Autism is a difficult thing to understand.

Yes, I assume it is. A  main reason being the idea that has been established for about 30 years now since the 1980's by science and psychiatry in particular that autism is a disability, a developmental disorder, and something that children suffer from (often science says parents suffer just as much from their child's autism).
Probably that is the image of autism that most of you reading this also have. You experience autism as the child that has the problem! The problem you assume is born within the child. And that is how science has been also researching autism, in the hope for a cure!

Somehow, my idea of autism and the way I understand autism and have been helping many parents for the last 5 years to also comprehend, is that autism is not all of the above. And science knows that for a very long time. Science chooses not to disclose what is known. It has to do with profit.  

Autism is not a disability. 

It is a way of being, a different way of thinking, functioning and understanding the world around us. It is not something the child has, but something the child is. And it is autistic because the autistic gene exists in its family. The parents (at least one if not both) are autistic -most probably high functioning as they do use verbal language, have managed to lead independent lives and have married and made children. Also most probably according to research, its siblings have a 50% chance to also be autistic. There are many families with 2 or more autistic children. The genetic base of autism, is a fact.

Most of the parents of these autistic children, grandparents and greatgrandparents do not know they are autistic (autistic meaning they have the gene and the different way of thinking and lifestyle as many already diagnosed adults of same or similar age and gender). Many of these parents might even realize this and seek (and receive)  a diagnosis often of Asperger;'s Syndrome or High Functioning Autism. Some realize they are also autistic, but do not not see as necessary to seek a diagnosis. 

The fact that they have not been diagnosed, does not mean they are not autistic. 
In can also mean that science has focused the idea of autism, so specifically on the child, and childhood diagnosis and early intervention, that is not eager to diagnose adults so high functioning that they (seem) to manage just fine without a diagnosis.
 Science is not interested or eager in diagnosing parents, as science prefers to keep autism as the childhood "illness", disorder, and disability they have established it to be. 

It is greatly profitable!
 
Billions of dollars worldwide end up in the pockets of those who research (70 years now 1943-2013), those who treat (therapists such as psychiatrists especially), and those who sell medications (farmacutical companies) in the name of false hope. Autism is the biggest scam of the 20th-21st centuries!

In the past 4 almost 5 years I have met hundreds even close to a thousand families with autistic children. Their idea of autism was the same as yours is at this moment. They thought that their child was suffering from a disability, while they the parents were the "normal" ones! 

When I explained to them that what they see as autism is not something "born" from within the child, but rather "born" within them and REFLECTED in an enlarged and sometimes distorted way by the child, they realized that they can change the outcome. If the parents decided to accept this fact and subsequently changed their ways of talking, behaving and accepting the different way their child thinks and functions, within months to a maximum of a couple of years, their child changed clinical profile. 

Many of the families that I encountered, had children with a diagnosis ranging from severe non-verbal autism, to Asperger's syndrome or high functioning autism. It did not matter what the child's diagnosis was, once the parents changed how they nurtured and treated the child, the autistic child reflected back to them the behavior that was shown to it.

Badly behaving autistic children, react violently (from around 6-7 years of age) with anger and hostility because they come to realize that their emotional and intellectual needs are not being met. 

Science instead of helping parents synchronize their lives and behaviors with the specific emotional and developmental needs of their child (any child not just one that is labelled autistic), split the parent-child bond by claiming that the child is damaged. Though it is not the child that is damaged or distorted, but the INTERACTION BETWEEN the parent(s) and the child.

Why not all children then in an autistic family are not diagnosed as autistic?
 
Because not all children (their individual personality) is equally sensitive of intro/extroverted. Those children that are diagnosed are mostly the more sensitive ones, the more introvert ones, and the ones that had more traumatic experiences such as a more difficult pregnancy, difficult emotional situations of the mother during her pregnancy with this specific child, more difficult birth, premature birth, physical illnesses after birth and the first 2-3 years of life, children who were not breast fed, children who were breast fed only for a very short period (a few months instead the 2-3 years that is actually normal for a human child), post-partum depression of the mother, other mental of psychological issues of the mother, or even a mother and/or father that are abusive or neglectful towards the child's emotional needs while covering the physical needs (food, schools, clothes, toys, etc).

All of the above causes when combined (for example: a child that has experienced a difficult pregnancy + mother's post-partum + a father that is neglectful) will result eventually in an autism diagnosis by the age of 6-7 years (either sever autism or low functioning). The more the events that a child experienced as traumas, the more the severity of its diagnosis.
What I am saying here is already known by science. They know what and how parental based events that are experienced as traumas by the child affect the outcome of autism.

Here are some links for further reading!
http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1405190/autism-not-a-mental-illness/?cs=11
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/06/medicalresearch.genetics
http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/health-a-healing/fathers-age-is-linked-to-autism-and-mental-illness
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080505072829.htm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/03/25/abuse-of-mom-in-childhood-and-autism-risk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_mother_theory

Severity versus degree of "warmth"
 
Yes, the good ol' theory of refrigerator mothers was not so far fetched after all! 
Both Leo Kanner who diagnosed (severe) autism and Hans Asperger after whom the Asperger's Syndrome is named, had already since the early 1940's first encounters with autistic children and their families had seen the parental behavioral symptoms that end up reflected by their (autistic) child's behaviour.

