand the tasks being carried out by the technology, and the skills necessary to mentally understand the results. I think such devices could only have minor benefits for some routine tasks, but technologies, which themselves are products of intellectual tasks, don't transfer functional capacity to the minds of those who use them.

Then when his high-functioning status is mentioned, he comes up with an interestingly deceptive response:
"I recognize that I’m fortunate in many respects and am able to do things that some other autistic people can’t do. But I would also point out that these things didn’t — and don’t now — come easily to me. I’ve been fortunate to be able to count on the inclusive culture of the broader disability-rights movement to help support me."
There's no way to convince many sane individuals of the claim that those with such high aptitude get their success through lots of hard work. Such amounts of success and accomplishment repeatedly, do not come through sheer effort and determination. It's well known that aptitude associated accomplishments are not only made easier but also possible by having strong mental functioning. Inclusive culture or whatever doesn't have squat to do with it.

Then he goes on with a bunch of irrelevant and abstract identity politics tied to autism as usual to distract from the reality of the problems at hand. I'm appalled at his solely positive description of Autreat, where he basically describes it as if it's empowering, while neglecting to mention the exclusionary and undemocratic nature of it, which would make his praises of it untrue for some on the spectrum.

It seems that he and the other anti-cure, empty solution pushers, who are getting so much of the media attention on the politics of autism, aren't very worried about explaining why they should advocate against certain things despite opposing views. Not only is there dismissing of the rejections of their views, but outright ignoring of why others don't agree based on deeper and fundamental concepts. I guess the people in charge of some of the large entities that Ne'eman and others like him are involved with, aren't that concerned about being held accountable based on their performance, and get those like Ne'eman involved to keep up the image of a farce that would be a way of explaining the shitty results that are often intended for by those in charge. I hope that the media coverage starting to be gained by Jonathan Mitchell and others on the side of reason and progress continues to grow. I think it's the only realistic chance to counter the tide of backward ideas.

Phil Gluyas is scared to respond

Phil again doesn't want to comment to me directly, but wants to just ridicule me on his response blog against me, along with his sissy kiss-up friends who make prissy and pointless remarks. He is too challenged by my rebuttals to his responses to let me comment on there. So I'll put what I have to say back here:

Autreat isn't going to promote understanding of the spectrum to those on the outside who ought to know many things of it. Who is getting informed as a result of it? You have no intention of helping those on the lower end of the spectrum as your ideas of solutions are phony delusions that contain no goal-oriented action. Autreat is run by a cabal that wants to stop efforts toward cure, and so has no regard to the progress of the lower functioning, as without a cure based on biological modification/enhancement, functioning can't go up much.

I don't want to be helped? I get tired of being at home nearly 24/7 with minimal income and having to sponge off my parents with nothing much to do with myself. You know that but your idea of help can't be anything that leads to real improved conditions. I guess you're right in that few understand the spectrum. The professionals I've encountered seemed to not really grasp just how much disability there is for many to deal with, didn't seem to grasp the pattern involved with it, and only seemed to be considering a few basic concepts involved with the spectrum.

In my situation, I think there are funding problems going on and my vocational counselor seemed to me not to want to tell me how awful the situation is with it and how long I may have to wait. But I think I've seen a lot of wasteful tendencies going on with rigid planning and repetitive, uninformative things being told to me. Stuff I already know and the such. I don't think it's fear that is preventing services. I'm starting to get the idea that many don't care, that those in control need to be urged to put forth efforts and resources.

As someone who is not a doctor, your opinion is of less validity than that of the licensed professional who diagnosed me and that of the other one who said in his opinion I was. I didn't go doctor shopping or put on some act to get recognition. What do you have to back up your assertions, and why do you resort to claiming I'm not on the spectrum? I've been wondering since 2002 about whether I was on the spectrum or not.

Who are you and the others to decide what attitude is too volatile? She hasn't demonstrated anywhere near the level of hostility that is characteristic of those favored by Autreat. Why should someone with her life experience be deprived of a platform by those who want to show no common courtesy?

I wonder what scheming characters were picked for that panel, and what kind of answers they had to the questions designed by those in control of the conference, to put on their show, and whether they made genuine and informative answers to some in attendance who may have been in dire circumstances and looking for practical answers. What could be expected of the types of individuals who control the agenda, considering what they do the rest of the time?

Auti$m books for the neuroperverse

I haven't posted in a while as I've seen less significant activity at the blogs of the anti-cure enemies. But a lot has been on my mind as I've been away long, and much of it angers and nearly enrages me. So I've been compelled to talk of what I see to be going on, now that the phony advocates have brought themselves onto broader and influential forums. I bet many of you have heard of this new book that has come out by some "educational consultant", Thomas Armstrong PhD, called: Neurodiversity: Discovering the Extraordinary Gifts of Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, and Other Brain Differences. From looking at the list of the other books this charlatan has published, he's obviously one of those phonies who promotes a lot of corny nonsense regarding education and intelligence. The usual hogwash bolstered with a lot of creative trickery, to try to convince others that anyone can succeed, that intelligence doesn't matter, that there are "multiple intelligences", and which even rolls together intelligence with totally unrelated concepts in a meaningless way. There's nothing in his credentials and accomplishments to back up the huge list of his claims.

