Grid Racer 3D Mobile Game Download | Symbian Games : This game contains all the new cars from the world racing. All cars updated and the graphics of this game is pretty cool . There are several cars which you will drive in this game this game is for Symbian mobiles . This is the top game of 2008 and most downloaded game ever of mobile. For more games and software's visit this site and download latest and updated game.
The Most Popular games of the 2008 era this game have some of the big race challanges in this game cars looking quite good and great that every buddy want to have this game in the mobile. This game have some of the fastest cars of 2008
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Autistic Children In The Media
Emory University's Jennifer Sarrett offers an interesting although sadly brief analysis of the way in which autism is treated in the mass media: Trapped Children.
She examines media depictions of children with autism, first in the 1960s, and then today. In those 40 years, professionals radically changed their minds about autism: in the 60s, a lot of people thought it was caused by emotionally distant refrigerator mothers; nowadays, we think it's a neural wiring disorder caused by deleted genes.
Yet, she says, while theories about the causes have changed, the media's view of what autism is hasn't, and assumptions from the 60s are still around (even amongst professionals). She identifies two enduring themes:
Fragmentation. The child with autism is somehow not a whole person; they are fundamentally "broken". And the family with an autistic child is emotionally shattered, too. In the 60s, the theory was that the broken family caused the autism. Nowadays, it's the other way round: having an autistic child stresses family relationships to breaking-point.
Imprisonment. The child with autism is at heart "normal", but their autism has them trapped, blocked-off from the world. Bruno Bettelheim, a leading champion of the refrigerator mother theory, called his major book The Empty Fortress. Either professionals, or parents, need to "break through" the autism to contact the "real" child imprisoned by the disorder. Likewise, this real child is eager to get out, but this is very difficult: they are crying out for help. In the 60s, it was psychoanalysis that could free the child. Today, it's anything from Prozac to chelation and other quack "biomedical" cures.
The problem with these kinds of articles is that you can really make up any themes you want, and find examples to fit. That doesn't mean it's a pointless exercise, it just means that the examples can't prove the analysis right. You need to ask yourself: does this, in general, ring true?
Sarrett's analysis does ring true for me, especially the theme of imprisonment, which is almost never made explicit, but it seems to lurk in the background of a lot of modern thought about autism. The autistic isn't really autistic. Their autism is something external - if only we could reach the normal child underneath! Every attempt to "cure" or "rescue" the autistic child relies on this belief.
I said that this paper is sadly brief. There's so much more to say on this topic; in particular, we need to compare representations of autism to those of other developmental disorders like Down's syndrome, in order to work out what's specific to autism as opposed to just general "disability" or "disorder".
However, I think if you did this, you'd probably end up agreeing with the paper. I can't remember Down's syndrome being portrayed as a kind of self-fragmentation or imprisonment; this article seems quite typical.
Sarrett recommends accounts by authors who have autism themselves for an alternative and more valid view of autism: people like Temple Grandin and Daniel Tammet:
Sarrett JC (2011). Trapped Children: Popular Images of Children with Autism in the 1960s and 2000s. The Journal of medical humanities PMID: 21225325
She examines media depictions of children with autism, first in the 1960s, and then today. In those 40 years, professionals radically changed their minds about autism: in the 60s, a lot of people thought it was caused by emotionally distant refrigerator mothers; nowadays, we think it's a neural wiring disorder caused by deleted genes.
Yet, she says, while theories about the causes have changed, the media's view of what autism is hasn't, and assumptions from the 60s are still around (even amongst professionals). She identifies two enduring themes:
Fragmentation. The child with autism is somehow not a whole person; they are fundamentally "broken". And the family with an autistic child is emotionally shattered, too. In the 60s, the theory was that the broken family caused the autism. Nowadays, it's the other way round: having an autistic child stresses family relationships to breaking-point.
Imprisonment. The child with autism is at heart "normal", but their autism has them trapped, blocked-off from the world. Bruno Bettelheim, a leading champion of the refrigerator mother theory, called his major book The Empty Fortress. Either professionals, or parents, need to "break through" the autism to contact the "real" child imprisoned by the disorder. Likewise, this real child is eager to get out, but this is very difficult: they are crying out for help. In the 60s, it was psychoanalysis that could free the child. Today, it's anything from Prozac to chelation and other quack "biomedical" cures.
The problem with these kinds of articles is that you can really make up any themes you want, and find examples to fit. That doesn't mean it's a pointless exercise, it just means that the examples can't prove the analysis right. You need to ask yourself: does this, in general, ring true?Sarrett's analysis does ring true for me, especially the theme of imprisonment, which is almost never made explicit, but it seems to lurk in the background of a lot of modern thought about autism. The autistic isn't really autistic. Their autism is something external - if only we could reach the normal child underneath! Every attempt to "cure" or "rescue" the autistic child relies on this belief.
I said that this paper is sadly brief. There's so much more to say on this topic; in particular, we need to compare representations of autism to those of other developmental disorders like Down's syndrome, in order to work out what's specific to autism as opposed to just general "disability" or "disorder".
However, I think if you did this, you'd probably end up agreeing with the paper. I can't remember Down's syndrome being portrayed as a kind of self-fragmentation or imprisonment; this article seems quite typical.
Sarrett recommends accounts by authors who have autism themselves for an alternative and more valid view of autism: people like Temple Grandin and Daniel Tammet:
autistic voices can promote a much needed faithfulness and tolerance to future representations of autism and those diagnosed with autism.Although she admits that these authors only speak for a subset of those with "high-functioning" autism or Asperger's, and that
there remains a population of people with autism who are not writing, speaking and reading, making the representations advanced by these narratives subject to questions about generalizability.
Sarrett JC (2011). Trapped Children: Popular Images of Children with Autism in the 1960s and 2000s. The Journal of medical humanities PMID: 21225325
Autistic Children In The Media
Emory University's Jennifer Sarrett offers an interesting although sadly brief analysis of the way in which autism is treated in the mass media: Trapped Children.
She examines media depictions of children with autism, first in the 1960s, and then today. In those 40 years, professionals radically changed their minds about autism: in the 60s, a lot of people thought it was caused by emotionally distant refrigerator mothers; nowadays, we think it's a neural wiring disorder caused by deleted genes.
Yet, she says, while theories about the causes have changed, the media's view of what autism is hasn't, and assumptions from the 60s are still around (even amongst professionals). She identifies two enduring themes:
Fragmentation. The child with autism is somehow not a whole person; they are fundamentally "broken". And the family with an autistic child is emotionally shattered, too. In the 60s, the theory was that the broken family caused the autism. Nowadays, it's the other way round: having an autistic child stresses family relationships to breaking-point.
Imprisonment. The child with autism is at heart "normal", but their autism has them trapped, blocked-off from the world. Bruno Bettelheim, a leading champion of the refrigerator mother theory, called his major book The Empty Fortress. Either professionals, or parents, need to "break through" the autism to contact the "real" child imprisoned by the disorder. Likewise, this real child is eager to get out, but this is very difficult: they are crying out for help. In the 60s, it was psychoanalysis that could free the child. Today, it's anything from Prozac to chelation and other quack "biomedical" cures.
The problem with these kinds of articles is that you can really make up any themes you want, and find examples to fit. That doesn't mean it's a pointless exercise, it just means that the examples can't prove the analysis right. You need to ask yourself: does this, in general, ring true?
Sarrett's analysis does ring true for me, especially the theme of imprisonment, which is almost never made explicit, but it seems to lurk in the background of a lot of modern thought about autism. The autistic isn't really autistic. Their autism is something external - if only we could reach the normal child underneath! Every attempt to "cure" or "rescue" the autistic child relies on this belief.
I said that this paper is sadly brief. There's so much more to say on this topic; in particular, we need to compare representations of autism to those of other developmental disorders like Down's syndrome, in order to work out what's specific to autism as opposed to just general "disability" or "disorder".
However, I think if you did this, you'd probably end up agreeing with the paper. I can't remember Down's syndrome being portrayed as a kind of self-fragmentation or imprisonment; this article seems quite typical.
Sarrett recommends accounts by authors who have autism themselves for an alternative and more valid view of autism: people like Temple Grandin and Daniel Tammet:
Sarrett JC (2011). Trapped Children: Popular Images of Children with Autism in the 1960s and 2000s. The Journal of medical humanities PMID: 21225325
She examines media depictions of children with autism, first in the 1960s, and then today. In those 40 years, professionals radically changed their minds about autism: in the 60s, a lot of people thought it was caused by emotionally distant refrigerator mothers; nowadays, we think it's a neural wiring disorder caused by deleted genes.
Yet, she says, while theories about the causes have changed, the media's view of what autism is hasn't, and assumptions from the 60s are still around (even amongst professionals). She identifies two enduring themes:
Fragmentation. The child with autism is somehow not a whole person; they are fundamentally "broken". And the family with an autistic child is emotionally shattered, too. In the 60s, the theory was that the broken family caused the autism. Nowadays, it's the other way round: having an autistic child stresses family relationships to breaking-point.
Imprisonment. The child with autism is at heart "normal", but their autism has them trapped, blocked-off from the world. Bruno Bettelheim, a leading champion of the refrigerator mother theory, called his major book The Empty Fortress. Either professionals, or parents, need to "break through" the autism to contact the "real" child imprisoned by the disorder. Likewise, this real child is eager to get out, but this is very difficult: they are crying out for help. In the 60s, it was psychoanalysis that could free the child. Today, it's anything from Prozac to chelation and other quack "biomedical" cures.The problem with these kinds of articles is that you can really make up any themes you want, and find examples to fit. That doesn't mean it's a pointless exercise, it just means that the examples can't prove the analysis right. You need to ask yourself: does this, in general, ring true?Sarrett's analysis does ring true for me, especially the theme of imprisonment, which is almost never made explicit, but it seems to lurk in the background of a lot of modern thought about autism. The autistic isn't really autistic. Their autism is something external - if only we could reach the normal child underneath! Every attempt to "cure" or "rescue" the autistic child relies on this belief.
I said that this paper is sadly brief. There's so much more to say on this topic; in particular, we need to compare representations of autism to those of other developmental disorders like Down's syndrome, in order to work out what's specific to autism as opposed to just general "disability" or "disorder".
However, I think if you did this, you'd probably end up agreeing with the paper. I can't remember Down's syndrome being portrayed as a kind of self-fragmentation or imprisonment; this article seems quite typical.
Sarrett recommends accounts by authors who have autism themselves for an alternative and more valid view of autism: people like Temple Grandin and Daniel Tammet:
autistic voices can promote a much needed faithfulness and tolerance to future representations of autism and those diagnosed with autism.Although she admits that these authors only speak for a subset of those with "high-functioning" autism or Asperger's, and that
there remains a population of people with autism who are not writing, speaking and reading, making the representations advanced by these narratives subject to questions about generalizability.
Sarrett JC (2011). Trapped Children: Popular Images of Children with Autism in the 1960s and 2000s. The Journal of medical humanities PMID: 21225325
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Two Blogs and a Public Service Announcement
First up, here are two new(ish) blogs which have been consistently excellent since I started reading them:- Neurobonkers (see e.g. this post)
- Psych Gripe (e.g. this post)
It's rubbish.
It seems to think that any comment containing more than one hyperlink is spam. Actually, all the spam I get contains one link, and hence makes it through, while the real comments with multiple links, which are usually interesting and sensible, get blocked. A Mr. "Generic Viagra" (no really) can leave 20 comments in 5 minutes with impunity, but more than one link, and you're out.
I would love to turn it off, but you can't. Thanks Google. My comment policy is, as it's always been, that all comments except spam are welcome. So if your comment hasn't appeared, it's not that I've deleted it, it's the spam filter.
I check the spam folder as often as I can, and allow the proper comments through, but you might want to avoid comments with more than one link. Maybe split them into multiple comments. It's not ideal but, as I said, it's not my filter.
Two Blogs and a Public Service Announcement
First up, here are two new(ish) blogs which have been consistently excellent since I started reading them:- Neurobonkers (see e.g. this post)
- Psych Gripe (e.g. this post)
It's rubbish.
It seems to think that any comment containing more than one hyperlink is spam. Actually, all the spam I get contains one link, and hence makes it through, while the real comments with multiple links, which are usually interesting and sensible, get blocked. A Mr. "Generic Viagra" (no really) can leave 20 comments in 5 minutes with impunity, but more than one link, and you're out.
I would love to turn it off, but you can't. Thanks Google. My comment policy is, as it's always been, that all comments except spam are welcome. So if your comment hasn't appeared, it's not that I've deleted it, it's the spam filter.
I check the spam folder as often as I can, and allow the proper comments through, but you might want to avoid comments with more than one link. Maybe split them into multiple comments. It's not ideal but, as I said, it's not my filter.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A Brief Guide to Being Shot in the Head
You know what this is about. I don't have anything especially useful to say about the recent tragedy, or the question of crazy vs. political: at this stage, it's all speculation. Let's wait for the trial.
But anyway, the incredible thing is that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords survived a bullet to the head. How?
One of the amazing things about the brain is that almost all of it is unnecessary. The bullet passed through Gifford's left cerebral cortex, various parts of which are responsible for moving the right side of the body, seeing and hearing things from the right, and, in most people, language. But the only part of the brain which you actually need in order to live is the brainstem, which forms the top of the spinal cord.
The main reason you need your brainstem is that it controls breathing. It also controls your heart rate and blood pressure, but your heart pumps itself, without any input from the brain: the brain just does the fine tuning. Breathing, however, is controlled directly by several brainstem nuclei, and if you stop breathing, your blood will run out of oxygen and you'll die (without artificial ventilation.)
Damage to any other part of the brain is survivable. Of course, you might just bleed to death from the head injury, or get an infection; there's also the risk of brain swelling which can be fatal by compressing the brainstem (amongst other problems). This is why doctors have removed a large part of Gifford's skull, to give the brain room.
But the brainstem can do a surprising amount on its own. In the early days of neuroscience, there was a bit of a fad for decerebrating animals, essentially removing everything except the brainstem. These animals were still "alive", at least in the sense that they weren't corpses; decerebrate cats can walk and run.
They don't walk to anywhere, but this shows that the spinal cord and brainstem can control movement and respond to sensory feedback. It's even on YouTube. The famous headless chicken that lived for over a year - that really happened, it's no myth - is another such case.
But anyway, the incredible thing is that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords survived a bullet to the head. How?
One of the amazing things about the brain is that almost all of it is unnecessary. The bullet passed through Gifford's left cerebral cortex, various parts of which are responsible for moving the right side of the body, seeing and hearing things from the right, and, in most people, language. But the only part of the brain which you actually need in order to live is the brainstem, which forms the top of the spinal cord.
The main reason you need your brainstem is that it controls breathing. It also controls your heart rate and blood pressure, but your heart pumps itself, without any input from the brain: the brain just does the fine tuning. Breathing, however, is controlled directly by several brainstem nuclei, and if you stop breathing, your blood will run out of oxygen and you'll die (without artificial ventilation.)
Damage to any other part of the brain is survivable. Of course, you might just bleed to death from the head injury, or get an infection; there's also the risk of brain swelling which can be fatal by compressing the brainstem (amongst other problems). This is why doctors have removed a large part of Gifford's skull, to give the brain room.
But the brainstem can do a surprising amount on its own. In the early days of neuroscience, there was a bit of a fad for decerebrating animals, essentially removing everything except the brainstem. These animals were still "alive", at least in the sense that they weren't corpses; decerebrate cats can walk and run.
They don't walk to anywhere, but this shows that the spinal cord and brainstem can control movement and respond to sensory feedback. It's even on YouTube. The famous headless chicken that lived for over a year - that really happened, it's no myth - is another such case.
A Brief Guide to Being Shot in the Head
You know what this is about. I don't have anything especially useful to say about the recent tragedy, or the question of crazy vs. political: at this stage, it's all speculation. Let's wait for the trial.
But anyway, the incredible thing is that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords survived a bullet to the head. How?
One of the amazing things about the brain is that almost all of it is unnecessary. The bullet passed through Gifford's left cerebral cortex, various parts of which are responsible for moving the right side of the body, seeing and hearing things from the right, and, in most people, language. But the only part of the brain which you actually need in order to live is the brainstem, which forms the top of the spinal cord.
The main reason you need your brainstem is that it controls breathing. It also controls your heart rate and blood pressure, but your heart pumps itself, without any input from the brain: the brain just does the fine tuning. Breathing, however, is controlled directly by several brainstem nuclei, and if you stop breathing, your blood will run out of oxygen and you'll die (without artificial ventilation.)
Damage to any other part of the brain is survivable. Of course, you might just bleed to death from the head injury, or get an infection; there's also the risk of brain swelling which can be fatal by compressing the brainstem (amongst other problems). This is why doctors have removed a large part of Gifford's skull, to give the brain room.
But the brainstem can do a surprising amount on its own. In the early days of neuroscience, there was a bit of a fad for decerebrating animals, essentially removing everything except the brainstem. These animals were still "alive", at least in the sense that they weren't corpses; decerebrate cats can walk and run.
They don't walk to anywhere, but this shows that the spinal cord and brainstem can control movement and respond to sensory feedback. It's even on YouTube. The famous headless chicken that lived for over a year - that really happened, it's no myth - is another such case.
But anyway, the incredible thing is that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords survived a bullet to the head. How?
One of the amazing things about the brain is that almost all of it is unnecessary. The bullet passed through Gifford's left cerebral cortex, various parts of which are responsible for moving the right side of the body, seeing and hearing things from the right, and, in most people, language. But the only part of the brain which you actually need in order to live is the brainstem, which forms the top of the spinal cord.
The main reason you need your brainstem is that it controls breathing. It also controls your heart rate and blood pressure, but your heart pumps itself, without any input from the brain: the brain just does the fine tuning. Breathing, however, is controlled directly by several brainstem nuclei, and if you stop breathing, your blood will run out of oxygen and you'll die (without artificial ventilation.)
Damage to any other part of the brain is survivable. Of course, you might just bleed to death from the head injury, or get an infection; there's also the risk of brain swelling which can be fatal by compressing the brainstem (amongst other problems). This is why doctors have removed a large part of Gifford's skull, to give the brain room.
But the brainstem can do a surprising amount on its own. In the early days of neuroscience, there was a bit of a fad for decerebrating animals, essentially removing everything except the brainstem. These animals were still "alive", at least in the sense that they weren't corpses; decerebrate cats can walk and run.
They don't walk to anywhere, but this shows that the spinal cord and brainstem can control movement and respond to sensory feedback. It's even on YouTube. The famous headless chicken that lived for over a year - that really happened, it's no myth - is another such case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)