Their theory of parental "fault" in autism was never proven wrong with any scientific research! It was rather "silenced" by angry parents that felt attacked and accused when faced by the truth.

Science and in particular psychiatry, endorsed the angry parents, and discarded the cold and distant mother theory as they realized that angry parents cannot become an easy profit!
A fearful parent convinced that their child is disabled, will do everything and anything to have a child that is normal and healthy.

These parents are cows ready to be milked! 

And they have been milked intensively already for the last 30+ years since the 1980's when autism appeared in the DSM as "childhood schizophrenia"!!!!
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizophrenia/content/article/10168/1822823

From that moment on, autism became a money making machine, propelling pharmaceutical companies to produce more and more drugs that psychiatrists then made sure that were sold by the millions and given to unknowing victims by their own parents. A multitude of drugs such as anti psychotics and others that were never tested on children could now be "tested" as parents bought them and gave them to their children thinking they were helping them!
http://voices.yahoo.com/psychiatric-fraud-psychiatrists-making-disorders-8290147.html
http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/massive-fraud/introduction.html
http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatry-an-industry-of-death/inventing-mental-illness.html
http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatry-an-industry-of-death/kids-in-psychiatrys-cross-hairs.html
http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatry-an-industry-of-death/drugging-for-profit.html

My grandson was labelled as autistic at three years old.

Many autistic children are diagnosed between the ages two and three years of age. The rise in diagnosing autism in children is almost catastrophic, and I am unsure how truly helpful it is for the child. Diagnosing a child with autism without diagnosing also the surrounding situation and people (parents, siblings, grandparents, etc) that the child acts/reacts to, is not only unhelpful but also utterly stupid. But as I mentioned above, psychiatry/science are not interested in helping the child or the family, their interest is to create a market that needs them and to earn more money and power for themselves. The few that have not yet been corrupt, they speak out but are rarely heard or taken seriously. Parents follow the trends also were autism is concerned and believe the empty promises.

Especially after the fiasco when mothers (mainly middle class) believed the triple MMR vaccines were responsible for autism. Even after the main doctor involved was shown to have produced false results many parents still choose to believe this myth rather than assume responsibility. Unfortunately, most parents do not know that psychiatry manufactured this whole issue about the MMR vaccines to divert the public further and further away from the real cause of autism.

The real cause being the parentl-child interaction that is problematic.

We assume that it is the child causing the problematic interaction while it is the parent causing the problem! The parent is not sufficiently covering the child's mental, emotional and psychological needs while being mostly engaged in covering the child's physical needs (mostly and predominantly material needs and wants).
Science has known that too! Research has shown that children who experience parental (mother mostly) neglect -meaning emotional neglect- had problems with development!
Funny enough, autism is a developmental disability, but in autism parents, parental behavior and parental neglect is a taboo. No one talks about that parameter.

Yet, it is known that the brains of autistic children exhibit the same "shrinkage" as the brains of neglected children. They also show the same developmental delay as neglected children, and also the learning difficulties of a neglected child!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/29/brain-size-loved-neglected-parents-_n_2037610.html
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/brain_development/effects.cfm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2224393/Why-mothers-love-really-priceless-Shocking-scans-maternal-care-determine-size-childs-brain.html
http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/blog/2012/shrinking-brains
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/nimh-04b.htm
http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/brain-expands-too-fast-shrinks-too-soon-in-autism (this article is especially interesting as it shows that autistic children actually have a excelled development from birth on, as their brains grow faster than non autistic children, and then the brain starts shrinking!)

A good antidote to this way of thinking is the book "Mistakes Were Made (But not by me)" by Carol Travis and Elliot Aronson. It will help you also understand how autism was created to deceive parents into working more to earn more and spend more on "treating" their autistic child and cure it from its autism. I also disagree with the term autism and autistic. The so called "autistic" children are actually children exhibiting anger and antisocial behavior, language delay and learning difficulties of a child whose urging need for emotional security and a healthy emotional bond with the nurturer/parent was never fulfilled or satisfied!

So now that we know what causes the so called autism, lets see how it can be cured!
 
Restoring the missing link, the missing bond, the missing sense of security! Sensory integration and particularly that part of Sensory integration that deals with the sense of Touch is the ONLY true way to help a child recreate or complete building the emotional bond it needs. 
Activities shared by the parent and child (NOT a therapist!!!) that include all forms of physical contact such as: massage, deep pressure of the skin (back, arms, legs), hugs (as tight as [possible),  tickling, wrestling (parent/child), and many more. For more info check Ayres Sensory Integration, Dunn Sensory Integration, Infant and Toddler massage techniques, etc.
 
Apply these during the day at regular intervals, especially before and after stressful activities or activities that hold potential sensory over loadig for the child. Do not use practices such as ABA (Applied Behavioral Analysis), do not use PECS, or other communication devises or models. Talk to the child, engage it in activities around the house, play with it more, and touch it  hug it kiss it, massage it (before going to sleep at night is one of the best medicines). If the child is sensitive to touch it means that it has developed a sensory defensiveness to help it cope with the sensory (touch) deficiency! 

