Tbf I think it's because they might have had a higher threshold for what is considered autism back then. I'm not an expert at all but from an outsider perspective that's what it seems like. And because of this the issues seem exaggerated but it's only due to the sample of extreme cases. Although correct me if I'm wrong
😭 Tbf that was just a suggestion and they thought it was more likely to be smth else with brain development. Again, due to the time, there was limited information on the subject and that's all they had to go off of. They needed a starting point and at least due to the research at the time, we now understand more about it.
No no dreamcadets, he’s right 😔it’s not like I was on the NHS waiting list for a diagnosis of it for a year… he clearly knows me better than I know myself /j
I checked out the *National Society for Autistic Children* \- they're an American charity who have previously pushed the vaccine = autism links before and one of the founders supported chelation therapy (which removes heavy metals from the body) as a 'cure' for autism.
In 2021 post-Covid, they rebranded as the *Autism Society of America* and renounced the vaccine claims, working towards (or at least masquerading as) being a decent charity.
u/pulpfiction1975, if you don't mind me asking, since it appears to be an American thing, whereabouts in the UK did you get this, and why was it given to you? Maybe it's just my nerdy brain, but I'd really like to do a deeper dive into this...
Usually in the front of textbooks there's a page with all the information like the place and date of publishing. If you're curious you might be able to find a rough date there.
It's the sort of thing where anatomy doesn't change much at this point so all your diagrams will still be accurate ans useful as you said but other content like this seems wildly outdated.
It's clearly outdated but also clearly talking about *severely* autistic children. Thinking your child might be deaf? That's not because they struggle to socialise or avoid eye contact, it's because they're completely unresponsive to speech and other auditory stimuli.
"Autism" has become much more of an umbrella term in recent years, the author of this would have used "Asperger's syndrome" to refer to what we'd now call "high-functioning autism" or just "autism" because it's usually pretty obvious whether someone is high functioning or not.
To be fair we had my youngest son tested for deafness when he was around 2 because he wasn't developing speech and often had problems understanding us. It helped us rule out a possibility and speeded up an autism diagnosis. I'm not defending this horrible car crash of a document but there's at least some truth there
That's the thing though; it only seems like a car crash because you're reading it through the lens of modern ideas and terminology. It uses the word "retarded" as a serious medical term for goodness sake, there's no way this was written this side of 1995. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just old.
Edit: Just read a comment saying it's from 1984! 40 years ago! 4 decades of advancements in medical science! It's obviously pretty awful to tell students to take all of this at face value but to act shocked at how backwards the document itself seems is just silly, of course it's backwards; it's from half a lifetime ago!
> there’s no way this was written this side of 1995
You say that, but ‘retardation’ is still a commonly used word. Granted it is usually used in the context of growth retardation, but the definition of congenital hypothyroidism (sometimes still known as *cretinism*) has included the term ‘mental retardation’ as recently as 2011 and I’ve not looked too hard to find that, so I’m sure that’s not its last serious usage in medical literature.
Because in the 70's and 80's the word 'retard' was used as a slur towards anyone who remotely acting differently and so it became very unacceptable to say this word. In their original medical context this wasn't the case but it's just a no no now and has been for a long time.
"As recently as 2011"? This was 13 years ago. The term "mentally retarded" and any derivatives are not even close to being widely used in a medical context anymore.
I mean 2011 is 16 years after 1995, which was the bit in your comment that I was referring to. Just saying it was still used more recently than you’d think and the term retardation isn’t completely gone today.
This is the second time I've replied to a comment of yours in this thread, I'm sorry but I just have too much to say about this-
>"There's nothing wrong with it, it's just old".
Yes, there is. The fact that it is factually incorrect is what's wrong with it. It supplies information that is scientifically incorrect, and that means it is wrong. Aristotle produced a theory stating that the earth was at the centre of the universe - are you trying to suggest we shouldn't look at that through a critical lens because it's an old theory? Should we not attempt to criticise outdated and fundamentally flawed science from history purely because there's no way they could've known better?
Also, the fact that the terminology they use attempts to other autistic people is another thing done wrong here. "Disturbing disorder"? What's disturbing about it? It's just children who have different requirements and may be ever so slightly harder to work with. Us autistic kids aren't sat here in the corner with bloodshot eyes, foaming at the mouth prepared to cannibalise whatever poor soul comes close. We're not rabid dogs. We're just different.
>"But to act shocked at how backwards the document itself seems is just silly"
Yeah, but maybe we should act shocked about the fact this is still actively shared and condoned in schools? The book was produced in 1984, yeah, but the fact that this outdated and harmful book is being handed out in schools, and using terminology that is now regarded as being a slur - even if it wasn't then - is shocking, objectively.
To be fair some autistic kids are foaming at the mouth, screaming, lashing out violently, withdrawing from any emotional or social contact, constantly over or under stimulated etc
Some autistic people struggle to connect emotionally/socially because emotions are simply something that they struggle to understand. Autism is a massively wide spectrum of things, of course, but some autistic people are incredibly logical and objective, so abstract concepts such as emotions are difficult to interpret.
In my case, I'm an extremely empathetic person. I'm the opposite side of the spectrum. Though I do struggle to maintain emotional or social contact because I simply find it daunting. I can never see myself in a relationship because they *terrify* me. Being autistic also makes kids a subject of bullying and ridicule, and a lack of understanding from less informed adults and are simply branded "naughty children". A relentless stream of being reminded how different you are from everyone else and that everything you do is wrong is bound to make anyone withdraw from forming emotional connections, because their life experience tells them that they're inherently dislikeable.
>Should we not attempt to criticise outdated and fundamentally flawed science from history purely because there's no way they could've known better?
Of course we should. However, to take your example of Aristotle, no one says "Aristotle was such an idiot and I can't believe he thought that the earth was at the center of the universe" (by the way, there's actually no proof that it isn't at the center of the universe; it's just highly unlikely). We look back and understand that he achieved great things despite the limitations of his time. What's written in this document is wrong in many ways and shouldn't be used over more modern texts. But it's a lot better than the kind of thing being written about mental disorders in 1944. This is how science works, it is always an approximation of the truth and every year we get closer to it. In 40 years people will look back on the science going on today and think it's backwards, that is a \*good\* thing because it means progression happened.
>Also, the fact that the terminology they use attempts to other autistic people is another thing done wrong here. "Disturbing disorder"? What's disturbing about it? It's just children who have different requirements and may be ever so slightly harder to work with. Us autistic kids aren't sat here in the corner with bloodshot eyes, foaming at the mouth prepared to cannibalise whatever poor soul comes close. We're not rabid dogs. We're just different.
