The Power of Models
Copyright© Bierdz 2008 - 2019
Abstract: The human
services fields: teachers, counselors, social workers, psychologists,
speech/language therapists, occupational and physical therapists, and so on are
based on models. Models are tools that inform one’s view of reality, and are
used to identify an assumed problem’s causes and develop solutions. In special
education, and psychology, the most common model in use is one in which a
“norm” is established and those outside of the norm are labeled “disabled” and
are viewed as diseased with problems being attributed one’s “disability”. This
document presents alternative models and advocates for service providers to be
consciously aware of the models they use in their moment to moment practice.
What is a model, and why is it
worth your time and effort to learn about them? Well, to us humans, and to all
creatures with a brain, models are the basis of our perceived reality. Humans
do not see reality, rather they construct their reality, and this is done via
the models they deploy. The human brain- as are all brains- has a design
that causes it to create a personally relevant perceptual world and then act
upon it. (Read that last sentence again with mindful
consideration).
Some simplistic examples of you
creating a personally relevant perceptual world are: what seems hot to you may
be cold to another, what is light for you may be heavy to others. Your fast is
another’s slow, and what you call easy another may find difficult. Why do all
not enjoy what you enjoy? Why doesn’t everyone agree with your views? The
answer is, your constructed reality differs from the constructed reality of
others. And, if you disagree, that is fine with me, you don’t need to see it my
way, but it rather proves my point. (This last statement might bother some, but
amuse others).
At this point you might ask “So if
we do not perceive reality, what is it we perceive?” The answer is, “a model.”
“A model” you say? “Yes, a model” I say! (Well actually you didn’t say anything-
that is unless you are reading this out loud. We all know that I’m just
pretending you did. And now, to move things along, I am going to pretend you
are asking another question). “So what is a
model?” you ask? Good question. (Thanks for playing along)
In short, a model is a constructed
representation of reality. If you hop on the web you can directly experience
this reality construction process at work in yourself. Search for Spinning Dancer Illusion. An auditory
example of this reality constructing process can be found by searching for Listen to Shepard Tone Illusion. (Sorry I won’t
provide a link because those damn things keep changing and then I have to waste
time updating my website. I have so many other things to do, like find those
socks that got lost in the laundry).
If you made the small effort to
actually watch the spinning dancer, you should find that you can cause the
image to twirl clockwise or counter clockwise. (Note: some find this difficult
to do. I found that closing my eyes and seeing the dancer moving in the desired
direction in my mind’s eye, and then opening them, or blinking them, or viewing
it from the corner of one eye, and then from the opposite corner of the same
eye boots my brain’s ability to make is shift rotational direction). For those whom this visual illusion is inaccessible, in
the auditory Shepard tone illusion, you likely perceive hearing a perpetual
rise in pitch, but you are not. So what is happening here? In both cases your
brain has created a model of reality, and what you perceive is your brain’s
constructed model, not the reality. So for the dancer, as your brain shifts
models, the dancer spins in a different direction. And for the Shepard tone
illusion, you can hear it differently by focusing on either only the base line
(the low tones) or the upper notes. When your brain switches models, you will
hear that the melody is not rising endlessly, but actually repeating itself.
Your brains ability to create a
model, hence creating your perceived reality, is why illusions work. The
astrophysicist/cosmologist/educator/author(shouldn’t tap dancer be in that long
list) Neil deGrasse Tyson aptly pointed out, such illusions should not be
called illusions but brain
failures as the brain fails to perceive reality. Although Neil deGrasse
Tyson is making a point in calling models brain failures, it may be more
correct to call them model failures. Your
vision is a prime example of model failure and adjustment. As you may have
learned in a biology or psychology class, or on the web, the image cast on the
back of your eye is upside-down and distorted, yet your brain makes it appear
upright and clear.
Experiments have been done in which
participants wore glasses that made the world appear upside-down, but after a
time the brain flips the image (switches models) and the world appeared upright
again. Subsequently, when the glasses were removed the world was upside-down
once more, but again the brain eventually flipped the image back to normal.
This shows that it’s not so much the brain that has failed, as Neil deGrasse
Tyson puts it, but the failure/the victory is in the model of the perceptual
world it creates. In this, and other experiments, we see how the brain shifts
models and hence one’s view of reality- just as you did with the spinning
dancer or the Shepard tone illusion.
Another theoretical
physicist/cosmologist/educator/author Steven Hawking pointed out, in his 2010
book The Grand Design that models are
useful for explaining the universe, and that multiple models appear to be
needed to explain reality. He notes that where one model fails, another model
will create a seemingly accurate representation of reality. Finally he notes that
models are better viewed as useful or not useful, rather than right or wrong,
as every model is simply an attempt to represent reality.
So this idea of the power of
models is not my own discovery, although I must say I came to the same
conclusion as Steven Hawking several years prior to reading his book. Although
our professional fields differ, I was exhilarated to see my very thought in his
book. Why? Because when I was first formulating these ideas, some of the professionals in the field of special
education around me said I was wrong in my thinking. (Clearly they
were using a different model than me). It was
a tremendous boost to my confidence to find that a super smarty pants like
Hawking was applying the same logic to a truly scientific field. (Sorry, but the
field of special education is a far cry from science, its more like religion-
especially if one is familiar with its history).
But even religion understands these ideas to some degree, as the Buddhist say,
“Whatever you think I am, or desire me to be, I am.” Or as the Judeo-Christian
religion states in Proverbs 23:7 “So as one thinks in their heart, so they
are.” My point being, the idea that, models
constructs one’s reality is nothing new.
One powerful aspect of models is
that a model can be taught to others. Once a person learns a particular model,
she or he begins to view events differently. Each model provides a person with
new insights. This is because each model forms the basis of how one views
things and events, and determines: what is or is not a problem, how a problem
should be solved, and how one might construct new solutions.
Most everything you learn, all the
way from astronomy to zoology, is based on a model. Unfortunately, far too
often, instructors in our education system do not stress that what is being
presented to students is a model, and that there are alternative models
available. (Actually I doubt that many of them understand it themselves) This
means that, hopefully out of ignorance, or if not it is out of an elitist
conviction, they do not teach that when one accepts a model as being the truth, and is unaware, or
unschooled, of alternative models, that person becomes a slave to that model:
as they are controlled by the model rather than taking control over which model
they will use. They become locked into a certain way of thinking, rather than
enjoying a flexibility of thought. They become limited on how they view what is
correct or incorrect/ right or wrong, what is a problem, how a problem should
be solved, and how one might construct new solutions. Such can be seen when the
objectives of a course syllabus are constructed through implicit assumptions)
For this reason, I have taught my
students that the first answer to most any question is, “It depends on what
model one is using.” When a person begins to answer a question with this
phrase, it reminds them that there is no one way to view a question, but a variety
of ways. Such reminders are useful, for when one launches directly into an
answer, she or he is likely to forget that their answer represents the views of
a particular model. A single model view can be dangerous (Captain of the
Titanic, “Well, we hit an iceberg, but this ship is unsinkable, we don’t need
to alert the passengers”).
