Mother Talkers

Autism: Diversity or Disorder?

Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:16:21 AM PDT

Wired magazine just ran a huge feature on autism. Except, this story comes with a twist.

Rather than speculate on where autism comes from -- as so many news stories do -- it questions whether scientists need to redefine their definition of "normal." In this article, Wired reporter David Wolman actually holds a "conversation" with an autistic woman who lives in a housing development for elderly and mentally disabled people. She is unable to cook dinner or even dress herself without help. But she is able to download software, type and correspond with people online, even making viral videos explaining what autistic people think and feel.

I tell her that I asked one of the world's leading authorities on autism to check out the video. The expert's opinion: (27-year-old autistic Amanda) Baggs must have had outside help creating it, perhaps from one of her caregivers. Her inability to talk, coupled with repetitive behaviors, lack of eye contact, and the need for assistance with everyday tasks are telltale signs of severe autism. Among all autistics, 75 percent are expected to score in the mentally retarded range on standard intelligence tests — that's an IQ of 70 or less.

People like Baggs fall at one end of an array of developmental syndromes known as autism spectrum disorders. The spectrum ranges from someone with severe disability and cognitive impairment to the socially awkward eccentric with Asperger's syndrome.

After I explain the scientist's doubts, Baggs grunts, and her mouth forms just a hint of a smirk as she lets loose a salvo on the keyboard. No one helped her shoot the video, edit it, and upload it to YouTube. She used a Sony Cybershot DSC-T1, a digital camera that can record up to 90 seconds of video (she has since upgraded). She then patched the footage together using the editing programs RAD Video Tools, VirtualDub, and DivXLand Media Subtitler. "My care provider wouldn't even know how to work the software," she says.

  • ::

Baggs is part of an increasingly visible and highly networked community of autistics. Over the past decade, this group has benefited enormously from the Internet as well as innovations like type-to-speech software. Baggs may never have considered herself trapped in her own world, but thanks to technology, she can communicate with the same speed and specificity as someone using spoken language.

Autistics like Baggs are now leading a nascent civil rights movement. "I remember in '99," she says, "seeing a number of gay pride Web sites. I envied how many there were and wished there was something like that for autism. Now there is." The message: We're here. We're weird. Get used to it.

This movement is being fueled by a small but growing cadre of neuropsychological researchers who are taking a fresh look at the nature of autism itself. The condition, they say, shouldn't be thought of as a disease to be eradicated. It may be that the autistic brain is not defective but simply different — an example of the variety of human development. These researchers assert that the focus on finding a cure for autism — the disease model — has kept science from asking fundamental questions about how autistic brains function.

A cornerstone of this new approach — call it the difference model — is that past research about autistic intelligence is flawed, perhaps catastrophically so, because the instruments used to measure intelligence are bogus. "If Amanda Baggs had walked into my clinic five years ago," says Massachusetts General Hospital neuroscientist Thomas Zeffiro, one of the leading proponents of the difference model, "I would have said she was a low-functioning autistic with significant cognitive impairment. And I would have been totally wrong."

Wolman's article was peppered with quotes by scientists who questioned conventional wisdom about autism because there are some IQ tests, in which autistics like Baggs do score within normal range. Also, psychologists once considered homosexuality a disorder to be cured so it is only a matter of time when autism, too, is considered another form of diversity, they said.

Still, there are other experts who disagree.

But critics of the difference model reject the whole idea that autism is merely another example of neuro-diversity. After all, being able to plan your meals for the week or ask for directions bespeak important forms of intelligence. "If you pretend the areas that are troubled aren't there, you miss important aspects of the person," says Fred Volkmar, director of Yale's Child Study Center.

In the vast majority of journal articles, autism is referred to as a disorder, and the majority of neuro-psychiatric experts will tell you that the description fits — something is wrong with the autistic brain. UCSF's Merzenich, who agrees that conventional intelligence-testing tools are misleading, still doesn't think the difference model makes sense. Many autistics are probably smarter than we think, he says. But there's little question that more severe autism is characterized by what Merzenich terms "grossly abnormal" brain development that can lead to a "catastrophic end state." Denying this reality, he says, is misguided. Yale's Volkmar likens it to telling a physically disabled person: "You don't need a wheelchair. Walk!"