Never touch the child as a satisfaction to your own need for reassurance. 
The child needs to be touched when it needs it, when it will cover its own need not the parent's. The child will know the difference and if it sees that touch means satisfying another's need than its own, it will become defensive and develop an unwillingness to be touched!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlaFgOGH1y4
http://gentleconnections.com/massaging-your-baby-as-he-grows/
http://www.pediatrictherapy.com/images/content/208.pdf
http://paei.wikidot.com/dunn-winnie-dunn-s-model-of-sensory-processing

Why particularly the sense of touch?
 
Oxytocin is a powerful hormone. When we hug or kiss a loved one, oxytocin levels drive up. It also acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain. In fact, the hormone plays a huge role in pair bonding. Prairie voles, one of nature's most monogamous species, produce oxytocin in spades. This hormone is also greatly stimulated during sex, birth, breast feeding—the list goes on. Obviously, the emotionally starved child (autistic) once it receives the emotional nutrition in needs through Touch of Love (Love in its pure form), will start regaining lost ground and develop!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120519213236.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-illuminated/201210/oxytocin-improves-emotion-recognition-in-autism
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/the-love-hormone-autism-connection.premium-1.493759
http://www.science20.com/news_articles /nosetobrain_research_oxytocin_autism_spectrum_disorders-96209
 
As you can see Science and psychiatry knows the cause of autism already! 

But instead of advising (as I do) parents to rebond with their children, they began producing Oxytocin as a drug, a pill to be taken orally! That is how corrupt and unethical they are! While the physical contact is beneficial and helps the bond of love and sense of security/trust in the child, the pill had again adverse effects...
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01337687
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/07/oxytocin_is_not_a_love_drug_don_t_give_it_to_kids_with_autism_.html
 
Finally, to understand why an emotional bond is so important on a child's sense of security and courage (and act based on secure feelings) read this:
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/02/29/visual-cliff-study/
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2006/12/26/what-are-babies-looking-for-wh/

For more reading... 

A General Theory of Love draws on the latest scientific research to demonstrate that our nervous systems are not self-contained: from earliest childhood, our brains actually link with those of the people close to us, in a silent rhythm that alters the very structure of our brains, establishes life-long emotional patterns, and makes us, in large part, who we are. 

Explaining how relationships function, how parents shape their child’s developing self, how psychotherapy really works, and how our society dangerously flouts essential emotional laws, this is a work of rare passion and eloquence that will forever change the way you think about human intimacy.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0375709223/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=braipick-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0375709223&adid=0QCWVVXRD2DC66HKSJ40

Autism in other words, as I explain it to to the hundreds of parents I work with, is the incomplete self. The missing part being the ability or a dysfunction of the ability to bond emotionally with others.
This inability/dysfunction will then surface in the multitude of ways we see in autistic behaviors depending on the child's personality and idiosyncrasy.

Perla

The Brainwashed Parents of Autistic Children

To continue the topic of "The Brainwashed Society", I would like to focus on the nuclear "society" of the family, where I have found that the exact same rules that Milgram exposed in his experiment of Obedience, apply!

Discussion of Autism treatments based on the Milgram "Obedience Experiment"

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, no such ethical rules apply about the use of children in multiple (experimental) autism treatments and therapies.

Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments and, from my personal experience and other witnesses, also hold true in how parents experiment with their children in order to cure their child's Autism!

Why do many of the parents expose their children to treatments and supposed therapies that in many ways hurt and abuse their child's self-esteem, psychological health, mental well-being, and physical safety on the instruction of an authority figure, represented by an autism "expert"?

According to Milgram's findings, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of parental obedience:

- The physical presence of an authority figure, played by a child psychiatrist, child developmental expert, and any other person that assumes the role of an expert, dramatically increases compliance.

- The fact that many of the therapies and treatments are either sponsored or promoted by organizations such as Autism Speaks, or the National Autistic Society, or any other known and trusted and authoritative institution leads many parents to believe that the treatments and therapies they submit their child to, must be safe and will help or cure the child from Autism.

- The selection of experts and therapists status seems random, and gives the feeling that since so many support these treatments and therapies, they must be OK.

- Parents assume that the therapists are competent experts.

- The therapies and treatments to cure Autism are said to be harmless, helpful and necessary for the child and not at all dangerous.

The main problem is that these competent experts, deliberately discard the opinions of adult autistics concerning such treatments and therapies, and disregard the idea that autism is not an illness but a state of being.

They also disregard the possibility that autism is a cultural/social issue shared by all who are labelled autistics, and what seem as difficulties when exposed in the neurotypical society, are actually shared characteristics of all members of a sub-cultural group. Something very similar is seen in the sub-cultural group of the deaf, who have a shared culture, social manners, and language.

Another issue that has been forgotten is, that the subjects had a profit. They were paid a nominal fee. This financial transaction created yet another sense of obligation towards the whole idea of the experiment and its completion.

The same obligation (in a profitable reverse way) we see in the Autism experiment. Once parents pay the experts to fix their children, these parents feel a moral obligation and eliviation of their feelings of guilt, parental responsibility, and anxiety of their child's future. They buy hope!

The only problem is that the "hope" they buy is a fake hope. Autism cannot be cured. The true hope they can get is to accept the truth about their child's autism, to accept that their child was born autistic, and it will be autistic for all its life.

No one has better formulated this truth than Jim Sinclair and many other autistics, including myself, who has tried to expose what autism is. Only autistics know the truth about autism.

So, dear parents, I also hope you will manage to escape this "obedience" experiment Autism has become in the hands of the many so called experts, and embrace the facts about autism.

