'Visitweb Magazine' Empowering Communities
Community Information,  News and Events; Local Services; Voluntary Organisations; Self Help Groups and Counselling & Advocacy.
Promoting a positive attitude towards Communities, psychological and emotional wellbeing, positive mental health. -  Improve understanding and attitudes between service users, professionals , communities, media and government. Highlight Institutional Abuses. Expose Relationship Abuse & Bullying. Advance Social Inclusion, Informed Choice, Empowerment & Human Rights -

My son has not been diagnosed, or assessed as having Autism, but he would have been if others would have had their way. I strongly resisted him being statemented, because I have seen both the advantages and the disadvantages of this (and the outcomes in adulthood). Being Statemented can carry a very heavy price, affecting a person's entire life. Its not all positive.

I battled to resist any clinical diagnosis and 'belligerently' refused to co-operate along that route, sometime being criticised and even accused of being negligent, or abusive. These label was not available when I was a child, I was described as socially withdrawn and a slow learner - I was lucky. My younger Brother was also physically & sexually abused, developed a drug habit and was then identified as schizophrenic. (Click Here to show text below in New Window)

How often do we ask of a child (or Adult for that matter) "Why did you do that?" in the 'anger frame' of "Don't you dare do that again". These days, we often don't really want to know why. The question originally arose as a genuine desire to know. It springs from our lips so easily. It is so deep rooted and feels such a natural question to ask. Why has it become, like so many utterances, distorted in this ugly way? FEAR!

We no longer want to know answers that may undermine everything we have been lead to believe. A challenge to every quick fix we have been given. Fear that our child may be seen to be different and in being different may challenge all that we have come to believe and rely upon.

The Context of this Story:

My own personal experiences in childhood and particular difficulties in learning and socialising, have motivated me to seek to better understand what it is that goes wrong for children who do not 'fit in' in various ways. The consequences, even when we get things a little wrong, is far reaching. Sometimes we get things seriously wrong and then refuse to accept that the consequences are the result of our compounded cultural errors. There are so many theories around, concerning Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, Learning Difficulties, Schizoaffective Disorders, the nature of Intelligence, child development, language development, genetics, environment, the list goes on. The social experiments can be dangerous.

Most of these researches and variant professional perspective provide some valuable insight into why some children thrive and others do not. They all have a positive contribution to make, if they did not believe that their particular answer provided the latest secret of the universe. From Psychoanalysis to Behaviourism, from Genetics & 'Organics', to Social Science, everyone wants the biggest share of the 'child expert' pie. Are things getting any better? No, they are getting worse and we are inadvertently causing this. All kids are greater that the sum of their parts. The academic insight we gain can never replace intuitive and instinctive parenting (or professional practice), only guide it when it goes wrong.

I suppose many people would describe me as taking a Holistic approach. Others would say I had a social work bias. Some accuse me as being too psycho-analytic and still others, too scientific & behaviouristic in my approach. Well they are all a bit right. In the sense that I follow my well exercised intuition, which is being constantly fed by positive experience and identified errors, I am Holistic. We are dealing with complete people here. Its is also true, in the sense that I believe science can add valuable knowledge to our general understanding of human functioning, development and adaptive advancement. In that I am a dedicated amateur scientist (but still a holistic generalist).

In the sense that I believe our genetic disposition is powerful force, driving our adaptive cultural and individual advancement, I am a geneticist. In the sense that I believe that the social forces exhibited within our cultures, advance or inhibit the innate ability for the culture (and individuals within it) to advance and adapt, I am a social scientist. In the sense that I believe that 'folklore', 'analogy' 'metaphor' & 'interpretation' are useful ways of understanding ourselves; providing us insight, wisdom & predictability, I am Analytic. In the sense that I appreciate the investigation of the simple mechanisms by which we 'can' learn some behaviours and attitudes that are beneficial, or else work against us; I am behaviourist.

If a child (or Adult) takes anything in by mouth, ear, eyes, touch, smell, or any other somatic experience, mental process, creative imagination, or other channel that we either partially understand, or fail to appreciate at all, the child incorporates the whole experience into their understanding of the world that they experientially live in. It is their world. Loose touch with that and we loose touch with them. It takes two to communicate and it requires the active involvement of both sides. It is, whatever your powerful position, a communication of equals, or else, no real communication at all. Even the earliest grammar of conversations with a child is set by the child, ask any mother, listen to any dad.

When we stop listening to what they are saying, in their 'terms', a child will become cut off from us and may eventually become an adult cut off from us. You and the child are the experts in any child - adult engagement and the communication may sometimes only be described as gut feelings, an intuition, a sense of some earlier, un-vocalised experience, similar to that which we had ourselves as a child. Go with it and test it out. That is what communication is really about; Trial and error, reflection and correction. Even when we share definitions we do not always understand the same meaning, or appreciate the same original experience (unless we are severely intellectually impaired).

We too frequently assume it gets better when we are Adult, but often this is just a mutual assumption and tolerance of miscommunication, or else a cooperative of delusion. Miscommunications and misunderstanding happen all the time. Often it just doesn't matter, we get it more right at later attempts (after saying sorry). Sometimes it is quite frustrating and irritating and we struggle to sort it out. Sometimes it has profound implications and we get divorced, mess things up, or go to war. Occasionally it is totally devastating and leads to complete breakdown of every kind.. If we can get it so wrong as adults, think how easy it is to get it wrong with kids, who we often assume to be less competent than us?

My Perspectives, Approach and Method:

The reason that I have taken a broadly 'scientific' approach to these problems that children (and many adults) experience is because the various fragmented, largely academic attitudes that various professionals take are only ever partial answers. These varied perspective and the prejudices they can generate, often create as many new problems as the ones they solve. Technically minded Experts are often individually so convinced by their own logic and filtered evidence, that all other explanations are largely dismissed. Its can be a kind of competition, a big human experiment. Sometime we look for the sophisticated when the underlying problems are quite simple and practical.

It is no longer enough to assert intuitive understanding, healthy reflective experience, instinct and the maintaining of holistic perspectives. We are forced by this artificial, expert based, largely legalistic, institutionalised way of thinking, to prove our intuitive experience. We are required to prove that the original behavioural material, from which the expert perspectives were condensed, are valid in themselves. What a strange situation to be in. Its is as if, like some God, the original expert had picked the original ideas of analysis, behaviourism, child development out of the air, rather than arriving at their wisdom from watching skilled practitioners undertake their natural multiple tasking, in very natural ways.

I have sought to show how each 'chunk' of knowledge has some validity, each facet of understanding has some truth, but the overall picture is highly distorted because the mirror through which we are looking is shattered and fragmented. To entirely rely on any one fragment, or a selected few of these fragment, is inadequate to the real understanding of the individual. By looking for (or at) the flaws, we too often miss the positive qualities, the strengths and potential that we all have; to adapt to the circumstances we find ourselves in. The blind and the deaf adapt as soon as they are allowed to recognise and express the wide range of enhanced competences they have, besides the one that is lacking.

The mirror image is a fascinating, when it is put back together, but even then it still has cracks and large bits missing. For myself, I am putting it back together so that I can see the gaps, so that they may be filled in by insight. Most importantly, for all the debate and analysis, the person in front of the mirror has their own story and individual explanation. If you listen carefully with all the senses, they may tell you what you need to know. Some parents do this, in spite of the pressures to 'conform' to required parenting style and meeting institutional requirements. They make mistakes, they expect to much at times, and too little at others, but they hear what the child is saying and struggle to understand.

My Mother once told me "We can sometimes be too clever"; . . . "We can sometime know too much". I have learned, with time and further experience, how right she was. Non-the-less, she and a good friend of hers, helped me grow and develop in incredible ways, which were sometimes quite frightening, but all the more awe-inspiring. I made the demands on them that I needed for my own developing understanding and hey trusted and respected that. I would never swap any of the resulting experiences for any of the practical comforts and security that I / we lacked at the time. How sad it would have been for me, if they had not trusted their instincts and followed Dr Spock instead.