Meanwhile parents, educators, and autism advocates worry that focusing on the latent abilities and intelligence of autistic people may eventually lead to cuts in funding both for research into a cure and services provided by government. As one mother of an autistic boy told me, "There's no question that my son needs treatment and a cure."

I know we have some mothers here with autistic children and there are moms who work with autistic children as well as autistic readers yourselves. What do you think of this article? It definitely made me question the way doctors approach "treatment" of autistic children. But the last thing I would want to see is money dry up to help families with basic assistance like housing and caring -- not to mention, more research on how the autistic brain works.

Tags: autism, disorder, diversity, scientists, Wired magazine (all tags)

Permalink | 26 comments

  • The spectrum (0 / 0)

    It seems to me that because this "disorder" is characterized as a spectrum, that the "difference" angle might be better suited to the higher functioning end of the spectrum.

    My husband and I have wrestled with this very point. We think that the things that make Miles so unique are also part of what some would label his "disorder."  It seems, to us, almost impossible to tease out where his distinctive personality and outsized intellectual ability end and the Asperger's begins.  

    There is no question that his brain works differently than the majority of humans, but, for us at least, the only parts of that difference we wish to modify are those that impede his ability to reach his full potential.  The rest of it -- his eccentric way of looking at the world for instance -- we wouldn't want to change at all.

  • happy (0 / 0)

    I would think, in addition to helping those those areas, that as Hillary put it, might interfere with someone reaching their full potential, it's important to keep in mind what is important to the person.

    Example not related to autism per se.  If someone is shy and only has one or two good friends, so what, as long as it isn't making the person unhappy.  If someone is troubled and saddened, then it might be something where they would want to learn skills to meet new people.

    I feel like, in general, our society has a specific view of what we are supposed to be like, and any deviation from that is looked down on, but if it doesn't make the person unhappy, so be it.

    • AMEN! (0 / 0)

      "I feel like, in general, our society has a specific view of what we are supposed to be like, and any deviation from that is looked down on, but if it doesn't make the person unhappy, so be it."

      So true!  With all kinds.  It is interesting.  The experiences I saw in elementary school and Jr. High (not personally -- I was all too normal) to this day just make me cringe.  Really smart?  Really slow?  Ugly?  Shy?  On and on.  Everyone different was  singled out.  Ah!  But what is different?  And who decides that?

  • My ignorant opinion (0 / 0)

    I am wholly uneducated about autism, but I know a few autistic people and I think they are a wonderful addition to my life. I am fascinated by our society's struggle to balance 'helping' autistic people with appreciating them.

    I'm sure we all know people who are or could be labelled with autism or asperger's. Maybe we're even married to them. Or maybe it's US. The autistic people I know (who come from both ends of the spectrum) are such a gift to their families and their communities, I have a hard time seeing what their deficiency is.  It is vitally important to help autistic children and their parents with appropriate resources, but I think we should be wary of 'curing' them of all of their differences.

    Noted autistic author Dr. Temple Grandin says that today, Einstein would be labelled autistic. [Anyone who has heard her talk certainly must have a different appreciation for the autistic community. She was diagnosed with brain damage at age 2 and didn't talk until age 4. Now she is an author and professor at the Colo. State University Ag. School.] Do we want to 'cure' our future Einstein's and Grandin's of their genius? Or do we want to make room for their genius in our society?

    I certainly don't have the answers to these things, but I hope our social dialogue doesn't get reduced to "autism=bad; cure=good." Autistic people are a diverse group,  full of hidden potential, and they deserve 'treatements' that will enhance their talents, not just make them 'easier to deal with.'

  • I think maybe it can be both (0 / 0)

    My sense is that autists think quite differently - an asset in some areas, a disadvantage in others.

    As with any person, each child/adult needs help reaching her full potential. For an autist that would include assistance to handle social interactions. For someone designated "normal" that would include assistance with mathematics. For someone deaf or blind, that would include training in alternative communication formats.

    I do think the emphasis on "cure" can miss the point. The point is to make each human self-sufficient and productive and happy in a space that works. We've taught parents to fear ASD in a way that may be counterproductive. We focus so hard on vaccinations that I fear we've ignored a lot of more promising avenues for figuring out exactly what is happening to these kids.

    I suggest a couple of books to anyone wanting to think more in this area: anything by Temple Grandin, and The Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon.

    In this office, where I am evaluated and advised four times a year, the psychiatrist is no less certain of the line between us than all the others have been. Her certainty is painful to see, so I try not to look at her more than I have to. That has its own dangers; like the others, she thinks I should make more eye contact than I do. I glance at her now.

