Underlore

All part of the plan...

A Life Without Fear: Dealing With Williams Syndrome : NPR

A Life Without Fear: Dealing With Williams Syndrome : NPR.

Isabelle is not allowed to tell them that she loves them.

What The Everloving Fuck!?!?! Why??? You realize the only reason this is a problem is because we disagree with her choices. What happens when she legally becomes a person and still is “pathologically” nice? I suppose it should be news that a universally nice girl exists, we better cure that shit in a hurry right assholes?

Jessica has decided that the most important thing for her to do is to teach Isabelle how to distrust. For years, that has been her life project — a battle pitched against biology itself.

OMFG!!!! Take notes people this is how morons are going to react to the future. “Oh god its awesome… KILL IT!”

We live a very sheltered life, but I can think of times when we were at the pool and I turn around to talk to someone, and I see her practically sitting on some man’s lap at the pool, and he looks very uncomfortable,” Jessica says. “And I just think: This is not good.

Yeah because he lives in a world where that lap hop and your word will sentence him to rape and social death.

Fortunately, Jessica says, the experts tell her it will eventually get better.

Yeah, BETTER. More conformist, meaner, more afraid.. Better. Fuck you people. All of you, seriously.

OH Noes! Our offspring isn’t a bundle of suffering hate and fear like the rest of us, how inconvenient! Lets fucking cure her!

OMG she’s enjoying strangers! Where is that HEALTHY hatred and distrust of all things different!?

She apparently loves everyone! We can’t fucking have that! Doesn’t she know that love is suppose dot be bought and sold?!

This shit makes my fucking blood boil!

You ignorant dysfunctional asshats can’t get your mind off your dicks. Be honest. You wouldn’t be a tenth as concerned if it was a little boy. My proof? We haven’t been burning catholic churches for rampant systematic boy rape.

You know what you all are thinking “she’s going to be such a slut!”

And you know what? You’re right! And thank god for that. You know why? Because fucking someone safely makes them happy and it doesn’t cost anyone anything.

All this stranger danger claptrap is a red herring. You’re scared shitless of her because 10,000 more like her and she’d wreck the fucking curve.

This marvelous little person is without even trying what we all want to be. Happy and loving.

She’s by default the best kind of human and you fucking worthless chimps want to CURE HER OF IT!

Cure her developmental issues and cognitive issues sure, but there is nothing wrong with trust and being happy.

Maybe this is just what we need. A whole generation of people who ACTUALLY CARE about other people as a rule!

We have never come so close to salvation. And you fucking infuriating shit minds want to cure it! YOU WANT TO CURE BEING HAPPY!!!! God! Go kill yourselves, seriously, please.

Do you realize this girl is going to be neurologically immune to hatred, racism, sadism… She’s absolutely by every qualitative measure completely Good. And you “people” want to CURE IT!

She’ll never kill anyone, or hurt anyone. She’ll do her level best to make everyone around her happy and best of all she’ll be happy by default. She is a walking win win. And you broken sanity deprived dark brains want to stamp it out.

I’ve never been more angry.

These children are the future and it scares the piss out of you.

I have to take a deep breath and tell myself…

“No, not even these people should be tortured… That’s just your animal brain talking, relax, try not to hate, they can’t help being evil, they need a cure, not a machete. Think how a William’s would respond. You’re just angry and doing what your brain does, your’s is broken, its just not caught up to your humanity yet, you’re not a William’s but one day, hopefully you will be.”

You people live because people like her would let you, and knowing ethical superiority when I see it, I’ll trust her judgment.

Updated: April 28, 2010 — 12:09 am
  • GiveMeThePush

    You’re sort of right, in that forcing her to lose innocence is quite nasty. However, I can understand why she should have some level of skepticism instilled in her. If her “disorder” was left unchecked, she would quickly become prey in this world. Now, if she were born into a gentler society…

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    @GiveMeThePush

    You bring up an interesting point. Trust has many meanings. Is it universally trusting as in devoid of skepticism? Like can I make up a religion and have her instantly buy it? Or is it just that she’s devoid of fear? Is fear a form of skepticism? I think she should be kept safe of course, but I don’t think she should be put in a box or “cured” any more than I think kids who like Nascar should be cured.