DON'T MOURN FOR US
by Jim Sinclair

[This article was published in the Autism Network International newsletter, Our Voice, Volume 1, Number 3, 1993. It is an outline of the presentation Jim gave at the 1993 International Conference on Autism in Toronto, and is addressed primarily to parents.]

Parents often report that learning their child is autistic was the most traumatic thing that ever happened to them. Non-autistic people see autism as a great tragedy, and parents experience continuing disappointment and grief at all stages of the child's and family's life cycle.

But this grief does not stem from the child's autism in itself. It is grief over the loss of the normal child the parents had hoped and expected to have. Parents' attitudes and expectations, and the discrepancies between what parents expect of children at a particular age and their own child's actual development, cause more stress and anguish than the practical complexities of life with an autistic person.

Some amount of grief is natural as parents adjust to the fact that an event and a relationship they've been looking forward to isn't going to materialize. But this grief over a fantasized normal child needs to be separated from the parents' perceptions of the child they do have: the autistic child who needs the support of adult caretakers and who can form very meaningful relationships with those caretakers if given the opportunity.

Continuing focus on the child's autism as a source of grief is damaging for both the parents and the child, and precludes the development of an accepting and authentic relationship between them. For their own sake and for the sake of their children, I urge parents to make radical changes in their perceptions of what autism means.

I invite you to look at our autism, and look at your grief, from our perspective:
Autism is not an appendage Autism isn't something a person has, or a "shell" that a person is trapped inside. There's no normal child hidden behind the autism. Autism is a way of being. It is pervasive; it colors every experience, every sensation, perception, thought, emotion, and encounter, every aspect of existence.

It is not possible to separate the autism from the person--and if it were possible, the person you'd have left would not be the same person you started with. This is important, so take a moment to consider it: Autism is a way of being.

It is not possible to separate the person from the autism. Therefore, when parents say, I wish my child did not have autism, what they're really saying is, I wish the autistic child I have did not exist, and I had a different (non-autistic) child instead. Read that again. This is what we hear when you mourn over our existence.

This is what we hear when you pray for a cure. This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces. Autism is not an impenetrable wall You try to relate to your autistic child, and the child doesn't respond.

He doesn't see you; you can't reach her; there's no getting through. That's the hardest thing to deal with, isn't it? The only thing is, it isn't true.

Look at it again: You try to relate as parent to child, using your own understanding of normal children, your own feelings about parenthood, your own experiences and intuitions about relationships. And the child doesn't respond in any way you can recognize as being part of that system.

That does not mean the child is incapable of relating at all. It only means you're assuming a shared system, a shared understanding of signals and meanings, that the child in fact does not share. It's as if you tried to have an intimate conversation with someone who has no comprehension of your language.

Of course the person won't understand what you're talking about, won't respond in the way you expect, and may well find the whole interaction confusing and unpleasant. It takes more work to communicate with someone whose native language isn't the same as yours.

And autism goes deeper than language and culture; autistic people are "foreigners" in any society. You're going to have to give up your assumptions about shared meanings. You're going to have to learn to back up to levels more basic than you've probably thought about before, to translate, and to check to make sure your translations are understood.

You're going to have to give up the certainty that comes of being on your own familiar territory, of knowing you're in charge, and let your child teach you a little of her language, guide you a little way into his world. And the outcome, if you succeed, still will not be a normal parent-child relationship. Your autistic child may learn to talk, may attend regular classes in school, may go to college, drive a car, live independently, have a career--but will never relate to you as other children relate to their parents.

Or your autistic child may never speak, may graduate from a self-contained special education classroom to a sheltered activity program or a residential facility, may need lifelong full-time care and supervision--but is not completely beyond your reach. The ways we relate are different.

Push for the things your expectations tell you are normal, and you'll find frustration, disappointment, resentment, maybe even rage and hatred. Approach respectfully, without preconceptions, and with openness to learning new things, and you'll find a world you could never have imagined. Yes, that takes more work than relating to a non-autistic person.

But it can be done--unless non-autistic people are far more limited than we are in their capacity to relate. We spend our entire lives doing it. Each of us who does learn to talk to you, each of us who manages to function at all in your society, each of us who manages to reach out and make a connection with you, is operating in alien territory, making contact with alien beings.

We spend our entire lives doing this. And then you tell us that we can't relate. Autism is not death Granted, autism isn't what most parents expect or look forward to when they anticipate the arrival of a child. What they expect is a child who will be like them, who will share their world and relate to them without requiring intensive on-the-job training in alien contact.

Even if their child has some disability other than autism, parents expect to be able to relate to that child on the terms that seem normal to them; and in most cases, even allowing for the limitations of various disabilities, it is possible to form the kind of bond the parents had been looking forward to. But not when the child is autistic.

Much of the grieving parents do is over the non-occurrence of the expected relationship with an expected normal child. This grief is very real, and it needs to be expected and worked through so people can get on with their lives-- but it has nothing to do with autism.

What it comes down to is that you expected something that was tremendously important to you, and you looked forward to it with great joy and excitement, and maybe for a while you thought you actually had it--and then, perhaps gradually, perhaps abruptly, you had to recognize that the thing you looked forward to hasn't happened. It isn't going to happen.