In this writing, we shall learn
that the model or models a professional uses will direct how she or he views
and interacts with those with neuro/physical-differences. We will learn that
models are neither right nor wrong,
but rather they are useful or not useful
depending on the situation and the goal. We will learn that there is no single
model that fits all situations, and hence having a command over multiple models
is advantageous.
Make no mistake about it, having,
not just knowledge, but a strong command over different models is useful, as
such models form the basis of our approach to how we value others and deliver
services. As service providers it is logical for us to use a model that best
fits a given situation. In the world of academia, the idea of matching a
treatment approach to the characteristics of a particular group or situation is
referred to as “Reasoned eclecticism” (where as I call reasoned
eclecticism a big fancy ass word for being sensible).
We study these models because to
have knowledge of each provides us with the power to consciously choose to use
each model to reach our desired outcomes. If one is ignorant of the model
deployed, she or he is likely to become the unconscious slave of a particular
model: applying it to situations without consideration to how it is, or is not,
a good fit to that situation and the goal. Knowing multiple models gives us the
power over how we view and interact with our fellow humans: those who are
neuro/physically-typical and those with neuro/physical-differences. (BTW. What is the
opposite of reasoned eclecticism? Wouldn’t such an answer be singularly ridiculous? Only mindful
reflective readers will appreciate the cutting humor in this remark.)
Summary: Comedian George Carlin,
in his 1997 book Brain Droppings
exquisitely sums up everything I have covered thus here in writing, "Some
see the glass as half-empty; some see the glass as half-full. I see the glass
as too big." I bet you never thought about looking at the glass-problem in
that way, but now that you read what George Carlin stated, you can. (Hmmm, rather
than citing the university approved Dr. Steven Hawking and Dr. Neil, deGrasse,
Tyson, or religious texts. I could have gone directly to Comedian George Carlin
and got the same thing. It just goes to show, wisdom is where you find it, and
not where academic institutions or professionals insist you should look).
Neuro/Physical Diversity Model (A foundational model)
Neuro
refers to the nervous system (Things with brains, such as humans) and diversity
refers to variety. Neuro/physical-diversity is a model that recognizes that the
universe is divers, life is not one way, but many ways, and there is no right
or wrong way of being, for in our universe there is either existence or
nonexistence. Any human that exists represents one of the countless ways in
which humans can exist. And this is not so just for humans, but for all life. Consider
how that alligators ambushing zebras as monkeys watch, and of course, you-
reading this sentence- are all forms of life, all different, and all valid. All
exist…, well, all except for that ambushed zebra.
Neuro/physical-diversity
is not a human centric model (Human centered meaning believing that humans are
at the center of it all, as if they were the star of the show or at the top of
the evolutionary or creation pyramid, what all life is striving to be. (In case you haven’t ever noticed, most humans
have a pretty damn high opinion of themselves!). In a
neuro/physical-diversity model, humans are seen as no more or no less important
than any other form of life; humans are simply one of the many expressions of
life. Go back to the alligator, zebra, monkey, and you. But let’s change it,
what if the alligator eats you, and the zebra and monkey watch as you are
ambushed and devoured; Really, what is the difference?
(I will leave that debate to the monkey and the zebra, but I doubt either of
them is reading this).
Neuro/physical-diversity
knows nothing of the human created concept called disability. Creation only knows of ability. This is because the
only ability that matters in life, it the ability to survive. Fish can’t fly as sparrows, hop like kangaroos,
climb trees like chimpanzees, or dance on a thread like spiders, but they
certainly are not viewed as disabled
because they can’t do these things. There is nothing wrong with them. The
oceans are filled with fishes, and each is an expression of life, each
represents an ability to live in a unique manner in a sea of differences. Take
a moment and think of the fantastic variety of life, but not just animals, but
consider plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses and on and on… You don’t need anyone
to convince you that life is immensely diverse; you can know this for yourself
and need not stand on anyone’s “professional authority.” With just a little
reflection, a little thought, you can stand on your own sensibility.
Neuro/physical-diversity
is a model that recognizes that difference is normal. Yes, difference is
normal. Let’s review that again: Neuro/physical-diversity is a model that
recognizes that difference is normal. “What is normal according to the
Neuro/physical diversity model? DIFFERENCE IS NORMAL! Statistically speaking,
diversity is the norm, and exact replication is a rarity.
For
humans this means that we are designed by nature to be different from each
other, there is no right or wrong way of being. It also means that, just as all
life is individualized, solutions are also individualized. Think of the many ways in which creatures
move, or communicate, or eat, drink, and breathe? Think of the many ways
creatures fly, the wings of a bat, bird, bee, butterfly, dragonfly, penguin and
stingray are all different solutions for flying (of course the penguin and stingray do their flying in a
much more moisture intense atmosphere). The key idea here is that, according to the
neuro/physical-diversity model, there is no one solution or size fits all
expectation; To say is simply “Difference is the norm”.
In the
USA the Federal law known as IDEA (Which stands for the “Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004” which centers on the
education of those aged 0 - 21 whom that law recognizes as disabled, states in section (C1) “Disability is a
natural part of the human experience.” This statement is a partial reflection
of the neuro/physical-diversity model. But sadly the law does not continue in
its use of this model, but adopts an elitist view-as we will explore later.
A better
representation of the neuro/physical-diversity model is seen in the1995 book Disability and Culture, edited by
Benedicte Ingstad and Susan Reynolds-Whyte in which it is written “In many
cultures one cannot be disabled for the simple reason that disability as a
recognized category does not exist… The concepts of disability, handicap, and
rehabilitation emerged in particular historical circumstances in Europe” (30
minutes 23 seconds). In cultures without the concept of disability, an
individual’s neuro/physical-difference is are still recognized
as a difference, but the difference
is not perceived as a disability.
How can
a difference not be seen as a disability? If you find yourself asking this question,
you are stuck in a particular model for viewing reality. So, to help you change
models, and hence understand this view, let’s go back to
the monkey and the alligator. Here, you recognize that each is different from
the other, but would you say that one is disabled because it can’t do the things
that the other can? You recognize that these creatures are very different, but
you do not view any of these differences as a disability. Hence, when a culture
lacks a disability perspective, they see people’s differences, but do not view
those differences as disabilities. They say “This person does A B C, and that
person does X Y Z. That is all there is to it!” (Isn’t it great that the members of that culture learned to
speak English so you can understand what they are saying!
