Aspergers, drawing and art

Many kids with Aspergers do not enjoy drawing and colouring.  This could be due to the fact that many have less ‘handedness differentiation’ – neither hand has better developed control, so drawing (and eventually writing) is more difficult.  But there could be more to it than that.

Just as there seems to be a difficulty in translating thoughts into a written form, some Aspies experience a similar difficulty in translating visual images into a drawing.

This is strictly my own observation, and I am not aware of a connection between these two aspects in any professional literature, but I cannot but wonder if this is a different expression of one underlying problem.  Let me describe it a little bit.

My dad has never been diagnosed with Aspergers – nor has he ever sought an opinion on the topic.  However, I do see some similarities between the way he, my sons and I processes information – at least, in some instances.  When we were trying to figure out this whole ‘Aspergers’ thing, he shared with me something that happened to him, when he was about 10 years old.

Standards and teaching methods in school were a little differen in his days, and teachers were more authoritarian.  During an art class, a substitute teacher said they were to draw a picture of a pig and hand it in at the end of the class.   A simple assignment – right?  Except that nobody had ever taught him how to go about drawing a picture of a pig… and my dad simply could not figure out how to even start.

He sat there, for the whole period, without making a single mark on his sheet of paper.  The teacher was not pleased.  As a matter of fact, he got very angry.  My dad was smart and had high marks, but he was not the most compliant of students.  The teacher would not believe him when my dad said he did not know how to do draw a pig, and concluded this was simply defiance…  and to report to him after school for detention.

The detention?  My dad was to sit at his desk until he drew the picture of a pig, then he was to bring it to the teacher’s office.  Once that was done, he could go home.  But try as he might, he simply could not resolve the image of a pig into its componenet parts, which he could then draw.  So, he sat at his desk, for several hours.  Finally, the janitor took pity on him. 

He, too, found it hard to believe a kid could not figure out how to draw a pig, but when he saw my dad just sitting there, for hours, he took a plain piece of paper and a pencil, drew a rectangle for a body, a triangle with a dot for the head and an eye, four sticks coming out of the bottom of the rectangle for legs and a curly spring on the back for tail.  “Here” he said.  “A pig!”

This was a revelation to my dad!  He easily reproduced the simplified ‘pig’ onto his sheet of paper, brought it to the teacher, and was allowed to go home.  

I have since met several people who do not naturally have an ability to break down a visual image into subsets, individual lines, which could then be put onto paper.  However, they can be shown how to go about it, and learn the process – just that to be effective, this process of learning needs to take place when they are older than when most kids learn to draw. 

Similarly, many Aspies do not have a natural ability to break a thought into constituent parts that can be written down – we start looking up words, checking spelling and grammar, wonder about better ways of saying it…. and end up producing very few actual words…  Yet, like with drawing, this process can also be learned – and it, too, will only be effectively learned at a later age than that of non-Aspie peers.

Could it be the same ‘prioritization’ or ‘orderig’ of ‘stuff’ that is causing both effects?

Another connection between them:  once Aspies ‘learn’ this process, they do not simply ‘learn’ it, they often ‘master’ it, and become better at it than most other people.  And yes, some do become successful writers or artists… Eccentric, yes, but successful.

Is this simply ‘overcompensation’?  Or is there something else at play here?

Aspergers and writing – holding on to that thought!

Different people are affected by Asperger Syndrome differently, and to varying degrees – it is more of a ‘continuum’ than an ‘on/off switch’.  I am by no means an expert – but I have some experience in living with it, and raising kids who are also Aspies.  The following will not work for everybody, but it did work for one of my kids.  Perhaps it may help another family, too – if not to improve skills, then at least to build an understanding.

Many Aspies are quite capable of speaking their mind, but have difficulty writing.  Previously, I have noted several factors that could be at play.  Here, I would like to look at only one of these:  how to hold on to that thought long enough to write it down.

Whether it is some problem with short-term memory, a non-differentiation in the prioritization of our 7-or-so ‘attention slots’, or if it is due to different causality, the practical result is that many Aspie kids say: ‘there are so many ideas swirling in my head, I cannot hold on to one thought long enough to write it down’. 

This problem could be related to ADD – a condition which often occurs along with Aspergers.  And it is something that can be incredibly frustrating.  The child knows the answer, but there is some kind of a breakdown in the communication between the brain and the hand…  To an outside observer, it looks like nothing less than obstinance!

The earlier it is discovered that a child has this aspect of Aspergers, the easier it is to correct.  As is so often the case, the smarter the child is, the longer they can ‘mask’ the problem by ‘leveraging their core competencies’.  (Ooooh, I do love it when I talk bureaucreteese – while I don’t have to!  I amuse easily.)  This can be a good thing:  if the problem is mild, this can be a way the child ‘owns’ the problem and develops perfectly tailored coping mechanisms.

My son’s problem, however, was not mild.  Even though he did well, hiding his problem for quite a long time, half way through grade 2 he simply ‘got stuck’.  And even when we discovered it, it was completely new to us.  Nobody seemed to understand why he would sit at a desk for an hour and manage to write less than 3 words.

In grade 1, he tackled his inabiltiy to learn to read – and leapfrogged his peers, reading ‘The Lord Of The Rings’ on his own during the summer.  He had mastered the mechanics of forming letters – this also had been a struggle in grade 1.  (He had gone to a Montessori pre-school, where he learned to iron washcloths instead.)  So, we had been optimistic that we were ready for grade 2!

And now, this – to us – unprecedented and inexplicable inability to write even the siplest sentences.  The teacher was great, and even took a seminar to see if she could learn about this – but by this point, we had never even heard the word ‘Aspergers’, or what it means.  It took us a long time, but we finally worked out a way to get written work done.