No matter how many other, normal children you have, nothing will change the fact that this time, the child you waited and hoped and planned and dreamed for didn't arrive. This is the same thing that parents experience when a child is stillborn, or when they have their baby to hold for a short time, only to have it die in infancy. It isn't about autism, it's about shattered expectations.

I suggest that the best place to address these issues is not in organizations devoted to autism, but in parental bereavement counseling and support groups. In those settings parents learn to come to terms with their loss--not to forget about it, but to let it be in the past, where the grief doesn't hit them in the face every waking moment of their lives. They learn to accept that their child is gone, forever, and won't be coming back.

Most importantly, they learn not to take out their grief for the lost child on their surviving children. This is of critical importance when one of those surviving children arrived at t time the child being mourned for died. You didn't lose a child to autism. You lost a child because the child you waited for never came into existence. That isn't the fault of the autistic child who does exist, and it shouldn't be our burden.

We need and deserve families who can see us and value us for ourselves, not families whose vision of us is obscured by the ghosts of children who never lived. Grieve if you must, for your own lost dreams. But don't mourn for us. We are alive. We are real. And we're here waiting for you. This is what I think autism societies should be about: not mourning for what never was, but exploration of what is. We need you. We need your help and your understanding.

Your world is not very open to us, and we won't make it without your strong support. Yes, there is tragedy that comes with autism: not because of what we are, but because of the things that happen to us. Be sad about that, if you want to be sad about something. Better than being sad about it, though, get mad about it--and then do something about it.

The tragedy is not that we're here, but that your world has no place for us to be. How can it be otherwise, as long as our own parents are still grieving over having brought us into the world? Take a look at your autistic child sometime, and take a moment to tell yourself who that child is not. Think to yourself: "This is not my child that I expected and planned for. This is not the child I waited for through all those months of pregnancy and all those hours of labor.

This is not the child I made all those plans to share all those experiences with. That child never came. This is not that child." Then go do whatever grieving you have to do--away from the autistic child--and start learning to let go. After you've started that letting go, come back and look at your autistic child again, and say to yourself:

"This is not my child that I expected and planned for. This is an alien child who landed in my life by accident. I don't know who this child is or what it will become. But I know it's a child, stranded in an alien world, without parents of its own kind to care for it. It needs someone to care for it, to teach it, to interpret and to advocate for it. And because this alien child happened to drop into my life, that job is mine if I want it."

If that prospect excites you, then come join us, in strength and determination, in hope and in joy. The adventure of a lifetime is ahead of you.

Jim Sinclair
jisincla@mailbox.syr.edu

The Brainwashed Society

From pain/fear to submission

"The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act."
–Stanley Milgram, 1974

Let's go back some 5o years, when Psychology first began experimenting with human behavior, when laws were more flexible and did not prevent such experiments, mostly laws changed later on not so much to protect the experiment's subjects, but more to avoid similar findings that would open too many eyes to the true workings of the social mechanism of mass manipulation!

One of the pioneers was Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist. Milgram used his experiments to push the limits of understanding human behavior and of course the workings of human fear and submission to bullying and terror.

One of the experiments that Milgram did was "The Obedience Experiment".

As the title announces, Milgram wanted to find out how difficult it was, or how easy perhaps, to turn a "normal" human being into a monster. Lets not forget that his experiments took place after the cruelties of World War II were exposed in what is known as the Nuremberg Trials, and shortly after the trial of the WWII criminal Adolph Eichmann had begun. These trials brought a shock to the world of how easily perhaps, "normal" German citizens had turned into Nazi monsters and the cruelties they did during the war and in the many concentration camps.

So, what turns a "normal" human being into such an inhuman monster? Milgram set an experiment to find out!

What if a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, causing them pain and discomfort, would you follow their orders and do it?

Most people would answer this question with an adamant no, but Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments during the 1960s that demonstrated surprising results. These experiments offer a powerful and disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience.

Introduction to the Milgram Experiment

Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after Adolph Eichmann's trial had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

Method Used in the Milgram Experiment

The participants in the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.

Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX."

Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked.

As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.

Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:
"Please continue."
"The experiment requires that you continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice, you must go on."

Results of the Milgram Experiment

The level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver was used as the measure of obedience. How far do you think that most participants were willing to go?
When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.

Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.

Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception. However, many critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment. Milgram later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.

Discussion of the Milgram Experiment

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.

Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:
- The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
- The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
- The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
- Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
- The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority" (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggests that situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience is heavily influenced by both external and internal factors, such as personal beliefs and overall temperament.

Suggested Reading:

Milgram, S. (1973). The perils of obedience. Harper’s Magazine, 62-77.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harpercollins
Sucked into Obedience

Suggested Viewing:

The 5 Monkeys experiment

A Tiger in a Lions' world.

Opinions needed:

What are some of the most important topics young adults and adults face in dealing with social settings as they learn to navigate the neurotypical world?

Well, as an autistic, I feel that the neurotypicals need to learn more how not to pretend, they seem to have a constant anxiety of showing themselves "naked". They hide behind masks and that is why it has learned to say many white lies. Now lies have colors you see.

Yes, in the neurotypical world, what you say is sensored by invisible rules and mores. Showing their true feelings and thoughts, is a no-no, they need to say what the other needs to hear, or better what they think the other needs to hear. So they also need how to show respect by talking less and listening more, because if they listened they could hear and know what we autistics really want. To hear, and maybe to hear only silence.

