Autistic people and music

[Florestan]

I find it absurd to say that a person who, in adulthood, manifests a mild form or one of the deficits listed above has the same disorder as a person which has Autism as it was originally defined.

I wouldn't say that people currently diagnosed on the mild side of the Autism spectrum don't have a disorder. But I find it absurd to say it is the same disorder.

...

To say that the people who meet the original diagnostic criteria have the same disorder as people who are socially awkward or can't tolerate the feeling of wool on their skin is nuts, in my view.

Totally agreed.

[Florestan]

Yeah... you realise it's the person who is CLAIMING a feeling for poetry who is saying that poetry is often nonsensical?

He wrote "often nonsensical if taken literally". Quite different from "often nonsensical", I'd say.

[Madiel]

He wrote "often nonsensical if taken literally". Quite different from "often nonsensical", I'd say.

Actually lots of things besides poetry are nonsensical if taken literally. Including the way people now use the word "literally" to mean "figuratively"...

But here's the thing: it's perfectly possible to understand that chairs don't have ears and that Neil Diwmond knows this, and still think that Neil Diamond's line is a dumb line. Saying poetry is often nonsensical doesn't help. The reason people say the line is dumb is not simply because they object to the non-literal nature of the line, it's because of the lack of artistic justification for introducing the chair as a character. People can be perfectly happy with Jesus talking about stones crying out and still think the Neil Diamond line is bad. It's got nothing to do with an inability to deal with non-literal meaning, it's simply an assessment of quality. It's not a sign of autism, it's a sign of your taste in songwriting.

[Florestan]

But here's the thing: it's perfectly possible to understand that chairs don't have ears and still think that Neil Diamond's line is a dumb line. Saying poetry is often nonsensical doesn't help. The reason people say the line is dumb is not simply because they object to the non-literal nature of the line, it's because of the lack of artistic justification for introducing the chair as a character. People can be perfectly happy with Jesus talking about stones crying out and still think the Neil Diamond line is bad. It's got nothing to do with an inability to deal with non-literal meaning, it's simply an assessment of quality. It's not a sign of autism, it's a sign of your taste in songwriting.

All true. Yet, from the whole of @Mister Sharpe 's post, especially the subsequent example he offered, I inferred that his father always took everything literally, therefore his labeling Neil Diamond's line as stupid stemmed not from any discriminating taste in poetry but from a completely prosaic personality who probably would have labelled the Shakespeare and Byron verses above as equally stupid.

[Madiel]

Possibly my least favourite lyric in a hit song is in "Africa" by Toto.

The line is "Sure as Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus above the Serengeti".

I don't hate it because of an objection to the geography. I wasn't even particularly aware that Mount Kilimanjaro is too far away from the Serengeti plain to rise above it.

And I don't hate it because I don't understand that "rises like" indicates a metaphor. I hate it because it's an appallingly lazy and white-centred metaphor. Oh, um, the song is called Africa so I had better mention some African things. Kilimanjaro! That's a cool word! It's a mountain, so it rises... what does this mountain rise like... it rises like a good old European mountain! The home of the gods! That sounds cool!

Rises like a tower. Rises like a phoenix. Rises like thunder. There were so many poetic metaphor options. I don't hate the line because I don't understand poetry, I hate it because I do and I recognise a bad example of the genre. An African mountain rising like a European mountain scarcely even qualifies as a metaphor.

[Madiel]

All true. Yet, from the whole of @Mister Sharpe 's post, especially the subsequent example he offered, I inferred that his father always took everything literally, therefore his labeling Neil Diamond's line as stupid stemmed not from any discriminating taste in poetry but from a completely prosaic personality who probably would have labelled the Shakespeare and Byron verses above as equally stupid.

And yet, the example offered was not Shakespeare or Byron. The example was a line that a LOT of people besides his Dad think is a dumb line. And they would express their critique in a very similar way. It doesn't demonstrate anything unusual about his Dad.

That's my point.

Similarly, not being able to follow one of Liszt's retroactively fitted programs for a symphonic poem does not make a person unusual. There is a very real possibility that the reason people can't follow the program is because Liszt made up the "story" afterwards. It might well be the case that people who say they CAN follow the program are the people who suspend disbelief / drink the Kool-aid a bit more readily than average.

[Florestan]

Actually, Liszt's tone poems are not even a good starting point for such a discussion, because apart from their titles and the prefaces he affixed to them long after composition (and which nobody reads, anyway) he provided no programs at all, be they sketchy or detailed. There is simply no "story" to follow.

Generally speaking, not seeing or imagining any picture, event or story while listening to music, even truly programmatic music, has got nothing to do with autism and there's nothing abnormal about it. 

[Madiel]

Yes. Let us not medicalise perfectly usual responses to art.

[Florestan]

Yes. Let us not medicalise perfectly usual responses to art.

Now, that's indeed a vast topic: the medicalisation of normality. 

