Of Bullies, Trolls, Curmudgeons and Aspergers

“ ‘The Kid’ never races anybody. He just sits there and scares the hell out of ‘em.”
--- Paul Stookey, Paultalk

"Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?”
--Obi Wan Kenobi, Star Wars: A New Hope

Yetzer ha-Ra: That Troll hole sure looks interesting . . .
Yetzer ha-Tov: Stay on target. Stay on target!Yetzer ha-Ra: Maybe we can have a productive conversation, he can’t be ALL bad!            Yetzer ha-Tov: Negative, Captain. That Troll’s female hatred index is 78%,  and the diction analysis indicates a high level of cruel cynicism. Recomend aborting the diversion and heading straight for an Objectivist bulletin board.  Yetzer ha-Ra: Poor troll, there’s probably just a scared little boy inside. You can bring out the . .
Yetzer ha Tov: Do NOT feed the troll! Do NOT feed the . . . . Damn. She’s gonna . . . there it goes! Libertarian Trolls are NOT rational. It’s gonna be ugly . . .                                     Ship: Ping! Brrrrwahahahahahaharhrhrhrh! Pow!
Yetzer ha-Ra: Beetle-bomb!                      Yetzer ha-Tov: Captain, impulse engines still operating. What are your coordinates, Ma’am?
Ship: (Coughing slightly and waving smoke away). Where is that Objectivist site, again?  I think maybe a fuel change is in order.  Earl Gray. Hot!

---- Fragment of Internal Dialogue

 

On the internet, bullies are people who derive a certain sense of power by sneering and whining, deliberately targeting those who take a discussion seriously or literally, and taking conversations off-track. In short, petty cyber-bullies—often called trolls—will do anything to keep a conversation from evolving in order to keep themselves at the center of attention, even as the circle of that attention becomes smaller and smaller. 

Outside of the cyber-world, the way to stop a bully is to call him out. A bully is generally  a coward with an aversion to picking on someone who will fight back. Running in and slashing at others, then retreating like a hyena is the typical bully style. This is why I taught my son that the manly thing to do is never to start a fight, but always finish it. Decisively.  

But in the cyber-world, where people have been intimidated by a false definition of censorship, and where the only person with any freedom of speech is the bully himself, what most often happens is that bullies are not confronted or removed. Instead, conversation at a site or page dwindles to just the few bullies, who jockey and sneer at imaginary foes, and the utility of the place is lost. This is a problem for site owners and administrators, who have often spent a good deal of time building a place for a certain kind of conversation, only to have it devolve into endless and meaningless bickering over tangential details, while the point—and the pleasure—is lost.

Although we all know that “feeding the troll” is pointless, most of us from time-to-time foolishly do it anyway, whether out of a misplaced sense of respect for the humanity of the little shit, or the transparently naive hope of breaking through to have a real conversation. And sometimes, we hope that by so doing, somebody else on the page will be drawn out of their silence and the page will become what it was. This seldom works, and the page generally continues its bully-induced slide into silence and obscurity, until even the troll moves on to greener cyber-pastures. 

At a Libertarian-sponsored site, the conversation was about the threat to the Second Amendment. The post was a quote from a Colorado State Senator who announced that with some bravado that he would rather die than give up his weapons. The Curmudgeon joined in, hinting darkly that there is no remedy to the present tyranny, and that bravado and courage itself will wither in the face of omnipotent police brutality. The Troll made his move: “I sneer at all those who . . .”
Dominance established. The original poster never piped up again.

 

As an administrator of the site, I though that perhaps a suggestion to the Troll that he should take his sneering to the source of his anger would bring the conversation back on track. Curmudgeons can be good discussion partners, but trolls never are. I then tried to bring the conversation back to the Curmudgeon’s salient point. The Troll was not having it. He responded with a hurt little boy tone, and I fell for it, against the better angels of my nature. They were saying: “He’s a troll. A TROLL! An unmannerly, babyish,  woman-hating, mom’s-basement, never-had-a-grown-up-relationship, T-R-O-L-L! TROLL!” Being low on estrogen and testosterone both, I ignored the warning.