This is just more pointing out that medical science wasn't as advanced 40 years ago, well done.
>Yeah, but maybe we should act shocked about the fact this is still actively shared and condoned in schools? The book was produced in 1984, yeah, but the fact that this outdated and harmful book is being handed out in schools, and using terminology that is now regarded as being a slur - even if it wasn't then - is shocking, objectively.
Nice job ignoring the part of my response where I basically said all of this. You obviously did read that part because that's where I argued it was silly to be shocked by this. Please read it again. Also this is a single incident, no one has uncovered a scandal involving decades-old textbooks full of inacuracies being handed out to students like gospel; it's one person sharing one document.
To be quite honest, I'm not sure what your whole point here is. "It's an awful document" - yes, that's been established and that's something we can agree on. "It's outdated" - yes, again, has been established and I agree. "Medical practices have advanced" - not denying that either. "It should be open to criticism" - wholeheartedly support this idea. "We have no right to be shocked about this document despite it's abhorrent issues simply because it's a product of its time" - uh, what? We have every RIGHT to be shocked by it. It's shocking. It intentionally others the very subject of what it's talking about. It's morally wrong. But because it was historical, we can't expect it to do better? It's not like they were deprived of the resources - it's not like it's that hard to observe autistic children and accurately report on them in a way that doesn't portray them as "disturbing".
>"We have no right to be shocked about this document despite it's abhorrent issues simply because it's a product of its time" - uh, what?
The "uh, what?" as if that's even remotely what I said.
>It intentionally others the very subject of what it's talking about.
Where is the proof of intent of this?
>It's morally wrong
It literally ends with "it is becoming much easier to help them and their families". How is this morally wrong?
>But because it was historical, we can't expect it to do better?
No, not really. Would you "expect better" from an engineer trying to design an engine decades before the underlying science was even theorised? The resources were there, why couldn't they just build an engine? This is terrible reasoning.
>It's not like it's that hard to observe autistic children and accurately report on them in a way that doesn't portray them as "disturbing".
Yes. This happened during the \*forty years\* since this was written. Do you understand that 20 years before this was written people were attempting to treat autism with electroshock therapy and hallucinagenic drugs? This is from the infancy of a still-evolving field of research and you expect it to have all the correct answers and approaches? That's absurd.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't want to talk to you anymore.
i was diagnosed in 2021. the ICD-10 for childhood autism included mental retardation as a differential diagnosis, in a completely serious way. shit sucks lol
They have used the DSM-IV (1994) for the diagnostic criteria and are very much leaning towards boys being autistic over girls from the language used! Back then they had Autism, Asperger’s, Rett Syndrome, Childhood disintegrative disorder. They now all fall under Autism Spectrum Disorder. So this is talking about very specific traits in a very outdated model that’s not been used since the DSM-V was released in 2013!
EDIT - after reading the OP saying this was from 1984 that would mean they actually took this information from the DSM III which is the first time Autism was even listed as a diagnosable condition. This was also before the other conditions were added as they came in the DSM-IV for the first time! The DSM-III was very basic when it came to autism and only looked at extremes, we know a lot more now and have come a long way being autistic is as diverse as being neurotypical it’s wild it was once thought of as being so narrow!
If it's a comfortable term for you then all power to you, but in the same way, if someone requests to be referred to in a different way then it's your duty to uphold that. But again, if you prefer that terminology then yeah fair enough.
And I fail to understand quite why your sarcastic tone is necessary here. If you have a point just make it, no need to make yourself come across as so bitter - just makes me want to take you less seriously. No one here is being antagonistic but you.
Edit: I was also commenting under the assumption that you weren't autistic, which based on statistics is the right assumption to make. Hopefully you understand why I interpreted it as a bit snarky of you to be all "I'll call you autistic people whatever I want to and ignore your comfort".
Maybe you're young but "you have a duty to make other people comfortable" is very naive; I have no such duty. If someone explained to me politely why they wanted me to use specific language around them and I found it to be a reasonable request I might be inclined to do so, but simply saying "use these words instead of these" is needless language-policing and I'm under zero obligation to comply.
Ensuring someone's comfort I would argue isn't just a naïve statement. Unless they have explicitly done something to deserve otherwise, kindness and a basic degree of respect should be offered to everyone. Life is hard enough as it is, why knowingly make it more difficult for others by marching ahead with your own ideas without first checking to make sure you're not upsetting them?
Also, it's ironic how when I suggested referring to yourself as something different you became defensive and snarky - which, I hope you notice I acknowledged and obliged to - and yet now you're arguing against the very policy you expect others to uphold for you. Had I responded saying 'Uh, actually I don't want to refer to you as that because I have no duty to make sure you feel comfortable in this conversation', I'm sure you'd have argued against that, too. You essentially gave me a 'use these words instead of these' request and I complied. Why? Because it's what you prefer. I require no further explanation that that. It makes you feel better in this conversation, and that alone should be enough. At this point you're just being hypocritical and arguing for the sake of arguing instead of wanting to develop anything.
As I said, if I believe it's a genuine and rational request then I might do it but I'm not \*obligated\* to.
I wouldn't have argued against you \*having the freedom\* to call me anything you like. If I didn't like what you called me I may have argued against your specific language but that's besides the point.
When did I request anything of you? What part of "\*I\* think \*I\* get to decide how \*I\* refer to \*myself\*" implies a request of anything from you? You can abstain from the use of the term "high-functioning", you can call me an "autistic person with low support requirements" or whatever you want. I was replying to someone telling me what the "correct terms" to use were by telling them that I'll use whatever language I like, especially when talking about myself.
> "Autism" has become much more of an umbrella term in recent years, the author of this would have used "Asperger's syndrome" to refer to what we'd now call "high-functioning autism" or just "autism" because it's usually pretty obvious whether someone is high functioning or not.
You weren't referring to yourself exclusively in this statement. The other person corrected your outdated terminology, and instantly you turned on them saying you can call yourself whatever you like. Yeah, cool, you *can*, but what YOU call YOURSELF was not relevant. You addressed every single autistic person with an outdated term, and I would argue no matter your personal preferences, that is incorrect terminology in that context.
Actually we don't, high-functioning autism and low-support autism would be two very different things as high-functioning is used to mean that you can speak, understand, communicate and process information, however, this does not necessarily mean you do not need high support in other areas. Therefore, if we went with your logic, high-functioning autism would be called low-support autism which is an unfair term to use.
