Sunday, January 23, 2011

Autism: in the box or out of the box?

Today at church I was asked to give the lesson in Elders Quorum.  I guess a majority of these musings come from Elders Quorum.  The lesson was on pride and I decided that at the end of the lesson was going to use the concept of being in the box or out of the box to others….

For those of you who do not know this concept being in our out of the box is about the way that we view other people.  When you are in the box you see everyone else as objects.  And when you are out of the box you see people for who they are: people.  You see them as living, breathing, hoping, aspiring, striving people just like you.  And ultimately being in or out of the box towards someone will change they way you interact with them. 

…So I give this lesson and at the end introduce this awesome concept of in and out of the box.  Lots of people come up afterwards and compliment me on how good the lesson was.  One brother, however, came up and told me that he had a big problem with my concept of in and out of the box.  Before I go any further I need to fill you in with my history with this brother...

The first time I had ever encountered this brother was in a gospel doctrine class.  He commented a whole lot and over the course of what he said revealed that he often acted as a self-appointed apologist on the Internet for people who have problems with the church.  He is a man of big opinions and isn’t afraid to say what he thinks.  From that point on, my wife and I called him the apologetic Mormon.  After today, however, I sure put my foot in my mouth over that one.

…So this brother, the apologetic Mormon, comes up to me after quorum and says he has a problem with my concept.  I think he is going to start an analytical conversation about the flaws in the concept.  Instead he tells me he is a diagnosed autistic and he has no idea how he is supposed to see people as people and not objects.  *Bing*  That would probably explain the social awkwardness in class and super brainy attitude.  We have a discussion that basically went like this:

“ How am I supposed to not be prideful when I have an inability to see people as people?” he said.

“What does God expect of you?” I replied intentionally using a question.

“He expects me to be perfect.”

“No, what does he expect of you in this life?”

“To try as hard as a I can.”

“Exactly.”

Then started a conversation about him and his autism.  Before the New Year I had taught his child in my Sunday school class.  The child obviously has autism but is extremely well behaved.  To find out his dad was autistic was incredibly interesting.  But it gets better!  His dad, aside from having an amazing savante-esq story of his own childhood, purports to have helped his son overcome some of his deficits merely by having an inside perspective of autism.

Talking to this dad got my autism clinic juices flowing.  How interesting it would be to have therapy that was based off of the experience of people with high functioning autism?  This brother said that he had even gone into his son’s classroom and helped arrange the environment to be more autism friendly.  I thought: “Why not have my future clinic be arranged by a person with high functioning autism so that it can be non-abrasive to people with autism?”  I thought even more: “Why not consult with people who have high functioning autism about therapeutic approaches?” 

Why do we as “normally” functioning people believe that we have the most valid form of autistic therapy?  A lot of times people with autism are seen as lacking the mental awareness to be able to benefit from therapies that base their treatment introspection and changing mental thought patterns.  Mostly, therapy for people with autism is much like training a dog to sit or roll over.  Occupational therapy ensures they know how to tie their shoes and brush their teeth.  Even relational therapy fails to enter the autistic person’s mind and see out their eyeholes.  However, a therapy based off introspection made by people who realize they have autism and can identify their own thought processes and interaction with environment seems far more intuitive and potentially effective than current mainstream therapies. 

Some might argue that this approach would be the blind leading the blind.  I disagree.  Take another pervasive disorder: schizophrenia.  What we wouldn’t give to be able to dissect the schizophrenic experience.  Think of the ways we could help people with schizophrenia if we just had a way to understand their experience from the inside out!

All in all, this conversation made me even more anxious to start getting my hands dirty in the field of psychology.  I cannot wait to get trained and work towards possibly finding a new innovative treatment for autism.

  




Sunday, January 16, 2011

Musings on Homosexuality and the Institution of Marriage

This is a musing I had while sitting in Elder's Quorum this morning.  The night before my wife and I had watched a documentary called "8: The Mormon Proposition".  Ever since proposition 8 and even some time before that I have had mixed feelings regarding homosexuality.  I am not a homophobe or anything like that.  I am really more concerned with the cause (if any) of homosexuality and the draw that homosexual couples have towards the heterosexual institution of marriage.  I decided to try and identify what the norm is for heterosexual relationships and see how it is different if at all from homosexual relationships.  Here are my notes:


Heterosexual relationships  
-emotional connectivity aka. love 
-physical intimacy
-children (optional)


Homosexual relationships
-emotional connectivity aka. love
-physical intimacy
-children (optional through adoption only)


In what other kinds of situations is marriage restricted?
-marriage to: objects, animals, close family members, when one or both partners are under legal age, plural heterosexual marriage


-Marriage is not defined by the type of physical intimacy between partners. In other words, the way in which you have sex does not define marriage.


-Sexual morality is not a prerequisite for marriage.  Many married heterosexual couples practice sex in ways that would be deemed immoral by others.  Hence, the variations in sex used in homosexual relationships has nothing to do with their eligibility for marriage.


-The institution of marriage has a spiritual/religious origin


-Governments are comprised of people who carry their own belief systems. In a democratic society it only makes sense that individuals with certain beliefs will strive to perpetuate their beliefs politically.  It is an error to think of the government as a separate entity.  It is an imaginary construction.  In all reality the government is us.  This is why I have a hard time with pleas to keep religion out of politics.  People cite the phrase "separation of church and state".  My understanding of the phrase is to avoid a state religion.  But if people think that those with religious belief will leave their beliefs at the door before entering the voting booth they are mistaken.  In a nation that is primarily of Euro-Christian descent it is no surprise that a) marriage as an institution has entered the political realm and b) that it is strongly defended.


-Marriage in western society has been romanticized.  Hence, it makes sense that people who are homosexual and feel a strong romantic connectivity seek marriage since marriage for many is the climax of romantic emotional intimacy.  
   


-Questions:  
    1-In societies that do not romanticize   
    marriage do homosexual  
    individuals still seek out marriage? 


    2-Why do homosexual individuals want to 
    replicate a heterosexual romantic  
    construction? Why have we/they not    
    explored creating their own romantic 
    construction and then tie it to the     
    political equality they seek?


    3-What is the general opinion of homosexual 
    individuals towards heterosexual marriage?  
    If proposition 8 was reversed and  
    heterosexual marriage was being banned 
    would the homosexual community have shown 
    the mercy they claim is lacking in their 
    current situation?


    4-Since governments are comprised of people 
    and some people are religious why is it 
    then wrong for religious organizations to 
    lobby to support political propositions?


    5-Homosexuality is a belief system just 
    like religion.  If homosexual organizations 
    had used similar tactics to influence 
    proposition 8 would it have been criticized 
    in the same way?


Notice that I have not put a conclusion at the end of this post.  I will never put a conclusion.  I do not need to state my opinions because they come out in the notes I take and the questions I ask.    I do this to show that I really am just trying to sort through my own thoughts and the thoughts of others.  Please feel free to comment and post your own questions.  I welcome this, I want this, it is the whole point of this blog.  I am far from settling my opinion on this issue.