Beetle-bomb! Shards of hope and sparks of action falling into the netherworld of Cyberspace. Neither the Curmudgeon nor the Troll will ever take any kind of purposeful action. The first wants to impress people with his cynicism, and the second, to prove what a tough guy he is by how badly he treats anyone who crosses his path.

 

There has been precious little dialogue in this group, and what is there dominated by the Curmudgeon and the Troll almost exclusively. Other members drop in, make announcements, and drop out. Why be bullied? It is difficult for members to confront the bullying, because they have no power to stop it.

Smart other members.

The current characteristics of the group alone tell the story. The group has become the Troll, with “ain’t it hopeless” choruses from the Curmudgeon, and a few— mostly ignored—attempts by new members to start a conversation. I have been dropping in to make announcements and to see if there are any libertarians who have mistakenly thought it was a place to discuss libertarian ideas with an eye to actually doing something. But as every idea that does not belong to the Troll or the Curmudgeon lands on the ground in a burning heap, and every suggestion for some kind of action is sneered off stage, the place has become  cobwebbed and dull, leaving the taste of dust and ashes in the mouth. 

 

“Don’t bother with Liberty, folks,” these types announce by the subtext of their behavior. “It can’t be defended, all is lost, and there is no point fighting for it. You’ll just fail and thinking otherwise shows how stupid you are. What we need to do is close the curtains, sit here in the dark, and keep ourselves from getting hurt. Because the animating contest of freedom is a hopeless illusion, and the power of the state is omnipotent. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either naive, deluded or posturing, and will be driven from this group by mean and petty sniping and malignant hatred.”

I bring this up, because I have seen other libertarian site administrators frustrated by the same or a similar senses of life imposed on their discussion groups, and more malignant, those who hate libertarians for whatever reason, and set out to deliberately hurt and destroy them. I have seen anti-Semites ruin the image of the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty, and Nazi hunters crying anti-Semitism on Libertarian sites where it doesn’t exist. I have seen conspiracy theorists bully anyone who wishes to have a rational conversation virtually shut down all discussion over a minor reference, obscuring the actual point of the conversation because they lack the faculty to look critically at their own dogmas.

Site, page and group administrators are frustrated because if we are paying attention, we know the destructive end of such behavior is the same every time. A perfectly good site becomes useless, and someone’s (often many someone's’) work was all for naught. And yet, we often tolerate it. We sigh in exasperation, complain about the solipsistic immaturity of a certain group of Generation-Xer American males, and try to laugh it off over a beer with friends or take comfort in participating in more rational forums. But we TOLERATE what is not tolerable.

Why do we tolerate it? It is the use of subtle force by others to dominate, bully and harm the work of others. But when a site administrator does edit, block or ban someone wreaking such havoc, they immediately respond with the indignant cry of the cyber-bully: Censorship!
And many libertarians, having been brought up with an education that failed to teach them the (not so) subtle difference between liberty and libertine, immediately take it up.

In tones dripping with entitlement they cry that the administrator is a fascist pig, an authoritarian, and that they have the right (god-damn-it) to bully, disrupt and destroy whomever and whatever they want, because THEY are RIGHT, and more than that, they are MORALLY SUPERIOR to every being that has ever walked the earth before them. (Because of us the seas stopped rising, poverty ended, and heaven was brought to earth. “WE are the ones we have been waiting for . . .” and all of that bullshit). In other words, they have a serious case of the Vision of the Anointed. Good will toward others and simple manners were never part of their curriculum.

Many administrators, especially old-school libertarians, are caught off guard by this, and if one is not fully grounded in libertarian thought (and even if one is!), it is easy to be cut to the quick by the sheer virulence of the attack. It is usually delivered complete with a tone of dripping sarcasm and righteous indignation.

 

Being an Aspergian, I am almost always caught off guard by this, because no matter how often people are cruel and nasty to me, I never expect it. This, along with my tendency to be overly literal, and to fail to see the language pragmatics that warm Neurotypicals off, makes me an excellent target for bullies.

