Chez PLJ

There is a fascinating article at wired.com about how scientists are rethinking previously-held beliefs about autism. Previously it was universally held that a large majority of autistic people were mentally deficient: 75% of autistics were expected to show an IQ of 70 or less on a standard intelligence test.

Now, led by some maverick neuropsychological researchers as well as some politically-and tech-savvy autistics themselves, a growing movement is putting forth the radical notion that autism not be looked at as a disease to be eradicated; rather, autistic brains should be looked at as simply a different form of human development.

A video circulating the internet is at the forefront of this new belief. It shows a young, obviously autistic woman gesturing, flapping, moaning and rocking—looking every inch the low-functioning autistic. Then a computerized voice starts talking and you quickly realize that it’s the woman herself—she can’t speak, but she can type (extremely fast) and communicate via computer. She proceeds to explain—with eloquence and insight—what’s going through her mind while she’s doing these motions: This is her way of experiencing the world, and it’s as natural and normal to her as looking at things is normal for everyone else. She doesn’t need a cure; she wants respect.

Amanda Biggs’s “In My Language” video

One of the major planks in the new movement is growing evidence that the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the standard IQ test used to determine autistics’ level of functioning, is inadequate for doing this. It races the clock, and generally measures language, social interaction, and cultural knowledge, which most autistics score poorly at. In contrast, the Raven Progressive Matrices test, which is not time-based, more accurately scores for abstract reasoning, pattern spotting or puzzle-solving. In one recent test involving 51 autistic and 43 non-autistic people the difference in IQ between the two tests for the autistics averaged about 30 points (non-autistics showed no differences between the tests). Stunningly, using Raven pulled all but a couple of the children out of the “mental retardation” range found by Wechsler, and sent one child from “mentally retarded” to the 94th percentile.

So why is an inadequate test still being used? Because people are used to administering it.
Digression: This is not surprising to me; every institution suffers in some way or another from inertia—doing things one way because it’s always been done. In one of Jon’s earlier years at school his teacher kept trying to teach him sign language, because it had worked for previous kids in her care. We kept reminding her that since Jon is visually-impaired he would hardly benefit from it, but it never seemed to stick.

The new model of autism has its adherents, but others are skeptical. They argue that even if some autistics are more intelligent than previously believed many are still profoundly disabled and would benefit from a cure if there was ever one to be had. And indeed, when you hear stories about autistics damaging themselves and all but destroying their families’ spirit or homes one might have a hard time agreeing that all autistic behaviour is somehow “empowering” or benign.