I think its important for anyone not to over identify selfhood with condition or have too much of one’s identity invested in one’s position (but I would say that, I’m a Taoist). I think we’d all benefit from being clear on whether we are giving opinion, citing experiences or putting forward rigourously tested facts stemming from an appropriate and extensive degree of first hand study and experience. As long as we know which of these angles we’re coming from, there’s no problem. Perhaps Temple is evolving in her position on that. Its also about ego – which many on the spectrum claim they don’t have (this regurigtates a stereotype that, having worked with many high achieving people with Aspergers, I’m not convinced is always true). Anyone who overly cares about their status, is competitive and really requires recognition or admiration probably does have a reasonable degree of ego invested. I have definitely met many on the spectrum at the Asperger’s end who don’t care at all about these things but I’ve certainly met those whose world rests on these things too. I think ego gets in the way of clarity. Many believe that logic cancels out ego, but I don’t agree. I’ve met highly logical people with just as much ego and fact is it skews their logic and narrows the bredth of their viewpoint.

I definitely think we should be critical of any opinion put forward as fact but that’s no excuse to go celebrity-bashing, ever. I do feel that the autism field is an area of science and its too often treated as a rampant market place with monopolies forming all the time, each with their showpieces, and if I had to say what I think the field should be about it should be about expanding understanding, building bridges of understanding, inspiring people with realistic and achievable goals, raising recognition of diversity WITHIN the spectrum and helping society not to see our brilliance or superiority but to see our equality in the wider social diversity. If Temple’s interviews or lectures or writings add to that, that’s great. If they regurgitate the same old stereotypes or create new ones that detract from that significantly, then over time people will lose interest and others will be heard. I’m one to trust to life. Maybe foolish, but I’m 42.

The problem her though is the current state of science education, at least in the US, and how the mainstream media protrays science. She feeds in to this problem, knowing or unknowingly, and it leads a lot of people out there unfortunately to think that it is the truth, and that she may have the science to back it up. It contributes to much of the public’s misunderstanding of scientific matters, which really bugs me.

I don’t know that Temple put her views forward as science. I think we can respect them as her views, her opinions and if those are interesting and raise ideas we hadn’t considered then that’s really social philosophy which I feel is too under-rated sometimes in a world where we all expect ’science’ first.

I think she does, by the the way she writes much of her work that is, which is geared at mainstream audiences. What is really needed here, in my opinion, is critical thinking and logic, but most of the public schools in my country don’t have it as a requirement, and the media here certainly doesn’t encourage it all.

Because sometimes the ideas and questions come first and should drive the science to explore them.

No argument there. But if you’ve read the interviews with her, you’ll notice that she tends to consider her hypothesis as facts first before even letting the testing or theoretical models out of the gate, and I believe that has misled a lot of people.

Remember that Temple herself may never have claimed expertise or science in this context as PR clads authors with all sorts of stuff they’d never say about themselves. The life of those in the public eye is never easy as people might imagine. It’s a lot of pressure and its easy for the public to forget these are real, feeling, human people who give opinions, make mistakes, and hopefully add to the public good somehow in one way or another.

Interviews and statements that she have made seem to contradict that, in my opinion, (though I am interested in references towards it, if you are capable of providing some) at least in the way she wants the public to take her seriously. I’m not doubting she’s human, and I share the same disorder, but if she is going to make a claim about the world in that particular matter, I’d prefer that she back it up or at the very least make a good argument to state her case for it, wether or not it is behind science. It could be about business, and other things.

I know Temple has inspired a lot of people on the spectrum.

No argument there. But it does not mean we shouldn’t be critical. I was very fond of your article critiqueing the interview Grandin made with WrongPlanet. I think she needs a lot more, and I eventually plan on coming out with a series of posts in one or two of my blogs about some of the problems with her arguments, mostly from Thinking In Pictures, money depending (minor financial issues).

I don’t know that Temple put her views forward as science.  I think we can respect them as her views, her opinions and if those are interesting and raise ideas we hadn’t considered then that’s really social philosophy which I feel is too under-rated sometimes in a world where we all expect ‘science’ first.  Because sometimes the ideas and questions come first and should drive the science to explore them.  Remember that Temple herself may never have claimed expertise or science in this context as PR clads authors with all sorts of stuff they’d never say about themselves.  The life of those in the public eye is never easy as people might imagine.  It’s a lot of pressure and its easy for the public to forget these are real, feeling, human people who give opinions, make mistakes, and hopefully add to the public good somehow in one way or another.  I know Temple has inspired a lot of people on the spectrum.

One of the main problems I’ve noticed with her, over the years, is that she continues to project her own experiences onto others without even bothering to have it critiqued under a peer review process. At the very least, she should of bothered to consult some other autistics out there and ask how they really thought instead of just publishing something such as Thinking In Pictures, which has now made millions of non-autistics (and even a few auties who do share her way of thinking) think that we all think a like. Only recently has she come out with a new version of that book that now distances itself from that generalization fallacy. And yet, she has a new book out making an assumption about all forms of animals with a brainstem think like her now. I’d be very surprised if that piece of work was peer-reviewed, and if you bother to look at the good reviews for it out there, you’ll notice that the only science magazines giving it kudos are of the mainstream variety that are not always peer reviewed, much less full of scary equations she doesn’t need to or have to deal with in her current line of work. If she’s not even going to bother or at the very least demonstrate insterest in peer review and studies about her claims, why should she even be taken seriously as a scientist?

In practice, with the 600 people on the spectrum I worked with as a consultant over 8 years, I found many who fitted the visual-thinking technical minded side and equally others who fitted the kinesthetic, sensory-oriented artistic side. I met some who were also exceptional musical or mathematical thinkers who relied on this as their primary way of expressing themselves and connecting to the world and who were unable to make good use of auditory or visual processing. I also, to my surprise, met those who relied almost solely on good auditory processing!

Hence whilst my reality and Temple’s are both represented out there in the autistic population there are certainly learning styles and personality orientations which are completely different again. But I do think the visual scientist and he kinesthetic artist do represent two major archetypes and I do find that those without good visual processing, without intact visual or auditory thinking and oriented towards the sensory are almost always underestimated in their ability when sat next to those who are visual and technical as its often the second one that’s more quickly considered ‘intelligent’ when both in fact have different types of intelligence.

Hence why its important that not only I represent the validity of Temple’s archetype as one valid but remind people not to judge those with equal but different abilities by that which Temple excels as they’ll fail if its not their strengths and then their own strengths go unrecognised or people fail to think outside of the box in how to work with them in terms of their own abilities. For example, give me a new canopener and I really struggle, show me visually and I can rote learn it but not apply it. But help me though the actions with the can opener, show me something through seeing the actions, and after a few repetitions, I learn it but I learn it through doing, learning intellectually doesn’t link up well to doing in my case, even though the visual show and tell would work for Temple. Both are valid but most teachers don’t take the time to help people through the actions or show the doing. They think everyone learns intellectually and can then apply it. Hence promoting that stereotype only helps that particular group and entrenches the problems of those outside that group.

AI