If they didn’t it would come out as “Du lee muggah
chow hy…”, )
There is
more that can be said about the neuro/physical-diversity model, but getting
into it requires the use of the statistical model, which will be covered next. (NO! NO! No! Don’t worry! You won’t need
to do any math. And I won’t even be talking about math. I promise you won’t
even see a math equation in the next section. And I know that might make math
lovers cry, but it will make many more people who have been educated in our USA
school system very happy. Not that I am
any mathematical prize myself).
In
summary, under a neuro/physical-diversity model, differences are the rule not
the exception. If something is alive, it is valid. Under this model the concept
of disability does not exist, nor can it. There is only variety and ability.
Statistical Model
The
statistical model helps us make sense of our diverse world by allowing us to
see the numbers associated with any given population. One might argue that
statistics is not a model, but rather a truth, a system of measurement. (Hmmm, if they wrote a well-researched
evidence based book on the topic I would ask should I weigh their book in
pounds or kilograms, measure its size in inches or millimeters, and its
temperature in Celsius, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin?- These are all systems of
measurement, all models).
By using
the statistical model, when we count the individuals of a population that have
a certain characteristic, we can group them into normal or abnormal.
Statistically speaking, normal means of
which there is the most, while abnormal means
of which there is the least. Actually abnormal means “away from the norm” so
the more abnormal one is found to be, the further from the norm they are, and
there is a reduction in their numbers. (See, no math! Come on, this isn’t that bad is it?).
The
statistical model ranks those who are abnormal into groups: Mild, Moderate,
Severe, and Profound. .
The bell
curve drawing above (provided for explanatory purposes, not mathematical
accuracy- damn think took me an hour using MS paint) shows that the group in
the middle, which is the largest, is the norm. Next to it is a somewhat smaller
group: Mild. Further away is an even smaller group: Moderate. Beyond this is a
group that is even smaller: Severe and furthest away from the norm is the
wee-smallest group: Profound. (If you made it this far you’re fine, that was
the hardest part of the statistical model!
Now, if we let x stand for (Z – 7Y 3) divided by… Just
kidding)
The
statistical model is all about grouping by the numbers. In a purely statistical
model, there are no value judgements of right and wrong, good or bad, healthy
or unhealthy. Such judgements only appear when the statistical model is used in
conjunction with other models. For example, because of our human centric models
we think that humans are the highest form of life, the most important, and what
other forms of life are striving to become. To us it seems normal to be a
human. But what does the statistical model say?
If we
consider humans in the context of all life, we humans are fantastically
abnormal. (Really, we are the freakiest things on the planet) Most creatures
don’t have two legs or move via them. Most creatures don’t have hands with
opposable thumbs and fingers that lack sharp claws. They do not rely on
language, technology, or make up arbitrary rules for their members to follow
and punish members who cannot or will not conform to the rules. (Well… we do have some pig cops and
kangaroo courts, and we all know a few asses who are administrators- but I
think you get my point.)
As I
once explained to a group of students, “What other creature is doing what you
are doing now? Here you are, all strangers to each other and to me. You
traveled miles in temperature regulated metal and plastic composite boxes,
over strips of constructed pavement, all
the time obeying arbitrary signs and being careful to stop at red shining lights
and wait for them to turn green before going again. Because, if you don’t, a
person with red and blue flashing lights on their composite box might appear,
to give you a piece of paper which will make you upset. And it seems that
pieces of paper are important to all of you, for here you are, sitting
obediently, struggling to pay attention as I make various sounds project from
my mouth- which you have been trained to have meaning to you. You then
translate those sounds into squiggles and dots on some ground up pressed tree
pulp using a wood wrapped stick of graphite. Then you go home and try to
memorize the sounds I made because later I will see if you can recall
them. And why in the hell are you doing
this? Because at the end of this course you want to get another funny shape on
another piece of paper, you want me to make a shape that looks like this “A” or
a ‘B.” And why do you want me to make these shapes for you? Well, clearly these
shapes must excite you, you love them and want to
collect more of them. This is because you have been trained to believe that
these funny shapes have some actual value. Through this training, you have come
to understand that, if you collect enough of these funny shapes, you get to go
to that special event where everyone dresses up in long gowns and funny hats,
gathering there to sit in neat rows for ours along with your friends and
family. They are all there waiting patiently as they listen for someone to make
funny sounds into a mettle stick- funny sounds they identify as your name- so
you can walk across a stage and be handed yet another paper, and have some other
goofily dressed person move the string dangling from the side of your funny
square hat- which, by the way, you have pinned to your head because it keeps
falling off- over to the other side of your funny looking hat. See that’s
important, the moving of the string and the presenting of the paper, you gotta
have that! But you all want this! But
why? You want this you have been you have been cleverly conditioned to believe
it is necessary. You want it so that you can travel to some other place and do
work and earn green slips of paper which you can then exchange for pre-killed
and butchered animals and plant products, which you eat so you can have
children and then send them off to do what you are doing right now. Do you guys see any other animals doing this
kind of shit? Face it, you are all freaks!
As George Carlin relayed: What a
prize humans are, how unique. What other species practices torture, ritually
driven sacrifices, slavery, and necrophilia? What other species goes to war to
murder, starve, rape, plunder and destroy members of its own species just
because the ideas of one group don’t match the ideas of another? Humans are
just another mutation whose time shall end, hopefully quickly and by our own
hands! (And the
audience cheered).
Humans
are a small group numbering under ten billion; quite small when compared to
insects, or plants, or fish. Humans, or what we currently classify as humans (evolution hasn’t stopped), have only been on the planet
for some two hundred thousand years; where as other creatures have been around
for millions of years and some hundreds of millions of years. More than any
other creature, humans transform their environments through technology and now
live most every place on earth, including underground, on the seas, and under
the seas, in space, and, if we do not destroy ourselves, soon on other planets. Statistically
speaking, being a human is profoundly far from normal, but that’s neither good
nor bad, it’s just the way it is.
Don’t
get tricked into thinking the norm is good and anything abnormal is bad. After
all lottery winners are abnormal and so are those who get struck by lightning;
and the odds of each are relatively the same. (This can be a comforting thought the next time you are
caught in a storm: that is unless you frequently win the lottery.) To display our conditioned bias in how we view
normal, in my classes I would ask the
students I served, “Is it normal to be a person or furniture?” Typically they
would use their experience as a point of reference and answer “Human.” I would
point out that there are more chairs and tables in the room than people and
remind them that normal is simply a numbers game. “Furniture” they would then
answer. But this answer came only after they removed their centric model and
replaced it with the statistical model. And once again we see that, we don’t
perceive reality, but what we perceive is a model of reality. This is why we as
professionals must persistently evoke a conscious awareness of which models we
are using and what other models are available.
