1:04pm August 2, 2014

“The theory defines the person as more or less bound or static by trait, with any chance of “improvement” (i.e., becoming more “normal”) being modest or unlikely… If a person does improve dramatically, [this] framework holds that while education may have been important, the person him- or herself is unusual (see, for example, the description of Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadhyay as “remarkable,” in Wing 2000, p. 2). Within the framework of “big theory” explanations of autism, an individual who demonstrates dramatic change is likely to be regarded as a statistical outlier, or as Wing says, “remarkable.” Thus prevailing notions about autism remain intact, undisturbed by particular contradictory evidence.”

Doug Biklen

Basically, he’s saying that within these theories of autism, everything stays the same, and anyone who contradicts the theory is positioned as a remarkable exception, not someone who blows the entire theory apart.  Even though just one counterexample can blow an entire theory apart.  Seems like professionals have their own echo chambers.

15 notes