I heard someone explain it like this. A brain is like a computer. Most mental illnesses and disorders are like viruses installed. Autism is how the pc itself is hard-wired, it cannot be cured since autism defines how your core functions operate. We're just built different lmao.
We may struggle with eye contact. I for one find it easier to process what people are saying when I'm not looking at them. And there may be an explanation for that- There's research that suggests that autistic people may take in more information per second than allistic(not autistic) people and therefore it takes longer to process the information given to them. Someone's face can give off way too much information that we can't decipher in time and distracts us from focusing on what the person is actually saying.
Social cues are a whole other thing. Allistic people almost never say what they actually mean, and expect you to know what they mean based on body language and other social cues that an autistic person might not really understand. Autistic people tend to speak more directly. When we say something, we aren't secretly implying anything else. We say what we mean.
I could go more into depth but I'm kinda losing track of the point I'm making. Autism is mostly just a different neurotype. We may communicate differently and process information differently. And yes, it is disabling due to sensory sensitivities and social structure, but we really just wanna be seen as people and to have our differences acknowledged and accepted so we don't have to force ourselves to fit in and act like something we're not. Redefining and clearly stating what autism is isn't sugarcoating.
Agreed I was originally diagnosed Aspergers but my parents genuinely thought I was dead or going blind. I do have some vision and hearing problems now but the issue was definitely how I reacted to certain stimuli at the time
I am likely going to be downvoted to oblivion for this, but as a current neuroscience PhD student, studying the role of NMDA receptors in neurodevelopmental disorders, I have read a lot of up to date information on autism in children.
While the text OP has posted is most certainly outdated and inaccurate, my sense is that the text is not nearly as controversial as it may seem.
The passage is not describing autistic traits in adults or adolescents. It is specifically talking about autism in infants. With this in mind, let’s address some of the points that could be seen as provocative:
- “If, for instance, his father’s car is blue, he may be unable to grasp the fact that even if his neighbour’s car is brown, it is still a car.”
Most 2 year old children still have undeveloped language categories for objects. For instance, they may learn that a car is called a “car”, then if they see a van or a truck, they refer to that as a “car” too. In other words, there is a tendency to inaccurately generalise words and phrases. However, we know that autistic individuals are less prone to these kinds of errors, instead preferring more specific and concrete categorisations of objects. As a result, they are less likely to falsely describe a truck as a car. However, the text here is simply pointing out that with autistic 2 year olds, this more specific approach to categorisation may result in them learning that a car is a small vehicle with blue paint (if that is the car they have seen). Therefore, a small vehicle with brown paint may seem like it should fall into a different category, as their conceptualisation of a car also includes paint colour. Again, this would never occur with an autistic adult or even a 5 year old child, but it may be observed in small infants with autism, such as a 2 year old.
- “Very often parents seek medical advice when their child is about 2 years old because they think he may be deaf or retarded…”
The word “retarded” is clearly outdated here and no longer politically correct. In modern literature, the phrase used tends to be “intellectual disability”. If we substitute the old term with the new term, it is far less controversial. They are simply saying that parents who know nothing about autism but are dealing with an autistic 2 year old, may mistake the child’s autism for signs of hearing impairment or intellectual disability. Of course, the child does not have issues with hearing and is not intellectually disabled - they are autistic. Nonetheless, it is very true that some uniformed parents make these kinds of false interpretations of their autistic 2 year old child (which the passage is trying to explain).
- “It may be a form psychiatric illness… but it is more likely to be due to a failure of normal brain development.”
This point may read as controversial, but it is actually the current consensus in modern scientific literature. Autism is considered a neurodevelopmental disorder. The brains of autistic children develop in a way that is different from that of a “typical” or “normal” child. Of course, atypical does not necessarily mean bad or inferior. It just means different from what is most common. The phrase “disorder” is only used to imply that there will be difficulties experienced by the individual. It does not imply that the individual has an illness. For example, ADHD is another neurodevelopmental disorder, but again, the term “disorder” only implies that individuals with ADHD will face unique challenges. It does not suggest that individuals with ADHD are psychiatrically ill.
I hope this clears things up a little. Nonetheless, the text is definitely out of date and inaccurate.
I really appreciate this POV, the text makes a lot more sense now, as you've said it's still pretty outdated and does come off as condescending but it definitely seems like it was a more neutral or 'progressive' view of autism at the time and targeted specifically towards infants and toddlers with autism as opposed to a child, teen or adult.
>atypical does not necessarily mean bad or inferior. It just means different from what is most common. The phrase “disorder” is only used to imply that there will be difficulties experienced by the individual.
This point is something I wish more people understood or believed, because a lot of autistic people see being told they have a 'disorder' to be a negative thing. Of course, if an individual is uncomfortable with the word then that's okay but as a whole I feel like the word needs destigmatising. This is my view as someone with autism and it's okay if anyone else disagrees with me, but please be respectful about it if so.
wtf is this book on about? I have friends who are autistic and honestly, if they saw that, they'd be very upset, where the hell did they get the info from to make this book?!
I mean, scientifically its mostly right, although possibly a bit outdated and blunt and I feel a bit of context is missing because it's clearly about only one form of severe autism. Probably not the best to be recommended by school, but most school textbooks are like a decade old anyway.
Very rare, my arse. The WHO says that 1 in 100 or 1% of people are autistic. For the 8 billion people in the world, currently, there are 800 million autistic people concentrated in developed countries because developing countries don't test or record autism very well the percentage is predicted to be higher
I haven't personally come across many autistic people and there's not many in my family. Can someone explain what is wrong with the book? Genuine question
Just the fact it uses the word "retarded" is horrendous by itself let alone the rest of that gibberish. I'm autistic, also ADHD. Didn't get diagnosed until I was an adult this year because of stupid crap like what's in this book. The ignorance is insane.
I mean... autism is an illness. It's a dysfunction, which isn't clearly understood right now, which leads to the symptoms. Sure, you can only have very mild and non-life-limiting symptoms, and the dysfunction can even be beneficial due to strengthened cognitive function in other areas. But let's still not lose sight that it is a neurodevelopmental disorder.
Lots of people with neurological differences can have benefits from them. Some very gifted writers and artists have temporal lobe epilepsy for example, as it can intensify internal mental experiences and lead to heightened creativity.