But unless they talk, they look at you judgementaly, they look at your hair, your clothes, your bag and shoes and watch, and mascara and what not. That is why neurotypicals need to learn how to be less superficial, how to look for qualities in a person other than the brand of his/her clothes and how stylish/fashionable they are.

That also means that they will have to learn to expect less and be more open to new possibilities, to slow down and live the moment, to look more at details and not the big picture, to trust more their sixth sense and not just their eyes/ears, to be less greedy, to be more punctual, etc., etc., etc...

Once, with the right program and therapies, the neurotypicals adjust their behavior I am sure that autistic/Asperger people will have no problem with contacting them, dating them, and even marrying them. If they do not adjust their behavior, we will try to just avoid their vulgar ways and pretend we don't see them!

Just in case you thought that it is ONLY OUR PROBLEM that we "can't" socialize as you expect us to do! We can socialize, and make friends and date once we see that the other respects our social norms. We like quiet, still, peaceful, repetition, familiarity, units not a mass.

I hope I did not upset someone, but frankly speaking for autistics to be able to fit in today's society, adjustments need to be made TRULY FROM BOTH SIDES. Yet, we seem to accept neurotypicals as "normal" and expect autistics to fit their behavior to those "normal" standards. I feel that this is an unfair situation.

And for me dating a neurotypical is just a way to look for problems. I have always and only dated and had long relationships (2-5 years) with autistic men. The reason the relationships ended was my need for more moving space and freedom.

To explain exactly what I mean let me ask you why is an autistic thought as impaired in comparison to a neurotypical?

When neurotypicals seem to think they know what autism is and what Aspergers/HFA, why do they split autism into 3 "parts" to make it look like a spectrum?

Autism is not a spectrum, it is ONE and the same for all autistics (autism = basic way the brain functions and decodes the world around us). And since auties an aspies share this same basic viewpoint of the world, if you look clearly you will realize that what they call "autistic behavior" (either severe, mild or lite), is actually the rituals, social rituals, social language, social communication of our kind, we are a different kind of people, a different species of human race, just as the neuroticals are a different species.

The human kind just all other mammals has subspecies. Autistics are not broken "neurotypicals" we are a separate species of the human kind. The autistic mannerisms we have that science sees as disabilities, are not such when we are in the company of each other. Because we all behave within familiar social signals, our behavior is not strange to each other, our mannerisms are within our social norms.

The same way, tigers and lions are part of the same species but a different kind. Tigers are loners (much like the autistics) and the lions prefer to live in groups, with the male as the leader and the females doing most of the work around the family (more like the neurotypicals).

So, are tigers broken or impaired lions?
Are the neurotypicals impaired autistics?
Well, here is the autism puzzel my dear friends.

I consult families, autistic families should I say and teach them how to come out of their fake neurotypical personas and reconnect with their autistic kids, and 'poof' there goes autism out the window. Once the parents reconnect with their own autistic nature, and regain their long lost autistic language and social cues, they can reconnect with their own children much easier.

That is what I do. I heal the tigers that were taught to behave like lions to ensure their survival in a lion's world...

Investigating & Exposing Psychiatric Human Rights Violations

We are not alone!!!

The Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)

And their YouTube site with lots and lots of videos exposing the fraud of psychiatric illnesses and the DSM!

Stigma and Mental Illness

The "Journal of Mental Health" issue of August 2010, published an article about
"Stigma and Mental Illness"

(note: Mental Illness also includes Autism!!!)

It says: When applied to individuals with mental illness, this kind of moral imputation has egregious effects on a number of levels, what we have called public stigma, self-stigma, and label avoidance.



- Public stigma is the phenomenon of large social groups endorsing stereotypes about, and subsequently acting against, a stigmatized group: in this case, people with mental illness.
- Self-stigma is the loss of self-esteem and self-efficacy that occurs when people internalize public stigma.

- Label avoidance is a third example of stigma: people do not seek out or participate in mental health services in order to avoid the egregious impact of a stigmatizing label.

Public stigma is conceptualized as a staged process. In the first stage, the general public infers mental illness from explicit cues: psychiatric symptoms, social-skills deficits, physical appearance, and common diagnostic labels. These stigmatizing cues often elicit stereotypes, knowledge structures that the general public or individual with mental illness learn about a marked social group.

Commonly held stereotypes about people with mental illness include violence (people with mental illness are dangerous), incompetence (they are incapable of independent living or real work), and blame (because of weak character, they are responsible for the onset and continuation of their disorders) . Knowledge of a set of stereotypes however, does not necessarily constitute agreement with them.

Therefore, the outcomes of public stigma are most damaging only when people who are prejudiced endorse negative stereotypes (‘‘People with mental illness are violent and incompetent’’) and generate negative emotional reactions as a result (‘‘I am afraid of them’’) . In contrast to stereotypes, which are beliefs, prejudicial attitudes involve an evaluative (generally negative) component.

Prejudice is a cognitive and affective response that leads to discrimination, a behavioral reaction. Discriminatory behavior constitutes a negative action against the out-group, which may manifest as avoidance, not associating with people from the out-group, or loss of opportunities or treatments that would promote a person’s goals.