    I understand the fear, people think as you say she’d be prey instantly. But isn’t she already? Aren’t all children? Suffering is adaptive, it makes you weary and afraid and safer, I get that. But it’s a high price to pay. Society is full of nice people being taken advantage of.

    I don’t think she’s special in that regard. I think everyone is just pissed and jealous.

    We routinely drop 18 year olds on the world and they routinely get cannibalized by society. Look at our teen pregnancy rate. What the difference here? Since when do we care?

    Because she’s unpunishable. She’s going to be devoid of shame. In short she’s going to be uncontrollable.

    I say we hire a chaperon to hold her money or offer her a service like say setting up a trust fund for herself so she can’t ruin herself in a single day.

    It’s like unipolar hypomania, the clinical term for happy as an affliction. We cure them for other’s sake. It’s an invasion. Let her self destruct, let her be trusting and happy. For me it’s a civil rights issue. For the parents and everyone else it’s a property rights issue and fitting in with the Joneses and it makes me sick.

    We’d apparently cure the happy monk.

    It’s like people say, if jesus showed up, we’d give him a cell. (actually I think we’d gas him and then burn him, but whatever, you get the point.)

  • GiveMeThePush

    I agree to a point. Every child should be allowed to be as happy as they want to be, but I think you’re missing the point of what Jessica is trying to do for her child. It isn’t that she is trying to force Isabelle to conform to what she feels is acceptable to society; it is for her own protection. As it stands now, Isabelle is in a position where she is more susceptible to being taken advantage of than that of a “normally” developing child. Most children, if bitten by a dog for example, would take away a valuable lesson: Not all dogs are nice, I should be more cautious when approaching a dog I am meeting for the first time. Isabelle, on the other hand, lacks the capacity to learn that lesson. The same applies to meeting new people for the first time. Not everyone is nice and a child, any child, should proceed with a certain level of caution until the child sees fit to grant that person trust.

    As I’m sure you are aware, we fear for a reason. Unfortunately, some fear things for the wrong reasons. If this were a situation where Isabelle was being taught to fear black people because of their skin color, to fear the outside world because her mother was agoraphobic, or to fear just for the sake of being afraid, then I wouldn’t be making a counterpoint. I see no evidence of this in the NPR article. Granted, one can only assume that Isabelle’s mother and father are sound minded, compassionate people. The real task for her parents is to instill equilibrium of trust and distrust in Isabelle and do it in a sane, responsible manner. At the same time, hopefully, Isabelle will instill that same equilibrium in her parents.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    It isn’t that she is trying to force Isabelle to conform to what she feels is acceptable to society; it is for her own protection.

    To an extent, obviously. But it’s not so cut and dry as all that. Indeed I’d say it’s only about 5% that, though of course I’m sure she feels it’s 100%.

    In my experience people with disabled family members tend to concentrate on approximating a “normal” life. As if it’s a simple gauge with degeneracy at the bottom and utopia at the top and disability put yous somewhere below the middle, normal.

    Setting aside the fact that its not so simple, certainly not a single gauge, there is also the irony of the obsession with mere normalcy itself which is a symptom of our broken minds.

    So trained by the environment and each other that when we find someone well beyond normal in some way especially in a way not readily testable or usable, our first reaction is to drag them down to our level if we even think to try anything at all.

    Most especially when that transcendence balks at social norms, which are after all there for society directly, and the individual only indirectly.

    Isabelle, on the other hand, lacks the capacity to learn that lesson.

    Are you sure? It says she lacks social phobia, not all phobia. Are you saying she would also plunge her hands into fire because she trusts it? I suspect not. I suspect she would not react the same way to dogs, they are after all a potential predator of an entirely different species. Indeed I suspect people have to learn to not fear dogs by default. But of course I’m not sure, and I see what you’re saying. Like those children that don’t feel physical pain and bite their lips off. That’s a real problem.

    Not everyone is nice and a child, any child, should proceed with a certain level of caution until the child sees fit to grant that person trust.

    Why? I question the wisdom entirely of living in fear based on the off chance of harm. And I do mean off. Child abductions by stranger are thoroughly down. And they would vanish if we’d stop being prohibitionist about synthetic indulgence, but that’s another debate.