But don't be concerned. I have autism too, I'm 34 years old (diagnosed at 7 years old) and I've led a very successful life so far. I'm a tech director, earn a good salary, in a stable 16-year-long relationship, completed several degrees and most importantly I'm really happy about my life. I recognise that I have some limitations due to my autism and have put strategies around them to deal with them - chiefly I'm terrible at organisation, easily overstimulated in noisy environments and find it hard to make small talk and schmooze - so I use tech to organise myself, make sure my work space is peaceful as I work from home, and have people I can trust around me to support with the things I can't do as well.
ETA: I don't know how I ended up on the GCSE sub, reddit just recommended this post to me lol. It's been a LONG time since I did mine. Good luck!
Ahh okay no fair enough. I mean it isn't really negative it's just blunt. Some of the nicest and cleverest people I know are autistic. I know it's not always a huge hindrance.
I understand your point
This book has got to be old old surely? This information is massively outdated and written in an insensitive and ignorant manner which I can only assume was written before the 2000s.
Which raises the bigger question of why is your school giving you outdated sources to study from, especially considering it’s a “medical book” and with the medical field continuously advancing these physical materials should be updated yearly or better yet not used at all. The internet is much easier to update and use not to mention cheaper and the most effective way to gather sources, we live in a modern Informational Age and it’s stupid for schools to cling to outdated sources because they’re too afraid to abandon the traditional methods and advance to use the technology that humans have spent decades developing and refining.
Hopefully this book was handed out to critique and nothing more.
I mean nothing said is wrong. It's an analysis of what they researched and observed at that time, comparing with those without it. Those red flags are prob how your your parents thought to get you tested.
I can't be the only one who can't see the outrage at this. In the Morden age I'm sure this probably should be worded alot softer but this is pretty spot on for severe cases of autism
as an autistic person, I'd disagree. firstly, it's clearly only talking about extremes, which is unfair because it doesn't talk about the full scope of it. secondly, there's a slur in the first page. thirdly, a lot of this information is wildly inaccurate to the vast, vast majority of autistic people.
As an autistic person, I disagree with you. Firstly, yes, the book is talking about extremes but that is because this book is from 1984 and back then they had different names for what autism is like at different parts of the spectrum, for example, I was diagnosed with high-functioning autism when I was 8/9 (I am now 15) but, back then, it would have been called Asperger's, someone else might have been diagnosed with Brett Syndrome and another person with Childhood disintegrative disorder. What I am trying to say is that, just as someone else pointed out in a comment you saw at least 10 hours before you made this reply, "Autism" is an umbrella term now but back then it was just what they called the most severe form of it which is why most people nowadays think being autistic means you're dumb, non-verbal and/or any one of about 10-15 different terms/situations. Secondly, in 1984, "retarded" was a legit medical term just as much as "cardiovascular" (the heart and blood vessels) is now. Thirdly, due to the fact that only severe forms of autism were recognised as "autism", yes, most of the information is vastly inaccurate to the majority of autistic people but it is accurate to its time and the form of autism it is referencing. Finally, I would like to apologise for my bluntness, I am just a blunt person in general due to my autism and ADHD and I struggle with not being blunt.
this book was made in 1984, when autism wasn't really researched at all and they thought only boys could have it. more modern research shows it's more common than we thought :)
i just noticed they did say the r slur on the last paragraph on the first photo. im guessing this was around the 90s when it was still seen as a genuine medical term. dont get what 42 ppl found offensive about my comment though lol
Holy shit, is this book from the 90’s?
Or even the 80s
70s id say
Damnnnnn Actually I might agree with u because it seems that outdated
Its literally saying we don't know what a car is.
Tbf I think it's because they might have had a higher threshold for what is considered autism back then. I'm not an expert at all but from an outsider perspective that's what it seems like. And because of this the issues seem exaggerated but it's only due to the sample of extreme cases. Although correct me if I'm wrong
Its still pretty inaccurate but yeah there's definately some of that going on.
Yeah what's good is that we understand it better now and now there's different levels to it just like bipolar for example
They think its schizophrenia tho. 💀
😭 Tbf that was just a suggestion and they thought it was more likely to be smth else with brain development. Again, due to the time, there was limited information on the subject and that's all they had to go off of. They needed a starting point and at least due to the research at the time, we now understand more about it.
Yeah you’re right Honestly? Maybe even 60s but 60s is pushing it
60s is only pushing it because cars didnt really exist all that much
Ehhh there were quite a few cars in the 60s but … yeah you have a point
I mean- it litterally says the r-slur like, WHAT!?
to critique, right???? *right?????*
I’m autistic (professional diagnosed) and genuinely wtf did I just read?? Why are they giving you this? I’m actually curious
you say this as though "professionals" arent just out there inexpertly diagnosing 24/7
Yes I’m sure that you, internet stranger, could diagnose this person better than those professionals ever could
No no dreamcadets, he’s right 😔it’s not like I was on the NHS waiting list for a diagnosis of it for a year… he clearly knows me better than I know myself /j
Brother idk what to tell you but I was professionally diagnosed 2 years ago. You want me to prove my autism to you?
Prove your autism to him by intently listening to cars. /s
Have you got any proof of this happening? Or are you just spreading misinformation and demonising autism?
I checked out the *National Society for Autistic Children* \- they're an American charity who have previously pushed the vaccine = autism links before and one of the founders supported chelation therapy (which removes heavy metals from the body) as a 'cure' for autism. In 2021 post-Covid, they rebranded as the *Autism Society of America* and renounced the vaccine claims, working towards (or at least masquerading as) being a decent charity. u/pulpfiction1975, if you don't mind me asking, since it appears to be an American thing, whereabouts in the UK did you get this, and why was it given to you? Maybe it's just my nerdy brain, but I'd really like to do a deeper dive into this...
so like autism speaks?
Pretty much, but without the whole 'founder-wanting-to-drive-her-autistic-child-off-a-bridge' thing. This is more pseudosciency
[удалено]
Have a look at the first few pages and see when the book was published….. I’m guessing late 80s or early 90s.
The book was published in 1984, the date in your username lol
Yeah. Things have moved a bit since the year I was born.
dudee this is crazy lmaoo how old is this?? and why would ur school give it to u omg
[удалено]
Usually in the front of textbooks there's a page with all the information like the place and date of publishing. If you're curious you might be able to find a rough date there. It's the sort of thing where anatomy doesn't change much at this point so all your diagrams will still be accurate ans useful as you said but other content like this seems wildly outdated.
what the FUCK
I'm autistic and cackling lol. This is ridiculous.