Through
the neuro/physical-diversity model we understand that all people have neuro/physical-variations. This means
that each person is unique in her or his neurological (brain) and or physical
(body) structure. In short, we are not all exact replicas. Employing the statistical model, we speak of
humans as being neuro/physically-typical:
meaning their neurological and or physical structure is like most other humans,
or as neuro/physically-different:
meaning their neurological and or physical structure departs from most other
humans.
Know and
begin to use the terms Neuro/physically-typical and Neuro/physically-different.
Neuro/physically-typical: The person’s brain and body is
like that of most others, functions like that of most others.
Neuro/physically-different: The person’s brain and body is
different from most others, functions differently than most others.
A
neuro/physical-difference is not the same as a disability. As previously noted
the concept of disability does not exist in all cultures, where as all cultures
recognize neuro/physical-differences. The term disability belongs to models
that view ability and disability as biological attributes. It was Western
cultures that started to refer to certain members of its groups with
neuro/physical-differences as “disabled” and concluded that many of the
problems they face stem from neurological and or physical differences. As we
will soon learn, there are other views that are valid with superior supporting
evidences.
From the
perspective of the statistical model, disability is again seen as a concept. As
discussed above, the statistical model simply takes a group and arranges them
into subgroups. The majority composes the norm, and the rest are labeled as
abnormal. Again, remember there are no value judgements here; it is strictly a
numbers game. A person labeled as disabled is placed in the abnormal grouping
because, compared to the norm, there are fewer of them. The magic phrase here
is “compared to the norm.” Under a statistical model, the concept of disability
arises from comparison- which is one
human end ever. We humans- especially those of the Western culture- love to
group things, fit things into boxes, and label them. (If you don’t believe me,
go visit a cemetery, even when you are dead you get placed in a group of people
who are stuffed into boxes and labeled.)
It helps
to think about the groupings of normal and abnormal in terms of a headache or
having the flue. Most of the time you feel normal: again normal simply means of
which there is the most, (most here meaning “most of the time”). Most of the time you feel normal: no
headache, no flue. But when you get a headache or the flue, typically it is
mild: just a bit abnormal, or moderate: even further from the norm. However,
every so often you get a headache or the flu that is severe, and you feel far
from normal. And rarely will you have a headache or flue that is profound- at
which point you feel so far from the norm that you wish you were dead. But how
do you know if you have a headache or the flue to begin with? Notice that the
first thing is that you don’t feel normal. And there is that comparison piece
again. (By the way, statistically speaking, being dead is far more
normal than being alive. After all, most things are dead, and you will spend
more time being dead than you will alive. But if you are normal, I am sure
you’re not in a rush to get there.)
It is
important to recognize that not only is normal not good or bad, but it also is
not stable. Meaning that normal changes: This is to say that the normal of
today is the abnormal of tomorrow, and what is currently abnormal may well
later become the norm.
You may
have heard of a chap known as Chuckey D? Well Chuckey D to his friends but
Charles Darwin to the rest. He published a book in 1859 The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation
of favored races in the struggle for life. (Despite the long title, the
book is an easy and interesting read, far more interesting than any textbook I
was instructed to read in biology classes). Here is one of the first people who
recognized the value of neuro/physical-diversity. Chuckey D (I can call him
that because we are close friends. What you don’t believe me? Go ahead and ask
him. I am sure you will dig us some dirt.) Anyway, Chuckey D noted that if life
did not come in varieties we would not be here. He pointed out that life adapts
itself to different environments, and to all of the changes that take place on
earth. He noticed that the way it does this is by not making exact replicas of
itself, meaning that life is all about variety.
Although
Chuckey D presented many compelling examples of one variety of life branching
into other varieties, I want to look at something you can see for yourself,
even in your own neighborhood if you like. Perhaps you know that many species
are currently going extinct.
Don’t get too excited, it has happened many times in the
past. Oh, and please don’t harp on the humans making this happen, although I am
sure they have a hand in it. But really, would you prefer extinction come from
a massive asteroid slamming into the earth with its obliteration of most all
life and maybe adjusting our orbit around the sun, perhaps screwing all life
forever? Or, how about the eruption of a super volcano to get the ball rolling?
Sure it’s not as quick as an asteroid turned meteor, but it works just as well.
Besides, the super volcano eruption is followed by a good old-fashion ice age.
And we haven’t had one of those for a while. Well not for about twelve thousand
years. Folks, extinctions happen, and we didn’t cause the ones before we were here,
and we won’t cause the ones that take place long long after we’re gone. And if
we are causing this one, I’m sure Mother Nature won’t mind an extra one. She’s
murdering her children all of the time, and if we manage to kill ourselves like
a beached whale, and wipe out other species in the process, who knows, she
might see it is a real work saver. Don’t worry about the planet, it’s doing
just fine, it doesn’t need our help. We on the other hand need to help ourselves,
but this won’t happen unless we radically change our models.
Returning
to Chuckey D and how he noted that how all species are related. You may have
heard that one creature that people fear is going extinct is the honey bee.
True enough, but look at the bees that are dyeing: it is the norm group. The
ones that are not dyeing are abnormal. And if this abnormal group can continue
to repopulate, it shall become the new norm. Modern humans follow the same
story. Hundreds of thousands of years ago human like creatures evolved. There
were many different types, and what we are, at that time, was, a profoundly
abnormal group. But conditions on the planet changed, and the norm died off and
we replaced them. The point is, normal is ever changing. (Hmm, change is
normal!) NOTE: If you want something a
bit more modern on the topic of evolution and change you can try Richard
Dawkins’ 2009 book The greatest show on Earth_ the evidence for evolution
Summary
In
recapping the statistical model: first and foremost it is a numbers game with
no value judgements attached. Normal is not good, nor is abnormal bad. For
example, being one of the few survivors from a plane that crashed in the
mountains is abnormal- as most of the people died in the crash. Here you might
say, “Gee, it seems pretty good to be abnormal.” (Well this is unless you are one of the many people devoured by
your fellow starving passengers while they wait months to be rescued. Then
being eaten becomes normal, but you might not necessarily call being normal
good. That is unless you tasted really good! “Oh what, are we eating Joe again
tonight? Don’t we have any Maggie left, she was scrumptious!”) So remember it’s just a numbers game. Normal
means of which there is the most and abnormal means away from the norm. To
indicate how far something is away from the norm, we use the terms, Mild,
Moderate, Severe, and Profound to mark their distance. Mild is closest to the
norm, where is profound is as far from the norm as you can get.
