multiplicity_archives

It's somewhat difficult for us to talk about because there appears to be a perception that claiming autism, especially of the Asperger variety, is 'faddish,' especially to excuse one's bad behavior. I won't claim that I've never seen this; I've only seen it a few times, but a few cases are all that some people need to pick up the idea that it's always a put-up job. I think there may also be a tendency for people to interpret mute/withdrawn system members as autistic. (To be fair, this is nothing new: it used to be common to refer to abused children who had become intensely withdrawn as autistic, which helped to perpetuate the concept that it was caused by abuse and bad parenting.)

I would say that about half of the people in here identify with the label, and half of them don't. Significantly or not, those who do are primarily those who were 'born into the body'-- who haven't identified as walk-ins. For those who don't, they tend to see it as an aspect of the body which may or may not fit with who they really are-- like being female-- but which needs to be acknowledged anyway (i.e. remembering that they can't stay at a party too long because of overload). Some people here, like Ruka, consider it fascinating to study/experience as a different state of being than their own.

We do have our share of people with individual 'quirks' which some might choose to see as autistic, although they aren't in and of themselves. One of the problems with a society where corporations and lobby groups dictate 'normalcy' is that things once considered to be merely odd or even positive-- like having a deep, intense area of interest, or (for children) preferring reading to sports and socializing-- have been redefined as symptoms of (supposed) pathologies. Conversely, there have also been attempts by some autistic people to redefine autism as a 'superior' state of being (much as some multiples have attempted to claim multiplicity as a superior state) characterized by logic and superintelligence-- which may be partly responsible for more people deciding, accurately or no, to self-define as autistic, if it's seen as a positive state.

Our take on that whole business is that while it's certainly better to be seen as a special genius than as something which shouldn't exist, these expectations can also put a stressful burden on autistic people to appear brilliant, talented, hyperlogical, to be savants, etc. in order to prove their authenticity and right to exist. Again, there are also parallels with multiplicity here, in that multiples were expected to be geniuses, creative, psychic, etc., and some multiples who didn't meet the impossibly high standards (incl. us) worried about whether or not they were 'real.'

"I think there may also be a tendency for people to interpret mute/withdrawn system members as autistic."

In our case, this physical body is definitely autistic - Kír may dispute the word, but even he doesn't dispute the signs: sensory hyperacuity, hyperlexia, prosopagnosia, splinter skills, executive-processing dysfunction. However, I don't think it's because of autism that Crist-Erui went mute and withdrawn; I think my mother beat him.

When my daughter was little, I had a conversation with my Mom on the subject of spanking, and she said that she stopped spanking me after an incident that made her realize that she was out of control with it. I don't remember that at all, but I do remember Crist-Erui becoming afraid of people, not all at once, but gradually - he just sort of slipped away from everything human. So I think that was why, though I have no way to prove anything. But even before then, he didn't talk.

These days he talks; he's even quite the chatterbox at times, now that he's got people he can talk to who won't hurt him, and he's getting more understandable, but he's still very strange and shy. It's hard to say whether his strangeness is "autism", though, or something else, and in a lot of ways it really doesn't matter.

When my daughter was little, I had a conversation with my Mom on the subject of spanking, and she said that she stopped spanking me after an incident that made her realize that she was out of control with it. I don't remember that at all, but I do remember Crist-Erui becoming afraid of people, not all at once, but gradually - he just sort of slipped away from everything human. So I think that was why, though I have no way to prove anything. But even before then, he didn't talk.

I think many people don't realise the kind of effect that hitting and physical restraint can have on kids-- and for some autistic kids with sensory issues, the violation of physical space can be pretty traumatising. It sounds like whether or not he was inclined to talk to begin with, after that, he just basically got the impression that interacting with people at all was dangerous.

We kind of had a point in our fights with our (the body's) brother when we both realised we were getting seriously out of control and needed to cut it the hell out. It's unfortunate that in so many family interactions, the aggressor (or aggressors) only become aware of their mistakes after damage has already been done-- but it's good at least that he's found people he can trust.

"It sounds like whether or not he was inclined to talk to begin with, after that, he just basically got the impression that interacting with people at all was dangerous."

Yeah, he did - it probably wasn't just my Mom; kindergarten was a cruel place, and of course neurotypical children relentlessly torment anyone 'different'. By the time we turned six, the only person he'd let see him was our (physical) little brother - that was also when he began his sporadic attempts to run away, which didn't cease till we were 40 years old.

He hasn't had an easy life, by any means, and from what Kír says, the time before was even worse, but nevertheless he's a pretty cheerful guy, and our present way of life suits him well. It's amazing how much he does talk now, when it's only been about five years since his first words in English... LOL, even though (as my kid humorously complained) he still talks more to the dogs than he does to people.