  1. My son and I would sit at the table, he would read the question, and say the answer out loud.   
  2. I would write the answer in large, clear letters on a notepad. 
  3. I would place the notepad on the table, and he’d get ready to write his answer.
  4. Now I asked:  “What is the question?”  – He’d read it out loud again.
  5. “What is the answer?”  –  He’d say the whole answer again.
  6. “What is the first word?”  –  He’d repeat it.
  7. “What is the first letter?”  –  He’d repeat it and write it.
  8. “What is the second letter?”  –  He’d repeat it and write it.
  9. “What is the third letter?”  –  He’d repeat it….

And so on.

Except that, at the beginnig, by the second letter, he would forget what it was.  And what the word was.  And what the question was.  So, we’d go back to reading the question, answering it, reading what he had written, and forcing him to realize what the next letter was.  

It was hard, and it took a long time.  Especially in the beginning – it could easily take us an hour to write 4 sentences.  But, he was doing it!  And over time – long time – he built up the capacity to hold on to more and more information, before needing to go back and re-checking it.

At first, on the advice of the teacher, we had instituted a ‘reward system’.  She was one of those teachers who really care – and I don’t know if I could have done it without her.  And, because I did not give my kids too many sweets – she suggested that some very small candies or raisins could be used as ‘earned rewards’ – say once a sentence or a particularly long word is completed.

The reward system was working.  Not that it would make the work easier, or that it would motivate him to write faster.  It did not work in that way.  But, as hard as all this was on me, it was even harder on my son:  he had just spent a full day at school – good and bad – and now we were sitting at the table for hours, working.  That is a lot for a 7-year-old!  The ‘reward’ was exactly that – it allowed him to graphically see his progress!  As my pre-measured ‘pile’ of ‘rewards’ on the table was shrinking, so was the amount of work still ahead of him.

That is something neat:  Aspies like rules.  They are much more likely to reach their potential in a highly structured environment, where the expectations are very, very clear.  In a way, the ‘rewards’ were a little bit of ‘structure’, a measure of how much work is still expected from him.  Anyhow, he seemed calmer, and more ‘focused’.

Soon, I started finding the ‘rewards’ in his pockets when I would do laundry.  This puzzled me – so I asked him about it.  His answer?  “Well, I don’t really like to eat when I’m doing my work, but you looked so happy giving me the treats that I did not want to spoil it for you!”

After this, we switched from edible rewards to other non-edible ‘markers’:  marbles, poker chips, pebbles, or even coins from his piggy bank.  He got to pick what we would use that day, and helped count out the ‘markers’.  Once he had earned them all, we would put them back into their baggie, and into the ‘marker box’.  He liked that.

It was slow going.  After about a week of this, we both noticed that we would almost fall into a rhythm of question-answer-write.  And that really was the point when we both noticed beginnings (very, very beginnings) of progress!  Just to vary it – for fun – we started calling it out in the rhythm of that song soldiers sing to keep beat, with the question-answer called out loudly. 

My son loved it, and called it ‘writing with shouting’.  He explained to me that when we were ‘writing with shouting’, the sound scared away the other thoughts, so he could sometimes hold on to three or even four letters before needing to go back to see what word it was he was writing!  He would be excited by this, and ask for us to ‘do the writing with shouting’.

Excited by this progress, I reported back to the teacher how well we were doing.  Perhaps I was a bit hahazard in how it all tumbled out of me, but I was very excited and happy to tell her.  I did not get the reaction I expected.  She looked aghast, and started crying.  When I asked why, she said: 

“The poor child!  He’s trying so hard!  And you took away his treats and are shouting at him instead!”

I explained better.  So, why exactly does ‘relief’ make people want to punch my arm?

In conclusion, it did work – but it was a long, hard road.  The performance level at school rose faster than my son’s skills, so it could be downright discouraging at times.  But, we stuck with it – there was about a 3 week period when we worked 3-4 hours a day at it, and there was not a single day when we did not spend at least 2 hours ‘writing’ – without or ‘with shouting’!  And we beat it! 

Eventually, we would not need to go letter by letter.  Instead, we went word by word.  We got there during grade 3….  But the habit of having me write the answers down, and then writing them down himself with the notepad in front of him ‘for when he needed it’ – we continued that until the end of grade 5.  And, if the schoolwork really piled up, I would sometimes (with the teachers’ permissions) script for him.  One needs to be flexible when the workload is greater… and other learning must not be neglected.  Eventually, his writing skills have caught up with the amount of work required of him at school.   

It took a ‘few’ years, but we beat it!  It was not the last problem with ‘writing’ that we encountered, but it was by far the most effort-intensive to overcome.  But it was worth it!

Animal-speak: squirrels

Believe it or not, I used to wear a hat like this!

nihilism - xkcd

I also am a bit of a nihilist.  And I love squirrels!!!

Yet another character shamelessly based on me…

Ego-aggrandizing jokes aside, I do love watching squirrels.  They are an easy animal to see in the city, and I love nature way too much to spoil it by stomping through it. So, urban wildlife is it for me.

Perhaps because I am not naturally good at reading people’s facial expressions and body language (as is common with Aspies), I have learned the habit of really paying attentinon these – or, at least, trying to.  But, only used it with Humans and pets, not really giving other critters too much credit.

I was quite young when I realized how mutually incompatible the ‘natural’ body language of cats and dogs is.  Yet, cats and dogs who lived together (especially if they did so from an early age) are quite capable of learning each other’s language.  Well, if cats and dogs could learn another species’ language, I should certainly be able to ‘learn’ this elusive body language of humans!!!