If children are forced to continue to suffer the relative ignorance of their cultural institutions, I am determined that they will benefit from those sad experiences, where they were denied any control, or a say, whatever their diagnosed condition, physical capability, level and style of intelligence, assumed behavioural problem, or evolving personality disorder. I can only be thankful that the efforts of people like myself, over the last 30 - 40 years, has so embarrassed psychiatry that the more intelligent psychiatrists have adjusted their view on Schizoaffective disorders. Now lets tackle ADHD, Dyslexia, Autistic Spectrum, Intelligence and Personality Disorders. Round two begins. Seconds away.

Mikhael's Story:

Mikhael has not been diagnosed, or assessed as having Autism, but he would have been if others would have had their way. I strongly resisted him being Statemented, because I have seen both the advantages and the disadvantages of this (and the outcomes in adulthood). I battled to resist any clinical diagnosis and 'belligerently' refused to co-operate along that route, sometimes being criticised and even accused of being negligent, or abusive. (These labels were not available when I was a child, I was described as socially withdrawn and a slow learner - I was lucky, no one tried to cure me, just left me be to be myself).

Mikhael was eventually identified to have ADHD, Asthma, a significant measure of Dyslexia, was seen as a slow learner in reading, writing & communication skills and to have some anger control issues. I was initially unable to successfully challenge the perceived 'causation', or the perceived expression of these assessed features. This was then typically established as 'his problem', or 'a problem with him'. I agreed that he had some of the characteristics described, but thoroughly challenged the 'clinical & medical' basis which was used to explain these. The Clinical explanation is flawed. My fear was the that the standard cures would be applied and bring him 'in line'.

Even though I had 30 insightful and successful years in teaching, tutoring and social work; related to learning difficulties, autism, addiction, psychosis and general mental health, I was unable to stop the diagnostic approach to this form of 'difference'. So, I quite simply coached my son to understanding himself as 'positively different' and having intelligent insights and learning modes, that others did not yet understand (which is what I believe and have successfully applied in my work). Even his twin brother (who is classic Mensa Level intelligence) recognises his brother's 'style' of intelligence and engages with it very positively. They complement each other (they also scrap a lot).

My son and I fundamentally and increasingly understood each other and he learned to trust me, against what was sometimes quite abusive pressure for us to conform to the conventional understanding and approaches. Eventually he had the opportunity to choose to live with me. We then developed a bond which can only arise out of the challenge of any common, unjust and isolating experience. This caused jealousies in the family, but we worked through them. My son now enjoys early adolescence with the chance of some social success and empathetic insight. Even with this evident success and continued progression there are still social work professionals who misunderstand the fundamentals.

Within weeks of living with me, the last remnants of his Asthma had disappeared and have not returned (it was entirely stress related). He increasingly accepted that he was 'specially' different, rather than sad, bad or mad. Our trust and bond improved further and his confidence and skills improved. Family friends noticed the difference and we establish a small group of insightful mentors, who were quietly able to establish quite mature relationships with him, by the age of 11. With the constant pressure to conform removed, he comfortably became himself. He is increasingly skilled in sports, music, art and is learning to adapt and improve at more academic subjects (on his terms).

He has admitted that he had learned to 'play up' his differences at school, in ways that were sometimes disruptive. He said he did this because; in doing so he was accepted and got the special attention, which he was learning to enjoy and in many ways needed. The whole process was seen to be 'rewarding' him for his increasingly challenging behaviour. If it had gone on any this way longer he would have been increasingly seen as 'bad' , or 'a problem' and got into greater conflict with his teachers and others.

He is now reasonably respected for his insight and lakes a lead in his social groups. He is still a slow reader and struggles to write and attend to the required focus, but we know his true potential fro all that. All those cerebellum and other lower brain, intuitive based functions have continued to evolve under his intelligent, stimulated input. Many other kids his age have already shut these down and become inflexible, at the demands of clinicians and teachers. Grow up at the required pace, keep in time with everyone else, goes the march of education. There is no time for those who have the insight to stop and pick up the broken fragments of knowledge, trampled by the relentless march of progress.

A few teachers had already identified that he was clever in his own special ways and I was able to get other teachers begin to look at him differently. Teachers now see him as gifted in the areas of 'creative' preference and recognise that he has a different learning style. From this point on, his confidence in 'who he fundamentally was' improved and he began to speak up for himself without the frustration and anger. Teachers began to see him differently and respected what he had to say. He consequently became less angry, less disruptive and more co-operative. He remained frustrated however. He still understands some things differently and so he should. That is his special quality.

In the last weeks of his elementary schooling (prior to age 11), he once more observed the unfairness that he had so often experienced for himself, and too frequently saw in the treatment of others. A friend of his was being bullied (kicked in the head) by a child who he clearly recognised had some problems in many ways similar to his own. Rather than rushing in and angrily defending his friend, he did what I had advised him. He immediately went to the teacher and asked them to sort it out.

The Teacher intervened and quietly took the child who was 'bullying' to one side, stopping the conflict, but leaving my Son and his friends dumbfounded. His friend was given no sympathy, or consideration. If it had been any of them fighting, or even hitting back at bullyng, they would have been publically scolded and then take off to be talked to. The person who had been hit would have got some sympathy and ‘checked’. The group of kids talked about it and felt aggrieved. My Son actually took the lead and calmed them down (but he continued to worry about it).

At the end of the school day, he heard some parents (who were not present at the incident) talking about the bullying incident and how this was happening too much and insisting that this boy needed to be punished. He later heard that they had been phoning each other, getting angry and wanting to sort it out with the teachers and perhaps get the boy excluded (this boy had hit out and kicked at children before).

My son was clearly upset about the incident at school, but was equally worried about how parents were talking about what should be done to this boy. He was upset and very angry. He told me what happened and I asked him to explain to me what had upset him so much this time. He explained how it was not right, or fair, for anyone (including the 'bully'), not to be told off in front of everyone involved. This is how teachers would have dealt with any of the others children.

He said he knew how the child had problems, but 'by treating him differently' they were not helping him. 'Other children would be angry with him' for not being 'seen' to be told off like them. He also would not learn that he was doing something wrong and it would look and feel like the teachers were treating him differently to the other children. He explained that it can be horrible to be treated differently to others. He described how 'You then get picked on'.

He said he was angry with the Adults and said that this was because 'they were being just like children’. They wanted the boy punished and treated differently, because 'he had problems'. My Son said he believed that it was important that the boy felt he was treated the same as everyone else, 'at the time he did something wrong' and not just leave it. He was really very upset and I asked him what he wanted to do. I asked if he want me to talk to the school?

He then got even more upset and said 'No. Adults (grown ups) are already doing that, they just don't listen'. They should just treat him the same as the rest of us then he will learn and not feel different. I said OK, I won't interfere. I then suggested that if he felt so strongly that the children were not being listened to, why not write a letter to the Head Teacher and ask to speak with her about this. This he did, in his own words (spelling & grammar corrected by Microsoft Word) and she was very impressed with his insight and told him so.

When I met with the Head teacher a few weeks later she spoke about how impressed she was with how he maturely dealt with the situation and the concern that he showed for both the boy who was hit and the boy who was hitting out.  My Son had gradually became more confident, less quick to anger, more focused and willing to compromise his energy and interests to fit in with the school curriculum. He remains somewhat frustrated though and I am glad for that. He learns differently and is a natural problems solver & theorist, like his dad.

The real ‘Problem’ here is with our Culture, Society & Language (Each are problematic concepts in themselves):
I have directly applied lessons from my personal experience to my  work and sought for communicable explanations later.
So many of the existing 'piecemeal' explanations have validity, but these are all linked in surprising ways.

