While working on the research for my dissertation, I have read page after page on writing pedagogy asserting that the goal of a university writing course should be to teach students that knowledge is socially constructed and that “truth” is relative to culture and community.<\/p>\n
The problem with this assertion is that students with autism and similar conditions (my scrambled brain, apparently), are not relativists.<\/strong> Various researchers (Wellcome 2008, Frith 2001) have found that individuals with these conditions are more logical, unaffected by emotional inputs or rhetorical framing.<\/strong> I’ve found quite a bit of research on this aspect of brain trauma and autism and am including these findings in my dissertation.<\/p>\n If a group of people are “wired” to think there is a “truth” — that knowledge is not created but discovered and then applied creatively — who are educational theorists to consider such people “immature” or “simple-minded” in some way? In fact, I would argue that such clarity of thought is admirable and even a necessary counterbalance to the relativists.<\/p>\n As a culture, we are so certain that Maslow and Piaget knew what “maturity” and “self-actualization” must be that we are willing to dismiss as somehow undeveloped a mind that seeks rules and patterns. Just because some philosophers and psychologists decided relativism was a sign of maturity does not make it true. It’s ironic that many educational theorists embrace as “absolute truth” the argument that there is no absolute truth.<\/p>\n Students with autism or brain trauma are attracted to the sciences, technology, and mathematical fields. They like the notion that truths are waiting to be discovered — not created. How we apply knowledge is creative, such as the various gadgets we all love, but the knowledge itself represents truths that are outside human control or creativity.<\/p>\n The research indicating some brains are better at logic than other is interesting. The price paid for this logical seems to be deficient social skills. Not sure that’s a bad price when I think about dealing with some people. I think I’d rather be logical and “rigid” in my thoughts.<\/p>\n Some of the research I have been exploring is if we can teach the “genius-level” students with autism and other disorders how to work better with others. As another researcher, working in London, responded: “unlikely.” Most people don’t like the rigid, pattern-seeking minds. Usually, the gifted are in some ways “handicapped” by their neurology and reason. Not everyone wants to believe “truth” is definite, waiting to be discovered.<\/p>\n And, yes, I realize this only applies to some fields. Not sure we can have a “truth” to painting or dance, but we can have a “truth” in science. Anyway, I was pondering this tangled mess while editing my dissertation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While working on the research for my dissertation, I have read page after page on writing pedagogy asserting that the goal of a university writing course should be to teach students that knowledge is socially constructed and that “truth” is relative to culture and community. The problem with this assertion…<\/p>\n