    The vast majority of the time it’s a family member that’s the biggest threat to a child and don’t get me started on church and school.. I think our entire approach to children and safety is broken.

    I think children like this have a lot to teach us about how to build and live in a society that isn’t populated with callow monsters. I think our efforts to prevent and defend against them in part create them.

    Like drug law causing drug wars. Or like fire prevention teaching you how to burn something down, or how safety tips teach us to blow things up, “Remember kids never ever mix bleach and ammonia!”

    or to fear just for the sake of being afraid,

    But that’s exactly what’s happening in large part. Her courage is being labeled a symptom. And while we know that fearing black people for being black is absurd we should also know that fearing every guy in a van is absurd as well. (or every guy who’s overweight white short and has glasses, if TV’s depiction of child rapists is accurate)

    Indeed, a randomly selected black man has more of a chance of being a drug criminal in general than a randomly selected guy with a van has a chance of being a child abductor. So using your own logic the fear she’s being taught is absolutely irrational for exactly the same reasons.

    The difference is complicated because as I explained its tied up with sex, which as I explained in other posts, is near and dear to the heart of conformity, the heart of The Company. Society demands that women and men behave a certain way about sex and children to ensure that the next round of people behave in a way conducive to society’s existence in its current form.

    NPR chose a little girl for a reason. They’re no fools. I’m sure there are little boys with this syndrome. But little girls have a special place in the American mind.

    We imagine little boys as being potentially adult-like, from the lord of the flies, to the 10 year old in Somalia with an AK47, to the omen, to gage from pet semetary, to the good son, to home alone, little boys we seem to be taught can pretty well take care of themselves if they aren’t an active threat to us. After all they are little men and men get tossed in front of bullets. Remember toy solders? Cloak and dagger? War games? The Manhattan project?

    But little girls, no they are different, they are symbols of innocence and vulnerability, and religion mixed all that up with sex by selling virgins off, and painting sexual restriction in the language of virtue and purity.

    To this day there are a huge percentage of western female names that are either male derivative, jewels, or flowers, and the very first thing we always say about a little baby girl is “oh she’s so beautiful.” We literally can’t think of anything else to say.

    We worship little girls in this society. And that worship is linked to sex. Fathers are obsessed with the idea of their “little girl” ever having sex and they are in effect instructed to act like jealous possessive boyfriends.

    Which has the happy (for The Company) effect of teaching the girls to be sneaky. We isolate them. And when they finally are free, usually college they “go wild” if you’ll pardon the reference. And Bam, teen pregnancy.

    This situation is absolutely not about safety. It’s about training people, in particular girls, to act a certain way, a way based on fear. Girls these days are trained to think of themselves as cavalier if they walk to their cars alone without clutching a can of mace. Sure that weariness might make them marginally safer but at what cost?

    The system wants them constantly afraid constantly thinking about sex.

    Being safe and miserable makes you not care so much about being safe. Maybe that’s why so many young women are relentlessly self destructive. And our whole culture is saturated with flowery cliches about living life to the fullest, to connect and open up. But when we finally find someone hard wired to do just that, its time to throw her in a box, drug the hell out of her do whatever we can to cure it.

    People are completely full of shit and this is a great place to call them on it.

    We never even ask the vital question how much authority do parents even have over their children? Obviously it’s not absolute. Else we wouldn’t need CPS. But we don’t mention that, we don’t talk about the fact that your children are not yours, you are renting them from the state and the price is curricular, behavioral, academic.

    I take a progressive position. I say children need FAR more rights than they have now. not merely protection, but authority. I don’t see them as pets to be trained, as fill-ins, for the next batch of worker slots. And that’s the point here in my view. To the parents it might be about safety, but to the company it’s a chance to medicate the greatest threat to them since the telephone out of existence. Compassion, Trust, Kindness. If we Truly started caring about each other, The Company would be Fucked.

    All I see here is a fresh round of “Oppositional Defiance Disorder” bullshit.

    ¯\(°_o)/¯

  • GiveMeThePush

    It isn’t that she is trying to force Isabelle to conform to what she feels is acceptable to society; it is for her own protection.