So, why am I confident in my assertion that Autistic Spectrum, ADHD, Dyslexia, Schizoaffective, Psychosis and many other supposed 'clinical' disorders, are over simplified & misunderstood? Because I have successfully worked for over 35 years with people with these and many other supposed disorders. There are no cases where I and my staff teams, have not made substantial, often unexpected progress (beyond general expectations), in every kind of social work role and client group. These supposed 'conditions' make every kind of sense from an 'alternative / creative intelligence' point of view &/or from a 'intellectual defence' standpoint. By contrast, I have also worked with intractable conditions.

Many of our mental health and addiction clients quickly had their original psychiatric conditions changed, deemed misdiagnosis, or withdrawn, as a result of the progress they made. Most of the staff team were academically qualified and keen, but 'professionally' inexperienced. Others were very practical, intuitively skilled and open minded. They were all very good practitioners; chosen for their open mindedness, ability to think outside the box and ability to reflect upon their learned prejudices, etc.. The work with Learning Difficulties and Autism was in the earliest days of Community Care. It was entirely Person Centred and Enabling; an obviously empowering approach, later applied to all client groups.

We worked at the person's strengths and simply took account of weaknesses and vulnerabilities. We related to each person on the basis of our 'ordinary' experiences and learned insights, adding each new individual experience to our repertoire. We worked in a democratic, 'therapeutic community' style, with assigned rights & responsibilities (based upon simple Human Rights principles). We left no possible explanation for the various problems ignored and respected the person's preferred, current explanation. We never assumed a single, organic causation, ever. This approach was already 'set' by my challenging, but incredibly knowledge rich childhood experiences and my developing explanations.

Importantly, I have also lived with milder forms of those features that are often classified in these various medical terms. I knew I was different from the age of 6. I had to consciously develop a persona that would be acceptable to adults and then most professionals that I work with. I hid many of the special qualities I had acquired, pretending they were conventional, simple, well learned skills. Before this I avoided any complex kinds of relationships and stuck to very practical activities. I have since met others who have had to do the same and still others who have lived their lives in stable relationships, holding down normal jobs with completely 'alternative' ways of perceiving, thinking, learning and socialising.

I have now completed the experiment in 'surviving' and no longer have to pretend. I have learned very little of importance from the minimal, classical scholastic and professional training undertaken. Only a few, logical and experientially confirmed principles have ever seeded. It was quite disabling for me to try and learn by the usual teaching, reading & memorising methods. I initially failed in most academic subjects. I am unable to effectively learn by wrote, such a style of learning is quite intolerable, almost impossible for me. Even establishing a memory of a person's name, or a personal telephone number would take dozens of attempts, over days & weeks (but once established it stays).

In order to establish any kind of memory of any kind of 'facts', I found that I had to develop a fundament and logical understanding of the subject, or person, before I could retain and recall any significant factual information. By the age of 13, I was doing this easily with physical sciences. By 14, I comfortably understood Relativistic Theory and from then on evolved a principle of relativistic perspective as the basis for my work. By 25 I had mastered this technique for understanding social sciences and philosophy, etc. If the concepts I was learning were logically sound, consistent, or corresponded very well with direct & 'relativistic' experience, I was able to obtain a fundamental understanding and good recall.

Almost every teaching and therapeutic technique I have used was developed intuitively, or has been observed in the successful practice of a few intuitively skilled people I worked with. The techniques I developed for myself have been invaluable in helping others to learn, understand and communicate. I then borrowed the concepts and the language of professionals and a few critical writers, to describe my actions in 'ordinary' terms; knowing that this was not an accurate representation of what I was doing for myself, or in my work. Each theoretical perspective, which was acceptable to my established practice, was fitted into a general theory which more adequately explained what we were doing.

The techniques, concepts, logic and language that I used in understanding music, art, crafts, physical science, engineering and electronic, were both emotionally rewarding and highly logical. It was possible to find, or identify, clear logical laws & rules. The rules of etymology, grammar and semantics of everyday language are more ambiguous, they vary culturally. I had to set my own reliable rules and gradually get them to approximate to the general understanding, which better facilitated communication. The use of metaphor and models helped. Even now I have to be careful in the use of language. Too many of my meanings are construed through conventional, simplistic thinking.

I got by with this trial and error approach for some time. I basically extended my own internal grammar, privately advancing the grammar that each child is programmed to develop. In this way I was able to establish a more multi-dimensional conceptual framework which was meaningful to myself. I got it to more appropriately expressed the concepts I was formulating. Becoming skilled in the use of computers assisted my progress in developing ideas and communicating them more effectively, but this still remains problematic when trying to communicate how I perceive events, conceive of ideas and explain observed processes. I realised that it is the language that is inadequate, not me.

Attempts that I have made, during my career, to explain these techniques and concepts in more representative terms, worked well with the receptive, but failed miserably with many intellectual practitioners. I have taken a thoroughly scientific approach to my works, without reducing the aesthetic character of normal human interaction. How I work with people is very natural, confident and 'in tune' with those I work with. It is very direct, honest, remains pertinent to the person's experiences and adapts to their particular forms and styles of thinking & perceiving. Communicating this to others, outside those relationships, has always been problematic and frequently misunderstood.

There are few established psychological, psychotherapeutic, or social work theories that can not 'be seen' to be fully integrated in my practice, or more fully clarified by my own, more general theory. Various 'academic' papers on this web site explain most aspects of my more general theory of psycho-social experience, learning and understanding. Others describe simple technique and solutions; altered perspectives on identified problems; and stories of the problems that people face and the complex social causations and simplex solutions. Basically, these are my attempts to come full circles, from intuitive and accurate insight, through the fragmentation of academic intellect, back to a fuller, generalised intellectual and scientific explanation of what some (if not all) of us can naturally do well with practice alone.

Mostly, like any other serious advances in human understanding, more effective therapies, counselling, social work and probation intervention, requires a complete revision of how we see the problem, so that we can then see more effective solutions. Sometimes the whole solution is simply achieved by conceiving of the problem as being something quite different, arising from quite different causation. Sometimes the problem is with the point of view, or conceptual perspective of the observers, not with the subject of the observation. This is the 'relativistic' switch we sometimes need. It is the child like, relativistic realisation that Albert Einstein gave us after so many had tried:

The universe experienced through a fresh, excited, unconstrained and inquisitive child's eye view. A view that not only wants to poke it and see the reactions, but also wants to check out that very experience itself and see how it can be experienced differently at different times and a different space. I hear that Einstein had his problems; but what beautiful problems to have. If you feel you are unable to understand 'Relativity', that is nothing to be ashamed of. You can not 'learn' it by wrote alone and you have been convinced that this is the only valid way to learn.

You have to trust all those child like perspectives which convinced you it was possible to fly, if you thought about in the right way; or walk through the looking glass, if you practiced staring enough and believed that it was possible. This kind of imaginative, child like thinking is experimental and is the foundations of problem solving. It is a child's natural scientific inclination; to observe, establish rules, set hypotheses, test these in their head and then check them out in the world. To push the boundaries and see when they push back. It is this quality, that every child is imbibed with to some varying degree, which keeps civilisation moving forward and creates 'empathy'.

If you have never quietly walked along in nature, looked out and up at the universe and become carried away (for a magic moment) on a wind of light and sound; then someone has stamped on your imagination as a child. You were somehow abused and something very precious taken from you. For this learning to work best, the ideas being tested have to be simple, one at a time, tested and gradually built up into your own theory. This is then checked out with all the other child theorists, ideas shared and concepts revised after falling outs, compromises, forming allegiances with others and changing sides and loyalties from time to time.

