Re: Oliver Sacks on autism

[Beth Benoit]

Title: Re: Oliver Sacks on autism

Fascinating stuff, Stephen.  I'm particularly drawn to your comment that Kanner was quite possibly considering that nature rather than nurture, might be responsible for the autism:

>>he intended them to indicate that the parents were themselves
>>peculiar and autistic-like, which would support a genetic
>>interpretation

A young cousin of my husband is autistic, and his extended family has drawn around the cause of autism - raising money, funding research, getting speakers (Temple Grandin came to speak - amazing!), organizing support, etc.  As a result, I have met many, many parents of autistic children.  While I can't say that they are all peculiar or autistic-like (and certainly know better, after my years on TIPS, to ever make a statement like that based only on my own observations and not carefully conducted research), I have long held that there seem to be an awful lot of them who are a bit peculiar.  

Is it hindsight that causes me to predispose my judgment toward looking at these beleaguered parents through the prism of a "personality defect" microscope?  Perhaps, but I don't think so.  

It could even be argued that years of having to deal with the very specific needs of an autistic child would be enough to create a rather odd personality.  But still I don't think so.

The problem, of course, may be trying to measure "oddness."  And worse, trying to quantify it.  Goes to the heart of the difficulty that psychology often has of being able to be scientific about something as nebulous as behavior.

Beth Benoit
Daniel Webster College
College for Lifelong Learning
Portsmouth NH campuses