"It's somewhat difficult for us to talk about because there appears to be a perception that claiming autism, especially of the Asperger variety, is 'faddish,' especially to excuse one's bad behavior."

Oh, you mean like this?:

You may not yet have heard of Asperger's syndrome. But you can be sure that omeone will sooner or later offer it to you as an excuse for his own bad behaviour, for it is the height of hypochondriac fashion in New York. (http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/05/25/do2502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/05/25/ixopinion.html)

Hell, that makes me not want to say anything, and we have an informal diagnosis from Bernard Rimland.

Yeah. It's not a good idea to tell people, because one's very likely to be either disbelieved or discounted/patronized for it. I have a terrible time going to doctors, because my choice is either to not tell them, in which case they do things that cause me severe distress due to my sensory issues, or to tell them and then be treated as if I was retarded.

The thing is, the official diagnostic criteria (http://www.autism-biomed.org/dsm-iv.htm) are entirely behavioral and subjective - the doctor looks at the kid and decides if he acts like the description in the book. The question of why he acts that way doesn't even arise. It's totally circular logic: "he's autistic because he acts this way; he acts this way because he's autistic".

I don't "act autistic", at least not where people can see me doing it. I don't think my behavior these days could fairly be described as anything worse than "eccentric", and I have a full and rewarding social life. When I do tell people, the usual comment is "You don't look autistic" - as if all autistics looked like Rain Man or something. And having walked away from the ~~Thought Police~~ psychiatric establishment and their bullshit diagnoses as soon as I was old enough to legally do so, I was pretty damn offended when a friend told me she thought I might be an Aspie.

This friend, whose children I look after, happens to be a nurse, and at the time she was just going through the process of getting an official diagnosis for one of her sons. (The youngest one just recently got diagnosed as well.) She got me to read Tony Attwood's book, and... y'know... she had a valid point.

I'll never go get an Official Diagnosis. Why should I put myself through that? There isn't jack-shit to be done about it, and I'm not going to go begging to the State, who'd turn me down in an instant anyway, because I've got too much work-history. I'm also not going to have something like that on my medical records, to come back and haunt me when I'm old.... ha, no way.

However, I'd love to be able to give every person who says "Aspies are just faddish attention-seekers" a week of living with my sensory/cognitive 'differences'. Oh yeah, hop in the car and drive to the supermarket; go on in for your dental appointment; pack everything you need for three weeks at the Ren Faire and head on out to it... I'd like well to watch them try, and after that, maybe there'd be a little more respect for those of us who live this way all the time.

But of course, that's the same thing they say about multiplicity. The invention of alters is a convenient way for the patient to act out her aggressive impulses without having to take responsibility for it. It allows the patient to take refuge in a sanctioned sick role. Lather, rinse, repeat. Etc.

Unfortunately, there are some multiple folk who do seem to find it awfully convenient to 'be someone else' whenever they've got aggressive impulses to act out. I don't say they're "inventing alters", but neither are they (any of them) taking responsibility, and it gets pretty annoying to deal with.

Like the people on alt.support.dissociation who'd flame other posters and then follow up with a contrite "Oh, sorry, that was my angry alter! She just hit the 'post' button and I couldn't stop her." I don't necessarily think they're inventing people either, but I'm kind of doubtful as to how much of it the 'angry alter' really wrote.

It's one thing for that to happen, but then, it's up to the so-called angry alter to come forward, and reply. Presuming that was the actual scenario, why is this considered the proper way to handle the circumstance? The issue is never resolved because someone else apologized, while the person who committed the offense remains unapologetic. What kind of tripe is that?

Take two physical people: Sally and Jane. Sally is know for being nice, kind, and sweet-tempered. Jane is known for being mean angry and vicious all the time. If every time Sally got angry at someone, Jane came forward to yell at them, and Sally jumped in to clear her own name, and get Jane forgiven, eventually people would see this for the codependant raquet it quickly becomes. Jane gets to be an asshole and never has to deal with the consequence of her actions, while Sally continues to be seen as a nice, reasonable girl.

Now, let's presume that Jane did all of the above, and Sally actually had nothing against the party in question. Even still, there is no reason for either Sally, or Jane, to expect that this is a reasonable resolution. Sally may think she's being nice, but she's still enabling Jane, and the people who are hurt are barred from getting any real sense that the problem is resolved. Jane is also potentially using Sally's diplomatic nature to her advantage, and can avoid being held accountable for her own actions, as apologies are handled through Sally.