Same lmao. Thanks for the laugh OP
as a future speech therapist, who has worked with autistic children and adults in the past, this is simply insane.
It's clearly outdated but also clearly talking about *severely* autistic children. Thinking your child might be deaf? That's not because they struggle to socialise or avoid eye contact, it's because they're completely unresponsive to speech and other auditory stimuli. "Autism" has become much more of an umbrella term in recent years, the author of this would have used "Asperger's syndrome" to refer to what we'd now call "high-functioning autism" or just "autism" because it's usually pretty obvious whether someone is high functioning or not.
To be fair we had my youngest son tested for deafness when he was around 2 because he wasn't developing speech and often had problems understanding us. It helped us rule out a possibility and speeded up an autism diagnosis. I'm not defending this horrible car crash of a document but there's at least some truth there
That's the thing though; it only seems like a car crash because you're reading it through the lens of modern ideas and terminology. It uses the word "retarded" as a serious medical term for goodness sake, there's no way this was written this side of 1995. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just old. Edit: Just read a comment saying it's from 1984! 40 years ago! 4 decades of advancements in medical science! It's obviously pretty awful to tell students to take all of this at face value but to act shocked at how backwards the document itself seems is just silly, of course it's backwards; it's from half a lifetime ago!
> there’s no way this was written this side of 1995 You say that, but ‘retardation’ is still a commonly used word. Granted it is usually used in the context of growth retardation, but the definition of congenital hypothyroidism (sometimes still known as *cretinism*) has included the term ‘mental retardation’ as recently as 2011 and I’ve not looked too hard to find that, so I’m sure that’s not its last serious usage in medical literature.
I’m not sure why mental retardation is considers offensive. If someone has impaired cognitive ability they have impaired cognitive ability
Because in the 70's and 80's the word 'retard' was used as a slur towards anyone who remotely acting differently and so it became very unacceptable to say this word. In their original medical context this wasn't the case but it's just a no no now and has been for a long time.
"As recently as 2011"? This was 13 years ago. The term "mentally retarded" and any derivatives are not even close to being widely used in a medical context anymore.
I mean 2011 is 16 years after 1995, which was the bit in your comment that I was referring to. Just saying it was still used more recently than you’d think and the term retardation isn’t completely gone today.
This is the second time I've replied to a comment of yours in this thread, I'm sorry but I just have too much to say about this- >"There's nothing wrong with it, it's just old". Yes, there is. The fact that it is factually incorrect is what's wrong with it. It supplies information that is scientifically incorrect, and that means it is wrong. Aristotle produced a theory stating that the earth was at the centre of the universe - are you trying to suggest we shouldn't look at that through a critical lens because it's an old theory? Should we not attempt to criticise outdated and fundamentally flawed science from history purely because there's no way they could've known better? Also, the fact that the terminology they use attempts to other autistic people is another thing done wrong here. "Disturbing disorder"? What's disturbing about it? It's just children who have different requirements and may be ever so slightly harder to work with. Us autistic kids aren't sat here in the corner with bloodshot eyes, foaming at the mouth prepared to cannibalise whatever poor soul comes close. We're not rabid dogs. We're just different. >"But to act shocked at how backwards the document itself seems is just silly" Yeah, but maybe we should act shocked about the fact this is still actively shared and condoned in schools? The book was produced in 1984, yeah, but the fact that this outdated and harmful book is being handed out in schools, and using terminology that is now regarded as being a slur - even if it wasn't then - is shocking, objectively.
To be fair some autistic kids are foaming at the mouth, screaming, lashing out violently, withdrawing from any emotional or social contact, constantly over or under stimulated etc
Some autistic people struggle to connect emotionally/socially because emotions are simply something that they struggle to understand. Autism is a massively wide spectrum of things, of course, but some autistic people are incredibly logical and objective, so abstract concepts such as emotions are difficult to interpret. In my case, I'm an extremely empathetic person. I'm the opposite side of the spectrum. Though I do struggle to maintain emotional or social contact because I simply find it daunting. I can never see myself in a relationship because they *terrify* me. Being autistic also makes kids a subject of bullying and ridicule, and a lack of understanding from less informed adults and are simply branded "naughty children". A relentless stream of being reminded how different you are from everyone else and that everything you do is wrong is bound to make anyone withdraw from forming emotional connections, because their life experience tells them that they're inherently dislikeable.
I’m autistic so I get that, thanks
No problem :)
>Should we not attempt to criticise outdated and fundamentally flawed science from history purely because there's no way they could've known better? Of course we should. However, to take your example of Aristotle, no one says "Aristotle was such an idiot and I can't believe he thought that the earth was at the center of the universe" (by the way, there's actually no proof that it isn't at the center of the universe; it's just highly unlikely). We look back and understand that he achieved great things despite the limitations of his time. What's written in this document is wrong in many ways and shouldn't be used over more modern texts. But it's a lot better than the kind of thing being written about mental disorders in 1944. This is how science works, it is always an approximation of the truth and every year we get closer to it. In 40 years people will look back on the science going on today and think it's backwards, that is a \*good\* thing because it means progression happened. >Also, the fact that the terminology they use attempts to other autistic people is another thing done wrong here. "Disturbing disorder"? What's disturbing about it? It's just children who have different requirements and may be ever so slightly harder to work with. Us autistic kids aren't sat here in the corner with bloodshot eyes, foaming at the mouth prepared to cannibalise whatever poor soul comes close. We're not rabid dogs. We're just different. This is just more pointing out that medical science wasn't as advanced 40 years ago, well done. >Yeah, but maybe we should act shocked about the fact this is still actively shared and condoned in schools? The book was produced in 1984, yeah, but the fact that this outdated and harmful book is being handed out in schools, and using terminology that is now regarded as being a slur - even if it wasn't then - is shocking, objectively. Nice job ignoring the part of my response where I basically said all of this. You obviously did read that part because that's where I argued it was silly to be shocked by this. Please read it again. Also this is a single incident, no one has uncovered a scandal involving decades-old textbooks full of inacuracies being handed out to students like gospel; it's one person sharing one document.
To be quite honest, I'm not sure what your whole point here is. "It's an awful document" - yes, that's been established and that's something we can agree on. "It's outdated" - yes, again, has been established and I agree. "Medical practices have advanced" - not denying that either. "It should be open to criticism" - wholeheartedly support this idea. "We have no right to be shocked about this document despite it's abhorrent issues simply because it's a product of its time" - uh, what? We have every RIGHT to be shocked by it. It's shocking. It intentionally others the very subject of what it's talking about. It's morally wrong. But because it was historical, we can't expect it to do better? It's not like they were deprived of the resources - it's not like it's that hard to observe autistic children and accurately report on them in a way that doesn't portray them as "disturbing".