    Considering the society we live in now, regardless of what it could be if we were all more like Isabelle, do you believe that one cannot be too trusting? Do you feel that for a three year old child, unconditional trust without the ability to learn when she might be wronged is a safe situation? To me this isn’t a situation where a child is being oppressed, but a child in a dangerous situation.

    Most children, if bitten by a dog for example, would take away a valuable lesson: Not all dogs are nice, I should be more cautious when approaching a dog I am meeting for the first time. Isabelle, on the other hand, lacks the capacity to learn that lesson.

    The title of the article is “Life Without Fear: Dealing With William’s Syndrome.” However, you are right and I made an assumption. But let’s change “dog” to “Uncle Bob” or “any shit head adult who sees an opportunity,” and “bitten” to “molested.” Man, talk about a child who is an easy target.

    Not everyone is nice and a child, any child, should proceed with a certain level of caution until the child sees fit to grant that person trust.

    I said “caution” not “fear”. To teach someone to be cautious is not to teach them to fear. A child needs to recognize warning signs of a threat and act accordingly. Isabelle might not recognize she is in potential danger due to her unconditional trust issues.

    or to fear just for the sake of being afraid.

    I suppose I wasn’t being very clear. I didn’t mean that Isabelle should be taught to fear. I meant that I didn’t see evidence of fear being used as a way to keep Isabelle safe.

    NPR chose a little girl for a reason.

    Agreed. In this society, shit like that just pulls at the majority’s heart strings and boosts the hell out of page hits. I, however, don’t see a difference in the dangers whether the child be male or female. I would imagine that the parents of a three year old boy with William’s would be every bit as concerned about the nature of the disorder. After all, you can rape, kidnap, or beat up a three year old boy just as easily as a three year old girl. That said, the article is sexually biased for ratings, the symptoms of William’s Disorder and the dangers of unconditional trust in a child are not.

    Again, I see no evidence that Jessica is trying to oppress Isabelle by teaching her to be less trusting. And by less trusting, I don’t mean to the levels clinical paranoia, but just enough so that she isn’t taken advantage of. To me the situation is no different than teaching a deaf kid to communicate via sign language. Now is there opportunity for Isabelle’s parents to royally screw the poor kid up? Hell yes there is! However, I am as certain as I could possibly be with the extremely limited background on Isabelle’s parents that it won’t be done intentionally. Nobody is perfect.

    I do agree, however, that it is a terrible shame that in our society trust and kindness must be considered hazardous qualities in children.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    Considering the society we live in now, regardless of what it could be if we were all more like Isabelle, do you believe that one cannot be too trusting?

    Obviously being overly trusting costs the trusting individual. Believe me I know that for a personal visceral fact. My inability to detect humor comes with an inability to detect insincerity. So I tend to make for an easy mark. But speaking from experience, I think I’m happier than I would have been otherwise. To answer in a straight forward way, I agree that in this context one can be too trusting yes, but I have a number of qualifiers. See below.

    Do you feel that for a three year old child, unconditional trust without the ability to learn when she might be wronged is a safe situation?

    No of course not. But I have to ask, what IS a safe situation for a three year old out side her room? I don’t see any extra hassle here. I don’t think a three year old should be left unsupervised around strangers, syndrome or not simply because parents should be there to answer questions and deflect threats etc. At what point is a three year old expected to judge character anyway?

    To me this isn’t a situation where a child is being oppressed, but a child in a dangerous situation.

    Agreed, but no more than normal. All I see is a big deal being made of an awesome personality trait (setting aside the other symptoms of the syndrome) and I can’t help but question the ulterior motives of that deal being made. I feel very strongly it’s damn sure not about helping children. If we wanted to help children hitting them would be illegal by now for the same reason hitting mental patients or hitting your boss is. For the record again, if a person is too stupid to trick a normal toddler, they shouldn’t be allowed to be in charge of one.

    Man, talk about a child who is an easy target.

    Again, agreed, but aren’t they all? Part of my objection to hitting kids is how easy it is to trick/bribe them. Children are by design the easiest of marks. Sure a William’s kid would take less effort, but again I smell intentional misdirection.