As I have argued before, kids with Aspergers who are having trouble discovering the ‘key’ to human communication can often decode the somewhat ‘simpler’ (or, perhaps, less complex) body/expression language of animals.  …sort of like learning to crawl before one attempts the marathon of nuances in human ‘non-verbal communication’.

Back to my main point!  As the trees matured in our neighbourhood, we began to see more and more squirrels who came to our bird feeders.  One winter, we were especially touched by ‘The Twins’.  Late in the summer, they started coming with their mom.  We suspect they must have been born later in the season, because they were very tiny.  And, before the first snow came, we stopped seeing the mom…

Yet, ‘The Twins’ stuck together.  They were very, very affectionate to each other, touching and reassuring each other often.  The smaller, bolder one would climb up the birdfeeder and throw food to the other Twin!  (  The Twins stuck together until late next summer, always together.)  Well, that winter, I started putting out food specifically for the squirrels….

Several years have passed, and one of the twins has returned here with three separate litters of her own!!!  Two of these litters were after she had become blind in her right eye, too.  Now I call her ‘One-eyed Jackie’, and she is the matriarch of the ‘Bruno’ (they are much browner than most our visitors) clan of squirrels. 

Besides the ‘Brunos’, we have two other ‘clans’ that come here.  One is called ‘Fuzzy-wuzzies’, because they have incredibly fuzzy fur, especially on their ears.  These are closely related to the ‘Brunos’, and they often mix.  The third ‘clan’ that comes here are called the ‘Zekes’ – and do not get along with the other two clans at all.  Curiously enough, they get their name from the Blue Jays that come here….

Yes, last summer, we had a family of Blue Jays come regularly, too.  And one of the adults was not at all shy!  If I was late putting our their breakfast, or if I the food I put out was not her favourite (I am guessing here that it was the female – we are more discriminating…), she would sit on a branch directly in front of the door, and in a loud, incredibly annoying voice, screech ‘Zeeeeeeke!!!’ – over and over, until she woke me up and I put out the approved food.

Believe it or not, the matriarch of the ‘Zekes’ learned to immitate that call!!!

Many times did I come out, looking for the Blue Jays that were not there, only to see her sitting on ‘the branch’.  It was not until I heard her actually make that call that I realized that it was she who was making it!  Obviously, I had underestimated the squirrel’s linguistic skills.  She has since also learned to perfectly immitate the neighbour’s little dog’s bark.  I began to pay more attention.  (It would probably have been faster to just read up on it, but I had fun watching them.) 

Soon, I identified that the clicking sounds they made were not random.  If I immitated the ‘clicks’, starting at the back of the mouth and moving forward, the squirrels took it as a ‘all safe’ sign, and would come down from the tree.  Even if the dog was nearby.  (It’s ok, he does not hunt them – he is a watchdog, so he just likes to watch!  When a squirrel once fell out of the tree and landed right in front of his nose, he started crouch-jumping up like he does when he is trying to get another dog to play with him.)

a dog who likes to watch squirrels

If I reversed the order of clicks, increasing the volume, the squirrels would panick and run!  Even if there were no danger anywhere about!  Then, seeing all was safe, they would flick their tails a lot and come back down.

Over that summer, I learned about 5 different ‘sets’ of clicks, each of which would be understood by ‘my’ squirrels.  Now I had a question:  did I really learn something of ‘their’ language, or have they learned to simply interpret my behaviour?  This was something I had to test, and an opportunity soon presented itself.

My son and I went to an event in a park about 5 km away from our house – far enough, I hoped, that I would not encounter ‘my guys’.  We were sitting in our lawnchairs, listening to some music, when a squirrel started hopping from one tree to another.  I saw my chance!

I started with my ‘all safe’ set of clicks – it was the first one I learned and I was most comfortable with it.  Plus, it is rather quiet – there were people about… 

The squirrel stopped in its tracks, as if frozen, and just listened.  Encouraged, I repeated the clicks, and added a second set (I think this one means ‘food is present’).  The poor little squirrel perked up its ears, and started looking about.  Actually, it looked a bit paranoid.  I kept up the soft sets of clicks. 

Suddenly, and with great incredulity, the squirrel realized that I was the source of this jibberish!

Well, this became one confused squirrel.  It resumed its original journey to the tree, but now, very, very slowly – and never taking its eyes off of me.  It kept turning its head, side to side, as if to confirm that it really was that human that was chatting with it.  I suppose I must have had an atrocious accent – and I fervently hope I did not say anything bad about its mother!

I guess you can predict how this story ends….  The squirrel was on a direct path to the tree, but was too shocked at the stuff coming out of my mouth to pay attention to where it was going….  Yes.  The squirrel hit the tree!

Hopped straight into it!

This was the only time ever that I saw a squirrel run into a tree.  So, I shut up.  Anyhow, I had to go and help my son up – he laughed so hard, he tipped over his lawnchair!

XKCD – Aspie Humour

Many people claim that Aspies do not have a sense of humour.  NOT TRUE!!!

We certainly do enjoy humour.  Some of us naturally find some things funny, others need to learn the rules of humour – but we certainly enjoy it.

In my never-humble opinion, teaching kids with Aspergers the rules of humour may be helpful with overall social skill development.  I have done this, and seen the improvement in their ability to interact with their peers and the resultant increased comfort level with themselves.

Here is how I might go about ‘explaining humour’:

There are several things that constitute ‘humour’ and different people will find different things funny – so there is no need to feel bad when you understand a joke, without thinking it is funny.  Some people think that anything to do with bodily functions is funny – and they will laugh when someone farts, or of they burp.  Other people think this is gross and not at all funny.  So, it is normal that not everyone finds every joke funny.

