It is seeing things like this said about PDA, which (among many other things) make me concerned about the discourse around PDA. Many CYP need to feel in control in order to feel safe, not only those with PDA.
This goes back to my point, taken from @Andylowarousal book, that most/ all persons benefit from being in control/ having a sense of control in their lives, i.e., it is normal for human beings to have a "need for control".
So reflecting upon a recent claim The PDA Development Group had no agenda to make PDA as an ASD. So assuming many contradictory evidence which suggests there is such agenda is mistaken...
... Was organised enough to have a chair. See screenshot of page 12.
Context: I currently listening to the audiobook on the topic as part of my further reading. Rather interesting.
Back to the video, point about self-esteem not being linked to right or wrong is important.
Reflecting on the point about that one tends to have a "scout mindset" is due to emotions, same for "soldier mindset", I would suggest fits in with @mrjamesob work on persons being controlled by right wing media by being made to be angry/ scared at something.
I creating other timelines for PDA's 3 other main school's of thought & Newson's research.
Non-table form:
2007 Christie (2007) argues PDA is a profile of ASD.
2008 NAS publishes PDA information on its website.
2011 First NAS annual PDA conferences.
2011 PDA Development Group is created.
2011 “Profile of ASD” research agenda proposed & followed.
2011 PDA maybe a female form of ASD (Gould & Ashton-Smith).
2012 AET support’s PDA & republishes Christie (2007) article.
I likely have said one could do this, creating a graph of Newson's cohort size over time. Here you are. First image shows graph use in a powerpoint. Second image is graph by itself.
This graph is important in current PDA literature due to O'Nions arguing there might be a "collider bias" with Newson's research as an explanation for Newson's PDA looks different to autism.
I would point out the graph shows logic behind a potential "collider bias", that Newson's cohort is nonsense.
The I reflect upon this. The more wary I am to think anyone clinic knows what PDA looks like. There are enough examples from autism literature to tell us treat with caution research originating from a single clinic...
... I do not see why we should ignore such warnings with PDA. There are signs in the PDA literature we should not be favouring anyone clinician's views on PDA over another's...
... In relation to autism, many would argue the classic example is that of Asperger's vs Kanner's original clinical descriptions of autism. Many view Kanner as holding back Western understandings of autism by decades by not engaging with Asperger's work...
The more I reflect on the current fiasco over Owen Paterson. More it is reflective over my concerns of those pushing "PDA Profile of ASD", & their apparent disregard for typical research & practice norms.
While there is a difference in the case of the Tories were trying to erode typical standards, in my view key parties pushing "PDA Profile of ASD" seem to disregard broader typical standards, while accepting poor quality standards associated with autism.
This is should not be the case. PDA is so "new" & recent in terms of interest, since about 2010, that it should be a beacon of what good quality research & practice looks like.