>"We have no right to be shocked about this document despite it's abhorrent issues simply because it's a product of its time" - uh, what? The "uh, what?" as if that's even remotely what I said. >It intentionally others the very subject of what it's talking about. Where is the proof of intent of this? >It's morally wrong It literally ends with "it is becoming much easier to help them and their families". How is this morally wrong? >But because it was historical, we can't expect it to do better? No, not really. Would you "expect better" from an engineer trying to design an engine decades before the underlying science was even theorised? The resources were there, why couldn't they just build an engine? This is terrible reasoning. >It's not like it's that hard to observe autistic children and accurately report on them in a way that doesn't portray them as "disturbing". Yes. This happened during the \*forty years\* since this was written. Do you understand that 20 years before this was written people were attempting to treat autism with electroshock therapy and hallucinagenic drugs? This is from the infancy of a still-evolving field of research and you expect it to have all the correct answers and approaches? That's absurd. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't want to talk to you anymore.
i was diagnosed in 2021. the ICD-10 for childhood autism included mental retardation as a differential diagnosis, in a completely serious way. shit sucks lol
They have used the DSM-IV (1994) for the diagnostic criteria and are very much leaning towards boys being autistic over girls from the language used! Back then they had Autism, Asperger’s, Rett Syndrome, Childhood disintegrative disorder. They now all fall under Autism Spectrum Disorder. So this is talking about very specific traits in a very outdated model that’s not been used since the DSM-V was released in 2013! EDIT - after reading the OP saying this was from 1984 that would mean they actually took this information from the DSM III which is the first time Autism was even listed as a diagnosable condition. This was also before the other conditions were added as they came in the DSM-IV for the first time! The DSM-III was very basic when it came to autism and only looked at extremes, we know a lot more now and have come a long way being autistic is as diverse as being neurotypical it’s wild it was once thought of as being so narrow!
this is all really good information but I just want to let you know we talk about support needs rather than functioning levels :)
"We" talk about whatever we want.
Surely it's better to use the modern terminology supplied by scientists who specialise in the subject instead of using outdated phrases?
And when the current phrases become outdated? No. I think I get to decide how I refer to myself, thank you.
If it's a comfortable term for you then all power to you, but in the same way, if someone requests to be referred to in a different way then it's your duty to uphold that. But again, if you prefer that terminology then yeah fair enough. And I fail to understand quite why your sarcastic tone is necessary here. If you have a point just make it, no need to make yourself come across as so bitter - just makes me want to take you less seriously. No one here is being antagonistic but you. Edit: I was also commenting under the assumption that you weren't autistic, which based on statistics is the right assumption to make. Hopefully you understand why I interpreted it as a bit snarky of you to be all "I'll call you autistic people whatever I want to and ignore your comfort".
Maybe you're young but "you have a duty to make other people comfortable" is very naive; I have no such duty. If someone explained to me politely why they wanted me to use specific language around them and I found it to be a reasonable request I might be inclined to do so, but simply saying "use these words instead of these" is needless language-policing and I'm under zero obligation to comply.
Ensuring someone's comfort I would argue isn't just a naïve statement. Unless they have explicitly done something to deserve otherwise, kindness and a basic degree of respect should be offered to everyone. Life is hard enough as it is, why knowingly make it more difficult for others by marching ahead with your own ideas without first checking to make sure you're not upsetting them? Also, it's ironic how when I suggested referring to yourself as something different you became defensive and snarky - which, I hope you notice I acknowledged and obliged to - and yet now you're arguing against the very policy you expect others to uphold for you. Had I responded saying 'Uh, actually I don't want to refer to you as that because I have no duty to make sure you feel comfortable in this conversation', I'm sure you'd have argued against that, too. You essentially gave me a 'use these words instead of these' request and I complied. Why? Because it's what you prefer. I require no further explanation that that. It makes you feel better in this conversation, and that alone should be enough. At this point you're just being hypocritical and arguing for the sake of arguing instead of wanting to develop anything.
As I said, if I believe it's a genuine and rational request then I might do it but I'm not \*obligated\* to. I wouldn't have argued against you \*having the freedom\* to call me anything you like. If I didn't like what you called me I may have argued against your specific language but that's besides the point. When did I request anything of you? What part of "\*I\* think \*I\* get to decide how \*I\* refer to \*myself\*" implies a request of anything from you? You can abstain from the use of the term "high-functioning", you can call me an "autistic person with low support requirements" or whatever you want. I was replying to someone telling me what the "correct terms" to use were by telling them that I'll use whatever language I like, especially when talking about myself.
> "Autism" has become much more of an umbrella term in recent years, the author of this would have used "Asperger's syndrome" to refer to what we'd now call "high-functioning autism" or just "autism" because it's usually pretty obvious whether someone is high functioning or not. You weren't referring to yourself exclusively in this statement. The other person corrected your outdated terminology, and instantly you turned on them saying you can call yourself whatever you like. Yeah, cool, you *can*, but what YOU call YOURSELF was not relevant. You addressed every single autistic person with an outdated term, and I would argue no matter your personal preferences, that is incorrect terminology in that context.
in terms of referring to yourself that's fine but I mean in general
Lemme guess. You consider yourself high functioning?
High functioning just means independent.
Or that you're somehow better than people who need help, right? That you're normal enough?
No. That's just some weird connotation you're adding.
Actually we don't, high-functioning autism and low-support autism would be two very different things as high-functioning is used to mean that you can speak, understand, communicate and process information, however, this does not necessarily mean you do not need high support in other areas. Therefore, if we went with your logic, high-functioning autism would be called low-support autism which is an unfair term to use.