    I said “caution” not “fear”. To teach someone to be cautious is not to teach them to fear. A child needs to recognize warning signs of a threat and act accordingly. Isabelle might not recognize she is in potential danger due to her unconditional trust issues.

    Fair enough but the parent explicitly stated she was training her child to distrust. I’m still not sure if I accept that by definition an excess of trust is a deficiency of caution and granted I don’t know the full context of the quote, but still, that’s the quote NPR chose to highlight.

    Obviously threat assessment is an essential skill, but we’re talking about emotions in a toddler, not conclusions from an adult. In a way she has a huge advantage. She gets to intellectually choose what scares her. (!!) She’ll be able to intellectually disregard pointless fears because she won’t even have them in the first place.

    They (and you to an extent) talk like it’s a huge handicap but it isn’t. (the fear/friendly portion anyway) I don’t know instinctively that electricity is dangerous, I had to be told, and I zapped myself but I still think she can learn from threats like that, her issue seems to be a tribal malfunction. She in effect treats everyone like close family. Ultimately no one knows really who to trust, all she lacks effectively is a false sense of security. As an adult she’ll come to intellectually determine trustworthiness totally independent of her emotional state. I envy her.

    I suppose I wasn’t being very clear. I didn’t mean that Isabelle should be taught to fear. I meant that I didn’t see evidence of fear being used as a way to keep Isabelle safe.

    The evidence is that the condition itself is about a lack of “appropriate” fear, and they imply strongly that the condition is a negative force. Obviously if the condition of lack-of-fear is bad then presence of fear or is good, and thus to add fear (distrust) of strangers is to offset the condition. We’re probably crossing terms. To be clear I am saying that the ulterior motive on the part of societyis to assure that she’s afraid because people who are afraid are clay minds.

    Agreed. In this society…

    We agree here.

    Again, I see no evidence that Jessica is trying to oppress Isabelle by teaching her to be less trusting.

    Except she specifically quoted the goal of teaching distrust but I completely see what you mean, my point was not the parents so much as society and the psychological community.

    And by less trusting, I don’t mean to the levels clinical paranoia, but just enough so that she isn’t taken advantage of. To me the situation is no different than teaching a deaf kid to communicate via sign language.

    Exactly, but teaching her to detect threats is not the same as trying to teach the emotional states we normally use to often incorrectly determine threats. In a way she has more of her day to day cognitive experience moved to the neo cortex. In my view she is literally more human than human in a very important way. We’re trying to cripple her like we’re crippled so she’ll fit in instead of helping her run now that she can stand. I’m talking about the goal relating to how she feels not the goal relating to keeping herself safe. I see them as separate. I don’t have to be afraid of a gun to know it can hurt me. Indeed, not being afraid of it is an advantage. You see what I mean? Was I clear at all?

    Now is there opportunity for Isabelle’s parents to royally screw the poor kid up? Hell yes there is! However, I am as certain as I could possibly be with the extremely limited background on Isabelle’s parents that it won’t be done intentionally. Nobody is perfect.

    Again, agreed. but were the one making the judgment that this is bad, almost for the parents. We’re the ignorant tosser in the van, not the enlightened parent. It’s that knee jerk cave man reaction “it different, KILL IT WITH DRUGS!” that has my blood boiling.

    I do agree, however, that it is a terrible shame that in our society trust and kindness must be considered hazardous qualities in children.

    And it always will be so long as we think positions of fear and distrust are normal. I hope this syndrome becomes airborne. I’d scrap a few IQ points of the average top of humanity if it meant we’d all stop wanting each other dead and could learn to share food. I mean seriously, is a William’s case EVER going to be a Hitler or a Stalin or a Kim Jong-il? Nearly Everything evil about humanity stems from fear and distrust and callousness.

    Hell man it’s tempting to start churning out bracelets. “What Would a William’s Do?” I know I’ll in all seriousness ask myself that question from time to time from now on. It’s like asking yourself. “What would I do if petty fear and mistrust we not factors?”

    I see a little Buddha, hell maybe Siddhartha Gautama Was a William’s.