Many poeple laugh when they find themselves in situations which either do not go as expected, or when some danger is lifted.  This is done to release tension which people experience in such situations, and which is unpleasant.  It demonstrates to others that either the danger has passed, or that even though things are unexpected, the new course of actions is acceptable.

Perhaps that is why so many jokes are ‘funny’ because of an ‘unexpected’ or surprising ending.  It might even tie in with why ‘strange’ or ‘different’ or ‘unexpected’ is sometimes called ‘funny – but not as in ha-ha’.  Puns are an excellent example:  the correct (or correctly sounding) word is used, but in with an unexpected meaning.

It is not easy for Aspie kids that many cartoons rely on facial expressions to convey humour.  That is why I was so entertained when I came across this (not aimed at kids) comic, XKCD.  To me, it screams ‘Aspie Humour’!

And since along with a sense of humour, many people incorrectly describe Aspies as lacking feelings or empathy, I have selected, for your viewing pleasure, these few XKCD comics:

We like to spend time with our loved ones.

We love to spend time with our loved ones - XKCD

 

Passion reaches new levels for us!

Sharing thought - XKCD

 

 Of course, we may have a hard time remembering names….  Nothing personal!

forgetting names - XKCD

 

 Yet, we can be very particular in whom we select as potential mates:

xenocide - XKCD

Personally, I could not date someone who did not thing ‘Ender’s Shadow’ was the best book in this series.  Ok, if he were cute, I might settle for ‘Shadow of the Hegemon’.  But ‘Xenocide’??? Really!

And ‘pillow talk’ is much easier if both of you are Aspies….

pillow talk - XKCD

 

And many of us fully appreciate the advantages of online interactions with others (my husband claims this ‘has to be’ taken from one of my online comments….):

venting - XKCD

 

Here is a good example of how not everyone ‘gets’ every joke.  For example, in the following one, I do not understand why the characters are implying this practice is unusual.  Surely, it is the norm!  (See my posts on Old Men in the Bible)

graphs - XKCD

 

But we all enjoy good quality entertainment!  (And no, this is NOT just a cheap ploy to get ‘Papyrus font’ onto my blog!  Though, who could resist the allures or ‘Papyrus Font’???  It’s even better intelic…)

 River Tam - XKCD

 EVERYONE loves River Tam!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Obama’s apostasy

It is unusual for me to write about the US presidential race, because, frankly, it is a bit overdone.  We are inundated with the minutest details and the wildest speculations over and over, whether we care or not.

Yet, there is one very important speculation that I have never heard voiced.  Perhaps it is my own fault for shutting out so much of the detail, and it has been covered and dealt with.  If that is the case, then I beg your forgiveness.  But, if it has not been addressed, then I would humbly request that people give this some sober, realistic consideration.

Different people – and nation states – react very differently to identical ‘facts’.  Mundane example: I see a rabbit, I will think ‘pet’.  Another person looks at a rabbit, they may see ‘dinner’.  It would be unreasonable to expect the same reaction from both of us to being served a rabbit-burger.  The same is true of many, many things, not all of them mundane or witout deep impact.

Many supporters of Mr. Obama’s bid for the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the Presidency of the USA, say that he would be well received in the world, and enjoy much more credibililty than either Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain.  While his lack of experience and specific policies he suggested may have come under attack, his supporters maintain that his multicultural outlook would be great assets giving him (an by extension, the USA) great credibility, especially in Africa.

But are we not overlooking one extremely important point?  Mr. Obama is an apostate to Islam – and much of the Muslim world, including in Africa, consider this to be very bad thing indeed.

This has less to do with the views of Mr. Obama himself.  It does not concern anything a preacher he’d listened to may or may not believe.  All it has to do with is the fact that as a child and young man, Mr. Obama was a Muslim, and now he is not.  He does not deny that – nor has he ever tried to.  By definition, this makes him an Apostate.

The very fact that he has converted from Islam to another faith may make it impossible for many fundamentally Islamic nation-states to accept him.  After all, rightly or wrongly, many of them do interpret The Qur’an, specifically Sura (chapter) 4, verses 89-92: “If they turn away [convert away from Islam], then sieze them and kill them wherever you find them;…”. 

Also, many Muslims use several books in addition to the Qur’an.  These are not given the central importance that Qur’an is, but because they contain the collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and strories of his life, these are often used as a guide according to which the Qur’an is supposed to be interpreted.  One of these is often quoted as to the proper interpretation of the above verse: ‘Bukhari’ 4.52.260 – “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’

In 2006, a man was sentenced to death in Afghanistan for having converted from Islam to Christianity.  This was well after the Taliban were out of power, but even the moderates in Afghanistan did not understand why people in ‘The West’ were upset by this.  Most of us are familiar with the case of Lina Joy, and others like her.

In fact, four of the major Sunni as well as the major Shia schools of Islam all agree that a sane, adult male who converts away from Islam deserves the death penalty. 

I offer this as an entirely pragmatic consideration:  will some people be able to see Mr. Obama, the man, or will they only see an Apostate? 

How will they react if the USA elects an ‘Apostate President’? 

Aspergers and accurate words

School!  It can be a testing place at the best of times!

For people who need to use ‘precise’ and ‘accurate’ words to describe things as those of us with Aspergers do, it can be baffling.  After all, one becomes used to the vocabulary and expectations at home – but at school, the rules are different.  And people just do not communicate clearly.  In the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

Let me give you an example.

Schools are filled with many kind and caring people who truly have the best intentions towards our kids.  They are dedicated.  At times, they will even enter ‘uncomfortable’ situations, if they think the ultimate result will help one of ‘their’ kids.  I admire that.

