My impression of the three words "autism" has always been unfriendly. There are two reasons for this:
First, in the early years, I read Teacher Yin Jianli's article "On the Matter of "Autism"", in which Teacher Yin told the abuse of the term "autism" and the possible harm caused by the current society through her profound pedagogical and psychological background, and with her personal experience in participating in the family treatment of "autism" children.
The second is my own personal experience. My own niece, who first spoke at the age of two and ten months, said three words, "Huluwa." Before that, she not only did not open her mouth, but also did not like to communicate with people, only loved to silently watch IPAD, and had a big temper. If you look at the current popular autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it will basically be judged as autism. However, since I have read Mr. Yin's articles before, I have also learned about children's psychological counseling and child psychology. I think it is normal for children to be more than two years old and cannot speak, so I comfort their parents with "noble language late" to continue to wait. To this day, my little niece is the most talkative of our three children, not only talking head is the Tao, go out like to take the initiative to communicate with children, and the small mouth is very sweet and pleasing, and the academic performance is also very good. These were almost as bad as before she opened her mouth.
Soon, it's Going to be "World Autism Day" again, and seeing Tencent News prominently stating that 1 in every 44 children has autism, I would also like to take this opportunity to share my opinion. I don't think this incidence holds. Not only that, but there are more lies in the "autism" market supported by huge commercial interests.
Myth One: On the definition of "autism"
Autism, the original meaning of the word refers to a state of autism. In 1943, american scholar Leo Kanner created "early infantile autism", which is the earliest description of "autistic" children based on his clinical findings. However, this concept was stolen as autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) in the early 2000s, as ASD was developed by extending to the core symptoms of typical autism. This expansion directly brings about the increase in the "incidence" of autism, and related research and institutions have gradually begun to heat up.
The truth is that the concept of "autism" has been stolen, and the expansion of this concept has directly led to a surge in "morbidity" and anxiety among more families.
Lie two: about the cause of "autism"
Due to the advent of the concept of ASD, the classification of "autism" has become unusually complicated. There are true and false, and there are typical and atypical. It is difficult to summarize with the same logic. Due to the complexity of the classification, the etiology cannot be generalized. As early as the concept of "autism" was proposed by Leo Kanner, he believed that the disease stemmed from the emotional apathy and over-formalization of parents' emotional apathy. It is a problem of improper parenting. However, in the later period, some researchers began to analyze the causes from the perspective of biological genetics and proposed corresponding hypotheses. Although this hypothesis has not been widely accepted by the scientific community so far, it has become the dominant cause of "autism" propaganda.
The truth is: as of 2022, research papers show that the global medical community has not yet formed a unified conclusion on the pathology of the cause of "autism".
Myth Three: About the incidence of "autism"
The claim that 1 in 44 8-year-olds is "autistic" comes from the 2021 CDC report. The report also shows that the incidence is 23% higher than it was two years ago. It is a 3.39-fold increase from the data first reported by the CDC in 2000. However, it is doubtful that as a disease caused by a so-called "physiological or genetic" defect, what makes the human "physiological" or "genetic" not getting better and worse but getting worse and worse? Is this in line with the laws of human evolution? Or since it is a disease caused by "physiology" and "genes", why is there no biological indicator at the time of screening and diagnosis, but all based on symptoms? Is the incidence of such a screening diagnosis credible?
The truth is: many foreign research papers show that "autism" is likely to be overdiagnosed. As for the benefits of overdiagnosis, apart from the fact that there are no benefits for children and families who are overdiagnosed, there are too many groups that can benefit this booming market.
Myth Four: The Diagnosis of "Autism."
The incidence of "autism" is directly related to its diagnosis, and the criteria for diagnosis are more relaxed after the concept is changed to ASD. Prior to this, the diagnosis of autism, although it was also all dependent on symptoms, must at least meet all three of the three combinations of autism. After the concept is extended to ASD, the definition of symptoms is also extended to that all three may not all be, only one or two of them. The three are: social communication disorders, language communication disorders, and repetitive stereotypes. However, from the perspective of child psychology, due to individual differences in development, some children may start talking normally at the age of four or five. As I said earlier, my niece, who was almost three years old, spoke, but as soon as she opened her mouth, she quickly became the most able to speak among the three children in my family. If the parents of these children are sent to diagnose their children because of anxiety, according to such a broad standard, they will all be diagnosed with "autism". What's more, why is there no physiological indicator for a disease with a physiological defect, but only on the basis of some common "symptoms" that may be caused by a variety of reasons? Even, I looked at the post today, I can also see some hospitals, when diagnosing autism, even the scale does not have to be done, only with less than 20 minutes of chat, based on the narrative of the parents' mouth, can make such an important conclusion for children under three years old.
