The Truth About Autism: Scientists Reconsider What They Think They Know | Hacker News Reader

The Truth About Autism: Scientists Reconsider What They Think They Know

wired.com

31 pointsedw51915 comments

Ok, I'll say it. That's just plain stupid.

She's redefined language to mean something else, and then said hers is not inferior to ours. Twiddling a knob on a dresser is not a language, it's just an unusual curiosity. We don't have electricity and cars and antibiotics because people had conversations with doorknobs and running water. We have them because people communicated abstract ideas to each other. That's language.

"And you find yourself thinking: She might have a point."

Only if you don't know what the word language means. Otherwise you find yourself thinking "that's stupid."

She doesn't redefine language, this is the meaning she has always understood. And it is different from your and my meaning, but still very close and human. Autism may ultimately help us understand ourselves.

That's incorrect though. That's like saying someone always called an orange an apple, and therefore their apple (really an orange) is the same as ours.

The whole point of a word is so that when I say it, you know what it means. The word "language" has an agreed upon meaning, and that meaning is not twiddling a knob.

Apples and oranges are not the same, but they have things in common. That's why we have a concept of a fruit. You and I have never thought twiddling a knob and words have things in common, and yet another human being finds them almost identical. This is when I realized that it is really human to think about interacting with environment in the same way we interact with other people. I wouldn't have thought of this by myself.

Yes, she doesn't use the word "language" in the meaning we "normal" people have agreed to. But this is not the point.

You may want to finish reading the article...because right now I'm finding myself thinking "He's stupid". :-)

While you do have a point that language is only of communicative value if the shared terms are common, I'm just enough of a fan of Charles Taylor and his ilk to argue that communication isn't languages only function. It has deep importance for identity, if nothing else. The simple act of self-expression is significant for non-communicative reasons in that it helps us define for ourselves who we are.

That being said, I got the impression from the article that these videos are, in part, her attempt to translate her "native language" into English, rather than to talk through the use of her text-to-speech program. After all, all but the rarest of individuals thinks and expresses best in their native language.

That's a good point. Which is why, if autistic people can't score well on tests aimed at people who process the world in a non autistic manner, the autistic people should be considered retarded. The article seems to have completely missed this; instead of defining intelligence as generally quick and precise thinking, it should be defined in terms of ability to communicate with normal people. I think this would eliminate a lot of confusion on the part of us normal people and make the world easier to understand.

is this ironic?

yes, completely.

Yes. I tried to tread the fine line between making my point and being subtle, but I failed.

The article's countering exactly the issue I say it missed.

It's not that you failed exactly -- I thought I got the point. It's just that it's pretty hard to be sure on online forums. Plus I didn't read the article :)

What I noticed was you said we should define intelligence in terms of being normal instead of thinking quickly and precisely. So I guessed you were making fun of the parent post by agreeing in a silly way.

Yep, zegactly!

The article's point is that though we generally rank autistic people as retarded according to intelligence tests, these tests are biased towards a certain form of communication. If the autistic people communicate on their own terms, they are often quite bright. There is an intelligence test called Raven that can get past the communication barrier better than the standard test.

And, at the risk of being pedantic, there are multiple levels of irony going on in my original response, since the subject is misunderstood communication.

I think that language is mostly used by people for forming bonds with other people. That's the purpose of most conversations. It is emotionally fulfilling. But autistic people typically respond emotionally more to things than to people. (This is something that many here should be able to understand to some degree.) Watch the video. She talks about a "conversation" with her surroundings. I think that's what she means by "language". She specifically says that her language doesn't have any semantic content, if that is what is bothering you.

Watch the video.

It's good.

I have significant issues with the core argument, but mostly due to it's naïveté.

It does not address the issue that there are numerous, hmm, micro-languages. Say one invented spontaneously between twins that only the twins and say a couple grad students (maybe) will ever be fluent. The twins language may be incredible but it is useless to order a big mac.

Can two autistic folk each with their own totally valid non-verbal language ever communicate?

The world is getting so specialized, perhaps with tools some very smart folks cut off due to neurological, er differences, will become dynamic members of the greater society.

I really liked the view down the slinky, good thing that it was not a full 9 minutes of just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. just that. (wow, doesn't it feel good typing just that ;-)

Part of it is that she has an opportunity to explore this way of thinking. What happened around age 20 when she decided to give up with the neurotypical way of vocalizing? An older brother or sister that never veers far from neurotypical would begin the influence on you with, for example: "what? you don't have a cell phone? thats not normal!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com