Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sappho]

Here's the thing: you're saying that the way the majority develops is the "intended" way. Intended by who, exactly? This process is happening earlier than it "should".... According to who? Are the blueprints to the human race available somewhere?

The majority of humans are female. Therefore, a minority develop very differently in the womb and after birth. Their ovaries drop down out of their bodies and all kinds of horrible stuff. Their nipples are completely non-functional. And they get loaded with far too much testosterone and not enough estrogen, causing all kinds of behavioral problems. We don't say men have a "disorder" despite all this because it's clear that it's advantageous for the human race to have both male and female members. Why would it not be "intended" for the human race to have both autistic and non-autistic people? Why would both types not be intended? Both types function very differently, and according to all available evidence have been in existence throughout human history. They have complimentary strengths and weaknesses, and having both types of neurology strengthens the human race overall. Why the assumption that autistic neurology is "defective" and not working as "intended"?

The idea that there is one "correct" type of human is faulty on the face of it. Some people are naturally good at music and terrible at math. Some people are naturally good at language and terrible at sports. It has been proven that some and possibly all of these differences have an identifiable genetic source (here's one quick source). That's not a problem, because the more varied types of humans we have, the better for our species. If you did endless studies on musicians vs. accountants, I guarantee you'd find all kinds of differences in their development and neurology. Everyone develops at different rates and in different ways. The desire to lock down one particular model as "CORRECT HUMAN" and measure everyone against it is a mistake. There's a great article about sexism that (literally) illustrates this idea quite well. And the fact that autistic people have been around for as long as humans have, and make up a significant portion of the population, points to this being a normal type of human rather than a defective "normal" human.

If an entire subsection of the human race has a neurological system that develops at a different rate and in a different way than the majority, in a way that provides an alternative set of benefits and disadvantages from the majority, that's not something not working. It's working exactly as it should. It's just a different type. A type which is just as useful to evolution as the more common type. That's all there is to it. The only issue is that in the modern world, everything is designed for the more common type, which puts strain on the minority that didn't exist as recently as a few decades ago, and we have to deal with that somehow.

[Orange Wizard]

Spoiler: Spoilered for somewhat offtopic bickering (click to show/hide)

Here's the thing: you're saying that the way the majority develops is the "intended" way. Intended by who, exactly? This process is happening earlier than it "should".... According to whom? Are the blueprints to the human race available somewhere?

Apparently my word choice wasn't the best. I just go by statistics. It's an abnormality.

The majority of humans are female

That's a terrible comparison. Incidence rates of... I dunno, man-ness (~49%) and autism (>1% by modern counts, >0.1% a few decades ago) are vastly different. One is an everyday occurrence, the other is quite rare.

Why the assumption that autistic neurology is "defective" and not working as "intended"?

Obviously it doesn't make you any better or worse than anyone else, and to think you're broken is missing the point so badly I can't even.

There's a great article about sexism

That article is awful.

If an entire subsection of the human race has a neurological system that develops at a different rate and in a different way than the majority, in a way that provides an alternative set of benefits and disadvantages from the majority, that's not something not working. It's working exactly as it should. It's just a different type.

Sure, I can get behind that.

Anyway, now that the strawman has been disassembled, my point is literally just semantics. Autism, by definition, falls under the banner of a disorder. Doesn't say anything about it being good or bad, helpful or unhelpful.
It's a very petty point, admittedly, but it bothers me when people insist something isn't something when it is that thing. It undermines the point of having definitions if we're going to keep making exceptions all the time.

[Catmeat]

I didnt bother reading anybodys comment cause im lazy.
People are only really addicted to anything when they want to be and the reasons vary from person to person.
You could be addicted cause you like the exp or because you are escaping/ignoring something. I liked drinking because I was able to talk to people and have sex with the people I wanted to, as I matured and gained a respect for saving money I stopped, oh and having a relationship helped.
I can drink a wine and not want another, a few years ago, I would have been ordering another bottle.

[martinuzz]

If it's really nothing more than 2 glasses a day, and you say it helps you block overstimulation more effectively than pharmacautically endorsed harddrugs, I'd say, don't worry too much about it. If it ever grows to more than 2 glasses a day though, you're threading on thin ice. Personally I'd recommend just 1 glass a day, preferably red wine instead of beer. Beer makes you fat and is bad for diabetes. Red wine has anti-oxidants, and other healthy stuff. Cancer and heart disease rates are relatively low in France (renowned for people drinking their daily glass of red wine).
Problem with red wine though is, that most cheapskate brands taste like horse piss. You really need to find a good tasting brand that doesn't leave your tongue tanned like leather.

[sirdanilot]

If it's really nothing more than 2 glasses a day, and you say it helps you block overstimulation more effectively than pharmacautically endorsed harddrugs, I'd say, don't worry too much about it. If it ever grows to more than 2 glasses a day though, you're threading on thin ice. Personally I'd recommend just 1 glass a day, preferably red wine instead of beer. Beer makes you fat and is bad for diabetes. Red wine has anti-oxidants, and other healthy stuff. Cancer and heart disease rates are relatively low in France (renowned for people drinking their daily glass of red wine).
Problem with red wine though is, that most cheapskate brands taste like horse piss. You really need to find a good tasting brand that doesn't leave your tongue tanned like leather.

I think the problem is that the op lives in Czech republic were Beer is waaaaaay more common than wine.

[martinuzz]

I think the problem is that the op lives in Czech republic were Beer is waaaaaay more common than wine.

True dat. Czech republic is the birthplace of pilzner-like beers even. There's some really nice tasting fresh beers over there.

[Antsan]

Self-medication is not a good idea, even if it seems to work. As far as I know daily drinking is not healthy, even if it is only one beer.
I'm not asking you to quit drinking immediately, but I'd advise to seek out a doctor (preferably a good one, but I guess that's implied, so this stuff in the parenthesis serves no purpose) and get their opinion on which medical treatment might be applicable. Voice the concerns about those medications as you did here.

[Sappho]

This thread seems to have long outlived its use, so I'm going to go ahead and lock it. Thanks to all who tried to help. For anyone interested in the epilogue, I am now drinking 2-4 times per week, never more than 2 beers and almost always only one. I have no urge to drink more and it seems to be working just fine. Last weekend I tried to have 3 beers in one night, just as a test to see what would happen, and I didn't enjoy it at all. So addiction - gone, for sure. And sensory overload back under control with the few beers per week. All good.