In any case, as a helpful guide to Aspergian and other Libertarians of Good Will, these people are wrong and most of them—particularly the bullies—know it. Censorship is a function that only a government can perform. Private individuals may indeed keep order and regulate the environment of their own private property, or do so on the behalf of other owners and stakeholders, in order to preserve the purpose of the site, forum or group for all.
But private property owners cannot and do not wish to stop the dissemination of speech or behavior that they dislike altogether. Only a government, with its monopoly on physical force, can do that. The disgruntled bully can always start his own forum, build his own platform, or hold forth on a public street corner, although in the last, he cannot abuse or detain the public.

 

People of good will follow the rules and regulations of a private property owner gracefully, as a matter of respect and good manners, and if they do not agree with them, they feel free to excuse themselves and go elsewhere. Being themselves self-respecting and effective individuals, they are capable of creating their own platforms for free-speech, and if they err on the side of passion, create a misunderstanding, or take a disliking to someone, they are amenable to the direction of the owner or administrator of the forum, and either correct themselves or move on.

But bullies are seldom self-respecting, effective individuals, and thus need to get and hold the attention of others in any way they can. Thus, they scream about their over-arching rights while ignoring the rights of others. And the libertarian movement seems to attract a large number of them. I believe that there are some philosophical reasons for this, but that is another blog.

The point here is this: although libertarians of good will are naturally hesitant to block or ban someone who is pissy, sarcastic, disrespectful of others, and subjects others to personal attack, it is right and responsible to do it. And it is appropriate to warn others who come crying “censorship” that such behavior will not be tolerated. In such cases, it might be a good idea to explain why it is not censorship, but if we find ourselves being called “fascist” and other names, it is a good bet that the name-caller is also a bully trolling for a response.

 

Finally, when a forum has been allowed through neglect or appeasement to become a place in which fruitful discussion can no longer take place, or when administrating it has become a tiresome and painful chore, it is time to move on. In my case, I should have done so long ago, before I got sucked in by my own naivety and desire to discuss something important to me. Bullies do not discuss or share. They attack and troll for a response, feeding on the pain of others, and like Dementors, they suck the joy out of everything. Curmudgeons are generally not malevolent themselves, but they believe that the world is. They are incapable of kicking around an idea because they have already decided that action is futile and nothing that anyone else thinks about can possibly be worth discussing.

As an Aspergian, I often get played for the fool because I don’t read the subtleties of the words or language pragmatics that NTs see right through. I tend to take longer to learn from painful experience. However, as an Aspergian, I do have empathy. I do feel pain and I see it in others. I just do not always know what to do about it. Although it is painful to be treated like crap by bullies and trolls, and although I often have the sinking feeling that I did it to myself again, I know this is not entirely true. Bullies and trolls are responsible for their behavior and I firmly believe that what goes around comes around. Although as an Aspergian, I am not really capable of delivering a proper and cutting retort--I always think of one in the middle of the night--there are others who are and will do it. In any case, their unhappy, unwholesome view on life, the universe and everything is punishment enough, and brought on by their own selves, leaving me free to enjoy the benevolence of more healthy people, elsewhere.

 

In the meantime, I refuse to give up on Liberty. It may be a struggle because of those who hate and fear it, and sometimes we may be called upon to fight and lose, and fight again for our freedom, acting from Liberty makes me feel happiness and wholeness. And for me, that makes it worth the work.

 

Technorati Tags: Aspergian World,Libertarians,Internet,Property,Trolls

It's the "S" Word Again! Carnival of Homeschooling 117

PHAT Mommy has got me thinking about it again! She's organized this weeks Carnival of Homeschooling around it!

All of us are familiar with the "S" word. Since homeschoolers have demostrated academic competence, this word has become the new objection to how we choose to raise and educate our children.

But maybe we ought to take a look at a couple of definitions.

Here is the definiton that we tend to think of when the term is brought up:
Socialize (Verb): to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.

But consider this one, from the American Heritage Dictionary (online):
Socialize (Verb): To place under government or group ownership or control.

Maybe this is the one that our critics have in mind?
After all, the overwhelming majority of homeschoolers do tend to take care of the first, and in fact, we could argue that we do it better than government schools do it. Our children, after all, are out in the community, interacting with a variety of people of all ages, both genders, and a multitude of diverse ways of living.