With the kind of books this guy writes, I bet he preys on weak-willed desperate parents who have reason to worry for their childrens' chances at success, in which delusions typical to what he writes go along with their demoralization. Now this phony, not having made enough money from the saps who read his other books, is going to try to make another chunk of money by getting involved in the burgeoning farce of misinformation and bizarre outlooks about the autism spectrum. Just when you thought there weren't enough ways to line one's pockets off of this problem.

From reading the kinds of stuff this guy says, I am disgusted at his daft ideas which sadly are becoming prevalently used to damage and confuse further the progression of the issues within society he talks of. This vermin, as many others are, is obsessed with the concept of "diversity" in a seemingly abstract way, in which its context in society has no necessary meaning. This scumbag's assertions are like a perversity of diversity.

I wish enough others out there would realize that this career phony has no genuine concern for youth or for their growth. His psychobabble supports the mentality of those in his racket to mold anyone and everyone into an amorphous, meaningless, yet verbosely described, slab of mud, containing no sensual qualities, and open to arbitrary interpretation. This guy has no shame for his disregard for the true misery and horrific conditions endured by autistics who hardly are even seen in the public light. I guess he has no worry of being confronted by those who he shits on. I'd like to see this useless freak get a real job for a living. The dirtbags who get off on this kind of happy-talk to accompany ignorance of misfortune need to be told to shove it.

But this is the type of jerk who seizes the opportunity when observing troublesome ambiguities in societal issues, to aggrandize himself by grabbing attention by shouting sweeping statements and making up explanations that are simple, non-challenging, and encompassing of any and all things, all with no actual proof. I have minimal faith that the many out there who have only selfish intentions, will resist to use the power and regressive nature of this putrid bullshit to support their own positions when circumstances allow.

The Aucreeps of Autreat

I've been looking around to hear some stuff about what went on with Autreat this year. It still lives up to an annoying and disturbing reputation. Seems like there was a lot of pseudo-intellectual hogwash discussed at the presentations, that likely had hardly anything to do with actually making various conditions somewhat tolerable for many on the spectrum. I heard that in attendance, there were some advocates who work with local agencies and organizations, so I wonder what accomplishments are being made by them.

I wonder how much funding it requires to bankroll conferences like this, and how various entities came to decisions to appropriate money for it. Yet still there is so much stress involved in getting services and programs accessible for many on the spectrum. I think of the lack of money spent on such things and the misallocation of resources going on, while something like this is somehow funded, which has so many pointless, over-hyped aspects to it. I have waited around for over a year while dealing with bureaucracies in various ways, to try to get services, since before and even after I received my Aspergers diagnosis. So many that I've dealt with seem not to know what to do with me. And the waiting time I'm dealing with so far, is lucky compared to the very long delays experienced by so many others on the spectrum. I seldom see the anti-cure individuals specifically talk of such inefficiencies when mentioning the need for services. I heard on Clay Adams' blog that Amanda Baggs couldn't attend, which is nice to hear, but that she sent an audio which was presented.

I get tired of how things like Autreat are purported to provide environments likable and convenient for autistics, while they are so willing to exclude real autistics who refuse to agree with their nonsense, and even invite non-autistics to join them, and ones that are screwing over the majority of autistics at that. Such as the hack autism researcher Morton Gernsbacher, who did a presentation this year in which she used her credentials to repudiate functioning labels. They also had some thing called "Ask an NT" Panel. I wonder what kind of a farce that was designed to be.

Since Autreat claims to be run by autistics for autistics, I wonder which autistics among them they have in mind, since they also say that they focus on "positive living with autism", but not on causes and cures, which are things of interest to many on the spectrum. These leaders have let it be obvious that they're happy to team up with some slimy characters who are non-autistic, to help undermine efforts to devise a cure and to even understand why one is needed. I know from this that Autreat is just another instance of intellectually-elite autistics serving their own interests to further their own success, while suppressing the needs of the deeply impaired autistics .

disclose about oneself or mislead about others

Sarah's recent post over at autisticcats.blogspot.com is yet another undermining of what can be considered disabilty. A very cruel one in my opinion. She ponders what it is like to disclose one's identity of autism and what worries her about it, and complains of possible negative reactions towards her from others from it. I'm disturbed by seeing this nonsense about "invisible" disability and "disclosure", which she brings up.