    Dr. Fornum, crisp and professional, raises an eyebrow and shakes her head not quite imperceptably. Autistic persons do not understand these signals; the book says so. I have read the book, so I know what it is I do not understand.

    What I haven't figured out yet is the range of things they don't understand. The normals. The reals. The ones who have the degrees and sit behind the desks in comfortable chairs.

    I know some of what she doesn't know. She doesn't know that I can read. She thinks I'm hyperlexic, just parroting the words. The difference between what she calls parroting and what she does when she reads is imperceptible to me. She doesn't know that I have a large vocabulary. Every time she asks what my job is and I say I am still working for the pharmaceutical company, she asks if I know what pharmaceutical means. She thinks I'm parroting. The difference between what she calls parroting and my use of a large number of words is imperceptible to me. She uses large words when talking to the other doctors and nurses and technicians, babbling on and on and saying things that could be said more simply. She knows I work on a computer, she knows I went to school, but she has not caught on that this is incompatible with her belief that I am actually nearly illiterate and barely verbal.

    She talks to me as if I were a rather stupid child. She does not like it when I use big words (as she calls them)  and she tells me to just say what I mean.

    What I mean is the speed of dark is as interesting as the speed of light, and maybe it is faster and who will find out?

    What I mean is about gravity, if there were a world where it is twice as strong, then on that world would the wind from a fan be stronger because the air is thicker and blow my glass off the table, not just my napkin? Or would the greater gravity hold the glass more firmly to the table, so the stronger wind couldn't move it?

    • It's really worth reading the whole article (0 / 0)

      Here are some more quotes from the whole piece in Wired.

      On the idea that autists are 'low IQ':

      The test typically used to substantiate this view relies heavily on language, social interaction, and cultural knowledge — areas that autistic people, by definition, find difficult. About six years ago, Meredyth Goldberg Edelson, a professor of psychology at Willamette University in Oregon, reviewed 215 articles published over the past 71 years, all making or referring to this link between autism and mental retardation. She found that most of the papers (74 percent) lacked their own research data to back up the assumption. Thirty-nine percent of the articles weren't based on any data, and even the more rigorous studies often used questionable measures of intelligence. "Are the majority of autistics mentally retarded?" Goldberg Edelson asks. "Personally, I don't think they are, but we don't have the data to answer that."

      Our IQ tests measure social/language skills, but don't measure things that autists are good at:

      By the mid-1990s, Mottron was a faculty member at the University of Montreal, where he began publishing papers on "atypicalities of perception" in autistic subjects. When performing certain mental tasks — especially when tapping visual, spatial, and auditory functions — autistics have shown superior performance compared with neurotypicals. Call it the upside of autism. Dozens of studies — Mottron's and others — have demonstrated that people with autism spectrum disorder have a number of strengths: a higher prevalence of perfect pitch, enhanced ability with 3-D drawing and pattern recognition, more accurate graphic recall, and various superior memory skills.

      Yet most scientists who come across these skills classify them as "anomalous peaks of ability," set them aside, and return to the questions that drive most research: What's wrong with the autistic brain? Can we find the genes responsible so that we can someday cure it? Is there a unifying theory of autism? With severe autistics, cognitive strengths are even more apt to be overlooked because these individuals have such obvious deficits and are so hard to test. People like Baggs don't speak, others may run out of the room, and still others might not be able to hold a pencil. And besides, if 75 percent of them are mentally retarded, well, why bother?

      Last summer, the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science published a study titled "The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence." The lead author was Michelle Dawson. The paper argues that autistic smarts have been underestimated because the tools for assessing intelligence depend on techniques ill-suited to autistics. The researchers administered two different intelligence tests to 51 children and adults diagnosed with autism and to 43 non-autistic children and adults.

      The first test, known as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, has helped solidify the notion of peaks of ability amid otherwise pervasive mental retardation among autistics. The other test is Raven's Progressive Matrices, which requires neither a race against the clock nor a proctor breathing down your neck. The Raven is considered as reliable as the Wechsler, but the Wechsler is far more commonly used. Perhaps that's because it requires less effort for the average test taker. Raven measures abstract reasoning — "effortful" operations like spotting patterns or solving geometric puzzles. In contrast, much of the Wechsler assesses crystallized skills like acquired vocabulary, making correct change, or knowing that milk goes in the fridge and cereal in the cupboard — learned information that most people intuit or recall almost automatically.

