I wonder (ok, I don't really) why these findings on 8! subjects leads to the conclusion that they are somehow "overcoming" autism as a medical condition via their gifts rather than a potential discussion regarding how we define autism and how we are creating a medical condition for seeing and engaging with the world differently. There is no crtique here of our definitions of autism or our tools for identifying it, which I think would be more interesting.
Plus the questionable research design makes the whole thing useless anyway, imo.
Last edited by LNEsMom; 11/12/12 09:36 AM. Reason: oh and and another thing