Exclude any kids from doing this and you end up with a gang of agitators who want to kick holes in the fabric of prescriptive knowledge, or individual children building their own beautiful perspective on experience, that better explain things than their sad, boring mentors and teachers, but in 'relative' isolation. Sadly, so many children are bullied into conforming to constrained, adult methods of learning and 'given' adult wisdoms, some sound and informative, some down right ridiculous and abusive. As I said, we generate the personal and social problems that we later experience in our civilised, intelligent, rational world; knowing this in our hearts, we seek to rationalise responsibilities and punish difference.

The problem starts with the 'Inhibiting' Pressures we put on Parents and then pass on to our Kids.
This is because of Stereotypical modes of learning imposed upon children, who actually have variant ways of learning.

Following on with my son's encountered difficulties: Schools often do not adequately accommodate 'intelligent difference^{' 1} and the signs of frustration are quite appropriate in such children. As for anger, My Son is now learning that there is a time and place for it and more appropriate and clever ways of communicating it. He will never forget how 'anger' is valid, whenever there is injustice and prejudice. He is beginning to see how frustration is natural when there are not adequate channels, opportunity, or encouragement, for people to express their fears and their natural, simple understanding of fairness and justice (It is we who corrupt that). He keenly helps in my community work, with skill & insight.

Schools should be places of 'learning'², not just ‘teaching' ³. We can all learn something here; students, teachers and parents alike. For all my own serious deprivations, abuse & miss-assessments as a child, I had a loving and competent parent and a clever and insightful family friend. They, along with 2 or 3 teachers and a couple of tutors (throughout my life), saw past the superficial prejudices and ensured I would advance and become professionally qualified; undertake research; develop theories and strategies; become a manager; and eventually get published. They though outside the box and ignored the 'One size fit all' attitude of educators, who dictate how every child should learn what they are told. 

Typically (in my experience), what we variously describe as Autistic Spectrum⁴, ADHD⁵, Dyslexia⁶ (and sometimes childhood Schizophrenia⁷) are actually the misunderstood consequences of the disrupted development of creative, analytic intelligence. This 'style' of learning naturally takes information from multiple sources and seeks to assimilate it into original, meaningful perceptual & logical relationships. The person then checks out their 'original' understanding (when enabled to) with the those in the world who are 'open' to these forms of understanding.

Many educators (by contrast) learn by memorising what they are told, many had creativity, tolerance and adaptability trained out of them. Memorising facts is not understanding. Understanding comes form putting the experienced fact together in an integrated, orderly form (That's what Descartes meant). By memorising 'given' perceptions and conceptions, creativity is largely lost and some of our human adaptive skills a smothered. It is wonderful to have good memory, it is even better to have sound and adaptive understanding. Sometime, if you really work at it; it may even be possible to have both complementing each other. I doubt it though, that is why there have been great historical collaborations.

Most of the features that we dismiss as negative traits are potentially positive, 'adaptive' human features, which are largely misunderstood through 'normal intelligence' forms of understanding and expression. These can be considered to be forms of multidimensional thinking, when contrasted with serial 'linguistic' thinking. Verbal language on its own is inadequate to explain these alternatively 'understood' phenomena. These features have always been there in special individuals (and to a degree in most of us), within all cultures. The more intuitive, artistic and craft styles of learning and expression are a nearer approximation to this variant form of learning, cognition and expressed understanding.

Historically, people with special traits and more intuitive styles of information processing (capable of arriving at accurate and helpful predictions) were appreciated for their special skills. There was no serious contention with those who exhibited the more usual 'learn by wrote', shorthand styles of understanding. Each had their role and there was a measure of mutual respect. What was most important, was that those with these alternative modes of learning and understanding were usually given the 'experience rich' environments they needed to develop their talents. That has largely gone now. Institutions want compliant kids who never complain. Kids are allowed to think for themselves, if they think 'the right way'.

The Historical Roles of those who think differently, were once so special and powerful that some people (who did not have these skills), pretended to have them (Charlatans). Even in recent years, these real qualities were appreciated more than they are right now. In the time frame in which we have seen an increase in the identification of 'problematic' features of Autism, Aspergers, ADHD' and a whole range of 'mental', 'behavioural' and 'personality' problems, we have also seen a reduction in the 'legitimate' appreciation of a whole range of intuitive skills. This is no accidental correlation. The limited thinking Charlatans & Pretentious Experts have destroyed the credibility of alternative thinking.

These forms of thinking and learning are 'multitasking / multidimensional' skills, which are often difficult to comprehensively express in formal language - I know, I have tried. Until quite recently, they were appreciated in nursing, detective work, social care, counselling, therapies, farming, animal husbandry, human and veterinarian medicine, etc. These special qualities were so valued, that they were mimicked by others, who did not have a fundamental access to the skills, or even a full understanding of the qualities involved. These 'copies' look like the real thing but have no intuitive depth, they are hollow and two dimensional, like a photocopy of an oil painting.

In other instances, because of the superficial similarities to increasingly bogus and largely prejudiced forms of thinking, the whole 'irrational' character of all alternative forms of thinking and expression are dismissed. Ironically, science enabled us to observe and dissect out the simple cause and effect relationships which produced some of the beneficial effects. These have been recognised as very helpful in passing some of the skills on to 'technicians' who can then quickly resolve the simpler, more practical problems we come across. They are the silver threads that are teased out of the rich fabric of knowledge and wisdom. They sometimes forget to weave them back in again, when applying them.

Each identifiable component of these intuitive, experientially developed skills sets has been carefully observed by skilful researchers and then dissected out and purified for greater academic understanding. It was then possible to re-utilised these new understandings in 'quick fix' solutions in the practical world. It doesn't always work for every situation, but when it does it is very beneficial. When it fails to work, it is usually explained in terms of 'lack of cooperation' by the 'subject / patient'. Many of the discrete qualities that make up these skills sets have been identified, but not all. It is the fabric that contains these many threads, which has the most beneficial, integrated effect.

The most important failing of modern, limited thinking, i.e. the 'technical', empirical, superficially 'evidenced based' science; is that these simple thinkers neglected to put all the various bits back together. They fail to see how much better the whole skill set works as a package, each component magnifying the benefits of the others, each thread reinforcing the strength of it neighbour. Further more; their rather limited thinking and wish to show that they have discovered 'the' fundamental secrets of the universe, means they have often dismissed the skills of those they have been observing (the likes of you and I, getting it mostly right) as inefficient, cumbersome and far too intuitive.

The academically intelligent Idiots often miss the point entirely. We have thrown the baby out with the bath water. These complete packages of special qualities and skills are now largely dismissed, in favour of exclusive reliance upon empirical science & technology (superficial evidence). The fear of being seen as a Charlatan, or sued for not acting and recording information in simplistic 'legal' form, has tended suppressed such natural 'integrated' skills at the outset, or al least invalidate their full expression as valid forms of productive and beneficial human behaviour. This affects teaching, health care and social welfare. Education is still being used as a means of control. It fails. Real Intelligence resists it.

These simple 'techniques', which are used as the fundaments methods in professional practices, were not discovered, or created by these researchers (Freud, Skinner, Piaget, Bolby, etc), they were recognised, identified, simplified, described and prescribed. This was very skilful, creative and valuable work, but was never more that a small part of gaining greater understanding of how 'things work'; including the miracle of complex, intricate learning and understanding. This is what produces that very ability (of some of these people); to analyse, theorise, express, project and utilise that new understanding 'intelligently'. The last bit is still missing. Einstein describes this a Human's beings 'infinite stupidity'.

Even with the marvellous benefits of science and technology, the loss of the valued contribution of intuitive forms of information processing, drawing upon multi-sensory and diverse cognitive channels and processes (that we do not fully understand), is a significant loss to us all. It is a loss which is neither fully compensated for by the application of purer, rational techniques; Or justified in terms of the loss to the individual and culture of the 'rich experiences, of high quality, fundamental resolutions (that only a real craft & other intuitive skills can provide). Where these qualities do survive, they do so against severe prejudice, neglect and loss of social opportunity.

