![]() | home | project | library | links | discussion | |
|
||
Inertia: From Theory to PraxisAnna SullivanThis article was the handout for a presentation at Autreat 2002. It is incomplete, due to the author's inertia, but if a more complete version occurs it will replace this one. Contents
The Why of this ArticleOne night, my freshman year in college, camped in somebody's backyard in LA to attend a political protest, I realized there was a pattern to the various things I hadn't done -- mail a letter to collect an already-won thousand-dollar scholarship, make an orthodontist appointment after years of having the braces stuck uselessly on my teeth, do most of my homework in high school, brush my teeth before I was 17 anytime other than the day I was going to the dentist -- and to the things I had done - an award-winning high school science fair project, a fair bit of reading, endless hours on the internet - and that this pattern had little to do with motivation, caring, internal desires, or even how much I enjoyed doing the activities in question, and quite a bit to do with how the activities were structured. This realization triggered a welcome shift in my thinking, and I set about studying how exactly I seemed to work in this respect, how I could structure my life so as to make this less of a problem, and what similar phenomena seemed to happen in others. This article and presentation are an attempt to communicate what I've pieced together, geared partly at inertial people trying to figure out how to structure their lives in a way that works. Wanting and Doing: A common-sense model and its limitations.In high school, I passed many hours thinking about how I wanted to be doing my homework, being frustrated with myself for not doing my homework, making elaborate plans to try to get myself to homework... and still not starting my homework. When I've tried to describe how this worked to others, I've generally been met with disbelief. "If you didn't do it," they say, "You must not really have wanted to." This idea seems to function partly as a belief about how people work, but also partly as a definition -- what a person wants to do is almost defined as what they end up doing. The belief-structure underlying this -- our society's common-sense explanation for what a person does and does not end up doing -- seems to go something like this: A person is a chooser. They have an array of options laid out in front of them, and they take whichever one they most want -- whichever option they care most about doing. What a person does is exactly the same as what that person cares most about doing. I don't know how well this model works for most people, but I know this model does not work for me, or for a number of other ACs. For the purpose of this paper, I'll call anyone for whom this model is far from working "inertial", and I'll call the phenomena which make it difficult or impossible for them to connect intention and action "inertia". I'm going to try to explore what factors effect inertia in various people, and how one might structure one's life to make inertia less of a problem. Assumed Skill SetsTo begin with, it might be useful to look at the skillsets a person would need to have, in order for what they did to be whatever they cared most about doing. A person would need, among other things, to:
Since a lot of ACs are missing various neuro-typical cognitive modules, and since if any of these steps fails to work in a given situation the person will be inertial in that situation, it is perhaps not surprising that a lot of ACs are inertial. Also, since removing various skills from that list will all result in a disconnect between intention and action, but will have rather different internal dynamics, it is perhaps not surprising that the details of how the person is inertial, and of what changes make sense to address that, vary widely from person to person. For example:
Some General ConsiderationsBecause there is so much variation, the process of figuring out how one's own inertia works, and how to organize one's life in order to do more of what one wants to do, will necessarily be individual. Nevertheless, there are some general thoughts which may be of use: There's a neurological difference between on-purpose and automatic movement. In the Oliver Sacks movie Awakenings, Sacks and a doctor are looking at a woman with an unusual form of paralysis (who would not, for example, have been able to move to pick up a ball.) Someone throws a ball to her, and she reaches out and catches it. Oliver Sacks asks the doctor how she did that, and he says roughly "I guess she borrowed some will from the ball." In general, voluntary motor movement and automatic motor movement are controlled by different centers of the brain, and it is possible to be unable to do something on purpose but able to do something as part of a routine (for a common example, people often have trouble remembering someone's name on purpose, but remember it just fine when it comes up naturally as part of a thought. Also, people will sometimes be able to play music or sports well when they don't think about it, but will have trouble managing to do it right when they become conscious of what they're doing.) In inertial people this difference can be larger than usual; often it can help to rely on automatic movements (through schedules, doing things in response to prompts, etc.) in places where other people would use voluntary movements. Just because someone can do something sometimes doesn't mean they can do that all the time, and just because things vary in ways which are hard to predict doesn't mean the things are being done on purpose. Often people will be able to do things in some situations or some frames of mind, but not in others. There are different senses in which a person can "know" things, in the sense that I might know intellectually how to do a task, but unless I've actually physically done it several times, I'll find it hard to begin. Similarly, people might intellectually know the next step in a task but have a much easier time starting it if someone tells them, or might intellectually know what they're trying to do but have a much easier time doing it if they write it down and carry it with them. Facilitation can be great. A facilitator of a group is someone who tries to listen to what the group is trying to discuss or express, and to help that conversation emerge without imposing the facilitator's own opinions on the process. It can sometimes be very helpful to have someone do that for their own individual attempts to do things - to have someone listen carefully and try to help whatever it is the person is trying to do come out, without imposing themself on the process. I think facilitated communication, when done well, is like this. Jim and I have been "study buddies" for the last few months, and borrowed will from one another and sometimes facilitated one another; this has been fruitful. Inertia and "Taking Responsibility": People sometimes hesitate to think of their own actions as caused by inertia, even when they fit the profile, because they are afraid that means "not taking responsibility". From one angle, I think they are mistaken: an important part of taking responsibility for yourself is noticing how you work, so that you can avoid promising to do things you won't be able to do, can set up situations to make yourself more likely to get certain things done, etc. At the same time, it seems like one component of how most people "take responsibility" is that they believe they can control their own behavior. I think the way to blend this with the above paragraph is to notice what actions one can control, to continue to regard all one's actions as one's own responsibility, and to use the understanding provided by the concept "inertia" to figure out how to act well. Figuring it out for YourselfIf you're inertial, and you're trying to figure out some ways of structuring things to make inertia less of a problem, here's an outline of a possible way to proceed.
Further ReadingKalen Molton has a good, practically-oriented article on inertia posted on alt.support.autism. To find it, go to Google, and do a "Google Groups" search on "kalen autism inertia". Movement Differences and Diversity in Autism/Mental Retardation by Anne M. Donnellan and Martha R. Leary, gives a nice overview of a whole bunch of ways movement can be different in ACs, gives some beginnings of a new framework to conceptualize some of this in, and in particular emphasizes skills as being situational things which a person is able to call forth in a certain situation, in response to certain stimuli rather than absolutely. I found this book very helpful. The articles Movement Difference: A Closer Look at the Possibilities and Movement Differences Among Some People with Autism use this book as a reference. "Catatonia in autistic spectrum disorders", by Lorna Wing and Amitta Shah (published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (2000) 176:357-362; available at http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/176/4/357, is an interesting (although clinical-sounding) research article about catatonic autistic people (which kind of seems like an extreme form of inertia). One interesting point from the article is that it says that in a fair number of autistic people, catatonic symptoms appear or get much worse sometime in adolescence. Lucy's Story: Autism and Other Adventures, by Lucy Blackman, is not about inertia per se. However, since she is "low-functioning autistic" and has a lot of trouble linking intention to action, there's a fair bit of good material on inertia in her book. Punished by Rewards, by Alfie Kohn, is all about how extrinsic reinforcement (rewards - things like praise, candy, stickers, etc.) can destroy intrinsic motivaion. If that seems to be part of your inertia, it might be worth looking at (although it just talks about how that happens, not about what to do about it.) Some relevant keywords (if you're looking for inertia-related stuff on the internet):
| ||
|
home | project | library | links | discussion | ||