Eric Larson on PDA: Resistance and Resilience

Thanks for dedicating much of an episode to the challenges around using functioning labels. How language is used and evolves is an important dynamic to keep in mind. Sometimes, labels are developed as a descriptive shorthand that derives from extensive research, experience, and consideration over time to describe a complex mix of attributes. The irony is that the label often can become a simplistic designation by others who have not dug into the history and research and may have useful yet still cursory understandings of the term. And in not always well-intentioned environments, a term can come to have its meaning entirely inverted to serve the purposes of political marketing. In my personal experience, a decade ago, learning about the concept of twice-exceptionality (as a parent) by spending an hour or more with Susan Baum and Robin Schrader at Bridges Academy was a god-send. This time helped give me a framework for understanding elements of my kid (and myself, in turn). Still, over that decade, I've witnessed how that term, often with the best of intention, has evolved and shifted in meaning as others come to understand in with their own lenses and apply is to specific needs within their own realms. And I've come to see how the term does not always provide a framework to solve all challenges that might be presented to individuals who know both great gifts and great challenges. So my feelings have shifted... or better, evolved. And isn't that the nature of academic research and its methods scientific inquiry? That is: observe something; formulate a hypothesis; create a structure experiment to test the hypothesis; collect data from the experiments. Write up what was learned and what new questions arose; publish this. And yet there is one more step that seems to be overlooked much of the time: And that is this: others read what is published and attempt to replicate the entire process. That in turn can create similar or differing results. And cause even more questions to arise. And that's ok because it's part of the process. The scientific process is designed to continually repeat in order to refine (or in some cases repudiate) findings. And there's a beauty to that process when it is flowing and functioning.