This loss of opportunity and the potential, for understanding and developing higher level, creative and intuitive skills, in those naturally disposed and also those who wish to 'enhance' their basic understanding, is a real problem for our future. Most of the techniques and technologies that have been developed were dependent upon these intuitive skills for their identification. Like the loss of traditional craft knowledge and the discarding of gene banks of ancient of staple foods, we effectively loose the potential for 'human adaptation', which is essential for protecting future development of human society. What do we have left, when the current fashion and pragmatic practices have run their wobbly course?

Locked up in many 'special' people are the very resources from which 'science' had extracted the various components, which now make up our rather piecemeal understanding of human functioning and development. People with intuitive competences (like myself and some who have often been labelled) have been increasingly displaced from their natural roles and developments, by rather simplistic and largely ignorant, prejudiced and simplistic diagnostics and prescriptive styles. Human experience and expression has been skilfully constrained by those with a vested interest in keeping everything average, removing any threat to their limited and often fearful ways of thinking and understanding.

Sometime this is has been due to the modern social scientist's intellectual limitation, but more often it the 'technicians' , the business and services managers limiting inclination to 'reserve' the power, status and income for themselves, mimicking the 'natural 'expert', with their half baked, incomplete and rather superficial (but credible) misunderstandings. Simple quick fixes get an immediate, cost effective result which gives the right impression. Iit looks good on paper and comfortably meets 'legal' requirements. That is why it is failing to work and why social problems are getting worse and personal distress is increasing.

Some of us now wish to take these (and other) dissected, analysed and rationally understood components of creative, integrated thinking and put them back together into more useful packages of truly integrated and more fully understood and appreciated skills. This is essential if we are to generate the competent human resources needed to meet the challenges of modern living and correct the negative effects of its repeated failings (due to this ignorance). Just as importantly, it is necessary to once more validate those who have these naturally developing skills and value their contribution once more, in academic terms and in terms of  job satisfaction, pay and status.

Who are these people, with these natural skills. Well they include affectionate, dedicated, honest and insightful Mums, Dads, Nan's Aunts, Uncles and family friends; Uncompromising professional GP's, Nurses and other clinical and social care practitioners. They include many creative artists, dramatists, musicians and other entertainers; A few uncompromising politicians; Exceptional business entrepreneurs; Unpretentious volunteers, and people with Learning Difficulties, Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Conditions.

I am quite serious.

Concerning Intelligence:

It is perhaps ironic that 'intellectual' forms of intelligence have been given a status in advance of the intuitive, artistic and craft expressions of intelligences. Normal conversation and human engagement manages well enough with verbal and non-verbal language, but human beings are fast adapting their other forms of perception and conceptualising. The dilemma of expressing multi dimensional (4D Space-Time and above) in serial language, even with the non-verbal assistance, is highly problematic for us. Mathematics helps a little and logic adds to this a little further. Just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it has no value. It usually means it is not yet understood properly.

Unfortunately, a series of 'clever' words, along with complex mathematical formula, often confounds the potentially simple conceptual understanding that underlie these expressions. We struggle to express these apparently, increasingly complex ideas in words and numbers. The complexity is mainly the result of trying to conceive of fundamental ideas through the existing, often culturally defined, perceptual and conceptual frameworks of limited understanding. Even talking about this here is problematic and will require a bit of 'out of the box' thinking. Like all advances, it often require a step into the unknown, something that has associated fears and risks. that is human.

There are a number of analogies we can use to help. Recent developments in thinking now allow for the idea of 'Emotional Intelligence' ⁸. This is a move in the right direction, but again this still tends to continue to 'fragment' the notion of intelligence. It is fine to 'dissect' ideas for the purpose of understanding them, but we need to return to the 'integrated' understanding when we go out into the real world. Some 'intellectuals' reject the 'emotional' component of intelligence, just as they have often rejected intuition, unconscious and subconscious as meaningful concepts. Well it is good to know that the notion of intelligence is still expanding at least.

Another analogy is the use of poetry, story telling, music and drama as the means for communicating apparently complex ideas and to generate 'changes of perspective'. This is undoubtedly successful. Propaganda is a powerful negative example and we experience subtle propaganda every day in our lives (adverts, political broadcasts, etc.). Music and drama have sometimes been described as superficial fluff, entertaining play. Even play itself is often devalued in intellectual terms. Child play is magical and developmental. Well these thing can be pretentious of course, but the fundamental creative process is not.

Modern 'intellectualised' forms of music, drama and play are often quite 'superficial'. These forms are often pure fun. They are simplified, or characterised forms of creative music, drama and play. They can also be used as a means of conveying unquestioning, unchallenging ways of understanding. Jingles, musak, jokes, punch lines and bullet points are typical examples of modern 'simplifying' thinking. Used as fun and recreation they are great. Used as a serious means of conveying principles and establishing 'caricatures' of social practices, they are very dangerous. Those people who we label more often have the true creative flair, but we dismiss them till they a famous.

Historically; music, drama and art have been used to extend verbal language, or entirely go beyond linguistics and culturally evolved grammar. A picture can be used to convey a simple, memorable image, or can be used as the foundation for conveying mood, time, perspective and the surreal (internal perspectives). Drama can convey a simple relationship between two people, delve into the mind of an individual, or represent complex intellectual and emotional interrelationships between groups of people, struggling within and between real, or imagined cultures.

Music, similarly, has been used to enhance spirituality, represent and engender mood, enhance ideas, supplement dramatic representations and act as the vehicle for poetic forms of verbal communication (singing). This form of expression, like those described above, convey more than the words they frequently transport. Like enhanced forms of non-verbal communication, they help convey whole complexes of ideas, notions, experiences and feeling. To understand this fully, we have to be 'tuned un' and receptive in those terms. Try and put this in 'intellectual form' and the words sound as pretentious and unrepresentative as the are in fact.

This same creative complex of non-verbal intelligence is able to 'understand' very complex ideas (in linguistic terms), in very simple and quite direct 'holistic' constructs. To be understood fully, they have to be 'listened to' though the same multiple channels and 'View' from a similar conceptual perspective (or a more open perspective). These conceptions, perspectives and expressions have often been described as intuition, sixth sense, insights, enlightenment, wisdom. These are enhanced forms that are evident in other animals and often denied in humans. To understand these simple perceptual and conceptual construct, most of the language is used to get the listener in the rights mental position.

This intellectual denial of the richness and validity of these alternative ways of perceiving, conceiving and communications, is often in deference to the more limited forms of 'serial' thinking. This has gained credibility for the simplistic forms of 'unthinking' which it engenders. In academic terms it is easier to mark; in commercial terms it is easier to cost; in professional terms it is cheaper to implements and in human terms it is easier to communicate in bullet points and headlines. Where these simplified concepts serve only the function and purpose of the communication, there is no problem. Where they devalue people, experience and fundamental knowledge, they are

Taking these metaphors further and bringing them full circle. Imagine trying to use a series verbal or written instructions to convey the process of driving a car, to someone who has never done so; Expecting them to follow those clearly defined and well express instructions, to the letter; Incorporating all the various mechanical operations; Attention to the essential details, range of circumstances and conditions; Expecting them to explicitly remembers those instructions and follow them as wrote, each time they undertake the task of driving, under varying conditions.

It would be impossible to learn to drive properly in this way. Instead we use repeated instruction, analogy, metaphor, illustration, question & answer sessions and reflective thinking to help develop new 'intuitive' skills and link these with our  (their) established, previously learned intuitive skills. Intelligence allows us to establish 'pre-linguistic', integrated conceptualisations of these explicit instructions and draw upon them semi-automatically, as the need arises and as condition change, constantly moderating and refining the skills and (if we are sensible) reflecting upon the errors, adjusting our intuitive skill set to make better adjustments in the future.