People
are neuro/physically-divers. Under a statistical model, the norm is composed of
those who are neuro/physically-typical. And the abnormal group is made of those
with neuro/physical differences. Some models/cultures label some of these folks
as disabled. But, under such models, the only way you can know if a person has
a disability is to compare them to a standard, such as the norm. When this is
done people using the model will classify them as having a mild disability,
moderate disability, severe, disability, or profound disability. Of course the
same indicators can be used with the term neuro/physical difference. But it is
important to remember that having a moderate neuro/physical-difference is a
completely different thing than having a moderate disability, as a
neuro/physical-difference is a universally accepted reality, where as
disability is a culturally created construct, and in general comes with a
negative connotation as we will explore next.
Elitist Medical Model
The
elitist medical model borrows the term Normal
from the statistical model, but injects it with value judgements and redefines it as the standard of being
healthy, good, and desirable, where as abnormal is bad, disabled, diseased,
dysfunctional, damaged, disordered, degenerative, deranged, disturbed, and
other such “D” words that diminish our fellow humans with
neuro/physical-differences. The elitist medical model views life as if it is to
be a certain way, that this elitist certain way is what is to be considered as
normal, and that all classified by the model as disabled should be normalized. It authoritatively dictates “The
disabled must be cured, made whole, healthy, and must not perpetuate their
kind.”
The
elitist medical model does not appreciate life as divers, but looks to change
it, standardize it, to make it a certain way. It demands that the abnormal
receive treatment, medications, surgery, and or therapy to be made normal. It
also practices segregating, institutionalizing, sterilizing and murdering those
who are abnormal (e.g., forced sterilization, legal proceedings to prevent
couples with disabilities from having their own children, and the early
termination of the unborn if they are found to be different such as in
prescreening for Down’s syndrome).
The
concept of a person being “disabled” because they do not look like, think like,
or behave as most of the population is a hallmark of the elitist medical model.
According to this model, disability results from a person’s neuro/physical-differences.
The models evidence for this is that, if that person could be made normal,,
their disability would vanish. Although this sounds reasonable, it is rather
foolish; After all if a circle could be made into a square it would no longer
be a circle, but that does not make the one better than the other.
Never
the less, according to the elitist medical model, the reason a person who is
blind cannot read a menu at a restaurant is because they are blind. The reason
a so-called wheelchair bound person
cannot use the stairs is because they are disabled. (“Wheel chair bound?” What the hell kind
of term is wheelchair bound? Why would you refer to a person using a device to
increase their mobility as being bound? Shouldn’t
it be wheelchair mobile? “Hey David, where should we bind the prisoner so they
can’t move?”--- “How about that chair with the giant wheels on it; Yeah, that
looks like it will keep them in one place!!”).
According
to the elitist medical model, whenever you see a person classified as disabled
who is unable to do what the normal
folks can do, the reason is because “they
are” disabled. Under this model the person’s neuro/physical-difference is
the problem, and the solution is to fix the person. Because once this broken person
is fixed, the problem goes away. To the disciples of this model, this proves
that the person having a disability is the problem. They point out that, after
all, many scientific studies have been produced under this model demonstrating
that normal people can perform tasks the disabled cannot. They assume that if most of the people can do
something, and the disabled person cannot, the problem must be the disability.
They then show that when you take the disability away- through a treatment of
some sort- the ability returns. (Is it smoke and mirrors, or science?)
Although
the elitist medical model presents itself as belonging to science, and vestures
itself with scientific terminology, it is arguably a repackaging of religion
and politics. Of course it is not likely you will notice this, because you, as
was I, were raised in a culture that promotes this model as the truth. To me it
all seemed rational and logical. But then again, how could it seem any other
way seeing it was the only model being taught to me by my professors and
through our media and greater society. But as I started to examine some of the
arguments for the model, I found them wanting. We will explore this more in the
handicap model.
The
elitist medical model is being introduced to different cultures. Some cultures
that never viewed its members as disabled are learning to do so through this
model. But what is interesting about this model is that it lacks unity: meaning
what is considered a disability or a mental-illness in one place or at a
particular point in time is not considered a disability or a mental illness in
another. This is why homosexuality was historically considered a mental disorder by the American
Psychological Association but later, between1973 – 1978, came to be viewed as
“normal” after political pressure and a cultural shift. It is also why
professional manuals- such as the ICD or DSM- which are used to define what is
or is not a disability or mental illness are continually being revised. (The
entire venture reminds me of Pluto “It’s a planet! It’s not a planet! Well, its
planet likes! Tune in next week for the latest scientific opinion.” Meanile it will continue to
orbit the sun!)
The
elitist medical model gives us such ideas as a person having the strength and
or will to “overcome their disability,” This is actually a religious idea
stemming from the moral model which
suggests that if a person works hard enough they can overcome their problems.
The elitist medical model also gives us the concept that those classified as
disabled has “special needs” which is an idea that promotes discrimination. The
elitist medical model, unlike, the medical model, seeks to control populations
and push political/religious agendas forward under the guise of science. This
is contrary to the actual medical model which is based on science and is ready
to give up its beliefs in the light of new evidences. The Medical Model has its
place. It is about healing people who self- identify
as wanting to be healed. It is a particular restorative branch of science.
Unfortunately sometimes it is difficult to tell the one model from the other
and the wolves slip in with the shepherds.
Now
don’t think that the Elitist medical model does not have any value. To those
who have a highly centric view and are essentialist (which means they believe
in “perfection” and that things ultimately should be a certain way) - which
often takes place in fanatical religious thought- the model is quite useful.
Such ideas might start off seeming sensible to some degree. For example, Adolf
Hitler wrote in 1924 – 1926 in his book Mein Kampf “It is no disgrace,
but only a misfortune deserving of pity, to be sick and weakly.” and” “Where parents are not healthy,
it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy child and
give him father and mother, than themselves give birth to a sick child who will
only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world” (16
hours 20 minutes. 58 seconds- taken from Ralph Manheim’s 1926 translation).
Such an idea sounds nice. Well except for the line “… give birth to a sick
child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of
the world” (Really, “the world?” Excuse me, but who’s world is it?).
As nice
as it may seem that Hitler presents as being concerned about sick children not
suffering,, one need only read a little further and the model he is using shows
its centric and elitist nature, which is seen where Hitler next wrote, “it must
set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must
declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see
to it that only the healthy beget children… here the state must act as the
guardian of a millennial future, in the face of which the wishes and
selfishness of the individual must appear as nothing and submit” (16 hours 20
minutes. 58 seconds).