She has no business claiming any "identity" as a disabled person if it's based on ideas like "invisible disability" and disclosure of "disability". If one has a real mental disability, there's no such thing as concealing it for significant amounts of time, therefore any question of disclosure of it is absurd. Such a disability is apparent eventually as complete sets of abilities are very often needed and shortfalls in them are noticeable. I'm talking common sense here. There is no way of avoiding the specific problems resulting from it, without keeping away from the situations involved. The way it is now, being known as autistic along with mental health "stuff", as she describes, doesn't necessarily qualify as disability, or at least shouldn't be considered to.

The implications of someone who isn't impaired disclosing a diagnosis, are way different compared to those that would result based on someone who is significantly impaired. I can't determine what motivation she would have to tell others about her autism, and what reasonable outcome she would look for. I don't know what understanding of her from others she seeks. If only she wouldn't misconstrue the basic concept of what disability is by even just bringing it into her trivial discussion of disclosure and others' reactions to disclosure. Her reputation with those she knows at graduate school likely isn't delicate or in turmoil, as it would be for those who are known to be impaired and who are in less rewarding settings. When those in her position talk to others they know about their autism, I can't expect that their descriptions of it to them won't be done in a way that will distort others' perceptions of what it can be like for many of those with autism and how it should be handled.

How dare she complain about "ableism", with her directing indignation at the disabled themselves! And for what? For viewing disability as awful and tragic! (As if such a natural thought would have to be taught.) Her and the other vermin shouldn't go on the assumption that autism presupposes disability, as many of them themselves lack disability, unless they would consider questioning whether or not they should be labeled autistic. I surely don't expect them to not consider themselves autistic, but it must be acknowledged that those highly-abled autistics do not have a stake in the disability issue that concerns autism. They don't bear the burden of the impairments that they declare as being just and not of negative quality.

Crazed hysteria derived ideology

Two of the shit talking creeps I've previously written about, are saying some weird things this time in their pursuits to craft the perception that others have of them regarding what they preach. Almandite is at it again with her applying her own emotional instability to issues that affect far many others besides her in ways she doesn't bear the highest burden of. She claims that independent living at college isn't going well for her but she can't explain why or what's making it problematic. What a fucking joke.

One either has a problem or doesn't, and explaining it shouldn't be a mystery. When I was away at college for the first semester, I knew what awful problems I had in living on my own around others at the dormitory which led me to leave the dorm, and I knew what I was feeling about it. I had my mind on real problems. I hurt over real problems. She hasn't enumerated any actual problems she has with living on her own, but rather seems to be to an unbalanced emotional wreck. She goes on with some daft ideas about what others may be thinking about her in regards to her wanting and seeking help and other things, which she admits they may not even be thinking and haven't even said to her.

Then this freak goes on to cite her own crazed circumstances and thoughts to back up her vile claim that independence shouldn't be pushed, and again bashes the recognition of functional levels. Then she works her way to a long winded explanation of hers about why independence isn't necessary or wanted by all! She claims she shouldn't be considered high-functioning and even goes on to dismissively complain about the "stereotype" of the low-functioning autistic. I wish she would stop ridiculing the highly disabled on the spectrum, who don't have or need fabricated emotional reasons for why they aren't doing well.

Kowalski just went on with a bunch of pretentious complaints, but also, an interesting list of which groups within neurodiversity she feels compelled to lash out at. I wonder how extreme, or particularly how coercive, she would like the agenda to be. This makes me wonder if she is just a marginal individual within neuroperversity's domain of influence. I'm sick of how she fronts like she's some impressive radical who is all into "social justice" issues, to make what she has to say seem important and helpful and not as just the destructive ideas of a spoiled misanthrope.

I'm convinced this phony is deceptively exaggerating in claiming to be impaired with her ridiculous and contradictory stories of herself. Seems to me she just doesn't want to get a job. This welfare-state leeching gutter rat has no credibility pretending to be a marginalized underdog with progressive virtue. Makes me want to hurl. The hypocrisy of slobs like them makes me cringe in anger. I think it's interesting Kowalski mentions she has difficulty with anger and bites herself, because I also bite myself in anger when reading hers and others' restraining and oppressive lies crafted as anti-oppression.

It would sicken me if slime such as them were accepted to any extent as the voice of disability from the spectrum. The formation of this kind of a perception of the disadvantaged on the spectrum, in the minds of those who have the authority to affect policy, is one that can't be afforded by the highly disabled on the spectrum who are already up against enough problems, especially when it comes to getting access to help.

I'm sitting here while actually being highly disabled, also being confirmed as such with diagnosis, and I have to know that these poindexter scum are out there making a mockery of the reality of mental disability, pretending it makes sense to supposedly care so much yet wanting impairment to remain, all while this comes out of the mouths of those who aren't impaired, many of whom can or will get to live it up as they please if they please!

