In My Language is a video by Amanda Baggs, an autistic and disability rights activist. I took a look at it because I thought it might interest a woman in my Attention seminar (she works with autistic people and autism comes up often in our conversations), but I think it would be interesting for anyone to watch.
I would honestly like to know how many people, if you met me on the street, would believe I wrote this. I find it very interesting by the way that failure to learn your language is seen as a deficit, but failure to learn my language is seen as so natural that people like me are official described as mysterious and puzzling rather than anyone admitting that it is themselves who are confused, not autistic people or other cognitively disabled people who are inherently confusing….
In the end I want you to know that this has not been intended as a voyeuristic freak show where you get to look at the bizarre workings of the autistic mind. It is meant as a strong statement on the existence and value of many different kinds of thinking and interaction in a world where how close you can appear to a specific one of them determines whether you are seen as a real person or an adult or an intelligent person.
What strikes me most strongly is that she says she is in constant interaction with the physical world, but from her movements people assume that she is “in a world of her own.” I’m guilty of thinking this, possibly because I read the Babysitter’s Club book on the subject, but mostly because my first year psychology textbook said autism was mostly caused by deficits in social interaction ability, and yes, I’m fairly sure it also used the phrase “world of their own.” I shall have to rethink everything I know about autism. It seems like in her particular case, she might not have the same sort of filter on what elements of her perception are fit to pay attention to and interact with. Whereas if I turn on a tap I see a single object (a stream of water), I very quickly adapt to its pattern of motion, and I see myself as acting upon it (by running a toothbrush under it or whatever), she might see it as being more chaotic and variable, and understand it as something that can act back. I see certain objects as being in the foreground and some in the background, whereas she might not see any difference. Thoughts?
A recent study by a bunch of experts in the states are saying that kids need to learn more languages. Even with the current focus on education and reforming No Child Left Behind, there’s still almost no interest in foreign-language learning in the US. Same as here in Canada, there’s the assumption that everyone will just learn English. Try to talk to people about it, and they just say ‘our economic prosperity proves that our ancient teaching methods and rejection of globalization will be just as successful as they were 30 years ago.’ Yeah, that’s a great idea, reinforce Western anglo-centric arrogance and totally ignore the last 20 years of cognitive research. Anyhoo, I can feel this turning into a rant. Here’s another reason why learning a foreign language is a good idea: Bilingualism Delays Onset of Dementia.
Speaking more than one language can delay the onset of dementia by four years, according to a research on bilingualism and cognitive impairment in old age.
The mental agility required to manage two or more language systems every day throughout one’s life, appears to enhance neural plasticity and enrich brain vasculature, staving off cognitive decline, Canadian researchers report in the February issue of the journal Neuropsychologia.
Best film of 2006: Bon Cop Bad Cop. It’s so charming and Canadian. It’s like watching a 2-hour long inside joke. I’m in love with Colm Feore. It was hilarious to watch him high.
Best sideways shot of a secret agent in the buff about to have his testes tortured: Casino Royale. Runner up: The Chronicles Of Narnia.
I watched The Last King of Scotland last night. I’m still chilled by it. The beginning was fantastic and then it descended into horror. Oh my goodness, I can’t talk about it. Forest Whitaker needs to win an oscar for this. Also, I think I have a teensy crush on James McAvoy as both Mr. Tumnus and Nicholas Garrigan. Yowza.
You scored 5% which means you are a hardcore liberal.
You believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.
This is a stupid meme for the two following reasons:
There are really only two opinions (on each end of each debate) which are quite strongly worded and the two in the middle are wishy washy versions of the two extremes (they all begin with things like “I guess”). I am not wishy washy. I have strong opinions. Many of my opinions aren’t represented by the responses so I pick the non-hardcore-conservative one and get pegged as a Liberal.
I see myself as socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative. No fiscal questions are represented in the meme. Hence, Liberal.
The test says, “maybe it’ll make you think differently of yourself after filling this out.” The place where I found this meme was reported as being 90% hardcore conservative, and she was surprised as well. One hopes that this won’t actually colour people’s opinions of themselves, otherwise I’ll be seeing a lot of my friends wearing Dashikis and playing folk music.