Before you say,
“Well, that was Hitler! He was a really bad, screwed up, evil dude! That can’t
really be the view of the elitist medical model” You probably don’t know
certain parts of history. For instance, Hitler was not the one who invented
these ideas. The publically and legally sanctioned forced sterilization and
murder of people viewed as abnormal and labeled as “morons”, which began in the
early 1900s and was quickly adopted by the so
called advanced nations of the world, started in the good old USA! This
American movement known as Eugenics (Eu = Good + genic = Genes) was inaugurated
and perpetuated by people pushing religious and political agendas. It just so
happened that Hitler was quite impressed with America’s Eugenics program, how
it was purifying the American population, that he adopted it for his own
purposes- which included sending those classified as disabled to death camps.
Of course, you
might say, “Okay, Hitler murdered those he classified as disabled, but he also murdered
lots of people simply because they did not fit his idea of the pure German.”
And I would say, “Exactly!” The elitist medical model dictates what is normal
and what is abnormal, what is right and wrong, healthy and sick. And if one is
abnormal, they are sick, they are wrong, and must be made right or eliminated. Hitler
had his definitions of who is normal and who is not, and others using the
elitist medical model have their own definition. Don’t be caught up by “who” is
defined as normal or abnormal. If you do you are missing the point. Rather attend
with grave scrutinization the elitist notion of “normal” as comprising a group
deemed as superior, with those otherwise labeled as being inferior. Ask,
“Exactly who is defining normal and abnormal?” And, “From where is this authority
derived?”
BTW: If you think the
Eugenics movement has ended, think again. It has only slipped under our radar.
Women who are pregnant receive prenatal screenings to determine if the baby has
a disability so they can seek treatment or terminate the pregnancy if treatment
will not work. In addition, the ability to genetically redesign humans is being
advanced with a promise to end disabilities. (Ask, “Exactly who is defining
normal and abnormal?” And, “Exactly from where is this authority derived?”)
One more hallmark
of the Elitist Medical Model is how it reduces our fellow humans to
“disabilities”. The model devalues the person by ignoring the whole. For
example, if a child has ADHD the model labels them as “The ADHD child” as if
ADHD is his or her defining attribute. Sometimes the person is dropped all
together. For example a person with dyslexia may be called a “Dyslexic”. In
addition the Elitist Medical Model claims that the needs of those classified as
disabled are “special” even though they are the exact same needs shared by all
people. (This will be covered more later.)
NOTE:
In Bierdz’s classes such language is not used. People are not dehumanized.
There are no ADHD students or Dyslexics. At worst there are students classified
as having ADHD, or children with dyslexia: such labels are necessary given the
context of the course. And no person has “special needs” it is recognized that
all people have the same needs, but not all are provided with equal access.
(This is explained further in the next section).
Summary
The elitist medical
model first defines healthy and normal, and then by way of comparison to this
standard creates a class of people labeled as disabled or mentally ill. It
concludes that the problem exists
within the person. It advocates for changing the person through treatments
(surgery, therapy, medications) and if this cannot be done it promotes
segregation (e.g., separate classes, institutionalization, sterilization, or death).
Under the Elitist Medical Model, people are dehumanized and referred to by
their disability label (e.g., dyslexics, ADHDrs, Learning disabled
students) and it is claimed that the needs of such people are “special”.
Although the model promotes itself as science, it is arguably a repackaging of
religion and politics. The elitist medical model should not be confused with
the actual Medical Model.
The concept of a
person being “disabled” because they do not look like, think like, or behave as
most of the population is a hallmark of the elitist medical model. According to
this model, disability results from a person’s neuro/physical-differences, and
if they could be made neuro/physically-typical, their disability would vanish. Hence, the reason a person using a wheelchair
cannot use the stairs is because they are
disabled. And the reason a person who is blind cannot read a menu at a restaurant
is because they are blind. According
to the elitist medical model, the person- by way of his or her disability- is
the problem, and the solution is to “fix them”.
FYI: Some groups have taken
on the labels of disability and have transformed them to indicate a culture or
a distinct group. For example when deaf is spelled with a lowercase “d” it
signifies disability; However, when spelled with an
upper case “D” (Deaf) it represents Deaf culture. Those who identify as Deaf
reject the imposed elitist idea that they are disabled, but view themselves as
belonging to a culture who communicates via sign language. Likewise those who
label themselves as Autistic, or an Autistic, reject the elitist concept that
their brain is wired defectively. Rather they view themselves as a product of
evolution: having a brain that is wired differently. Autists have also adopted
the term Neuro-typical to identify
those who are not Autistic, or any neurological difference. The term has been
adopted by many in the scientific community. .
Handicap Model (Also called “Social
Model”):
The
handicap model, or Social Model, finds that the environment is what disables
people rather than blaming the person’s neuro/physical-difference. It notes
that human environments- for the most part- are designed and constructed by
humans to benefit other humans- usually humans who are
neuro/physically-typical. When the environment’s design is a good fit to a
person it enables them. For example,
stairs provide access to floors on a building.
However when a human made accommodation is a poor fit to a person it disables them. For example, stairs do
not provide access to floors on a building for everyone, only for those who can
access stairs.) The handicap model says that the stair accommodation do not work for, and hence disables, one
who is wheelchair mobile. The problem is in the stairs, not in the person (Read
that last sentence again, it is the key to this model).
Another example of this accommodation based
enabling disabling impact is: about 8,000 years ago the invention of writing
made it possible to record and share information via writing and reading
printed visual symbols. In about 1440 Johannes Gutenberg invented a printing
press that made the production and distribution of print inexpensive and
profitable and soon there was an explosion of books. (I
wonder if it was a “literal” explosion. But then again, how could there be,
there weren’t enough books yet!) This invention of print, and printed books, is useless to one who
is blind because it is a visual system of communicating. Under the Handicap
Model, a person who is classified as blind is not disabled due to blindness,
but do to this print/tool used for sharing information.
The
Handicap Model would point out that in 1821 a new tool for sharing information
was invented: a tactile information sharing system called Braille was invented.
This touch based tool allowed people who are classified as blind to read and
write. Because of this change in tools- from visual to tactile- the reading disability- which was assumed to be
due to one’s “blindness” vanished, yet the blindness
remained. To those who subscribe to the Handicap Model, this is evidence
demonstrating the problem had nothing to do with the person, but that the tool
of communication was a poor fit: it was not designed for them. The print posed
a handicap where the braille did not. (Are you feeling me on this braille evidence?) Recall the Elitist
Medical Model would say “A blind person cannot communicate via print because
they are blind.” Where as the Handicap Model would say, A
person classified as blind cannot access print for communication because print
is designed for visual access, but they can access a form of touch print known
as brail.” Is the reading problem caused by blindness, or the tool used? The
answer depends on which model one uses!