Well, this all seems so obvious but we demean the whole process when we 'get intellectual'. This is also how sensible, intelligent, creative, multidimensional thinking operates. We use language then to 'generally' explain our evolving understanding and to convey our more precise predictions that result from our more refined thinking (wisdom). Sometimes we are able to have conversations with others who have achieved a similar level of refinement, so that each are able to communicate in a form of linguistic short hand.

On the other hand, some people will just hear the superficial words, associate these with the observed 'surface' outcomes of the skilful thinking that generated the 'skilful' outcomes and then teach these as the means to obtain the 'desired' outcomes. It just does not properly work that way and we are slowly learning this, at great cost to our culture and many disadvantaged individuals within it. Unfortunately, those with quite superficial, 'intellectual' understanding are 'qualifying' to control the means and mechanisms for promoting intellectual and practical skills.

It is no wonder that we now dismiss intuition, wisdom, enlightenment, insight, along with unconscious & subconscious processes, etc., within western cultures. If we diminish the validity and credibility of these less measurable qualities, what hope is there for other demonstrated mental / intelligence skills like sixth sense and other Para psychological phenomena. Many of these are apparent in animals and have been demonstrated in some humans. By devaluing these intellectual propensities we alienate increasing numbers of people and

Most problems that are exhibited in the ways described here, are the consequence of this misunderstanding and lack of accommodation to 'difference'. This intelligent conceptualising behaviour is a protracted extension of the Chomsky's explanation of children's development of Grammar (and  therefore the important features of concept formation). Children develop their internal grammar from the earliest stages of sensory experience, firstly in non-verbal terms (like any animal), through enhanced visual, auditory & sensory constructs, towards logical & linguistic constructs.

Some children who appear 'backward', or slow 'learning', are actually taking their time 'to do it thoroughly'. They are advanced in this respect. Can you imagine the confusion, distress and social isolation that results from being constantly pressured to understand things in ways that make no consistent sense (to the child's conceptualisation); contradict the person's direct experiences, defies logic and 'feel's' punitive. Well that is what we are creating for some of our 'differently' intelligent children.

Can you imagine the psychological consequences, for an inquisitive child (or adult), of being force-fed institutionalised, adult constructs, which bear no honest relationship with the world of their experience. It is enough to make anyone psychotic. Children are entitled to equality of opportunity in our cultures. They rarely really get it. What is more, equality of opportunity is only meaningful if those opportunities are wide ranging, flexible and adaptive enough to take account of the felt needs, abilities and intelligence 'style' of the all the children concerned.

Parents are required to bring up their children in what are very dishonest, inconsistent and unjust cultures (no apologies, they are maintained that way). We put a great deal of pressure on parents' to 'conform' to a stereotypical parenting styles (largely formalised, inflexible, non-adaptive, white, middle class styles). Like any institutionalise approach, it fits the average child, but suppresses one sector, confounds & distresses another and disproportionately advantages another (not always one promoting the best social behaviours and values).

Parents are 'made' to feel guilt for getting it wrong. They sometimes panic, overreact, or under-react, sometimes making things worse, trying to conform to this one size fits all mentality. This is all done in the name of protecting a child from gross physical & emotional abuse and perceived neglect. This is very laudable, if it did not subject so many children to pernicious intellectual and emotional abuses, incorporated into the now institutionalised approaches we now take. We remain surprised at the outcome and go into professional and political denial.

The personal and social problems do not go away, they get worse, change in character, or move onto another group; one we have identified to blame for our cultural and community failures. We find new names for identifying those who do not fit into our diminishing range of acceptable ways of thinking, feeling and behaving. Invariably, the consequences become someone else's fault and someone else's problem. Is it really any wonder that an intelligent and insightful young child shuts off from, or hits out against contradictory adult constraints on their understanding.

Misunderstandings in Child Development:

Here I want to argue the case for taking a 'Person Centred Approach' to child development. This is not the usual understanding of being 'Child Focused' in their care and development, or child centric in our thinking and behaviours. These approaches still risk imposing our prejudices on the finer, detailed needs of the child and even risk the over imposing, or inappropriate 'driving' of the child's natural development. Many, if not most parents and professionals recognise the different emphasis, but the limitation of time and contradictory demands can distract us.

There are few that doubt, or argue with, the child's need for sustenance, fluids, warmth, comfort, stimulation, attention, affection and other aspect of essential and basic child care. If we think a little more in the child's terms, seeing the child as being in the centre of its world, and conceiving of its needs from this position, we may revise even the degree to which we administer to each of these needs. The one size fits all approach to child care is as inappropriate here, as it is for adults. Fine detail prescriptive formulas are quite inappropriate and can be as abusive in their imposition as they are negligent in their omission. Children's specific need in each physical area are different and vary with conditions.

Some of these variations and changing levels of need are quite obvious, like the increased need for fluids, if the child is hot, for whatever reason.  How it is administered may be important though, little and often is probably better than larger, less frequent intake. The feeding of food is more difficult to judge, but children's bodies are not all identical and a child's 'learned' demands may reflect their metabolism, their emotional state, mental activity and other somatic demands, each moderating their basic appetite. Untypical sleep patterns may reflect a child's distress, or their specific, natural, inherent requirements, or a combination of these and other factors. We need to identify which and in what proportion.

By taking a true Child Centred Approach we can not rely upon given, prescriptive directives, established by an absent expert. The child rearing guidelines are the general bet, under given, recognised conditions and circumstances. They can not replace observation and fine tuned, child centred communication which (if we allow ourselves to), we can quickly learn from the child's very effective vocalisations and even its developing, recognisable and highly accurate grammar. In many ways, (before we programme them) a child knows what it needs and strives to communicate this. We can get this wrong and substitute something practical for what was an expressed emotional, or an intellectual need.

If we remain sensitive and open, listen to the various wisdoms and remain mostly Child Centred and responsive to their communicated needs, we don't go too far wrong. Sometime our own needs and the demands of others, distract us from providing immediate attention. If this is not for too long, or if we get it wrong and then eventually correct the error, this assists the child in developing. Nothing is wasted, as most parents who are able to tune in are aware of. The child learns tolerance of frustration and develops their repertoire of communication further, exercising their powers of persuasion. It is only in cases of severe communicated distress and practical and emotional neglect that damage is done.

Expert opinion (from whatever source), which is provided to overcome the consequence of protracted errors in Child Centred rearing, can be valuable; If it helps put the relationships back together and gets good communication going again. Things can go wrong for a combination of reason; the Parent's ill health, poor advice & misguided parenting skill, environmental distraction, the child's physical ill health, poor attachment, inadequate networks of parental and cultural support (extended family / tribe, etc). Cultural demands and network failures, which are inadequately corrected are guaranteed to produce child rearing problems, the parent is not alone in their failures.

This is precisely why clever people have put in the emergency support structures, which are designed to take account of our culture's other failures to respect and enable the parenting role. The healthy purpose of this support is to correct and compensate for the cultural distraction from our Child Centred Role. These may be the immediate distractions of meeting other family & community needs, or responding to the disproportionate demands of our society; the legal and commercial impositions. Some may be those second and third generation distractions which, in various ways, have interfered with a parents normal attachments and development of parenting skills; again because of the civic, legal and other prescriptive, institutional demands and often compensatory social enticements (meeting our own unmet childhood needs).

On much rarer occasions, there is the almost complete absence of parental skills, failures of attachment and wholly negligent approaches to child rearing. These failures may be due to the previous failures in the person's own childhood development, unmet needs, or rarer still, due to some 'evidenced' biological failure to establish healthy human attachments, or recognise the basic needs of others. It is sometimes difficult to identify which. Sometimes the distinction is not as important as the urgent need to intervene & compensate. Whatever the ultimate decision and intervention of others; Any attachment established with a child, by a parent, is critical to the child and must be respected at some level.

