Unmasking Autism: Discovering the New Faces of Neurodiversity 2023-02-21

[DrBadStrings]

I have a problem with this book, e.g. how it portrays someone who wears large bulky headphones to the grocery store, because they can't tolerate the noise there. It looks down on sensory issues. The tone is as if you were worse if you have sensory issues. It's so inclusive that it excludes people who have legitimate issues.

I also have a problem how it is really about negative self-esteem and doesn't offer any insight about autism and how to deal with it. There is a lot of talk about self-esteem, none about autism itself. Anyone woth or without autism can have the experiences described in this book. I'm very sorry for what the author went through and it must have been awful to be a lonly young person who is a people pleaser and has anxiety and depression, however, lots of people have the same issues and it doesn't have to be exclusively autism. Most often than not, it's not. There are also other kinds of neurodoversity such as ADHD that I think are blended in in the book and called autism. I see ADHD as a legitimate problem and experiences of people with it as hard, valid and potentially isolating as well, but it's not the same thing as autism.

I can't relate to the book at all and it feels alienating and even speaks unfavourably about what I'm like. I am the science guy and I do wear bulky headphones to grocery shops and make poor eye contact - that isn't even a negative thing, but I got to know from this boom that it is.

Interesting that you viewed the book as having negative portrayals. I read it myself and thought it was the opposite in fact. I don't think that description you highlight was in any way done so in the book to be negative.

I have nothing but good to say about the author and the book in general. It's thorough, well sourced, well explained. For someone newly delving into the vast amount of information on the topic I thought this book to be invaluable in explaining masking and the harms that come from it. Especially as I had been unknowingly masking for most of my life.

 

[vergil96]

I don't think that description you highlight was in any way done so in the book to be negative.

Of course. The book just favours one kind of people and "others" a streak of autism that the author doesn't speak to and doesn't represent, not caring how the descriptions might impact the "other" kind. I've had a conversation on the internet in which self-identified autistic people claimed that not looking another person in the eye (and looking at their nose or forehead instead, for example) is an exaggeration and not real and not going to shopping malls is exclusive to the intellectually disabled autistics. It's that kind of narrative. I find it hurtful. I also wonder how someone with intellectual disability might feel reading something like that. It's badly framed, badly worded. It's uncaring, not taking into account other perspectives.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Of course. The book just favours one kind of people and "others" a streak of autism that the author doesn't speak to and doesn't represent, not caring how the descriptions might impact the "other" kind. I've had a conversation on the internet in which self-identified autistic people claimed that not looking another person in the eye (and looking at their nose or forehead instead, for example) is an exaggeration and not real and not going to shopping malls is exclusive to the intellectually disabled autistics. It's that kind of narrative. I find it hurtful. I also wonder how someone with intellectual disability might feel reading something like that. It's badly framed, badly worded. It's uncaring, not taking into account other perspectives.

That is pretty messed up.

 

[DrBadStrings]

Of course. The book just favours one kind of people and "others" a streak of autism that the author doesn't speak to and doesn't represent, not caring how the descriptions might impact the "other" kind. I've had a conversation on the internet in which self-identified autistic people claimed that not looking another person in the eye (and looking at their nose or forehead instead, for example) is an exaggeration and not real and not going to shopping malls is exclusive to the intellectually disabled autistics. It's that kind of narrative. I find it hurtful. I also wonder how someone with intellectual disability might feel reading something like that. It's badly framed, badly worded. It's uncaring, not taking into account other perspectives.

Yeah I've got to 100% disagree. I get the exact opposite take from it, the book to me was incredibly caring, inclusive and thoroughly took in many different perspectives. I feel like you missed some points, and where also reading with a view to already be negative about the book. Because what you've described, and how the book reads to me at least, are pretty near polar opposites.

 

[vergil96]

with a view to already be negative about the book.

That was rude. Ad personam isn't an argument.

 

[vergil96]

It's uncaring, not taking into account other perspectives.