  • Joey

    We imagine little boys as being potentially adult-like, from the lord of the flies, to the 10 year old in Somalia with an AK47, to the omen, to gage from pet semetary, to the good son, to home alone, little boys we seem to be taught can pretty well take care of themselves if they aren’t an active threat to us. After all they are little men and men get tossed in front of bullets. Remember toy solders? Cloak and dagger? War games? The Manhattan project?

    But little girls, no they are different, they are symbols of innocence and vulnerability, and religion mixed all that up with sex by selling virgins off, and painting sexual restriction in the language of virtue and purity.

    I agree with Innomen on virtually all of the above, but the pair of paragraphs in the quote struck me as particularly relevant, and very true.

    NPR didn’t choose a little boy because more people would pick a different interpretation of the situation that would not necessarily be negative, and thus cloud the narrative that they wanted to present. With a little boy, lack of fear toward strangers is not so scary.

    Sure, we have the story of Adam Walsh, but every time a little (white) girl gets abducted and raped/murdered, we hear about it on the news for weeks, as if millions of lives were at stake. This is not true for minorities, and it’s not even true for white boys.

    A little boy being friendly to strangers is not likely to cause anyone to raise any eyebrows, but if a little girl doesn’t shy away from every unknown man that she sees, she is sternly reeducated very quickly. Men are poisonous defilers, and a father must protect his prize – not his daughter, but her sexual inexperience – with every fiber of his being.

    Little (white) girls are sacred to this country in ways that nobody else is. Our gender roles are very deep, and they are constantly reinforced throughout our lives; women strive to be beautiful, because they are cultural accoutrements. Sociological nick-nacks. They are fragile little virginity-holders, and they have to be kept pretty and safe, or that most valuable of cultural currencies, female sexual purity, is at risk.

    Another point; I dispute the notion that fear and caution are inherently separate; they are quite related, as one is designed to induce the other… And I think by her own quotes, it’s clear that the mother is trying to instill fear in her daughter.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    Another point; I dispute the notion that fear and caution are inherently separate; they are quite related, as one is designed to induce the other… And I think by her own quotes, it’s clear that the mother is trying to instill fear in her daughter.

    Related is a vague term, but then you go on to say one is designed to induce the other. I don’t know if I can agree on that front.

    This might just be a petty semantics issue but in my mind caution is an action while fear is an emotion. Like social due diligence. Caution is prudence and thus can be codified and faked; A matter of protocol.

    Fear on the other had has teeth, which is why I object to the idea that a lack of fear is bad.

    To be perfectly clear: In my view, imprudence is bad, perhaps, but fearlessness categorically is not. Fear is there to tell animals what is a threat and what isn’t. We are thinking creatures now we no longer need fear. At All.

  • Joey

    I mean that fear is designed, evolutionarily, to inspire caution.

  • liliana

    Pienso que la discusión debe abordar cuestiones de método y de terminología (conceptos).

    Anotaciones:
    1. El artículo de NPR no es un artículo inspirado en conocimiento científico; ni médico, ni pedagógico. Tampoco contiene una perspectiva adecuada que logre convocar opiniones en torno a la Terapéutica en un sentido socio-cultural. Es importante tener en cuenta ésta precisión porque,en el fondo, estamos ante “datos” del catalogado síndrome (patología cognitiva) y ante “un caso”.

    2. Supongamos que acepto esa catalogación patológica. Y, que acepto que la madre -Jessica- no está siendo adecuadamente orientada y apoyada por psiquiatras. Que ella, en suma, cree y practica la necesidad de infudir temor a Isabelle. Esto constituiría una ausencia -repito- de adecuada comprensión médica y un enfoque terapéutico errado (conductismo de choque, conductismo vulgar; terapia de choque; …).

    Me temo que el artículo NPR no da cuenta de la realidad de la historia, ni de la problemática de fondo.

    3. No se requiere ser especialista para poseer una comprensión y opinar acerca de éste problema, bién. No obstante, es necesario distinguir entre el abordar un caso (un caso de tratamiento para el Síndrome de Williams) y la perspectiva general de “tipo” socio-cultural: “Vivir sin temores” . Esta vía metodológica permitiría relacionar lo particular (el síndrome) con la comprensión de la cultura en la que surge y cómo ésta lo entiende, lo trata, lo destina.