Head on over to the "S" Word Edition of the Carnival of Homeschooling to see how many of us are dealing with the first definition.

As for the second, to quote Nancy Reagan, "Just say 'No!'"

Socialization Semester: Archery, Black Belt Club and Other Activity

I haven't really reported in about how we are doing with the spring semester routine yet.

I have decided that homeschooling makes for busy lives, much driving and many more activities than when N. was in school.

And it's all good. At least it is now. Getting the routine worked out within the rhythm of waves of snowstorms has been difficult.


One new activity we have added is archery.
MLC's boss got N. a hunting bow for Hannukah, so when the holidays were safely past, and the weather cooperated, I finally took N. to the Archery Shoppe in town.
There he got the bow adjusted--these new compound bows are adjustable--and took a lesson.

He had earned an archery badge last year at summer camp using a recurve bow, but he had never worked with a compound bow before. So we thought a lesson was in order.

Now he goes to the range there about once a week to practice shooting. He is really dedicated to becoming an excellent archer, and is even talking about learning the bowyer's art, in order to make his own recurve.

Besides learning the art of archery, N. is also practicing his social skills at the range. There are some very serious rules there, and the older kids and adults give the younger kids tips on shooting as well. N., in turn, has been seen helping younger kids as well.


Since we only make it to the Archery Shoppe, about once a week, N. also set up his own target behind the house in order to get practice in every day. Here he is practicing with his BSA recurve.

He called the Tijeras Mercantile, "the Merc," to inquire about straw bales. He found out that whereas straw bales are only about four bucks for a two wire bale, hay is much more expensive. He found out that this is because the ranchers and horsemen use hay as feed, whereas straw is used for bedding as well as archery targets. He measured and figured that he'd need four bales, and then I drove him to 'the Merc' where he went in and paid for his bales and then, with the help of the proprietor, loaded them on the truck. The proprietor said to me, "Well, ma'am, this truck is too clean. You definitely need to mess it up some with the straw. Then folks'll know you are from the East Mountains." I laughed, and we kibbitzed a bit more before the man said, "Well, you've got a polite young man there. He came in and asked for what he wanted, and used his "pleases" and "thanks" and he even said 'yes, sir' and 'no sir' a couple times. You homeschool him?"

There are a lot of homeschoolers here in the East Mountains, and I was very pleased that N. was helping keep our reputation for good manners intact. Chalk another one up for good socialization and social skills. N. knows how to talk to adults quite well.


N. has been keeping up with his Taekwondo as well, although we've missed two Mondays and one Wednesday since the secular new year due to snowstorms. And, of course, we've also missed one day due to illness.

But N. make the commitment and joined the Black Belt Club. This club has many benefits. Firstly, we get two years membership for the price of one. N. got a dybok with his name embroidered on the lapel (is it a lapel?), and T-shirt that says "Just Taekwon-Do It!"

And he got a letter from the World Martial Arts Organization commending him for his dedication. It is important to learn to make and follow through on long-commitments. The nature of the belt system helps "young padawan's" do so, by providing plenty of intermediate rewards along the way.




N. also got a black belt with his name on it, to be awarded when he earns the rank of Black Belt, First Dan. Here he is with Master Blackman, holding his black belt briefly before giving it back.

In the meantime, it will hang on the wall in the Dojong, with the belts of the other members of the club. This will be a reminder of his goal.

He had received his Yellow Belt in December, after a hectic six weeks, and now is working on the requirements for the next belt.

He is going on Monday evening, Wednesday evening, and either Tuesday or Thursday evening.
It's a lot of driving. But on Monday he goes before Scouts, on Wednesday before Machon, and on Thursday, I take him to town before my late evening class, and Bruce picks him up at the library and then to Taekwondo. He likes those time because he has become good buddies with the five or six other people in his class. They range in age from 13 to 50.