Public stigma harms people who are mentally ill in several ways.
Stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination can rob people labeled mentally ill
of important life opportunities that
are essential for achieving their life goals.

Studies have shown that public stereotypes and prejudice about mental illness have a deleterious impact on obtaining and keeping good jobs and leasing safe housing. It appears employers avoid workers with mental illness by not hiring them. Landlords ‘‘protect’’ tenants from people with mental illness by not renting to them. The negative impact of self-stigma can be just as great. Prior to the onset of mental illness most people are aware of the culturally endorsed stigma associated with mental illness. Upon receiving a diagnosis, the beliefs associated with stigma are activated, affecting one’s sense of self.

Living in a culture steeped in stigmatizing images, persons with mental illness may accept these notions and suffer diminished self-esteem, and confidence in their future. Research shows that people with mental illness often internalize stigmatizing ideas that are widely endorsed within society and believe that they are less valued because of their psychiatric disorder. Persons who agree with prejudice concur with the stereotype; ‘‘That’s right; I am weak and unable to care for myself!’’ Self-prejudice leads to negative emotional reactions; prominent among these is low self-esteem and low self-efficacy.

Low self-efficacy and poor self-esteem have been shown to be associated with failing to pursue work or independent living opportunities at which people with mental illness might otherwise succeed. The negative impact of self-stigma on self-esteem and self-efficacy may result in a ‘‘why try’’ effect in individuals with mental illness. The person may avoid situations where he/she expects to feel publicly disrespected. Behavioral consequences in the ‘‘why try’’ model exceed notions such as social avoidance. People who apply stigma to themselves may feel unworthy or unable to tackle the exigencies of specific life goals.

One might think that beliefs like these arise because the person indeed lacks basic social and instrumental skills to accomplish a specific aspiration. However, lack of confidence may reflect doubts raised by defining one’s self in terms of specific stereotypes. A person who has internalized stereotypes such as ‘‘the mentally ill have no worth because they have nothing to offer and are only drains on society’’ will struggle to maintain a positive self-concept. Research has suggested that many people engage in label avoidance, that is, they choose not to pursue mental health services because they do not want to be deemed a ‘‘mental patient’’ or suffer the prejudice and discrimination that the label entails.

For example, negative attitudes about mental health inhibit service use in those at risk of a psychiatric disorder. Findings identified stigmatizing beliefs that might sway people from treatment. These included concerns about what others might think and the desire to solve one’s own problems. Endorsing stigma predicted in research, whether adults were compliant with their antidepressant medication regimen 3 months later.

Furthermore, research has suggested that people with concealable stigmas (people who are gay, of minority faith-based communities, or with mental illness) may decide to avoid harm by hiding their stigma and staying in the closet. These individuals may opt to avoid the stigma all together by denying their group status and by not seeking the institutions that mark them (i.e. mental health care). This kind of label avoidance is perhaps the most significant way in which stigma impedes care seeking.

DSM-V and stigma

The American Psychiatric Association recently made public initial draft revisions proposed by the DSM-V work groups. The draft was presented on the APA website with a message from the DSM-V task force leadership asking for the public’s input and feedback about the suggested modifications. This is the first time that APA opens its doors to broad public review of the process and considerations that go into revisions of their most widely used diagnostic system, and giving mental health professionals, researchers, and persons/family members affected by mental illness the opportunity to provide feedback and input.

It is a commendable initiative and undoubtedly reflects APA’s response to the requests of increasingly proactive advocacy groups for greater transparency and openness in the conceptualization of mental illness, as well as cognizance of the need to understand mental illness and the effects of diagnoses from the perspective of those impacted by them the most.

Whether and how professional and public input will impact the final version of the DSM-V scheduled for release in 2013 remains to be seen. We have identified a number of elements in the interim draft of the DSM-V that we view as especially relevant to stigma in the context of the processes discussed in the previous sections. We present specific revisions suggested by the task force and briefly discuss them from the framework of mental illness stigma.

Autism spectrum disorders

The proposed new category will incorporate the current diagnoses of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. The new category reflects recent advances in the field of autism and neurodevelopmental disorders showing that the symptoms of these disorders represent a continuum from mild to severe.

This proposed change is being criticized by advocacy groups of the disorders considered ‘‘less severe’’ who currently view their condition as distinct. For example, the Asperger’s Association of New England has written a letter to the DSM-V committee requesting that the Asperger’s syndrome label remains unchanged as it clearly differentiates people with this disorder from other people on the autism spectrum, and has come to take an important role in the way many individuals understand themselves, and explain their experiences to their families and communities.

Resistance to the new classification can be conceptualized
as fear of groupness and perceived homogeneity –
being viewed by the public as having much in common with
the more severe, highly stigmatized label of autism.

To help reduce public backlash, it may be necessary to change the name of the new diagnosis so that it is not anchored in the most severe of the disorders on the continuum. It may be prudent, more clinically representative, and less potentially stigmatizing to focus on the actual dimensions being assessed (i.e. social interaction and communication, presence of repetitive behaviors and fixated interests).

New proposed conditions

With every updated edition of the DSM, new, more specified, diagnoses are added. This isperceived as a reflection of advances in the scientific examination of mental illnesses andimprovements in clinical assessment and symptom identification. For the upcoming DSM-V,there are a number of proposed diagnostic labels including apathy syndrome, complicated griefdisorder, parental alienation disorder, melancholia, and more.