    4.Jesica: “They just don’t have it. She just doesn’t have that … early-warning system.”
    “Alerta” ante lo Otro y ante el Medio, es elementalmente distinto a “miedo” o a “temor”.

    5. Finamente, temor y miedo, se relacionarán posteriormente con la “alerta”, por aprendizaje del individuo-medio.
    Miedo es una reacción-emoción que, como otras cumple funciones biológicas-socio-culturales. Se instaura inconsciente y conscientemente. Positivamente: proporciona las alertas -a las que se relaciona- ante problemas; dificultades; peligros. Conduce y/o se relaciona con la caution, el instinto y el pensamiento de supervivencia.
    Negativamente: la exaberbación de su intensidad. Puede conducir a la no funcionalidad del organismo y/o individuo: a reacciones y a otras emociones que, por ejemplo, paralicen; hagan indenfenso al organismo y/o individuo; causen traumas psicológicos; respuestas inadecuadamente agresivas; bloqueos de la afectividad; percepciones y pensamientos equivocados.

    6. Jessica utiliza el término”ansiedad”. Evidentemente no se trataría de crear ansiedad.

    Creo que me he extendido demasiado. Finalmente:
    7. “Simpatía” no es = Amor. (Aunque en el niño quizá ésta distinción es irrelevante)
    / Qué es la afectividad en el ser-humano? Este es el tema de fondo. Individual y socio-culturalmente considerado.

    8. Idem: Agresividad ?.

    Prefiriría un horizonte Terapéutico (entendido filosófica, psicologógica, antropológicamente) que excluyera los epítetos “puta”, “mierda”,etc.
    Aunque yo también tengo rabia e impotencia ante nuestras enfermedades culturales.
    Muchas gracias Joey!!!
    Muchas gracias Innomen por invitarme a tu sitio, pensamiento y trabajo. Un abrazo.!!!

  • Joey

    Hola liliana!

    While I speak Spanish and can understand what you’ve written, I’m going to write my reply in English, because it would take me considerably longer to get the grammar right… My Spanish is by-and-large conversational and professional; I am not a native speaker, and it doesn’t come absolutely naturally to me.

    You mention that the NPR article is pretty devoid of detail with regard to the clinical details of the condition being discussed, and I tend to agree with you. Because of this, I’m going to refer to other sources on the web.

    In another recent article about children with Williams, Yahoo! News says that they lack the usual “social anxiety”. The Wikipedia article says that they have remarkably well-developed verbal skills (albeit with considerable other mental deficiencies) and ‘cocktail party’ type personalities. The Yahoo! article focused excessively on their inherent lack of racial prejudice, even after typical socialization.

    From that article:

    Williams syndrome is caused by a gene deletion known to affect the brain as well as other organs. As a result, people with Williams syndrome are “hypersocial,” Meyer-Lindenberg told . They do not experience the jitters and inhibitions the rest of us feel.

    “The whole concept [of social anxiety] would be foreign to them,” he said.

    They will put themselves at great peril to help someone and despite their skills at empathy, are unable to process social danger signals. As a result, they are at increased risk for rape and physical attack.

    And another:

    Previous work has shown that in the brains of people with Williams syndrome, the amygdala – the emotional seat of the brain – fails to respond to social threats. While the amygdala itself is functionally normal, it is misguided by the pre-frontal cortex – the executive of the brain – to block all social anxiety.

    I think that pretty well demonstrates that no matter how much her mother might like it, she’s not liable to ‘learn’ those sorts of skills, having an inherent “deficiency” in one of society’s pet neuroses (social anxiety).

    It is interesting, I think, that the Yahoo! News article also goes straight for the jugular with references to ‘rape’… It kind of reinforces our shared points.

  • momof3wildkids

    I happen to know Jessica and Isabelle well.

    You have no idea what you are talking about… robbing her of her innocence? Isabelle is and always will be innocent and caring child. Jessica and her husband are just trying to build in her an internal radar that most of us are born with naturally.