In discussing these more extreme failures we are going into areas that we least understand, at an intellectual level. The failure of parental attachments has little to do with classical intelligence. In fact, intelligent people often make the most intractable mistakes, if we look at the consequences of failed child rearing. It is not just about rational thinking and prescriptive actions. What some call emotional intelligence comes into play (but still doesn't explain it all). Put simple, we all know in our hearts what we need and it is not so different for little people. We are all different and hate being treated like we are a number. We all have differing strengths and weaknesses. In this respect, the child is no different. The whole principle of Human Rights is based upon this intuitive, instinctive understanding made explicit.

So, Starting from the realisation that there is quite sophisticated thinking going on within the child:

Some children are naturally 'driven' more than others, to intelligently develop their own internal grammar and concept formation; extending each phase of their development beyond the usual established markers for 'normal' development. The original inventers of these Developmental Schemes & 'Makers' (The likes of Piaget, Montessori, Freud, Bolby &  Chomsky) did not intend they be interpreted as rigid. Most make it clear that there can be wide 'normal' variations and this sometimes can indicate 'failures' to thrive. We make too many assumptions about these variations. We tend see them as a problem, an anxiety. These responses themselves can distress a child (self fulfilling prophesies).

Most importantly, these variations should first get our attention, so that we then seek to identify why there is the advance, or a delay in a particular area of development. It is my argument that early advances, or delays, can have both benefits &/or disadvantages, according to how they are adapted for use within the child's environment of experience. We mostly fear the delays and yet, If we 'value' them instead, we can often enrich the child's environment in ways that take advantage of this 'difference'. A delay at a particular stage is also an opportunity to enrich that stage of development, at the child's leisure. If it proves to be part of design range of human variation, 'delay' has this logical purpose.

Similarly a child with a particular advanced development may seem cute and clever, but they also have less opportunity to 'fill' the previous phase of development, with the range and depth of appropriate experience that may have other benefits, later in life. Just because someone is cute and clever does not mean that this will always benefit them, especially if their eventual social environment is generally antagonistic and disabling of the difference. Whatever developmental difference a child may express, at the various stages of it growth and learning, these will only be beneficial if there is an appropriate environment in which the benefits can be expressed and appreciated by all, including the person.

This is the fundamental nature of human, 'social' and 'learning style' adaptations.

It takes intelligent thinking and analysis to recognise these important differences; between child determined resistance to 'imposed' understanding, real developmental failures and delays that are due to inadequate availability of developmental resources (Food, play time, stimulation, attention, comfort, affection, information, reward, pleasure, validation, etc.).

What is more, it is possible to get varying combination of these and other factors, which (dependent upon the individual child's developmental style, personality, general intelligence and physical development) may actually advance, or retard concept formation and problem solving, or advance or restrict the ability, or inclination to communicate.

To complicate matters further; there are also varying degrees of contribution from both a child's 'positive' adaptive⁹ development (which should be positively accommodated into our families and culture) and 'negative' developmental failures (which can largely be circumvented by other adaptive features). Ask the right questions, see the problem in a soluble form and the more appropriate solutions can be found. Unfortunately, it often takes someone who may have been otherwise identified as Autistic, ADHD, Dyslexic, or otherwise 'different' to devise and understand these alternative questions and solutions.

For those who have been 'labelled' in these various ways, sorting out and working through the conceptualising problems in their own way is natural, logical and meaningful. It is the communication of this internalised, 'insightful' understanding that is frustrated. This communication problem is partly due to the child's intelligent difference in modes of understanding and partly due to the adults' increasingly restricted frames of reference. Adult explanations and reactions seem to be (and often are) inconsistent with the  child's new experiences and altered perspectives. The child wants social experiences and 'conversations' that validate¹⁰ these 'real' mental experiences.

Under more ideal cultural, social and institutional circumstances, communication would have naturally progressed under the child's directives; First within an extended non-verbal phase, then an extended phase of grammatical development, using brief, logically consistent grammar, fitting their tidy, developing  percepts¹¹ and concepts¹². If and when the child gained the confidence that they may be understood 'in their terms' (through testing this out with parents and mentors), they then progress with the constant questioning and challenging, both within their relationships with other children and with any significant adults.

This is something that many children naturally do. Before the process was disrupted by 'rationalised' professional interventions, devised by the cultures institutions to bring about some conformity, there was a greater chance that a child's 'alternative' style of conceiving and perceiving would be appreciated and understood for what it was. It depended, of course, on how receptive and insightful the parents and other significant adults were, but his is true for all styles of child development. Adults relatively nurture and/or neglect and children either thrive, strive, resign, or shut down, depending upon the degree

 It is also partly due to the child's intelligent 'resistance' to accepting the unreasonable imposition of grammatical / conceptual structures which are so alien to their experiences that it is socially distressing. This is not solely the parent's behaviour, it is due to institutionalised, 'cultural' impositions upon us all and which some are naturally inclined towards under pressure.

These inflexible, prescriptive and supposed 'expert' pronouncements on what are assumed to be 'organic' failures and flaws, are actually flawed in themselves; incorporating cultural prejudices and rather simplistic, misrepresented, 'empirical' scientific thinking. Only the most extreme example should be considered 'organic' and even then with serious reservations. There is no absolute boundary between what is biologically advantageous and biologically disadvantageous; So much relies upon prevailing social & physical environment at the time of study.

Our expressions and explanations may sound strange and even inadequate at times, but communication is a dynamic process. It is necessary to 'actively' listen and work to understand meaning and the differing perspective people can have. I only understood this difficulty that I was having, after decades of working at it. I now know it was other's inability to understand my ‘different’ way of conceiving that lead to my mostly neglected and impoverished schooling.

When this communication is not effective, we just ‘take it all in’ and make our own sense of it, keeping this knowledge to ourselves, but 'acting out' on the basis of our deeper, frustrated understanding. The actions of others often seem illogical and sometimes irrational, not just because of our own failure to understand them, but largely because of other's logical errors, inconsistencies and learned prejudices, many of which are 'institutional' in character.

When we are seen for the little geniuses that we are, by those who genuinely search to understand, we are able the check out our own perspective with the perspectives of others. The results are the wonderful discoveries and insights that come to light, from people who were previously seen to be stupid, dumb, slow, weird, mad, illiterate and presenting as 'difficult problems' in the class. How many examples do we need to cite to get change.

I have been there and found my way out, but it has never really got any easier. I still have to wear a mask and suppress many of my insights and frustrations, because of the antagonistic reactions of some of those in positions of influence and control. Learning to suppress insight and adapt communications to fit the low expectations of those who have influence, without compromising fundamental insight and principles, is very stressful.

I could see these same characteristics most markedly in my son, but I am also aware of the difficulties some of my other children have experienced at times. They are all very bright. I have certainly seen it in the children and adults who have been variously 'classified' and 'statemented', that I have worked with over the years. I used to become so angry at the lack of understanding and level of condescension that I observed in some professionals.

I discovered in University (which I abandoned, through sheer frustration and some confusion) that I had an IQ of 150+. I had gone there as a mature student (after becoming a teacher and then a social worker), believing it would provide an opportunity to advance my understanding. I hoped to find the words and concepts to explain my life experiences and to provide some explanation for the professional insights I had developed, it actually confounded me further. The answers were not there, but the sources of many of the problems were.

I was never that impressed in the established concepts of intelligence and personality, even as a student of psychology. Their legitimatisation as concepts seems to create more distress than problems solve. Learning difficulties are often, differences in learning 'style', personality problems are more often 'disempowered' personality variations, failures in cognitive process are frequently misunderstood , alternative structuring of thinking.