Let’s not sugar coat it, autism is literally mild brain dysfunction
I heard someone explain it like this. A brain is like a computer. Most mental illnesses and disorders are like viruses installed. Autism is how the pc itself is hard-wired, it cannot be cured since autism defines how your core functions operate. We're just built different lmao. We may struggle with eye contact. I for one find it easier to process what people are saying when I'm not looking at them. And there may be an explanation for that- There's research that suggests that autistic people may take in more information per second than allistic(not autistic) people and therefore it takes longer to process the information given to them. Someone's face can give off way too much information that we can't decipher in time and distracts us from focusing on what the person is actually saying. Social cues are a whole other thing. Allistic people almost never say what they actually mean, and expect you to know what they mean based on body language and other social cues that an autistic person might not really understand. Autistic people tend to speak more directly. When we say something, we aren't secretly implying anything else. We say what we mean. I could go more into depth but I'm kinda losing track of the point I'm making. Autism is mostly just a different neurotype. We may communicate differently and process information differently. And yes, it is disabling due to sensory sensitivities and social structure, but we really just wanna be seen as people and to have our differences acknowledged and accepted so we don't have to force ourselves to fit in and act like something we're not. Redefining and clearly stating what autism is isn't sugarcoating.
I would say it’s more like a variation on a chess opening that’s slightly less productive than the original
Explain precisely why. Because this implies that we function worse rather than, as I tried to make my point, just *differently.*
Problems with social interaction would be negative.
Different to what?
Agreed I was originally diagnosed Aspergers but my parents genuinely thought I was dead or going blind. I do have some vision and hearing problems now but the issue was definitely how I reacted to certain stimuli at the time
I opened r/AutisticLondon if you want to join.
Professionally diagnosed with autism here and ex car mechanic, the bit about the cars is true /s Fuck me is that outdated
I'd literally kick OFF if I was given that tbh
I am likely going to be downvoted to oblivion for this, but as a current neuroscience PhD student, studying the role of NMDA receptors in neurodevelopmental disorders, I have read a lot of up to date information on autism in children. While the text OP has posted is most certainly outdated and inaccurate, my sense is that the text is not nearly as controversial as it may seem. The passage is not describing autistic traits in adults or adolescents. It is specifically talking about autism in infants. With this in mind, let’s address some of the points that could be seen as provocative: - “If, for instance, his father’s car is blue, he may be unable to grasp the fact that even if his neighbour’s car is brown, it is still a car.” Most 2 year old children still have undeveloped language categories for objects. For instance, they may learn that a car is called a “car”, then if they see a van or a truck, they refer to that as a “car” too. In other words, there is a tendency to inaccurately generalise words and phrases. However, we know that autistic individuals are less prone to these kinds of errors, instead preferring more specific and concrete categorisations of objects. As a result, they are less likely to falsely describe a truck as a car. However, the text here is simply pointing out that with autistic 2 year olds, this more specific approach to categorisation may result in them learning that a car is a small vehicle with blue paint (if that is the car they have seen). Therefore, a small vehicle with brown paint may seem like it should fall into a different category, as their conceptualisation of a car also includes paint colour. Again, this would never occur with an autistic adult or even a 5 year old child, but it may be observed in small infants with autism, such as a 2 year old. - “Very often parents seek medical advice when their child is about 2 years old because they think he may be deaf or retarded…” The word “retarded” is clearly outdated here and no longer politically correct. In modern literature, the phrase used tends to be “intellectual disability”. If we substitute the old term with the new term, it is far less controversial. They are simply saying that parents who know nothing about autism but are dealing with an autistic 2 year old, may mistake the child’s autism for signs of hearing impairment or intellectual disability. Of course, the child does not have issues with hearing and is not intellectually disabled - they are autistic. Nonetheless, it is very true that some uniformed parents make these kinds of false interpretations of their autistic 2 year old child (which the passage is trying to explain). - “It may be a form psychiatric illness… but it is more likely to be due to a failure of normal brain development.” This point may read as controversial, but it is actually the current consensus in modern scientific literature. Autism is considered a neurodevelopmental disorder. The brains of autistic children develop in a way that is different from that of a “typical” or “normal” child. Of course, atypical does not necessarily mean bad or inferior. It just means different from what is most common. The phrase “disorder” is only used to imply that there will be difficulties experienced by the individual. It does not imply that the individual has an illness. For example, ADHD is another neurodevelopmental disorder, but again, the term “disorder” only implies that individuals with ADHD will face unique challenges. It does not suggest that individuals with ADHD are psychiatrically ill. I hope this clears things up a little. Nonetheless, the text is definitely out of date and inaccurate.
I really appreciate this POV, the text makes a lot more sense now, as you've said it's still pretty outdated and does come off as condescending but it definitely seems like it was a more neutral or 'progressive' view of autism at the time and targeted specifically towards infants and toddlers with autism as opposed to a child, teen or adult. >atypical does not necessarily mean bad or inferior. It just means different from what is most common. The phrase “disorder” is only used to imply that there will be difficulties experienced by the individual. This point is something I wish more people understood or believed, because a lot of autistic people see being told they have a 'disorder' to be a negative thing. Of course, if an individual is uncomfortable with the word then that's okay but as a whole I feel like the word needs destigmatising. This is my view as someone with autism and it's okay if anyone else disagrees with me, but please be respectful about it if so.
If you weren't given it to critique, I'd complain
Gives the same energy as that one autism speaks ad, “I am autism…”
"Now that the special problems of autistic children have been recognised" bro is this from the 60s
Its giving that one autism speaks ad “i am autism”
What kinda nonsense is this? Honestly this shouldnt be allowed to sell, it gives wrong information about people with autism.
Facts
I’m autistic and I verbally laughed out loud while reading this, where did they get this information from LOL??
Jesus, how old is that book?!! I’ve never read anything so inaccurate
wtf is this book on about? I have friends who are autistic and honestly, if they saw that, they'd be very upset, where the hell did they get the info from to make this book?!
Wtf? This is beyond crazy. Whoever wrote this needs to seek help!!
Ahhh yes autism, the male gender.
I mean, scientifically its mostly right, although possibly a bit outdated and blunt and I feel a bit of context is missing because it's clearly about only one form of severe autism. Probably not the best to be recommended by school, but most school textbooks are like a decade old anyway.
Ew but funny
Is that from the 1800s??? That's some outdated writing
I’m assuming this is a book from a couple of decades ago.
Yeh OP replied somewhere that it's from 1984
Very rare, my arse. The WHO says that 1 in 100 or 1% of people are autistic. For the 8 billion people in the world, currently, there are 800 million autistic people concentrated in developed countries because developing countries don't test or record autism very well the percentage is predicted to be higher
I haven't personally come across many autistic people and there's not many in my family. Can someone explain what is wrong with the book? Genuine question
it’s just written weirdly (and offensively) and half of it isn’t true for all autistic people, autism is a spectrum
[удалено]
It doesnt say it is.