One year, at the beginning of winter – just as it was time to start wearing hats and mits etc. – I got a phone call from one of my kids’ teachers.  Even though I am pretty thick at picking up on such clues, I could tell she was very uncomfortable.  She spoke in a little soft voice and picked her words very carefully.

The school, as it turns out, gets some free ‘stuff’ from the milk people, through the milk program.  Yes.  And it there are some families, which – at some times, and through no fault of their own – needed a little help, they could give these things as ‘prizes’ to their kids.  Since it is a ‘prize’, there is no stigma…

I was really beginning to wonder what this was about.  We were not in any financial difficulties – at least, I thought I would notice if we were.  So I made a non-commital sound, to show I was listening…

The teacher, kindly and gently, continued.  The promotional items they had included hats.  Since the weather was getting kind of cool, it was important that kids should wear hats.  And, today, during recess, my son had told her that he does not own a hat, and that he does not think we’re planning to buy him one.  So, if it would not cause offense, they could give him a hat from the milk programme…

Whatever reaction she was expecting, laughter was not it.  But, I just could not help myself!  I burst our laughing.  You see, my son was absolutely correct!!!  Yet, I owed the teacher an explanation…

The previous weekend, we had indeed gone shopping for a new winter hat.  My son became intrigued by these ‘hat and neckwarmer in one’ contraptions.  It looked just like a winter hat that was attached to the ‘neck’ part of a turtleneck.  It had a nice round opening for the whole face, but covered more skin than a ‘hat’ would.  That is what he chose to get instead of a regular hat.

And what did he wear the previous winter (to be used as a spare)?  A tuque!  If many people think that ‘tuque’ and ‘hat’ are the same, they should be corrected:  if they were the same, they would not have different names!!!

So, with puppy-dog eyes, solemnly and truthfully, my son told his teacher that he does not onw a hat!  And when she asked if we were just slow at getting ready for the winter, he truthfully said that we were not planning to get him one…instead of simply saying he forgot his new headwarmer.

The teacher was amused and greatly relieved! I suspect the story was used as a source of amusement at the teacher’s lounge. 

But this is a very real example of how people with Aspergers do not understand what they are being asked, unless the accurate word is used.  The terms used must be specific, precise and accurate, because Aspies do not ‘make leaps of faith’ or read things into stuff.  If we don’t know, we don’t know – we are not likely to jump to unsupportable conclusions.  The teacher would likely have received a different answer had she asked him if he owned something to wear on his head to keep it warm.

Another example of ‘crossed communications’ occurred when my other son was very, very young – certainly under 2 years old.  He absolutely loved watching ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’, and absorbed much of his early vocabulary from that show.

One time, my mom was over, and was in the livingroom with my son.  When I came into the room, she was frustrated:  “I told him to stop picking his nose, but he just stares back at me as if I just fell off the moon!  What is wrong with him?!?!?”

I told her he just did not understand what she meant.  He already had a nose, so how could he pick another one?

Turnning to him, I said:  “Stop touching your mucuous membranes.”

He took his finger out of his nose, looked at me and said:  “Ah, spread germs!”  And went to wash his hands…

These may be funny incidents, but they do illustrate the difficulties Aspies have trying to understand people who use language sloppily.  Just imagine how impenetrable the meaning of many test questions is to them!!!  No wonder they often score very poorly on school tests – many questions do not really ask what they think they ask…

(This is ALWAYS the hardest part of writing a post:  how to end it!  I could go on talking about this endlessly…)

Aspies can, and do, learn to search the speech patterns of others for ‘similar concepts’ – this way, many Aspies learn to ‘decipher’ common speech.  And when we do, we are often so delighted, we drive others mad by playing with it!  Yet, this is not an easy skill to acquire, and it would not be realistic to expect young kids to ‘pick it up’.  This will lead to frustration – not just of the child, but also of educators, parents and others who interact with Aspie kids.

And, Aspie kids usually experience very high levels of frustration, even if they do not communicate this (or display the ‘typical’ signs of frustration, until it builds up into uncontrollable anger).  Making all these people aware of the need for accurate, precise and non-ambiguous use of language (and what that actually is – in the mind of an Aspie) would go a long way towards making life easier for everyone involved. 

If we could only teach the rest of the world to communicate accurately!

Climate Change Tales

The whole ‘Global Warming’ – under whatever name one chooses – issue is a mess.  Unmitigated, tangled up and muddled mess.

So, how can a person make sense of it all?

Frankly, I don’t know.  What I do know, however, is that we are actively being presented with only a very small part of the story through the main stream media (MSM).  And I also know that reasonable points raised by bonafide scientists from the field of climate change are being shouted down or smeared before their ideas are even listened to.

That is not how scientific debate occurs.  It is anathema to science itself!  In true scientific community, people are willing to listen to dissenting points of view – provided these are scientific and  testable hypothesies (using the term in the narrow, scientific sense).  Why?  The reason for this is very simple:  sometimes, even what appear to be ‘crackpot’ ideas may indeed turn out to be better models of reality than the original theories.

Scientists are only human.  Yes, as much as this is contrary to some opinions, they are only human.  Many times in the past, the ‘current scientific consensus’ was just silly in rejecting even the consideration of ‘things’ that we now regard as integral tools of science: 

“… my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.”

                                                                                        –     Galileo Galilei

Today, most scientists are careful to not have the ‘obstinacy of a glutted adder’, and tend to seriously examine ideas which run contrary to mainstream opinions.  How far are they prepared to go?  Well, consider the case of Dr. Peter Duesberg:  he came out with not just one, but two controversial theories. 

In the first one, he proposed that while there is a co-occurrence of the HIV virus and AIDS, he thought the causality had not been established with sufficient scientific rigour.  (I am not particularly versed in his theory – if I am misrepresenting it, I apologize.  The point is not his theory as such, but the scientific community’s reaction to it.) 