[71 dB]

I don't quite understand it. Are there no psychiatrists or psychologists in Finland? Or is it all but impossible to get an appointment with one of them in order to discuss your condition and ask for an assessment?

Of course there are psychiatrists or psychologists in Finland, but they are not there solely for autistic people. On the private sector anything is possible I guess, but that costs money, something I am not willing to do.

[Florestan]

Of course there are psychiatrists or psychologists in Finland, but they are not there solely for autistic people.

How does getting an appointment i,n a public clinic work in Finland? In Romania, you phone them, ask for an appointment in the department relevant to your condition and they tell you "okay, come on date X at time Y, dr. Z will receive you". All you need apart from that is a letter from your GP specifying the putative diagnose and asking for a specialized assessment.

[Opus131]

Actually, Liszt's tone poems are not even a good starting point for such a discussion

Probably not, but they are a good starting point for his non-piano works.

Personally, i never found this idea of "programmatic" music really captured what the Romantics were trying to do.

I mean it was certainly one of their guiding principles but then programmatic music has existed long before them and it's not exactly the same. Vivaldi's Four Seasons and Beethoven's 6th symphony are also programmatic works and yet they aren't entirely analogous to the kind of music Wagner and his bygones were trying to make.

I would say the first distinction is that the Romantics were basically theatrical (in the case of Wagner literally as he mostly wrote for the stage). It's not so much that the music is trying to tell a story through sounds specifically, as if somehow musical notes can literally spell a narrative. It's more like film music, like a soundtrack to a story the composer may or may not be imagining in his head as he is writing those compositions (i mean i would assume this is what they were doing given the stated purpose of their music). 

So becuase of this the music feels more impersonal (and in some cases supra-personal). The subject is no longer the composer and his inner feelings, like in the case of a Beethoven (from the heart to the heart as he said). The subject of the music is something external to the composer, the music is in the service of something outside of itself, something that may have been seen as larger than anyone's single individuality (matter of opinion of course).

And then there's the fact the kind of expression the Romantics were aiming for is more akin to an experience. Normally in music you have things that are intended to affect a person directly, from melody to rythmn there's a very direct relationship between the organization of the sounds and the effect they are supposed to have on the listener. Something objective is being communicated. In the case of the Romantics, there's a lot that is just there to elicit sensations and feelings, usually by means of the imaginal. In a way the Romantics are asking the listener to give up his rational mind and merely give in to this dream-like tapestry of feelings. The music almost acts like a narcotic, like it's trying to induce a state of drunkness in the listener.

This aspect is actually what allowed me to appreciate those composers in the end. While i'm not "autistic", i'm actually an introvert and growing up i spend a lot of time alone, and when you are in seclusion you are very acutely aware of experiences and sensations coming from the things and objects around you, and in a certian sense the experience of listening to the Romantics sort of reminds me of that, including all the "dark" aspects as lonliness can often conjure up feelings of dread which are then captured by the Romantics by means of their use of chromaticism. Their music is at once a dream and a nightmare, and it's not surprising that it was with the Romantics that horror became common as a literary genre.

Because of this it so happens that often it is the adagios that i tend to enjoy the most in those Romantic compositions:

[lordlance]

Poetry is often nonsensical in literal terms. And that is one of its finest features. I don't think a case can be made for Diamond's lyric to be great poetry (some have tried, Rolling Stone referred to that song's lyrics as being excellent), but poetry nevertheless it is in depicting what the Telegraph called the songwriter's "raging existential angst." A completely deaf and unsympathetic chair emphatically reinforces the notion that absolutely no one is listening to or caring about Diamond's plight (it is reportedly one of his most personal songs).  My father, bless him, lacked the ability to interpret, much less appreciate, such things, to make metaphoric connections. Nor could he understand Donovan's "The moon is like a boat, my love, a lemon peel afloat..." This was a universe that was alien to him.  He also, interestingly, could not spell.  But at math, he was a whiz.

+1 with your father there. The heck is that line supposed to mean. I have this issue much more aggravatingly with Bowie. Wilfully abstruse and opaque. Obscure references. Sometimes cut up.

My understanding is... People read poetry and... Feel things? I don't read poems but I can tell you that I have had to look up what Bowie was getting at very often. There's not really any interpretation. Just befuddlement at how line 2 follows line 1. 

Getting into the weeds here so rest can skip -

Young Americans is apparently a series of vignettes and even then... It's not like each is self contained to make complete logical sense.

Ambiguity does not lend itself well to my mind. I would much rather know *the* meaning and move along. 

[lordlance]

The idea of a spectrum was introduced in the most recent revision of the DSM (the diagnostic reference manual).