And there is Boy Scouts. He missed the court of honor in September--it was at a campout on Yom Kippur. So he had to wait. They did not have one in December, so he will get his First Class in March, as well as the five merit badges he earned at camp, and the two he earned in the fall. There have been some social issues in the boy scouts, and N. has learned some valuable lessons. Like how to deal with anti-Semitism, how to behave well when others are not, and how to request help when problems arise. The anti-Semitism was in the form of teasing by two other boys, and would have been laughable in its ignorance if not for how hurtful it was for N. The boys and N. have learned some valuable lessons, and the troop went on to use the opportunity to teach some important life-lessons to all. And N. learned something as well--how to stand up for himself, how to talk to adults when such things happen, and how to show leadership, and now to maintain good manners at all times, even when others are not. He is learning to apply the Talmudic saying: "In a place where there are no menschen (human beings), you be a mensch (human being).

For N., this has been a lot of work and a lot of learning. Soon, though, he will receive the benefits he has earned for perservering in the face of difficulty, his rank advancement and his merit badges.

Finally, there is Machon. The situation is at least stable--I think--although the kids are all still being punished for the actions of a few. As I predicted, I made no inroads on the situation with my suggestions for positive behavior suppports. And to make matters worse, an important member of the faculty clearly does not know how to deal with kids and enters power struggles with them. This person is not going to go away. So we sat N. down and gave him a choice. He could stay or we could find another program for him, as we did last year. We talked about the fact that he had been born into this synagogue, and it was his, but that to stay he would have to learn how to respect this person's position even if he cannot respect the behavior.

And guess what? My son said, "I have friends there and this is my congregation. I have been here all my life and I am not going to let this problem run me off." I was very proud of him! What strides he has made in his social understanding since last year! So we talked to him about "keeping his head down and his powder dry" in class, saving his energy for free time, and "flying under the radar" with respect to this person. We talked to him about how to behave with respect for the "office" even if you don't respect the person. For example, I reminded him about how we always refer to the president of the US by his title and last name, even if we don't like his policies. The same applies in this situation. These are good social skills to learn, too. After all this will not be the last time he has to deal with difficult people in a situation he cannot or does not want to leave immediately.

When I reminded him about the president, he said, "I know! I know! I've heard you correct yourself when you are mad about Mr. Bush's policies."

You know, they hear every word you say, even when it appears they do not.
It was a small wake-up call to me.

So that's the news from Los Pecos.
Sometimes, I imagine that we are "carschooling" rather than homeschooling. And then I remember that in the mornings and early afternoons, N. works on math, does Kamana, reads avidly and becomes absorbed in his newest interests, archery and Empire Earth. "Mom," he'll say when he finishes working on cross-multiplication, "If you don't mind, I've got a civilization to build."

Mmmhmm. And he's becoming more and more civilized as well.

And the school people wonder about whether homeschoolers are socialized? I'd say we have more time for it than if he had to sit still and silent in a classroom most of the day, and do homework for hours each evening.

With the freedom to talk to and learn from people of many different ages, as well as learning to deal with many different settings and situations, and with a little advice from adults who love them, homeschoolers seem to become noticably well-adjusted people.

The Red Herring Question: Social Skills and Schools Today

I am home again after a whirlwind tour of the mid-west.
I will have lots to say later about everything and pictures to post, too!
But I want to get an article written for the Carnival of Homeschooling and the deadline is fast approaching.

I am, as you know, working on a Ph.D. in Special Education with an emphasis in the Neurospychology of Twice-Exceptional People with ASD. And whenever I tell colleagues from around the country in gifted ed that I am homeschooling my gifted-AS kid, I get the usual question. You all know what it is. You have probably heard it many times. Shall we repeat it together?
WHAT ABOUT SOCIAL SKILLS?

I have taken to answering the question with a question: Are schools today a place where students actually are taught or learn appropriate social skills? The question usually causes a long silence, since it requires the original asker to actually think about her assumptions. And then I begin to hear answers with references to rudeness, bullying, lockstep age-grading, reduced recess and lunch time, silent lunches, and so forth. All of these things are barriers to social interaction in schools and social interaction is how social skills are learned. It is an amazing experience each time this happens to me. Here are educators who have questioned many assumptions about the needs of gifted learners, but still need a prompt to think about their assumptions that school is where children learn social skills.