Here's another scenario: take the first situation, but, instead of trying to garner sympathy for Jane, as well as keep her name clear, Sally just lets Jane fight her battles for her, and acts mortified. She never actually lets her presentation of herself be anything other than even tempered, but she frequently acts wounded by others in front of Jane, knowing full well that that will do. Here, Sally has made Jane into her Pittbull. Now she can deal with her "negative" emotions vicariously, having someone say all the not-so-nice things she wants to say.

For some reason however, people let this behavior slide.

--Me

oh christ, did that bring back memories. In usenet alt.support.dissociation and alt.sexual.abuse.recovery, circa 1995-98, it seemed like every other post was that. It was all of the worst examples brought together in two collectors' edition stereo DVDs for our viewing pleasure. Bonus track: it turned out that Peter Barach, yes that Peter Barach (http://www.issd.org), came into the newsgroup and saw all that, and we still believe that this was at least one of the major excuses he used to convince his fellow Thought Police to get rid of the MPD diagnosis (so people with actual MPD couldn't get help), change it to DID, and declare us all a bunch of confused, delusional LOONIES just because that's what he saw on usenet!!!

It's usenet, the quintessential example of people behaving badly online. Do you have any idea how much stuff we could get discounted on that alone? *laughs* Someone might have wanted to check his temperature at the time.

--Me

I think I actually found some of his insufferably arrogant posts one time in a Deja search. He was engaged in a debate with someone who was trying to convince him that integration wasn't always necessary. Unfortunately, that group wasn't very good for convincing anyone that multiples were capable of responsibly tying their own shoes, or doing anything except having their heads knocked together until they all agreed to get along.

From Article:

b) Do people accuse you of failing to share their interests?

You have got to be kidding me. Shit, everyone but June Cleaver's gonna have to say yes to that. What if you're interests are specific, or odd, or worse yet, what if you interact largely with people whose interests are specific, unique, or just plain different from your own?

Make me barf.

--Me

(To be fair, this is nothing new: it used to be common to refer to abused children who had become intensely withdrawn as autistic, which helped to perpetuate the concept that it was caused by abuse and bad parenting.)

Someone we know used to be, and perhaps still is, convinced that autism is caused by abuse. We tried to convince her that people could be born that way, but we're not sure if we succeeded at all. One of our previous regular fronters used to be quite fond of this woman, and would like to come out to her, but we can't do it because the idea of multiplicity being caused by abuse is even stronger, and there isn't anything you can show her to change her mind. (She also seems to believe that the internet is evil.)

I would say that about half of the people in here identify with the label, and half of them don't. Significantly or not, those who do are primarily those who were 'born into the body'-- who haven't identified as walk-ins. For those who don't, they tend to see it as an aspect of the body which may or may not fit with who they really are-- like being female-- but which needs to be acknowledged anyway (i.e. remembering that they can't stay at a party too long because of overload).

For us it's more or less like that. There are also a few previous (semi-)regular fronters who feel we suddenly "became" disabled, who don't identify with being autistic, or at least don't really seem to get what our limitations are. Maybe it's being diagnosed late and nobody around us having a clue before that that did it. It's these people we have the most trouble with in terms of getting them to be realistic about the body, our life, etc.; not the people who came in later, because they have this jarring sensation of "this is different, I have to be careful".

Hmmm.... actually, that's an interesting observation. People 'born into the body' in our system actually do tend to be more stubborn about their limitations; I think that they bought the party line which was repeated to us so often, that we're 'being lazy and could really do it if you tried,' and 'capable of much more than you think you are.' (Regarding the latter one, we were about some things, but most of them were not the things others thought we should be able to do.)

Thought so. :) We can't actually remember a lot of times the "you're just lazy, try harder" thing was said to us, but in any case it got internalized; it's even been called "self-inflicted ABA" in here. Perhaps if you're a bit of a model student (like we were for a while - except that we never learned how to learn, so it couldn't stay that way very long) you don't need much "assistance" for buying all that **** about being (or seeming) successful, identifying with what you can do, etc.

We do remember the things people told us about the bullying: "You mustn't let it get to you", "Just ignore them", "You've got to be strong"... Which never convinced us that it would be effective to follow their advice; only that apparently most of the adults involved didn't care enough to bother, some of them blamed us, and those who did care had even less power to deal with the situation than we did (we had to be "strong", because they couldn't).

Hm. I guess maybe one thing overshadowed the other, in reality or in memory (or both).

(Regarding the latter one, we were about some things, but most of them were not the things others thought we should be able to do.)

*grin* Ain't it cool to find those?