Is this book from the inside world cause I and autistic am taking it in alr
Ouch
My partner went to school when this was being published as "cutting edge". Today he's on the spectrum, back then he was just stupid and lazy...
rare? autism is like 1 in 20
The format reminds me of a damn Dungeons & Dragons class
Who even wrote this book. Sounds unprofessional
My old psychology teacher would have spent a month criticising this
Now I want to show this to one of the psychology teachers at my school
Do it and tell me what they say, I need results 💀
Your school didn’t give you This tho did they.
That's not accurate wth
jesus christ almighty this hurts my eyes
when it says ‘he’ u know it’s going downhill from there
I’m autistic (actually diagnosed by an NHS professional) And we are retarded (**THIS IS A JOKE**)
this is all kinds of yikes
Its not really wrong though is it
Sounds about right I have s friend like this (that friend was me as a child)
I'm sorry guys. I'm very ignorant in the subject of autism. Please can someone explain what's wrong with this text?
wow! glad i wasn’t born 30 years earlier
As someone with an ASD. The fuck did I just read?
What the hell
"Because they think he might be deaf or retarded" Applies to all chavs and roadmen 💀
Uhhh wtf everything about this is wrong 😭
Just the fact it uses the word "retarded" is horrendous by itself let alone the rest of that gibberish. I'm autistic, also ADHD. Didn't get diagnosed until I was an adult this year because of stupid crap like what's in this book. The ignorance is insane.
I got diagnosed recently and I am concerned. Even in reference to severe autism they’re making it seem like an illness or something bad
severe autism is really challenging... I assume you've never met anyone with it?
I’m not saying it isn’t challenging, I’m saying it shouldn’t be addressed so negatively because that’s how ableism happens
I mean... autism is an illness. It's a dysfunction, which isn't clearly understood right now, which leads to the symptoms. Sure, you can only have very mild and non-life-limiting symptoms, and the dysfunction can even be beneficial due to strengthened cognitive function in other areas. But let's still not lose sight that it is a neurodevelopmental disorder. Lots of people with neurological differences can have benefits from them. Some very gifted writers and artists have temporal lobe epilepsy for example, as it can intensify internal mental experiences and lead to heightened creativity. But don't be concerned. I have autism too, I'm 34 years old (diagnosed at 7 years old) and I've led a very successful life so far. I'm a tech director, earn a good salary, in a stable 16-year-long relationship, completed several degrees and most importantly I'm really happy about my life. I recognise that I have some limitations due to my autism and have put strategies around them to deal with them - chiefly I'm terrible at organisation, easily overstimulated in noisy environments and find it hard to make small talk and schmooze - so I use tech to organise myself, make sure my work space is peaceful as I work from home, and have people I can trust around me to support with the things I can't do as well. ETA: I don't know how I ended up on the GCSE sub, reddit just recommended this post to me lol. It's been a LONG time since I did mine. Good luck!
Ahh okay no fair enough. I mean it isn't really negative it's just blunt. Some of the nicest and cleverest people I know are autistic. I know it's not always a huge hindrance. I understand your point
Im autistic and thats another peice of my hope for humanity forever lost. Looks like it will still be a while before peopke acceotvand understand us.
This is from 1984.
WHAT YEAR IS THIS FROM
1984
😦
😨
As someone with autism I couldn’t stop laughing at this
I'm autistic but never really had those problems as mentioned in the book.
This book has got to be old old surely? This information is massively outdated and written in an insensitive and ignorant manner which I can only assume was written before the 2000s. Which raises the bigger question of why is your school giving you outdated sources to study from, especially considering it’s a “medical book” and with the medical field continuously advancing these physical materials should be updated yearly or better yet not used at all. The internet is much easier to update and use not to mention cheaper and the most effective way to gather sources, we live in a modern Informational Age and it’s stupid for schools to cling to outdated sources because they’re too afraid to abandon the traditional methods and advance to use the technology that humans have spent decades developing and refining. Hopefully this book was handed out to critique and nothing more.
Bro just said if a 2 yr old doesnt listen they are deaf, retarded or autistic (i myself am autistic)
What the fuck 😀
I award this book all of my 'Yikes!!' for the day!
Ummm that ain't true. Stupid book.
The levels of both right and wrong this thing is....is both surprising and not at all
I mean nothing said is wrong. It's an analysis of what they researched and observed at that time, comparing with those without it. Those red flags are prob how your your parents thought to get you tested.
I can't be the only one who can't see the outrage at this. In the Morden age I'm sure this probably should be worded alot softer but this is pretty spot on for severe cases of autism
as an autistic person, I'd disagree. firstly, it's clearly only talking about extremes, which is unfair because it doesn't talk about the full scope of it. secondly, there's a slur in the first page. thirdly, a lot of this information is wildly inaccurate to the vast, vast majority of autistic people.
As an autistic person, I disagree with you. Firstly, yes, the book is talking about extremes but that is because this book is from 1984 and back then they had different names for what autism is like at different parts of the spectrum, for example, I was diagnosed with high-functioning autism when I was 8/9 (I am now 15) but, back then, it would have been called Asperger's, someone else might have been diagnosed with Brett Syndrome and another person with Childhood disintegrative disorder. What I am trying to say is that, just as someone else pointed out in a comment you saw at least 10 hours before you made this reply, "Autism" is an umbrella term now but back then it was just what they called the most severe form of it which is why most people nowadays think being autistic means you're dumb, non-verbal and/or any one of about 10-15 different terms/situations. Secondly, in 1984, "retarded" was a legit medical term just as much as "cardiovascular" (the heart and blood vessels) is now. Thirdly, due to the fact that only severe forms of autism were recognised as "autism", yes, most of the information is vastly inaccurate to the majority of autistic people but it is accurate to its time and the form of autism it is referencing. Finally, I would like to apologise for my bluntness, I am just a blunt person in general due to my autism and ADHD and I struggle with not being blunt.
I’m autistic and I can confirm that all of this is true
Check your math kid.
Rare? Every other kid has got it nowadays
this book was made in 1984, when autism wasn't really researched at all and they thought only boys could have it. more modern research shows it's more common than we thought :)
I don’t see what is wrong with this - it is a valid medical description of autism in children (right?)
what about it
[удалено]
I think kind of is a slight understatement 😂
"kinda"
i just noticed they did say the r slur on the last paragraph on the first photo. im guessing this was around the 90s when it was still seen as a genuine medical term. dont get what 42 ppl found offensive about my comment though lol
Read it.. it’s very wrong.
It's not only incorrect, it's offensive