BBC4 tonight Monday 13th August. Documentary on Autism. Growing Children.

[LottieJenkins]

My mum is away but rang me to tell me it is on! Looks interesting!!!

@ lancielottie's DS.

Is it likely that he is winding you up??

I agree about the lack of girls. I would have loved Dd3 to watch the programme on iplayer with me but am reluctant as there was no girls.

i'd love a programme specifically about girls and ASD

and some more books and research and a whole lot more but then i'd be ranting

SallyBear I have pmed you!!!

Lottie. I have replied to your pm.

I couldn't see much of Ds2 in any of the young people showed. In terms of language ability, he is most like Tony, but he is much more interactive and socially aware ( from what we saw in the programme). Although he does a lot of vocalising / vocal stimming, particularly when on the computer, he doesn't jump, spin etc very much any more ( he is 9). He is cognitively very delayed but less outwardly autistic, if that makes sense. He does hit out when frustrated but can usually be calmed down quickly and he is very aware that its not right to hit people - says sorry straightaway. I've never seen anyone like him on any programme about autism I've watched, though I see fragments. I wish the programme had had more about interventions - it was a bit doom and gloomy about ASD being an incurable condition, without discussing the things that help children progress. But thats probably another programme!

Ineedaflippingmedal -- i guess we'll find out this time next week.

'How does this poem make you feel?' He says he put 'Irritated. Also a bit confused. Why don't poets just say what they mean?'
After many years of study of English Literature I know just how he feels

I must admit that the portrait bit made me laugh. The painting of the girl and Laverne saying that she could strike up a conversation with her, I didn't feel that way about her at all, she looked very unapproachable.

It's OCD focused apparently.

Although I liked the majority of the programme, I agree the painting bit was cringe-worthy. Everyone's interpretation of art is different. And yes, Sallybear she did look "very unapproachable".

Can I ask what others thought of the girl in the portrait? I watched it with ds (15 asd) who said she 'didnt look like anything' . I thought it was a really bad example to use.
For the record I thought she looked frightened.... But Laverne didn't really mention her expression.
That part was just odd I thought

Re English Literature.... I have given up on Ds's English gcse. It seems to be the one subject where everything is unfairly stacked against him. I don't think he ever feels so autistic as when he's in English. Ds is very honest as well so when they are forcefed literature notes and basically told what the examiners want them to write about a characters thoughts and feelings, he would not use them. I have tried to tell him that half the kids in the class (nt as well) probably aren't picking up on half the literary devices too... And that whispers partly we lie and pad out in English exams because we know what examiners want us to say. Unfortunately, he's 1 - not seeing it in the first place... 2, doesn't understand the concept of ' what does the examiner want' And 3. Refusing to bullshit.

i thought the portrait was of a very frightened girl, it would probably reduce me to tears if i saw in RL

[bit of a wuss emoticon]

i think using art in this instance was a good idea because art is subjective. NTs will look for a hidden meaning, even if they disagree with their peers it will still be something.

i'd say you were empathetic zzzzz, and fwiw i score very low on the online asd tests too, maybe we've just disproved my theory

saying that though, an NT 'appreciation' of artworks will often draw on personal experience too - we would identify perhaps with different paintings, but the process of that identification and enhanced appreciation would still be the same?

am just musing here, hope you can understand where i'm coming from?

I honestly thought that the painting was lifeless...emotionless. I didn't get anything from it. I didn't feel anything, I didn't see anything...just a not particularly nice painting of a girl.

Oh shoot! What have I started!!
I thought that the painting was beautifully painted i.e. the brush strokes. I thought that Laverne was maybe pushing her interests slightly into Michael, for his response to what she perceives as a NT interest. I know lots of NT people who loathe art and just dont get it! Its not for everyone! And would she have been as patient (as he was) with say his interest in for e.g. stamp or coin collecting, and/or Warhammer?

Well I posted at the same time as this part was aired:

"I have to say, I kind of agree with Michael regarding the painting . I just see a girl staring blankly. "

I was quite literally rolling my eyes when she was doing her deep breathy analysis of hopes, aspirations and emotions!

Perhaps she's the not so NT one?

Tbh, with that expression she could have just been thinking 'what's for dinner'??