The
Elitist Medical Model would say, “The blind person uses brail because they have
Special Needs”.
The Handicap model
recognizes that no person has “special needs” but that all people have the same
needs. The problem is that access to need fulfillment is granted by society to
some, but not all. Look at the world around you, the human created world in
which you live. A world created by humans that mainly provides accommodations
to those who are neuro/physically-typical to fulfill their human needs. Do you
need food? Who doesn’t? But try to use a restaurant to meet this need when you
use a tube to eat. Try to access the menu, or go shopping and find items in the
store if you are blind, or get an item from the upper shelves if you are
wheelchair mobile. Do you need an education, transportation, employment, and so
on? We all do, But who is granted access to these
things through the socially constructed accommodations currently provided?
Let’s return to the Elitist Medical Model would saying, “The blind
person uses brail because they have Special
Needs” and ask “Why is reading a normal need for the sighted, but a special
need when one is blind?” Really, what the hell kind of magic is responsible for
transforming the act of reading to gather information into a special need solely based on one’s
visual acuity? (I once bought into this elitist bullshit. But such is what
transpires when one is presented a model as an implicit truth).
In school, the
building, equipment, materials, and lessons are primarily designed for the
norm. When a person is statistically abnormal, these accommodations may not
work. They may provide access to need fulfillment in the same way they do for
the norm. But they may prevent access on a mild level or moderate level. These
human made accommodations may mildly or moderately prevent need fulfillment, or
need fulfillment may be severely or profoundly underserved. Under the Handicap
Model, it is recognized that when the accommodations that provide need fulfillment
to the norm fail to provide access to an individual outside of the norm, then
an alternative accommodation is to be provided.
The handicap
model recognizes that the terms “needs” and “access” have been confused in our
culture. All people need the same things, relationships, education, employment,
transportation, entertainment, food, exercise, to expel bodily waste and so on.
Society has created accommodations for fulfilling these needs. But not all have
the same level of access to these human designed accommodations. When any accommodation fails to fulfill one’s needs,
those needs do not suddenly become “special” they remain the same needs shared
by all. (This is unless you are
deploying the Elitist Medical Model which lays the groundwork necessary for segregation
and discrimination).
Let’s now
consider how the statistical terms of Mild, Moderate, Sever, and Profound are
used by the Handicap Model, as these are strikingly different from how they are
used in the Elitist Medical Model. Under the Handicap model, the terms mild,
moderate, severe, and profound apply to the situation/accommodation, not to the
person. For an alternative accommodation to provide the same level of access to
need fulfillment as does the accommodation (used by the statistical norm) there
must be a change. This change may be mild, moderate, severe, or profound. Most
alternative accommodations require a mild to moderate change. To help identify
and diagnose what accommodation is blocking need fulfillment and hence is to be
changed, I have invented the MA-MA-E-A conceptual tool. In short the tool has
us view accommodations as belonging to Method, Amount, Materials, Assistance,
and Environment (MA-MA-E). The final “A” in MA-MA-E-A stands for assessment: As
one must assess if the MA-MA-E deployed is providing access to need
fulfillment. (The MA-MA-E-A tool will be covered later in this course.
Summary
The
handicap model recognizes that all people have the same needs, but not all
people have the same level of access to the human designed accommodations commonly
used for need fulfillment. When an accommodation
fails, the problem is the accommodation, not the person. Hence a person is
“disabled” by a lack of access to functional accommodations, not his or her
neuro/physical-differences. When accommodations fail, alternative
accommodations are to be provided to ensure equal access. The alternative
accommodation may require a mild change, or a moderate, severe, or even a
profound change. The focus of the Handicap/Social Model is always on the
accommodation, not the person. As far as the model is concerned, the person’s
neuro/physical-difference is inconsequential.
The interaction model looks at the
interaction between the person and the accommodations provided. High fidelity
interactions result in success. Low fidelity interactions result in failure. A
simple example of this is to take two cups of different sizes (236 ml and 473
ml – 8oz & 16oz). There is nothing wrong with either sized cups. And there
is nothing wrong with 359ml/12oz of water. Pour it into the big cup and the interaction
works fine. Pour it into the small cup and the interaction fails, there is
spillage. Was the cup too small? Was the amount of water too much? The answer
depends on which model one uses.
If cups were people, and the standard cup
could hold that amount of water, the elitist medical model would say “That
person spilling the water is disabled because they are too small.” Contrary to
this, the Handicap model would say “The requirement to hold that much water was
not reasonable. It should have been adjusted.” In contrast to both the Elitist
Medical Model’s blaming the cup, and the Handicap Model’s blaming the amount of
water, the interaction model says, “The cup is fine,
the amount of water is fine. But the interaction is not fine. However, it acknowledges
that either the amount of water, or the cup, or both needs to change for the
interaction to be successful.” So, it’s not the cup, and it is not the amount
of water, it is the interaction. (Do you think this is why it’s called the “Interaction
Model”)
The interaction model recognizes
one’s neuro/physical-difference and handicapping situations as targets for
identification and change. The Interaction Model recognizes that although there
is no standard way humans should be, the fact is,, most cultures favor those
who fall into the norm (whether that be statistical or elitist). It notes that
humans, and their brains, have plasticity (the ability to reorganize and change
how they function), but that that there are limits to this neuroplasticity.
Hence it takes a middle of the road approach in stating that when possible, and
to a reasonable extent, those with neuro/physical-differences should work to
become neuro/physically-typical, because this offers them the best chance of
functioning under the current cultural manifestation; However, society must
also demonstrate flexibility in providing tools that allow equal access to
societal boons (education, employment, transportation, technology, and so on)
to ensure those who are neuro/physically-different can participate in,
contribute to, and benefit from society. (You should read this paragraph a few times:
it is not an easy concept at first if it is new to you).
Under the Interaction Model, when
it comes to changing the person, care must be taken not to apply the idea that
the person is broken and needs to be fixed: as does the Elitist Medical Model.
The Interaction Model does not view any person as broken. It applies the
Neuro/Physical-Diversity Model’s recognition that all people are a
manifestation of the many possible ways in which life exists. (As Albert Einstein
noted, Fish are not broken just because they can’t climb treas.)
So how does the Interaction Model
support change if a person is not broken and need not be fixed? Recall that although there is no standard way
humans should be, cultures favor those who fall into
the norm. Socially created accommodations that provide access to need
fulfillment are primarily designed for the norm. Hence, the closer to the norm
one is, the more access they have to all of the socially constructed
accommodations.