I mean this aspect I'm describing specifically. The book does come across as trying to be inclusive, but seems unpleasant to me regardless, as if the author didn't take into account the experiences that I came with, with a "nobody is like that, it's not true, there are no real Sherlock Holmses on this earth" idea and that's dismissive. The quote was meant to be a description of a specific aspect of this book.

 

[DrBadStrings]

That was rude. Ad personam isn't an argument.

Folks are quick to yell "Ad hominem" when someone disagrees with them when they are expressing an opinion. But when the shoe fits, the shoe fits. I've read the book and you're blatantly mischaracterizing it. Based on your comments, I came to my conclusion. You are more than allowed to disagree but it doesn't change my view. Have a great life man, we're both allowed to have our opinions.

 

[vergil96]

Folks are quick to yell "Ad hominem" when someone disagrees with them when they are expressing an opinion. But when the shoe fits, the shoe fits. I've read the book and you're blatantly mischaracterizing it. Based on your comments, I came to my conclusion. You are more than allowed to disagree but it doesn't change my view. Have a great life man, we're both allowed to have our opinions.

If this is a repeating situation for you, maybe you should avoid ad hominem arguments then and explain how you interpreted what someone said and why instead. You've decided to call me names instead of having a dialogue and now you expect me not speak up.

I've read the book and you're blatantly mischaracterizing it. Based on your comments, I came to my conclusion. You are more than allowed to disagree but it doesn't change my view. Have a great life man, we're both allowed to have our opinions.

Oh, so your own judgement is the point of reference to being right? That's the vibe I'm getying from this sentence as well:

Because what you've described, and how the book reads to me at least, are pretty near polar opposites.

You're basically saying here that I'm prejudiced against the book, because our perspecrives on it are "polar opposites". I have no idea where you got this idea that having opposite perspectives on a book means someone is prejudiced against it. If one person loves apples and another person hates apples, there is no "attitude" behind it on either end. Similarly, different experiences can influence having different perceptions of books.

 

[jsilver256]

I can't relate to the book at all and it feels alienating and even speaks unfavourably about what I'm like. I am the science guy and I do wear bulky headphones to grocery shops and make poor eye contact - that isn't even a negative thing, but I got to know from this boom that it is.

Yeah, I know what you mean, "stereotypical" autistic traits get love in fictional shows but not among autism advocates. But to be fair the autistics who would be inclined to write self-help biographies are a self-selecting group. I wrote this massive 40-page treaty on this brilliant idea to increase availability + consistency in logs by sacrificing durability guarantees but I'd probably not do more than a couple of pages for a biography.

 

[vergil96]

But to be fair the autistics who would be inclined to write self-help biographies are a self-selecting group. I wrote this massive 40-page treaty on this brilliant idea to increase availability + consistency in logs by sacrificing durability guarantees but I'd probably not do more than a couple of pages for a biography.

Fair point. You have to be the more humanistically or socially inclined type to wirte a self-help book.

 

[saturnv]

The author has not been diagnosed with autism. I realize that self-diagnosed people seem to be the majority in online spaces for autism and use that to claim a consensus that self-diagnosis is valid. Things like this book demonstrate one of the reasons that it isn't. Writing a book about leaning into the socially accepted aspects of autism as an identity is alienating to people with the disabling and not accepted aspects (actual autism).

I don't think the central idea of the book is worthwhile. If the concept of masking is reframed as developing and using social skills, it is not in fact a good idea to "unmask" because neurotypical people do not accept autistic people and are not likely to start soon.

I fully welcome self-diagnosed people to participate in autistic communities because most of them probably have autism, but saying they suspect they have autism vs claiming to have autism should be done. Writing a book about how to act as an autistic person without having a diagnosis is going way too far.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

What specifically did Devon Price say that people find offensive? My experience of the book wasn't like that. I felt he was advocating for self-acceptance and focusing on what made you feel happy and alive. The exercises were specifically directed toward that, from what I recall.