      What the researchers found was that while non-autistic subjects scored just about the same — a little above average — on both tests, the autistic group scored much better on the Raven. Two individuals' scores swung from the mentally retarded range to the 94th percentile. More significantly, the subset of autistic children in the study scored roughly 30 percentile points higher on the Raven than they did on the more language-dependent Wechsler, pulling all but a couple of them out of the range for mental retardation.

      A number of scientists shrugged off the results — of course autistics would do better on nonverbal tests. But Dawson and her coauthors saw something more. The "peaks of ability" on the Wechsler correlated strongly with the average scores on the Raven. The finding suggests the Wechsler scores give only a glimpse of the autistics' intelligence, whereas the Raven — the gold standard of fluid intelligence testing — reveals the true, or at least truer, level of general intelligence.

      Of course blind people have a disability and need special accommodation. But you wouldn't give a blind person a test heavily dependent on vision and interpret their poor score as an accurate measure of intelligence.

      • Weschler (0 / 0)

        After finishing our testing with Miles, I found out that the WISCIII is not a good test to give someone who might be on the ASD and that Stanford Binet would measure better -- but of course, it was done and what could I do?  I liked the psychologist we used, but now in retrospect I understand that she didn't know the right tools to use with him.

        His intellect is such that he still scored off the charts in many areas, but certain aspects of some of the tests, such as timed parts, really did not come out well for him.

        BTW, we started eliminating dairy from his diet last week, and his eczema is nearly gone.  I mean, like such a transformation that my husband and I are in a state of wonder.  We haven't totally elimanated it, but holy crap, if we do and it really does clear up a) how guilty do I feel for putting him through discomfort and spreading hydrocortisone cream on him for years and b) Yippee!!

    • Dammit... (0 / 0)

      I tried to order that book online after the last time someone (you?) mentioned it. I received a book of medieval poetry with the same title. sigh...

  • Amanda Baggs is an amazing woman. (0 / 0)

    Check out her blog Ballastexistenz.  She's got some interesting posts up there now about the Wired article, and countering the analogy of "You don't need a wheelchair. Walk!"  (There are those who find that analogy... inadequate to say the least.)

    As a parent of an almost-4-year-old daughter who has been diagnosed with autism, this is one of the many things I wonder about.  What, if anything, would we lose if Miriam were "cured"?  Do we have the right to try & make that decision for her?  And on the flip side, how could we possibly do anything else?

    At this point, we don't know much about how she thinks, because our communication with her has some pretty severe limits.  She only uses about 20 words right now, if you include "moo" and "woof-woof."  

    Much of our interaction with her is quite exhausting.  She has no sense of danger.  There is nothing that holds her attention for more than a few minutes at a time, and someone has to keep an eye on her constantly.

    She's also a happy, affectionate kid (when she's not enduring the fallout from her all-too-frequent seizures.)  She loves to play peek-a-boo and chase games, and give hugs and kisses -- often to random adults, adorable but troubling in its own way.

    I dunno.  Maybe she hasn't grown enough yet into whatever unique intellectual abilities may be associated with her autism.  In the absence of being able to identify whatever gifts autism may have given her... what can we do but try to help her toward our best understanding of what it takes to lead a full and independent life?  And at this point, that is hard to distinguish from "normal" for us.

    Hillary, I love your framing of wanting to modify only those things that impede Miles' ability to reach his full potential.  Success and joy to you on that road!  

  • On language, and functioning in the world (0 / 0)

    In a synthesized voice generated by a software application, she explains that touching, tasting, and smelling allow her to have a "constant conversation" with her surroundings. These forms of nonverbal stimuli constitute her "native language," Baggs explains, and are no better or worse than spoken language.

    This illustrates one difference between autistics and neurotypicals: autistics have great difficulty understanding other minds, and intuiting what other people are thinking. Autistic children have a tendency to treat other people as things, rather than as beings with consciousness and desires. A neurotypical wouldn't call Baggs' actions a "language," because a language implies communication, and you can't have a sincere deep communication with your sofa. Touching, tasting and smelling may be legitimate things for Baggs to do, but they are not language because there is no one on the other end receiving the message.