Thought so. :) We can't actually remember a lot of times the "you're just lazy, try harder" thing was said to us, but in any case it got internalized; it's even been called "self-inflicted ABA" in here. Perhaps if you're a bit of a model student (like we were for a while - except that we never learned how to learn, so it couldn't stay that way very long) you don't need much "assistance" for buying all that **** about being (or seeming) successful, identifying with what you can do, etc.

I think we were identified as being lazy because we showed specific 'pockets' of high ability in certain subjects. People saw those and assumed we were some kind of super genius who could be brilliant at everything "if she just put her mind to it." Apparently having 'peaks and valleys' of ability is a common autistic thing, but many people around us saw the peaks as being representative of what we'd be able to do with everything if we would just buckle down and show some self-discipline. And if you can do some things very easily, you can get confused yourself when you hit something that overwhelms you and come to think that maybe you really aren't trying, especially if it's something that seems to come easily to everyone else around you.

We do remember the things people told us about the bullying: "You mustn't let it get to you", "Just ignore them", "You've got to be strong"... Which never convinced us that it would be effective to follow their advice; only that apparently most of the adults involved didn't care enough to bother, some of them blamed us, and those who did care had even less power to deal with the situation than we did (we had to be "strong", because they couldn't).

That was pretty much our experience too. The people who did actually care about us couldn't do anything about it; the school system actually encourages this kind of thing in a covert way, on the grounds that it will 'teach' children what is or is not socially acceptable behavior, and that children who act in an unusual way are 'inviting it.' The problem was that even when we turned into a meek compliant mute, the other kids still found things to harass us about, including the fact that we *stopped* talking to anyone. The best we could really do was to try to make a few friends so we didn't feel quite as lousy.

'peaks and valleys'

Huge factor in messing with expectations (other people's and your own). Another one: being able to learn something fine one way, but not another way. ("I thought I was good at languages/history/..., but I guess that was a mistake.") This problem isn't over for us yet; we have to be careful not to use the wrong methods for our self-education.

Plus, dammit, teachers who are supposed to understand about sensory processing problems but can't manage to talk at a speed that doesn't cause the sounds they produce to get all garbled and incomprehensible. [Um, this is turning into an "all the things that f***ed up my education" string of complaints, and we're going to stop this before the perseveration bug bites us (if it didn't do that already).]

FWIW, though, thinking about it some more, I think we may be affected in different ways by the tendencies of our shared brain. Nobody is totally unaffected, but there seem to be varying levels of tolerance for things like overload, etc.; one person will wear a type of clothing or eat a certain kind of food which another person has sensory issues with.

Non-autistic persons fronting through this body aren't less affected than the rest of us, although their effects may possibly be different or more subtle. Some of them have to deal with their own sort of 'oddness' coming to the front (Ruka, for instance-- he's a good example of someone who's not autistic, but also not neurotypical). Someone might find that they get more obsessed with counting or alphabetizing things than they do 'back home,' or more inclined to read encyclopedias as opposed to novels.

FWIW, though, thinking about it some more, I think we may be affected in different ways by the tendencies of our shared brain.

Yeah. That was actually one of the things (perhaps the thing) most suggestive of plurality of some kind, to us. Of course you sometimes see autistics write things like "oops, my receptive language comprehension seems to have left me" and things like that, and sometimes it is just the brain getting overloaded in that area/skill and burning out/giving up, and you just need to give it rest before it can come back online. (Sometimes of course it's a plural, but one who doesn't identify publicly and/or privately as such.) So we try not to confuse overload situations with switching.

We do seem to be autistic in different ways. Though it's hard to tell what is autism and what is just "wiring" in general; the fact that one of us has difficulty with dividing or switching attention, for instance, could be thought of in terms of autism but also in terms of a certain personality type.

Some functioning differences may have more to do with how the person "deals" with the autism than with how they are affected by it. One of us is intelligent-but-not-intellectual and pays much more attention to social stuff than the rest of us; she experiences a great deal of exhaustion. Is she differently affected by the autism or does she just rely a lot on things the brain isn't good at?

But looking at things like how much people need to withdraw, what sensory issues they have, things like that - I think that may be autism working differently for different people.

Someone might find that they get more obsessed with counting or alphabetizing things than they do 'back home,' or more inclined to read encyclopedias as opposed to novels.

With us, I'm not sure if it's people from "outside" that this especially applies to, but there are definately some who view things like that as somewhat external to themselves, as opposed to those who experience them as part of who they are.

(I'm almost not posting this because I'm not sure if it makes sense; brain tired, me tired, whatever.)

Question

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Duck, and cover your ass.

Re: Duck, and cover your ass.

Re: Duck, and cover your ass.

Re: Duck, and cover your ass.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject