I understand why it didn’t, and I don’t mean it should have made any specific reference to any specific thing, but I wish the section of Autism: A New Introduction to Psychological Theory and Current Debate which discussed “evidence-based” theories or treatments had mentioned the degree to which researcher assumptions shape what “evidence” supposedly means, e.g., among other things, that one study that assumed a priori that “recovery” from autism was possible (and then, of course, defined “recovery” simply as the absence of certain specified outward behaviors).
Bix dot Blog
The unsupported use case of Bix Frankonis’ disordered, surplus, mediocre midlife in St. Johns, Oregon.
No fear, no hate, no thoughtless bullshit, and no nazis.