Let’s
conduct a thought experiment. What if you attended a school on a planet where
everyone but you did not rely on vision? You would now be statistically
abnormal. All of the accommodations would be designed for the norm, not for
you. How would you do moving about a building with no lights and with all of
the learning materials in a nonvisual format? What is the problem? Of course
the answer is “It depends on which model we use.” Is your “need” to obtain an
education now a “special need” because you can’t access the accommodations used
by the norm? How silly! Are you broken and need to be fixed? Of course not!
But, wouldn’t it be useful if you learned how to use their accommodations and
to navigate without light? Of course it would! It’s a good thing your brain has
plasticity and can be changed. Your brain can be rewired to learn without
light, to navigate in the dark, and your memory improved to hold information in
your head rather than writing everything down. But none of these changes are
“fixing you” as you were never broken to begin with. But making these changes
would increase your ability to fulfill your needs because you could now use the
accommodations that were designed to provide access to need fulfillment for the
norm. Let’s also say that this society had the ability to make lights and other
accommodations you would find helpful. Would providing them make things more
equal for you?
(Some might argue that the people in this
thought experiment who do not use their eyes are the
ones who are disabled. Such a person is stuck in the Elitist Medical Model. Are
they really disabled? Apparently not, they have managed just fine without
sight, just as modern humans have without the ability to see in the full
electromagnetic spectrum. So if you don’t like this example, pretend you are on
superman’s home world and see how you do there!). I never understood why buildings on superman’s planet had stairs or windows
when everyone could fly and see through walls! Perhaps they were alternative
accommodations for humans?
NOTE: Bierdz’s course follows and promotes the
interaction model. But because it is easier to change handicapping situations
rather than people, much of the course considers how to change accommodations
(which are often referenced as MA MA E
A which stands for Methods, Amounts, Materials, Assistance,
Environments, and Assessments. The MA MA E A
constitutes the tools of practitioners who work in the various helping
professions such as education, counseling, social work, and so on and will be
discussed in more detail later.
Summary
The
interaction model does not target a person’s neuro/physical-difference: calling
it a disability. Nor does it target the handicapping condition as the disabling
problem. Rather it targets the interaction between the two. The model
recognizes that the world is designed for the norm. Hence, it helps to be as
normal as possible so that one can access society’s accommodations used for need
fulfillment. For this reason it advocates for changing the person when
possible. On the other hand, it also fully recognizes that we do live in a
human created world. If society has decided to invite those with neuro/physical-differences
to their party, they really should provide alternative accommodations to ensure
everyone has a good time.
Moral Model
The moral model deserves mention
as it is among the most prevalent models used. The Moral Model states that, what
is called “disability” is partly, or completely, a choice. According to this
model, if a person chooses to be disabled, they are to blame for the problems
he or she faces. When stated directly like this, the model sounds irrational.
But consider that this is the main model of many cultures including the USA.
What do we do with people who do not look and/or act normal? We punish them, we
exclude them, marginalize them, devalue them; and we do this openly and with a
sense of righteousness. We say things like, “If kids with emotional disturbances
would simply stop acting badly, things would be better for them.” and “If those
with ADHD would just settle down and focus, their lives would be better.” And
“If kids with learning disabilities would just try harder in school, their
grades would go up.”
Punishments, and denying
assistance, are the prescribed treatments under the Moral Model. Rodney is
failing in math. The moral model says, “Rodney needs to try harder. If he
applied himself, he would do better. He will keep earning failing grades. Perhaps
when he earns enough D and Fs he will change. But don’t ask me to help him do
better. I am not going to waste my time trying to help someone who is not
willing to help themselves.”
Legal Model
To some degree the Moral Model is
tied to the Legal model: as they both address the concepts of right and wrong.
Here it should be pointed out that those classified as disabled face
discrimination. One way to see this is to ask the question, would you date or
marry a person who is disabled? What would your family and friends say if you
came to them and said “Hey, I met a person who is blind, hearing impaired, with
ADHD and has depression and anxiety. I think I want to marry this person!” What
would they say to you? (I am sure that for some this would not apply, but I
believe my point is made).
Because of the high levels of
discrimination against those classified as disabled in school, employment,
housing, and society in general, the legal system has created laws to
discourage discrimination. To do this it had to create a legal term to classify
this group. The term is “Disabled.” In this sense, “Disabled” is a legal
status, not a permanent condition, and the status of disabled covers
individuals you may not view as disabled. For example, women who are pregnant are
considered as disabled under some laws.
There are a variety of laws designed to limit discrimination against those
classified as disabled. Such laws have met with limited success in America. .
Final Note
Here I must note that all of the
above models are right, and they are also all wrong. Right and wrong are subjective-
if you disagree I am sure you believe you are right and I am wrong, but that
rather proves my point. Hmmm, or does it? So let us not use a thought process
that asks us to argue right and wrong, but do something more productive. Let us
ask if a way of viewing something or doing something is useful or not useful and
to whom is it useful or harmful? With this method we will find ourselves
enjoying greater agreement and an ability to solve problems in a new way.
For
example: if one person mugs another we will find divisions over right and
wrong. The mugger can always find justification to present the mugging as
right, and the one being mugged can do the same for why the mugging is wrong.
But they would likely both agree that the mugger is gaining possessions and the
one being mugged is losing possessions. This is useful to the mugger, but
perhaps not useful to the one being mugged. (I say likely because some people practice a model that states”
possessions can never be gained or lost as we are all born into the world with
nothing and will exit it with nothing.” Hence, although using this useful vs.
harm model will not lead us to any truths, for most of us it avoids the
generation of conflict that takes place under a right vs. wrong model.
QUESTIONS: To help Comprehend
These Materials
- Argue that people do not perceive
reality but rather they construct models of reality.
- Is most of what you are taught truth or
models?
- Explain why a person who is ignorant of
models is a slave to the models they have been taught.
- Provide three reasons for studying
models.
- How do the terms normal and abnormal differ between the neuro diversity,
statistical, and elitist medical models?
- Define: 1. Neuro/physical-variation; 2.
Neuro/physically-typical; 3. Neuro/physically-different; 4. Accommodation:
5. Alternative Accommodation: 6. MA-MA-E-A
- Argue why neuro/physically-different is not the same as disability.
- What is the cause of disability
according to the elitist medical, handicap, and interaction models?
- How does the Elitist Medical Model
differ from the Medical Model?
- How does the interaction model capture
aspects of the neuro/physical-diversity, statistical, medical, and
handicap models?
- How does the interaction model differ
from the neuro/physical-diversity, statistical, elitist medical, and
handicap models?
- Explain why models are better viewed as
useful/not useful rather than right or wrong?
- Explain
why changing a person is considered “fixing them” under the Elitist
Medical Model, but not under the Interaction Model
The correct citation of this document
is:
Bierdz (2008 – 2019). The Power of Models. www.Bierdz.Org.