The truth is that the mainstream view of the cause of "autism" contradicts the mainstream "diagnosis" method. The concept of "autism" extends, and the criteria for "diagnosis" are unreliable.
Lie Five: About the prevention and treatment of "autism"
There are many treatments for autism, but none is currently recognized as more effective than the others. And what I'm worried about is not that it works, but that there are side effects. In the treatment of autism, there is a great emphasis on speaking, as well as the ability to listen to instructions. In fact, in the earliest cases reported by Leo Kanner, he said that some parents of children with autism will tirelessly teach their children to open their mouths and pronounce in order to make their children talk. This is the same approach as in some rehabilitation institutions. Do you know that this excessive formalization of parenting is the cause of what Kanner thought was "autism", but now it has become one of the treatments for "autism"? Imagine if a healthy child, or an adult, is taught to repeat the same action tirelessly, and is also rebellious or even emotionally traumatized?
In addition, as a "physical defect" disorder of "autism", the prevention means of its network transmission is to take more children to interact and communicate, participate in group activities and other things that normal children should also do.
I have heard that many children have been recovering in rehabilitation centers for a long time, and finally because they can do some small crafts, they are considered to have a significant rehabilitation effect, but in fact they have become a certain mental disability. The parents who posted the real "hat off" on the Internet rely on the continuous interaction, companionship and education of their parents themselves.
The truth is that there is a contradiction between the physical defects of "autism" and its ordinary means of prevention. There is a contradiction between the claim that "autism" requires lifelong intervention and many families completely "take off their hats" through their own efforts.
Myth Six: There is ≈ genius about "autism."
Interestingly, some people think that children with "autism" generally have low IQs, while others think that "autism" is a genius because of the publicity of some film and television books. In fact, as we said above, many children with "autism" are ordinary children who are over-diagnosed and over-recovered.
The truth is: geniuses exist in any category of people, and they are in the minority. "Autism" is no exception. Emphasizing the concept of genius only puts more pressure on parents of most ordinary children.
Lie Seven: About the IQ of "Autistic" Children
There is a very famous psychological experiment about the "IQ" test, which says that an IQ expert went to a school to measure the IQ of students. After the results came out, some of the children were singled out, and the experts told them that they were the children with the best IQ in the school, and after a semester, the grades of these children had indeed become among the best. The truth is that these children are just randomly selected and have nothing to do with IQ. The story reflects the role of psychological cues and questions about the authority of the "IQ" test itself.
The truth is that in the case where the "IQ" test itself is questioned, it is even more pointless to rate the IQ of young children.
Myth Eight: About caring for children with "autism."
Now, due to the "increase" incidence of "autism", people pay more and more attention to it. People advertise caring for "autism" with great fanfare, just as they advertise other diseases. However, such propaganda, such "incidence" is increasingly "rising", to the labeled children, as well as more parents of babies, can only bring greater panic.
The truth is: the so-called care, first of all, "respect". And sympathizing with "autistic" children who are likely to be normal ordinary people as "poor people" can only make it more difficult for these children to get out of this negative label. This self-righteous sense of moral superiority is not true love.
Psychology emphasizes that children should not be "labeled". Any negative label will have a negative impact on the child. Especially the cruel label of "autism", which is "lifelong" and "mentally disabled". It is not easy to stick casually. Parents are invited to read some books about "autism" or child psychology before following the propaganda of "early diagnosis, early treatment", before seeking help from medical, rehabilitation, psychological and pedagogical experts. For example, Professor Barry's "The Only You in the World" by Professor Barry, an authoritative expert on autism, is that Professor Barry's view in this book is that autism is not a disease, and what is needed is not a mechanical stereotyped subjective "rehabilitation", but the understanding, support and acceptance of the family and even the whole society, and the traditional way will only make it worse. After that, parents are asked to feel their children with respect and love, and feel what they should do. For such a disease that has not yet been unanimously determined, his heart is more reliable than any expert. Because there is the deepest love for children. Love is the greatest healing power.