Many diseases present as a spectrum. A person with diabetes may have a mild case that where management of diet is an effective treatment. A person can have a severe case where aggressive management using insulin injections is required. It is a one dimensional scale where body's management of blood sugar is compromised. People can suffer from depression with various levels of severity, there is a threshold where major depressive disorder is diagnosed. People can have manic-depressive disorder with varying levels of severity. Hypertension, which can range from slightly elevated blood pressure which will tend to cause other chronic conditions, or extreme hypertension, which can directly result in a stroke. In these cases the problem is well defined with a sliding scale of severity.

The Autism spectrum is more like an Autism nebula. It is not a single scale of severity, there are multiple traits which alone or in combination will give a diagnosis of ASD. Before the spectrum was introduced the diagnostic criteria was much more focused.

Autism emerges around age 3, when instinctive behaviors fade away and are replaced by learned behaviors in a neurotypical person. In an individual with autism the learned behaviors fail to emerge, leaving the individual with severe deficits.

Delay, deficit or complete failure to develop language (expressive and/or receptive)
Sensory obsession, resulting in self-stimulation as a primary activity.
Failure to develop basic manifestations of empathy (shared attention, eye contact, etc)
Failure of executive function.
Regression, where skills present when the individual is a toddler disappear.

The last of these is the true hallmark of Autism, as it was originally defined. I find it absurd to say that a person who, in adulthood, manifests a mild form or one of the deficits listed above has the same disorder as a person which has Autism as it was originally defined.

I wouldn't say that people currently diagnosed on the mild side of the Autism spectrum don't have a disorder. But I find it absurd to say it is the same disorder.

The recent SPARC study correlated presentations of Autism with genetic profile and found four distinct clusters of genetic mutations which were associated with four different presentations of the disease. In particular, people with severe Autism, as it was originally defined, had a unique cluster of genetic mutations, with a high prevalence of de novo mutations. To say that the people who meet the original diagnostic criteria have the same disorder as people who are socially awkward or can't tolerate the feeling of wool on their skin is nuts, in my view.

I... Am confused by this reply. Are you feeling indignant on behalf of those with debilitating autism? Yes, naturally, some are vastly worse. Are you taking issue with it being classified as a spectrum? Not within the scope of this discussion. 
 

Would you like the language to be qualified?"Yes I have autism (not the debilitating kind but it's pretty evident)" every time? 

[71 dB]

How does getting an appointment i,n a public clinic work in Finland? In Romania, you phone them, ask for an appointment in the department relevant to your condition and they tell you "okay, come on date X at time Y, dr. Z will receive you". All you need apart from that is a letter from your GP specifying the putative diagnose and asking for a specialized assessment.

A couple of years ago I was feeling bad and wanted to see doctor to make sure it is not something serious. My appointment with the doctor was 4 months later at which point I was already feeling better and nothing serious was found, fortunately.

I don't want to load the system any more than needed.

[JBS]

I "get" Diamond's chair reference as a rhetorical illustration of isolation.

But the Donovan line ("a lemon peel afloat") has to have been the result of a lyricist absolutely desperate for a rhyme.

[Florestan]

A couple of years ago I was feeling bad and wanted to see doctor to make sure it is not something serious. My appointment with the doctor was 4 months later at which point I was already feeling better and nothing serious was found, fortunately.

Four months??? Good God, what if it had been indeed something serious? You could have been incapacitated or worse by then.

In Romania you don't get the appointment the next day, either, but 4 months is way too long. Usually it's between a few days and two weeks.

I don't want to load the system any more than needed.

Load the system? You are a tax-paying citizen (and AFAIK taxes are quite high in Finland) and you are entitled to use a public service which is financed by your money any time you need it.

[71 dB]

Four months??? Good God, what if it had been indeed something serious? You could have been incapacitated or worse by then.

I was shocked by it as well. I think I was unlucky and I experienced a "worst case scenario." In Finland healthcare is mostly based on healthcare provided by the employers (work related healthcare) and private sector. Those are "fast", but if you are unemployed, public sector is often your only option. It means you wait as long as  it takes. In my opinion unemployed people have been "forgotten", but then again in capitalism unemployed people are "useless parasites" and should just die away. Finland isn't US-like capitalistic hellhole, but we are no socialistic paradise either. We are something in between.

Of course in real emergency (heart attack, severe seizure etc.) anyone gets immediate help, but my symptoms were not that bad.

In Romania you don't get the appointment the next day, either, but 4 months is way too long. Usually it's between a few days and two weeks.

I think they try to limit the waiting time to one week, but sometimes that just doesn't happen. Two weeks is still reasonable imho if the symptoms aren't severe.

Load the system? You are a tax-paying citizen (and AFAIK taxes are quite high in Finland) and you are entitled to use a public service which is financed by your money any time you need it.

The problem is the public system is underfunded. How is that possible when the taxes are high you ask? Because the costs of healthcare have skyrocketed for whatever reasons. Even if I have the right to use public services, people should not exploit the system beyond the real need.

[Florestan]

socialistic paradise

There's no such thing.

[prémont]

socialistic paradise

Paradise is the most autocratic place of all. Gods word is Gods word.