Yesterday, I was vindicated! I went to hear Dr. Sanford Cohn, an educational psychologist specializing in the psychology of gifted children from Arizona State University discuss the issue. His talk had a provocative title. In fact, it was so provocative that I almost did not go. I was wondering if it was going to be one of those presentations that is inflammatory but not scholarly.

For the curious among you, the title was: Good Intentions, Unanticipated Consequences: Creating a Generation of Brilliant Psychopaths.

See what I mean?

Dr. Cohn sat at a table and held the mike in his hand. He did not have slides. He did not pace, bluster or entertain. His voice was even and measured, and displayed just an edge of passion. And the audience listened intently and silently. We were on the edges of our seats, leaning forward to catch every word. Because we knew that what he had to say was true and important.

He started out by discussing the requirements for learning for every child--those who are intellectually gifted and those with average and above average intelligence. And those are novelty and complexity i.e. we have to get their interest and sustain it. He then went on to discuss the disaster of the concept of inclusion--something I will discuss at length at another time--which is the idea that one teacher can differentiate curriculum for a full range of students in one classroom. At this point he condemned the PC ideas that underpin these philosophies and discussed the social consequences for, but not limited to, gifted kids.

His take-home message is that when the system refuses to use effective placement and pacing to meet the intellectual needs of any child (and remember, school is supposed to be about meeting educational needs, not social engineering), you are telling that child, "You don't matter" at the level of action, even though your words may be otherwise. And the kids see the hypocrisy. And the more educators protest otherwise, the more we look like "self-deluded fools" in the eyes of our kids. In fact, the current institutions, politcal, social and educational, that society holds up as exemplars, are overwhelming our children with hypocrisy. We have a media that devalues the individual and uses sexual overtones and imagery to sell anything. We have politicians that lie to the people with impunity. And an educational establishment that is, in effect, "educating for contempt and disdain."
In fact, said Dr. Cohn, we could not do a better job or this if we had actually set out to do this on purpose.

In this mileau, it is very difficult to teach ordinary social manners and mores. Studies of the brain--particularly the recent discovery of mirror neurons and their effect on imitation suggest that human beings do not, in general, learn to "do as I say, not as I do."

As Dr. Cohn finished his presentation, I was thinking: This is the overarching reason why I took my son out of school. There are a lot of small reasons--they could not meet his needs, give him the individual attention he needed for his AS or giftedness, etc. But over all, in the eyes of the educational establishment, my son, as an individual, is unimportant. Their social engineering goals--however poorly founded--are more important than his education. And in that environment, learning appropriate social skills--compassion and caring for others as individuals and the manners and graciousness to show it--is impossible.

The question of social skills in schools--an environment in which children are often told one thing and see another--is one that educators ought to ponder themselves before they impose it on the one million or more homeschoolers in the nation. As parents, we are taking the responsibility to place our children in environments where they will hear and see how respect, graciousness, caring and compassion are implemented in every day life.

John Stossel, Kids with AS, Middle School and the "S" Word

I am sure that I have mentioned that N. has AS, which is Aspergers Syndrome.

AS is an Autism Spectrum Disorder that involves difficulties with social interaction, non-verbal and verbal communication, and stereotyped obsessive behaviors. This sounds formidable, and it can be, but "Aspies" often look "normal" to others, although they seem to act just a little bit "different."

ABC Nightline and ABC News has been doing a series called Echoes of Autism about AS. Last night, Nightline ran a ten minute segment about the difficulties that students with AS have when they reach adolescence and middle school.

Middle school. John Stossel called middle school "the scorched earth zone of American childhood." A psychologist interviews on the Nightline program said several studies show that up to 90% of middle school students with AS are bullied every day. Every day!

I knew this statistic. And we had already had problems with bullying in N.'s elementary school experience. There were times of intense bullying interspersed with relatively calm times throughout for him. Sometimes it seemed to us as though all of our energy was going to keeping N. functioning in school and that there was none left over for actual learning. In the beginning of 4th grade, for example, N. spent most of his day under the table.