The reaction? 

Scientists actually went and checked his data, looked over his studies, and found where he had made mistakes.  Even so, his views are often referred to in scientific publications on HIV/AIDS, in order to ensure that the scientific basis for refuting them is easily available.

Long after this, he proposed another very controversial scientific hypothesis:  this time on the nature of cancer.  Even though he was one of the researchers to have identified one of the ‘cancer genes’, he now proposed that cancer may be more due to chromosomal abnormalities than to problems within individual genes.  Again, the details of his hypothesis are less important than the reaction it received.

Even though his first hypothesis has been flatly rejected, scientists listened when he proposed this one.  In May 2007, Scientific American published his controversial theory in an article called ‘Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer’.  Earlier in the same issue, the editor’s page was titled ‘When Pariahs Have Good Ideas’, where the editors explain that even though Dr. Duesberg’s ideas on HIV/AIDS have been discredited, he might have a good point here and that scientific ideas ought to be judged on thier merit

So, what was my point in bringing up Dr. Duesberg? 

To show how scientists tend to evaluate ideas, even from scientists who have been proven wrong in the past:  they tests them, then – right or wrong – they reference them.  One thing they certainly do not do is try to shut each other up.  That would be unscientific! 

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

                                                                                       –     Galileo Galilei

Sadly, this is not happening in the field of Climate….

Scientists who do not subscribe to the ‘bad humans making Earth too hot and this will be a disaster’ point of view have systematically been insulted, bullied, their reputations smeared and jobs threatened, and more than one has received threats of bodily harm.  As Dickens might say:  “What the Sheakespeare is going on here?!?!?!?’ 

Oh, but I have made some general accusations here:  I had better support them! 

Here is one article from the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, a scientist who had been threatened, and who has seen others under similar pressure.  In this April 2006 article, he also charges scientific publications ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’ with bias and underhanded tactics.  He also names several other scientists who have faced threats.

If the Wall Street Journal is not your cup of tea, here is an article from ‘Telegraph’ from the UK about the death threats received by scientists who publicly question the ‘global warming catastrophy’ dogma.  But this is only a small sample of a large body of scientists who are speaking up.

Sadly, most people don’t realy get to hear what these scientists have to say.  Their views are not often published.  Why?  I don’t know.  However, here is an article from ‘The Australian’ about how journalists at ‘The Age’ (an Australian publication) had been ordered to not write anything negative about the ‘Earth Hour’ earlier this month:

“Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”

All right, ‘Earth Hour’ is just fluff – what about real climate stories?

It seems that we may not be getting the true story there, either.  Earlier this month, BBC (yes, THE BBC) had done a big ‘no-no’:  they totally changed the story, without noting it!!!

When a story is edited or changed, this is supposed to be noted.  However, BBC ran a story on the topic of climate, was bullied by a ‘climate activist’, and changed the whole meaning of the story WITHOUT NOTING THE CHANGE!!!  That is not very nice at all.

Thankfully, wee have access to the full email exchange of the activist’s bullying and the BBC reporter giving in.  It is a little long, but here is a telling phrase the activist used:

“I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.

Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.”

EMERGING TRUTH???

What about ‘documented truth’?

And ‘PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATED’

I cannot help but feel that we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are being manipulated here…  It seems certain that we are not getting an accurate picture of what scientists are truly finding out about these processes which might significantly impact us all.

 

Aspergers and writing

Writing is one of the major woes for people with Aspergers

It is difficult to describe the depth of despair most Aspies suffer when trying to put pen to paper.  And it starts very, very early on.  There appear (to me) to be at least three different ‘subsystems’ in the brain that are conspiring to make writing next to impossible for young Aspies.

The first one to be encountered is the ‘mechanics of writing’.  Many Aspies have less ‘sidedness‘ differentiation, so their ‘writing hand’ is less ‘dominant’ – and thus has less fine motor control – than most peoples.  This is often encountered early on in childhood – as a result, the kids may not enjoy drawing, or they may draw with both hands.  Regardless of drawing, however, Aspie kids usually display severe difficulties when learning the mechanics of writing.  This is more pronounced in cursive writing, where forming letters needs to be combined with smoothly moving the hand along the page, so many Aspies end up printing instead.  

I suspect this is a motor issue, and could be overcome by ‘overdoing’ the practice.  This has, to a degree, been my case:  where I went to school, we started out learning cursive, and we were marked on our handwriting.  I totally sucked at it, for the longest time.  Then, I saw what handwritings the teachers marked as the best, and shamelessly immitated them.  And yes, I spent endless hours practicing, because I was going to be *%$#*^# if those air-headed girls with ‘pretty’ handwriting got better marks than I did.  The result?  I am told I have extremely beautiful, though almost completely illegible, handwrititng!

Another problem which Aspies encounter when writing is – and this is based on my observations, not an expert assertion – a problem with short term memory.  At least six different kids with Aspergers have described it as ‘the ideas going by so fast, by the time I’m done the first letter, I don’t know what word I am writing’.  Now, this is very interesting, but worthy of a post of its own (soon, I hope).

The third major problem I have observed is a little more complicated.  I do not know how frequent it is, but again, I have observed it in very many Aspie kids.  It has to do with language, its use and the very words that make it up.  Also, many Aspies perceive there to be a big difference between what is spoken and written.   Perhaps a little explanation is needed…

Asperger Syndrome is often described as ‘verbally expressive form of Autism‘.  Now,  it is important to make a distiction here:  just because Aspergers falls under the same spectrum of disorders as Autism does, or that the spectrum itself may have the word ‘Autism’ in it, does not mean that it is nearly as crippling as Autism can be.  Comparing Aspergers to Autism (as the Ontario Government recently did, in order to deny Autistic children proper treatment) is about as accurate as comparing a sinus infection to pneumonia – both are respiratory system infections, but they are not the same in severety or affect.  It would be an inappropriate comparison.