We would like the reader to consider that along with the potential treatment gains that may be associated with these new diagnoses, there is also the risk of pathologizing what are essentially individual differences and diversity in human behavior. While some diagnostic labels offer relief, normalization, and a possible sense of shared destiny and community with others suffering from similar conditions, not all deviations from the norm in terms of affect, interpersonal functioning, and coping constitute a disorder.

For example, different people will have different idiosyncratic patterns of coping with the loss of a loved one that will undoubtedly be influenced by their cultural background, social context, and nature of the relationship with the individual.

Although these coping behaviors may be personally adaptive for the bereaved, they might be difficult for an outside observer to understand or assess. By introducing more and more diagnoses, we may narrow what is considered the range of ‘‘healthy functioning’’ to the point where few if any people meet such strict parameters. Non-suicidal self-injury is an example of a proposed new DSM-V diagnosis that assigns adiagnostic label to a particular behavior (including its purpose). Although there is little doubt that this behavior is pathological, it is problematic to consider a behavior a disorder.

Diagnostically labeling people based on a particular behavior will increase groupness, thereby suggesting the homogeneity of those who engage in non-suicidal self-injurious behavior and their distinction from both those with other disorders and the general public. It also will suggest that there is something stable that characterizes these individuals, as opposed to emphasizing a behavior that varies over time and may, in fact, completely disappear.

Through both increasing beliefs of homogeneity and stability, this new diagnosis is likely to increase both public stigma and self-stigma. In addition, in order to avoid this labeling, people engaging in non-suicidal self-injurious behavior may under report the frequency and severity of their actions, or avoid entering treatment altogether.

Summary

Diagnostic labels have clear clinical and research utility, but may have a number of negative implications for public stigma, self-stigma, and active label avoidance in people with mental illness. Through socio-cognitive processes of groupness, homogeneity, and stability, stigmatizing diagnostic labels may impact housing and job opportunities, as well as individuals’ selfesteem, self-efficacy, and treatment utilization.

Initial drafts of APA’s DSM-V show a commendable trend of greater transparency and movement toward more dimensional approaches to diagnosis which may help reduce stigma in the future, but also include a number of proposals that may have a negative impact on stigma. Ultimately, clinicians using the DSM system need to be cognizant of potential stigma related pitfalls associated with generating summarizing diagnostic labels, and make continuous efforts to educate their patients and the public about these issues.

----------------------------------
My thoughts on Stigma are:

We often tend to "stigmatize" everyone viewed all "less" than we are. Within Autism, the "less" are thought to be the severely autistic and the "more" are the Aspergers!

I feel there is no less or more in Autism. We are all autistics (whether diagnosed as severe or mild or ligh functioning or Asperger) as we all share the same brain structure and way of viewing the world around us. Whether some autistics have the ability to speak, or have the ability to solve complicated mathematical equations, it does not mean that they have a less or more form of Autism. One IS autistic, one does not have (a degree of) Autism.

One IS autistic because all autistics are born with the same fundamental sameness of brain structure and brain function that is different from the non-autistic brain. In a way autistics are the brain "Blacks" or brain "Asians", they differ in the brain area as blacks differ from whites in the skin area, or Asians differ from Europeans in the eye-shape area!

It is NOT an illness to have black skin or almond-shaped eyes, as it is not an illness to have an autistic brain. Some differences are external (skin color, eye-shape, etc) some differences are internal (brain function, point of view, social skills, etc.). When will science realize this simple fact???

So, lets stop this on going stigma of Autism and the autistics. We are not mentally ill to begin with, so Autism does not even belong in the DSM!!!

Who’s Normal???

Expected Changes In DSM-V Leave Some Questioning Who’s Normal

By Michelle Diament

July 27, 2010

With several new diagnoses expected in the forthcoming edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a group of leading mental health professionals is questioning whether anyone will still be considered “normal.”

Citing what they call three false epidemics in recent years — high rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder that emerged after the current DSM-IV was published — several psychiatric experts are taking on the wide variety of new disorders expected to be added to the DSM in the August issue of the Journal of Mental Health.

“In the new edition, temper tantrums among toddlers and heartache over a lost spouse could now be defined as mental health conditions,” says Jerome Wakefield, a social worker at New York University. “One of the most frightening scenarios is the potential for medicating people — particularly children — who haven’t yet shown any signs of illness in a bid to ‘treat’ them for Psychosis Risk Syndrome, as identified by the new draft of DSM-V.”

The DSM serves as the bible for mental health professionals, researchers and insurers by determining what symptoms warrant an official diagnosis. The current edition was released in 1994 and the American Psychiatric Association is presently compiling a fifth version, which is expected to be published in May 2013.

Among the chief concerns outlined in the Journal of Mental Health articles are the stigma that’s associated with mental illness and how that could impact a growing part of the population and fears about over-medication that may result if more and more symptoms are considered worthy of diagnosing.

Revisions to the DSM can be heated and debate emerged about the currently proposed changes even before an official draft was revealed in February. In particular, a proposal to bundle several labels including Asperger’s syndrome under the term “autism spectrum disorders” has proven particularly contentious.

-------------------
The new DSM-V has featured my blog once in the past. To see the post click on the link below:
http://aspergermindspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/02/behold-new-dsm-is-coming.html