The statistics. Warnings from other parents that you cannot work and have a child with disabilities in middle school. Our previous school experiences. All of this, as well as academic concerns, and concerns about too much testing, factored into our decision to take N. out of school and begin homeschooling. N. has made great progress and never looked back.

When I watched the Nightline segment, I was mentally congratulating myself on the wise decision we had made not to send N. to middle school.

And then John Stossel said that sentence. The one I wrote above. The one I will repeat again, in case you missed it. It is easy to miss, I think, because it fits the picture of reality most Americans have. He said:

Middle school is the "scorched earth zone of American childhood."

Think about that statement. It was said very matter-of-factly. And yet it is both profoundly sad and full of despair. John Stossel was saying that American middle schools are terribly unfriendly, stressful places and that this is "normal." It is what we can expect of our children at a certain age. Adolescents are naturally cruel to each other and nothing can be done about that.The only problem is how to help children who are different, children who have disabilities adjust to it.

Since we have taken N. out of school, I have had the opportunity to watch homeschooled kids interact in a variety of settings. At the grocery store. At the library. At "park day." At museum science classes. In all of these settings, the kids are interacting in multi-age groups with minimal adult supervision. And they are not cruel to each other. They gently tease sometimes, but they explain the jokes to those who don't get it right away. They seem to think independently and do not have that group "herding instinct" that teachers so often laugh about when discussing adolescents.

And it is not only homeschooled kids who are this way. We have been going to the skateboard park, N's newest "special interest," lately. (Very good to large motor coordination and proprioreception). There, kids from about mid-elementary age to high-school come to practice their 'boarding." They teach each other new "moves," discuss the fine points of velocity and balance, organize themselves so that there are no collisions--and there really are no collisions--and help each other out. There are no adults in the Skatepark. N-O-N-E. Adults are elsewhere in the park, or gossiping happily on the picnic benches, but no adults are supervising the skaters. And the kids are civil with each other, and more, they are friendly and engaged in something of interest to all of them. They want it to work out so they can become better 'boarders.

From all of these observations, I have concluded that they way kids treat each other in middle school is not "normal" for them. It is abnormal. They are as nervous and jumpy as lab rats raised in an impoverished environment. It is not "normal" for social mammals to be isolated from their community and raised in an age-segregated environment. Animal behaviorists know that this is a recipe for making an animal "mean to the bone," as the little guy with AS said when he described his bully to John Stossel.

So why do we accept the antisocial behavior of middle school students as "normal?" Why are older people often afraid of adolescent energy?

My hypothesis is that the problem lies not with the kids, but with the environment in which we force them to live and grow and learn. The environment is age-segregated,intellectually unstimulating, encourages competition for teacher time and attention, crowded, noisy, and has only poor nutrition available. It is definitely not the optimal environment for young mammals out to learn how to be social in their culture.

It is so interesting that the first objection I am met with when I tell someone that I am homeschooling is the "S" question. "What about Socialization."

N. has so much more energy to put into learning social skills now that he is not in an environment that stresses him so much that he can barely function.

He skateboards, he plays chess, he studies electricity and magnetism, he goes to astronomy club meetings. In all of these places, he interacts with people of a variety of ages, all of whom want to share a particular interest. He is allowed to talk to people naturally, thus he learns social communication skills in the environment where they are to be used. What a concept!

Now I want to be clear that I do not think that school caused N.'s AS or that it is cured now that he is not in that environment. Rather, I believe that when people interact in real social situations where they are together in the pursuit of a common interest or goal, they are happy to accomodate differences among themselves. It is natural for people to want to share what they love with others. AS kids are no different--they want that, too. All of those good things that contribute to "flow" in human social situations are present when people get together voluntarily to learn together: affinity, intellectual stimulation, joy. I have very rarely seen them in my years teaching secondary education. And yet it is these things that de-stress a difficult learning for kids with AS. Affinity, intellectual stimulation, joy. These are the components need for developing social skills in any human being.

My answer to people who bring up the "S" word is that school is the least likely place for optimal social interactions to take place. It is up to the schools to make changes that will provide our children with socialization appropriate to human children. If and when they do so, I will consider the school option. Until then, to use another "S" word" Sayonara.