The Mentally Retarded as Analogous to the Shy


   
       Research activity on the mentally retarded can be used as an example of how (1) an accommodating society facilitates adjustment,
and of how (2) a society with rigid norms and ideas often causes the shy--and the mentally retarded--to become lifelong problems to both
themselves and to others. Some of the important lessons we have learned include the following:

      1.	The mentally retarded flourish best when they are permitted to play exclusively with the mentally retarded. When they are forced
                 to play among heterogeneous groups of age-mates who are not mentally retarded they are often bullied and severely hazed. And
                 as a consequence they regress by engaging in schizophrenic withdrawal, clownish behavior, or through just plain becoming sick.
      2.	We have learned that the mentally retarded flourish best, as do all human beings, when they are accorded genuine recognition,
                 respect and encouragement for their accomplishments. This is the theory behind the so-called “Special Olympics” wherein the
                 retarded are encouraged to compete with children who are like themselves, and to experience the joy of winning and of the social
                 recognition that accrues therefrom.
      3.	We have learned that it is almost always best to encourage the mentally retarded to date and to marry. As is true with almost all
                 human beings, marriage brings the best out of the mentally retarded. Encouraging the mentally retarded to procreate children
                 represents another matter entirely. And very often this cannot be done. But we have learned that through involving the mentally
                 retarded in meaningful work and love roles (including marriage), they flourish and they contribute maximally to themselves and to
                 society.

       Now I believe that a useful parallel can be drawn between the mentally retarded child and the inhibited, shy child. For some reason
American society has long been far more ready and willing to accommodate itself to the needs of the blind child, the mentally retarded child,
the deaf mute child, the physically ill or deformed child, etc., than it has been to make reasonable accommodations to the inhibited, shy
child, particularly if that child is a boy. The implicit assumption is that being born in the melancholic quadrant (figure 1, page 41) of the
Eysenck Cross is a characterological defect and flaw rather than the trait of inborn temperament that it actually is. And the further
assumption is that what the boy with inborn melancholia (low anxiety threshold/high inhibition) really needs is a good, swift kick in the
ass!
       Nobody ever seriously suggests a “kick in the ass” for the epileptic child, for the deaf mute, for the blind, or for the mentally retarded.
Indeed, we do not even suggest such a course of action for the child of seemingly normal intelligence who just doesn’t seem to be able to
learn how to read. No! Instead we devise special classes in remedial reading, and we expend a great deal of both personnel and financial
resources in order to enable such children to grow and to flourish on as normal a basis as possible.
       We have always assumed that temperament is somehow different from other human traits. And we have become quite moralistic about
this quite false assumption. Too many psychologists continue believing that all behavior and all elements of personality are learned--and
because they are all learned they can all be unlearned if and when the right therapy is provided. These psychologists and the educators
and parents who have been influenced by them continue to be strangely oblivious to the hundreds of scholarly papers and books that have
been published over the last twenty years on the subject of inborn, biologically based temperament. And they continue to be oblivious to
the fact that while certain traits, such as shyness, low self-esteem and neurosis are learned, they are learned as a direct byproduct of a
hostile, punishing attitude that is displayed towards boys who manifest a melancholic inborn temperament.
       Why, in fact, do inhibited boys usually end up as friendless isolates whereas passive, quiet girls almost always end up with at least a
few friends along with satisfactory levels of interpersonal skills? The answer must be that the same inborn temperament that is punished
with hazing, bullying and ignoring when it is displayed by little boys is accepted with kindly tolerance when it is displayed by little girls.
The point is that this hazing, bullying and ignoring has an extremely deleterious cumulative impact upon a growing child over the course of
his formative years.