Each psychological concept, in their way, misunderstood, miss-represented and prejudiced as that experienced in the case of race, colour, gender, and sexual orientation. What was once an independent discipline, like that of counselling has become over medicalized, over legalised and have given more credibility for the power that the provide professionals, than the benefit it provide ourselves. Everything is now organic, people and institutions do not affect people. It is weakness in the person’s biology that causes their problems.

It seemed to me that if you were at either end of the 'intelligence' scale, had difficulty communicating (for whatever reason; sensory, intelligence, or different thinking processes) you were treated differently, with some measure of fear, ignorance and prejudice. Very few people understand that communication is not just about the words. This means that there can be serious misunderstandings in dealing what our children. Culturally, we expect (because of naive clinicians) that all children should develop in the same way at a standard rate.

Conceptions can be 'unique' and impossible to express in our typical grammatical form, these concepts demand changes in perspective to be understood (Einstein had this problem with the rest of us). Grammar is fluid and adaptive, that is why we have so many languages with different grammatical structures. Babies throughout the world evolve their own grammars from day one. We naturally seek to understand and respond to them on their terms (Garry Ephram 1972).

Grammar reflects the child’s natural concept formation (verbal and non-verbal). We then seek to engage with them in our own understood terms, often displacing, or overriding theirs. Real communication is about actively seeking a mutual understanding and developing respect for the differences in processes, perspective and conceptual outcomes. Hat is how thinking and human society advances and how language and concept formation become richer.

I am now glad I pulled out of University, although I did regret it at times. It has made things tough, but I am still able to meet and talk with the real geniuses. They to either never got there, or flunk out themselves. There are a few famous exceptions that give us hope. If I had managed to adjust and fit in, I would have stopped being me. I would have stopped thinking like me and failed to see the world of education, health care and social welfare for the serious failings that they have.

I would have forgotten the importance of diversity, the alternative potentials that there are. I would have forgotten the need to continue to seek answers to new problems and questions, as we evolve and adapt as human beings. With patience and resilience, I have held on to those important insights that I gained and worked of the concepts and communication so that I am now able to logically and intellectually challenges al the false gods we have developed.

I would have had to compromise my intellect, my emotions and my principles to 'fit in' and be 'accepted' by those who would have the world stand still and evolution stop where t is. That was too high a price to pay. I continue to wait until I am invited in on equal terms. I wear my mask, put on the show and compromise enough to remain in my work, pretending I do it just by the book, so as not to embarrass and antagonise others. Some realise that I step outside the box, but they are insightful enough to leave me be and even to quietly support me.

Meanwhile, I enjoy the opportunity to speak out and engage with those people who are seen to 'have the problem'. I can now enjoy the chance to translate their distress into language that others can just about understand, or else find impossible to ignore. I have worked with and met other people with these conditions. Many live rich lives, in spite of the fact that society’s institutions have not sought to understand their perspectives. Ignorance, fear, and intolerance are the biggest limiters on the expression of their petit genius. We loose so much as a result.

Medicine and science are wonderful bodies of knowledge and I have no intention of diminishing their importance, just to enhance and advance it. The strongest positive and negative influences in our lives are social. The biggest single contributor to ill health (of all kinds) is the 'disabling' levels of social stress. We grossly underestimate psychosocial influences on our psychological and even our physical health. Medicine frames only a small part of the picture, but gets the gilded frame.

I have one simple request for all professionals and institutions involved in research and seeking the development of treatments for Autism, Schizophrenia, Bipolar, ADHD, personality disorder and all the other 'primitive' scientific classifications. Please do not 'cure' my son, myself and my dearest friends. We don't want to be seen as different, but we also do not want to stop being ourselves. You grossly misunderstand the problem in many instances.

Blinkered, narrow minded thinking, significant reductions in the quality of our diet, environmental pollution and rigid expectations that ‘one size fits all’, is the complex combination of short term thinking strategies, which has lead to the apparent increase in these ‘perceived’ problems. Those who would have been valuable contributors to our modern communities have been effectively suppressed and dismissed, because of lack of insight and the greed for short term gains.

For every frustrating feature you see in us, there is a quality that you are missing out on. These are qualities that we may all increasingly need in the future. Nature has a strange way of advancing human development and many Geneticists do not yet adequately understand complex way that genes interact with each other to produce multifarious adaptive outcomes. This misconception is changing with the recent discoveries within the Genome Project. We need to enrich our social environments, not impoverish them.

Open your eyes, hearts and minds and let us in. Don't try to get into our heads, unless you have the real insight to understand what is there. Then we will welcome you, gladly. What we need is a rich information environment, faith, patience, a search to understand and the opportunity to express ourselves in terms that make sense to us and which are explainable to those who are most receptive. We are entitled to enablement not to be made disabled or worse still; extinct.

To get some idea of what I am saying about alternative thinking processes, I suggest you re-read some of Descartes most famously quoted axioms. These have been completely misunderstood by most and entirely miss quoted to support ‘ordinary’, in the box type thinking. To back that up, read Albert’s Einstein’s biographies. To put it all in the wider context read the poem of Martin Niemöller ; ‘First They Came . . . .’

A warning for the Future:

I suggest that we listen more and judge less. Those with creative, theorising forms of thinking make assumptions, formulate them into testable explanations, try them out in the world and check how they fit. We look for the exceptions and accept 'tolerant' differences. We do this daily, as an integral part of our lives and in most of what we do. The process is error prone. We know that! We progressively adjust our theories to take account of the exceptions we experience and the errors we discover. We are often judged as 'wrong' and 'contentious' as a result.

To start with, this process seems (to many) to be inefficient and flawed. It is not. As we mature, we meet other intelligent theorists and incorporate their theories & hypotheses (part formed theories) into our own understanding, in the same way we normally integrate daily experiences. Eventually, if the inhibitions, put downs, restrictions and ignorance do not drag us down, we progress past the 'normal' levels of 'given' understanding of our existing culture. There are many people like this, at least 10% of the population, some surviving some not.

If we do adequately survive the constant misunderstanding, criticisms, bullying and abuse; if we get access to the resources and opportunities to develop and communicate fully, the genius for this thinking is eventually recognised, often amongst friends and in commercial circles, but sadly, rarely in educational, clinical and social welfare circles. These institutions, with nothing more to prove, because they are in professional control and good at doing what they are told, fail to adapt to wide varying needs of people and there 'social' problems.

These 'open' thinking style dramatically contrasts with the institutionalised, cultural ways of engaging the social world. The standard 'theories' are learned by wrote, from people who learned by wrote, within the limited and inflexible grammar and conceptual framework. These theories are just as error prone, but the errors remain uncorrected, or ignored for years. Many practitioners and managers do not recognise errors and failures of 'fit' and therefore do not make corrections and adjustments necessary for any particular situation, or for the improved future use.

Put bluntly, and without apology; One way to protect our special developing understanding is to 'shut down' to the 'normal' world, so as to protect internal selves from the stupid, relatively ignorant, often lazy interference of the 'one size fits all', 'quick fix', 'i am the expert, do as I say, I have the power', intolerant and multiply, institutionally prejudice culture. Sadly, there are increasing political, cultural, commercial and academic pressures to have people comply with the 'average' (Regression to the mean) ways of thinking and doing. Its convenient.

If the current institutional and professional misunderstandings and misuse of knowledge and power continues; Autistic and ADHD feature will increase as a consequence, as will anxiety, depression, addiction, obsessional behaviour, psychosis and anti-social behaviour. We are creating a massive problems for ourselves, the more structured and prescriptive we become. The institutions that are supposedly geared to providing the resources to enable people to recover, become enabled and included, are actually often now making the situation worse.

Terry & Mikhael Couchman. (© November 2009)