    As Isabelle does not have this internal radar, she is much more prone to abuse, sexual and other types, which would rob her innocence a lot more than teaching her the cold hard reality that not everyone is worthy of our trust.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    My comments stand as I’ve already refuted your position and you introduced no new assertions.

    Attempting to instill fear in a toddler because it makes your job as a parent easier is …questionable.

    Besides 90% of my comments are designed to indict society’s reaction to a species of human devoid of animal insecurities which we again as a species would be better off without.

    As above, I understand the risk, but life itself is risk and the consensus appears to be that we should rob her of this gift to make her fitting in easier.

    Her nature is an asset, not a disability. And I can not condone trying to strip her of it out of fear and cynicism.

    In my opinion the argument is generally attempting to preserve the false impression that people are in control of their lives. She’s in danger of rape regardless of her state of mind, THAT’S a “cold hard fact” for you. All you want to do is make her as miserable as the rest of us on top of that risk.

    Fortunately the point is moot. You’ll no more be able to give her fear as you can erase your own. Indeed attempts to cure this “affliction” may very well lead to the ability to replicate it in others. And I assure you looking at prozac and self help book sales, you’ll have many takers. Me included.

    Social phobia is crippling. I haven’t had a steak in public in 2 years. Fear is simply not useful for a sentient organism, its merely convenient, at best.

    She can be taught what danger is and how to avoid it, that will be sufficient.

    These arguments I hear against the condition’s emotional facet sound to me like someone wishing their child was partially catatonic because of the reduced workload. Or put another way what if she was born knowing how to fly, you people would see her cured of it because she might hit her head.

    I’m looking at the big picture here. I’m aware of her increased risk, I just consider it more than offset by the positives.

    In any case I wish the child well. Let’s hope the situation in reality when all is said and done turns out better than either of us have hoped for.

  • liliana

    @Joey. #11

    Thank you very much for reading my writing and for your response. About translate: I agree with you about your answer and write in English.

    “You mention that the NPR article is pretty devoid of detail with regard to the clinical details of the condition being discussed, and I tend to agree with you.Because of this, I’m going to refer to other sources on the web. ”

    Well, I will expand on my point 1. The NPR article lacks a responsible professional opinion or guidance. A medical issue, more, if it is a clinic case, even more if it concerns a person and even much more if it is a child, requires a careful treatment of science, and delicate tact with public opinion.
    (I would not to expose this way, bordering with sensationalism. Nor like member of the family, nor as professional journalism.)

    But well, We to move for a moment the issue of journalistic practices and their impact on mental health, culture and pedagogy of public opinion. Then we can put in brackets and forget that it is a case, individual. And anyway, we let us refer generally to the Williams Syndrome.

    My point 3.> It is at the route of the proposed Innomed discussion.
    To relate the particular (Williams Syndrome) with the understanding of the culture in which it arises and how the culture to understand, treat and intended to it.

    You are invited to consider other references to the web. I say: “social anxiety” is not the correct term. Social anxiety is a phobia.

  • http://redplanetaryearth.blogspot.cmo Kevin

    I think the key to this story is whether or not fear is a good thing. From an evolutionary perspective (mere survival and propagation of genes), I think the answer is an obvious yes. But, unfortunately, the cold hard facts of evolution are never sufficient. Who wants to merely survive, anyway? So, I guess the question is, would you rather be happy and risk ending up dead sooner (maybe it increases her risk of death by some value x%), or live afraid and live to a ripe old miserable age?

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    would you rather be happy and risk ending up dead sooner

    If it’s merely a risk of course the answer is yes. Being miserable makes life worthless and being dead makes being happy worthless so they are of equal value.

    I think 90% of the dangers to modern man are not detectable by instinct anyway. I think the animal notion of fear is by and large worthless in modern society. Indeed I say its counter productive, but again to my understanding she’s not absent fear she’s merely absent social fear. Huge difference.

    Regardless the post focuses on that element and my reply as well.

    They’re all worried because we have a girl here who isn’t a callow little waif when it comes to the big scary men around her and so everyone is concocting rape fantasies and rescue the princess fairy tales.

  • http://marathayride.blogspot.com Monique Crump

    Incredibly awesome writing. Honest.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    Thank you very much :)

Underlore © 2013