    I'm sometimes confused by the autistic acceptance movement. I have trouble distinguishing when it is "Accept me as I am because I can't change" and when it is "Accept me as I am because I don't want to change." Sometimes it seems that people in the autistic acceptance movement, by the very nature of their autism, don't realize that other people have rights too, and autistics will also have to make some accommodations. I'm happy to extend special accommodations to someone who is blind, but I don't want to extend the same accommodations to someone who just doesn't feel like putting on her glasses.

  • so funny... (0 / 0)

    and i haven't read all the comments here, but wanted to chime in quickly...after watching a You Tube video of an autistic woman awhile back, i wondered if autism was not some kind of  evolutionary development.

    very interesting...

  • diversity or disorder (0 / 0)

    One way to look at this question is, Who pays to support the person?  If the government must provide services in order for someone to live, I would say their condition is probably more of a disorder.  For people that are happy and independent, it's probably more of a diversity thing.  

    As far as IQ testing, there are some experts (Bryna Siegel at UCSF comes to mind) who address the question of what instruments to use and who come down on the side of using a comprehensive test, such as a Wechsler.  To use a test like the Raven and say a person has a certain IQ based on their ability to detect patterns is a pretty narrow definition of intelligence.  I would say it's a good test of nonverbal fluid problem solving.  But there's more to functioning in a society than what the Raven picks up.

    • I like that definition (0 / 0)

    • What about Stanford-Binet? (0 / 0)

      I was wondering up above in an earlier comment if the psychologist we hired used the wrong test for Miles.

      There was another psychologist I would have preferred down in Philly who deals with creative high giftedness.  I had a great chat with her on the phone about Miles at the beginning of the school year, but at that time she had an 18-month waiting list for testing.  Her testing costs about $2,000 also, which is nothing to sneeze at.

      But I'm still mulling contacting her again and seeing if we can at least get a partial round of evaluation from her.

      Meanwhile, Miles has been really enjoyable lately, he seems to be coming into his own with regard to writing and self-sufficiency. It's nice to see.  He's even working on the first blog entry where he is doing everything by himself, including uploading photos to photobucket, putting them into the post, adding links, formatting, etc.  I am really enjoying him.

      • glad to hear he's doing so well (0 / 0)

        Is there some question in your mind that more testing would answer?

        We are about to embark on some neuropsych testing for DS to find out if he has any subtle learning disabilities, before he gets into the more challenging work of high school.  You should count yourself lucky at only $2K.  It's around $3500 here, and goes up to 6 grand (too rich for my blood!).

    • Agreed (0 / 0)

      An autistic person who cannot feed or support herself is severely disabled, no matter how intelligent.  An Asperger's person can claim the label "weird", though he should be careful - we don't generally spend extra educational dollars to support the weird.   It seems like it's those people between these extremes who can be most helped by an improved understanding of their disorder.  If they can move toward living independently with a disability then perhaps the wheelchair analogy will be appropriate.

      I don't understand the focus on determining which test is "right".  IQ tests correlate with intelligence, they don't measure it.  If an impaired individual fails some tests but not others it doesn't mean one test was right and another was wrong, it highlights specific impairments.  The point of these tests is to try to evaluate the abilities of an impaired individual, not place them on a population scale.

      • Brava (0 / 0)

        Exactly right on the IQ tests; a test is "right" if it gives correct, useful information.

        My son is on the autism spectrum, though not autistic. On the WISC test, there were six standard deviations between the result on his best test, and the result on his worst. His IQ came out exactly average. Does it make sense to say there's something wrong with the tests, that they describe him as average? No, not at all. He really is extremely good at some things, and abysmally bad at others, and the test accurately reported that. Having the test results lets us know how to help and guide him.

        • I agree (0 / 0)

          The tests are good at revealing strengths and weaknesses.  One problem I've heard of in giving only a nonverbal test is that it doesn't really expose the weaknesses, and parents end up bewildered (or worse) when their child with an "average" IQ doesn't perform at grade level in all subjects.  So, misleading at times.

          The Stanford-Binet is a good test.  I haven't heard it's specifically the best test for people on the autism spectrum.  Where did you hear that, Hillary?

          • Depends on the kid (0 / 0)

            For Fang Jr., the nonverbal tests are the ones that reveal the weaknesses. His nonverbal tests are way below average; his verbal and math tests are way above average.

            I recommend that a child who seems to need diagnostic tests should get a wide variety, since there are a wide variety of deficiencies.

Permalink | 26 comments