While Aspies are usually able to speak extensively on a topic, most have a difficult time writing on a topic.  This is very curious and puzzling to many parents and educators:  it can appear as defiance! So, what is it that makes it OK to say things, but not to write them down?  Perhaps an unusual form of perfectionism could be at play here.

It is my observation that Aspeis, especially children, consider anything that is written down to be much, much more serious, important and permanent than what is spoken.  Even when practicing forming letters, some of these kids will be extremely anxious about not being able to get the shape just perfect.  Not Aspies are this extreme, but I certainly was, and so was one of my sons.  He was so terrified to commit an imperfect letter onto paper, we ended up getting him to practice writing onto clear plastic sheets (of the type you can put through the printer, to use for overhead presentations) with easy-wipe-off markers.  And even thought he could wipe off any letter he did not like, before anyone else could see it (and at first, he wiped off all of them), it was still hard for him.

It is my suspicion that in a similar way, it is difficult for Aspies to write ideas down because they are not sure if their idea is good enough to be commited to paper.  And even if they get over that, and judge the idea worthy – and this is the key here – it is next to impossible to express their idea accurately, using everyday language.

I have often wondered – and would appreciate feedback from those who have observed this – if something similar could be at play with Autism…  Many (not tall) autistic children are said to begin learning language relatively normally, but then at some point, they revert and begin to use language less and less.  Could it be possible that as they learned language, words attained ‘colouring’ – secondary, or implied meanings – unrelated to their ‘object or action definition’…. and that these words became perceived as no longer accuratley describing its original meaning, and therefore discarded?  I don’t know, but I would be curious what others think about this.

It is often asserted that Aspies use language somewhat rigidly, or sound very pedantic.  Could it be that a similar perfectionism in expressing an idea, a similar subconscious frustration with the inaccuracy of language, is at play when Aspies try to put ideas onto paper?

I love debating, and do it online.  And, people have noted, that whenever I get into a serious debate, I spend most of my time defining the specific and narrow meanings of every word I intend to use (plus a few others, that I exressly will not use).  Many people find it redundant, annoying and boring.  Some think it is a ploy to manipulate the debate.  But I do not intend it as any of these:  before I can express what I mean, I need to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the language I use to express my point.  General language simply cannot do the job!

There is no simple answer to overcoming this.  

Each Aspie may require a completely different approach, what works for one may not work for another.  It will take years.  And it will always take much more time and effort for an Aspie to write something than it would take most people.  (It usually takes me 2-6 hours to write any single post – and some, I have spent 14+ hours composing.)

Yet, Aspies can learn to write.  And when they do, the documents they produce are usually very well researched and accurately expressed!

“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”

While I have been taking a look at Aspergers, and describing some of my experiences and coping methods that worked for me, I have neglected a number of other very important topics. 

For example, I have promised to post on the topic of the climate.  And I promised that I would provide some solid information about why I hold the views I do.  Thus, I was preparing something on this. 

Alas, it is difficult to assess the information one is provided if one is not familiar with the underlying science behind the words.  More and more of what I have been reading from non-scientific (that is, MSM (main stream media) and many blogs, debating sites etc. – you know, all them places that have replaced the ‘watercooler chat’) has convinced me that before I can hope to provide useful information, it will be necessary to log in some explanations first.

As if to convince me that I ought to do this, in a coment on this post on a dime a dozen blog , somebody asked the following question: 

“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”

I thought this question needed to be addressed, the sooner the better.  Here is my (somewhat expanded) answer:

No.  CO2 does NOT kill plants.  Nor is it pollution!  It is plant food, and what plants use to make food for us.

There are 2 basic ‘gas exchange’ processes that occur in plants:  breathing (respiration) and photosynthesis.

RESPIRATION

Why breathe?  What is the purposeENERGY!!! 

To carry out the process of living, all cells need energy.  That is why we – and plants – need to breathe 24 hours a day.  So how do we get energy by breathing in oxygen?

An oxygen molecule is made up of two oxygen atoms  (hence O2 – the 2 means the molecule is made up of 2 oxygen atoms).  These two atoms are held together by a ‘bond’ – breaking this bond releases energy.  But an oxygen atom by itself has a strong ‘need’ to bond to something (we rate it a level 2 need).  If left in this state, it would harm the surrounding cells (it is called a ‘free radical’). 

Organisms ‘solve’ the problem by taking a carbon atom (C) which has an even higher ‘need’ to bond (level 4).  Two oxygen atoms (with a ‘2’ each) are bonded to the one carbon atom (to add up to the carbon’s ‘4’).  (Yes, this is a major simplification – but the underlying principles are accurately described).  The resulting molecule is CO2 – or one carbon and two oxygen atoms.  All of its ‘needs’ for ‘bonds’ are met, so it is not harmful to the surrounding tissues.

Yes, it does require energy to bind the oxygen atoms to the carbon one.  However, because carbon has such a high ‘need’ for bonds, it takes less enegry to bind the oxygen atoms to it than was released by breaking the bonds between the two oxygen atoms.  In other words, when one breaks the molecular bonds between the two oxygen atoms in O2, then take a part of that energy and uses it to bind the two oxygen atoms to a carbon atom, one has some energy left over.  I stress again, this is a major simplification – there are many steps and other ‘bits’ (like glucose, which is where the carbon molecules for the reaction come from) are essential!!!  However, the underlying principle is correct.  If you would like to read more about this, here and here and here are good starting spots.