Where are such choices for everyone else? For those who don't have basic abilities ensured to them who have to deal with others to just get by? For those who don't have genius IQs? Where do they get off omitting to explain how "social justice" isn't violated by those advocates having obscene amounts of abilities and therefore choices and opportunities, while others are forced to begging and neediness? Well, they of course would continue to pretend that no such disparity in opportunity exists, nor that meaningful disparities in ability exist. It enrages me how some of the cognitively privileged so carelessly misuse and waste their opportunities, while I could only dream of what I would do with my ambitions had I possessed their aptitude.

almandite's so-called rebuttal

Predictably, she says I misrepresent her, and refers to me as a troll. Anyone who calls them on their nonsense is somehow a troll. "Discussion" to them can't be anything other than agreement and reinforcement. I didn't make a post to counter her simply because she deletes my comments. If she and the other creeps won't let my responses be heard, I make even longer ones on my own territory so others can view. That's why I've written all of the posts I've done so far. I wondered if it would convince them to consider letting me comment on their place instead, as it wouldn't be as scathing. I just don't want to let their despotic bullshit go unchallenged. She then explains herself as if she's just writing her thoughts and considerations of things, as if she's not trying to prove points.

"It is a crime to be shocked by and proud of your students?" Why misrepresent what you're proud of and blow it out of proportion? If she's so proud, why won't she just act pleased with only what went well?
"Is it a crime to engage in armchair philosophy–armchair only because I haven’t finished my degree?" It should be expected to have some real reasoning for the expressed thoughts, and not have ridiculous conclusions that don't follow from the premises. But I've basically seen an attempt to make a point that many others with the same ploy are trying to make. The level of misconception caused by all of those trying to lie about what intelligence is, is something to be noticed and complained of.

"this is the internet. If you don’t like it, don’t read it" Got to be fucking kidding me! As if she doesn't tend to have many readers who consider her ideas seriously, isn't talking of a contentious issue, isn't trying to convince readers one way or the other about it, isn't one among a bunch of other similar characters who push the same agenda, and as if she isn't in contact with those other characters, even having them on her blogroll. She shouldn't try to dupe me into thinking that what she says has no potential effect on anyone, regarding issues that concern many.

Then she makes fun of me for having weak reading comprehension. If she likes to antagonize others based on their abilities, that completely disproves that she supposedly thinks impairments aren't misfortunate or problematic. She of course, is trying to backtrack what she said to protect her reputation after I explained her for what she is.
"I have never tried to argue that my students are not seriously impaired, or that language and communication are not important."
Bullshit!: "I’m not convinced that lacking language is the cruel blow it’s often thought of" Saying that belies that one thinks that language and communication are important. You can't talk the way she does of things and not be one who undermines the understanding of how problematic severe impairment is.
"Hardly. I am attempting to ascertain what, exactly, these “real professionals” are saying, and how that fits in with my experience." She should read up on it and act like she has done so.

Then she pathetically tries to refute my slamming her for saying: "Intelligence, if it means anything to me, is a light, a brightness behind someone’s eyes, a spark thrown off by the working gears of their mind."
with this: "What? No. No no no.
First of all, I am a homo homo sapiens, not vermin. But nice insult. It seems, to me, to signal the beginnings of ravings.
Secondly, I was, in the paragraph referenced, revering to common usages of the word “intelligence”. " Nothing was cleared up to her credit. Just showing that she can't handle my castigation or being called basically an asshole.

"This is not tantamount to calling my students gifted or nondisabled." I know she wouldn't just come out and say that, or simply try to convince others of exactly that. That doesn't mean she's not implicitly undermining the realization of how severe and devastating mental impairments are, through making sweeping statements using slight progress as examples.
"Take anything out of context" The context excuse is getting really old.
"Said it was morally repugnant to write someone off, to say that they are sub-human because of their intellect." No. Don't pretend you said things you didn't in an order you didn't. Saying someone lacks intelligence isn't the same as writing them off.

"I am more optimistic, more determined, than you. I see their futures differently. I don’t waste my time with horror and pity–I do something about it." Optimistic about what? What goal? You aren't determined to end the suffering. When have you asked them what they want you to be determined to do for them, how much they want in the long run? Where is their consent for you to see their futures in the way you do, and to talk of their futures in such a way? It's no skin off your nose if all that would benefit them isn't done.

"I see we have moved from personal attacks into sheer delusions. I am working to give these kids a self-determined life" The way you talk is detrimental to their self-determination. You don't represent them. The euphemistic talk you throw in is degrading. How are you acting in accord with their own conscious efforts and wishes in their own interests?
"and even harder for them" At least this is truthful. I think the much harder work of them should be compensated with a future of independence and prosperity, that isn't less than that of those who don't have to work anywhere near as hard.
"So yeah, I’ll celebrate the small victories" Why do you do it the way you do?