This energy difference is what cells use to carry out ‘living’.  We call this process aerobic respiration, both in plants and animals.  And though other molecules may be used in its place, oxygen is by far the most efficient one.  (Respiration in the absence of oxygen is called anaerobic respiration.)

PHOTOSYNTHESIS

During respiration, living cells get energy by breaking ‘bond’ betwen two oxygen atoms in an oxygen molecule (O2), and then use carbon atoms from glucose (simple sugar, made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms) molecules to stop the resulting oxygen atoms (free radicals) from harming the cell itself.  So, where does the glucose come from?

Glucose is produced by photosynthesis.

Plants have special organelles called chloroplasts.  These are specialized organelles (sub-section of a cell with a specialized function) in the plant cells which contain the green pigment chlorophyl.  Their function is to take IN carbon dioxide (CO2) form the air, and combine it with hydrous oxyde (H2O – water). 

The C (carbon) from the CO2 is combined with the OH group from H2O.  OK, I am simplifying again:  you need several molecules of CO2 and H2O to make it work, because the result of combining the carbons and oxygens and hydrogens together is the simple sugar, glucose:  and it has 6 carbon atoms in it. 

It is, in fact, pretty much the reverse of the chemical reaction during respiration.  But the reason for respiration is to release energy.  So, this process of photosynthesis needs energy from the outside to happen – and this is the reason why it occurs in the chloroplasts, which contain the green pigment chlorophyll, which is very good at absorbing light energy from the sun.  It then uses this energy to drive the chemical reaction of binding carbon atoms (from CO2 in the air) to water molecules to produce the simple carbohydrate, glucose.

This process is called photosynthesis because it uses the enegy from light (photo) to build (synthesise) glucose, a simple sugar.  Glucos molecules can, in turn, be joined up into long chains so they can be stored efficiently.  The end product, the carbohydrate chain, is called starch.

Plants can then use the stored up starch in order to breathe.  And animals, unable to make starch themselves, eat plants in order to get it.  Thus, energy from sun gets stored by plants (using carbon dioxide and water) as carbohydrates. The byproduct of this process in the oxygen molecule. Plants and animals use these carbohydrates and oxygen from the air to use this stored solar energy to ‘drive’ their cells.  The byproduct of this is carbon dioxide.  This is the basic energy cycle of our current lifeforms.

The more complex the plant, the more CO2 it requires to grow and thrive.  For example, the ‘Great Plains’ in the US used to be mostly covered by trees – until the carbon dioxide levels became too low to support them.  Then, they reverted to grassplains, because grass is a less complex plant and requires (and uses)less CO2 in the air.

If you love trees, as I do, you cannot but object to anything that will reduce the CO2 levels available for them to grow.  I am a self-admitted tree hugger – and a scientist.  I thought the ‘global warming’ thing sounded good when it was first proposed, so I have ‘looked into’ it (extensively – though this is NOT my field of expertise!!!  I do not wish to mislead!).  The evidence has convinced me that this is not dangerous.  To the contrary.  Incerases in CO2 levels are higly advantageous to lifeforms on Earth because historically, they raise food availability and are accompanied by greater species differentiation and increase in overall lifeforms supported.  And despite some claims, hard datea shows that we are nowhere near historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So, why the hype?

I don’t know.  In situations where things get as murky as this is, I like to use a very simple ‘rule of thumb’:  “cui bono?” 

Or, in other words, ‘Follow the money, honey!’ 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

If you can’t laugh at yourself, someone will make a sitcom…

On Monday, I posted ‘Pitfalls’ – a glimpse into the process that an ‘Aspie’ uses to write something up.  Yes, it has a lot to do with my recent posts on Aspergers – I think I have it ready, then read something else and have to hit the re-start button… 

I’m afraid I modeled it on my experience…only.  And while that may be a typical ‘Aspie’ thing to do, it is (I am told) more applicable to female Aspies…who are in minority.  Aside:  As ‘ADifferentVoice’ aticulated, I also wish there were a better terms for ‘a person with Asperger Syndrome’ and ‘Neurotypical’ (NT)- if you know of one, or would like to suggest one, please, let me know.

In the interests of accuracy and entertainment, I have re-thought the post…and come up with a conclusion more indicative of the ‘Aspie-typical’ person.  (How’s that for a convoluted term???  It makes me proud!)  ;0)

Most of the post would remain unchanged:  the bits where excessive research is done, 2-3 major studies are read and their raw data reassessed, several books, a stack of periodicals, and numerous online sources, cross-referenced and indexed (physically or mentally), you start thinking about the actual write up.  Except that somebody mentions something related, so now you have to research that, or risk inacuracy!  So, more research is required…and then you go for 3 days without posting!!!

Now, here is where the difference comes in.  When I start to ‘write’ the actual post/write-up/article/assignment, my most difficult task is cutting the 80-odd pages down to a managable bite.  So much stuff to be stuffed in!  And it has to be phrased carefully, so as not to mislead or misrepresent – not intentionally, anyway!

 Well, I do need to correct the misconception that all Aspies are like that.  The vast majority would be much more efficient at analyzing the salient and essential points, and expressing them in a highly efficient manner.  The long, painful hours I would spend ‘cutting down’ my notes, they spend in expanding their resultant 3 sentences into a full paragraph.

No kidding.

But then again, if you can’t laugh at yourself, somebody will make a sitcom … and the world will laugh at you!  My family insists that when I forget to keep a tight control over my ‘inner voice’, it reveals itself to be a bit of a ‘Sheldon’… or perhaps a little bit of ‘Leslie’….hope you enjoy the clips below!