Print

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

[Criptfeind]

Issues with homosexuality come from external sources though.

[Andir]

Is autism really an internal issue?  I've seen some people claim it could be linked to chemical imbalances and/or upbringing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's no evidence for either of those. Just the opposite, in fact. No chemical changes in the brain can really account for autism, and as I understand it the general consensus is that the brain of someone with autism functions in an entirely different manner than the brain of someone without it. Upbringing certainly doesn't cause it, if I remember correctly autism can be diagnosed very, very early these days. Way too early for it to be any sort of developmental consequence.

[GlyphGryph]

And regardless, both of those would /still/ be internal.

[G-Flex]

"Chemical imbalance" has always seemed like a weird term to me, considering that the brain is nothing but an arrangement of chemical substances. Christ, if I feel mad because I stubbed my toe on something, that's a chemical imbalance too.

[GlyphGryph]

The brain has physical structure has an impact as well. And the system, the way things are hooked up, flaws in connections can't always be called "chemical" in any meaningful way.

It is mostly chemistry though, and I think the term is overused and not terribly meaningful. The body as a whole is mostly chemistry, after all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I was under the impression that "chemical imbalance in the brain" usually referred to the contents of the cerebrospinal fluid being abnormal. Come to think of it, I don't have anything to base that off of, so it's probably wrong.

[Vector]

I can socialize fine with autistic people.

Neurotypical people can socialize fine with neurotypical people.

These two groups have trouble socializing with each other.

Why are we pathologizing autism, again?

Lessening symptoms, giving autistic kids helpful tools (like giving neurotypical kids helpful tools, like logic/critical thinking, that tend to be very easy for autistic kids to pick up), these are all fine.  But centering the neurotypical approach seems very... shortsighted.  "Because autistic people have difficulty with this area, they are troublesome.  But if we have trouble with an area they find easier, we are not going to pathologize ourselves, just trumpet those who succeed in that area to the heavens."

[Solifuge]

Yeah, thinking of Autism as a disease or disorder isn't too far from pathologizing left-handedness, in favor of "properly right-handed people". As I understand it, Autism is biologically adaptive for solitary hunter-gatherers, while the Neurotypical are adapted for dwelling in groups as farmers and herders. (Citation time, bitches). As such, it's more beneficial to society to focus on providing "left-handed scissors", so to speak, for the Autistic; Develop tools that allow them to interact with others in a way that doesn't put them at a disadvantage against the neurotypical.

[G-Flex]

I can socialize fine with autistic people.

Neurotypical people can socialize fine with neurotypical people.

These two groups have trouble socializing with each other.

Why are we pathologizing autism, again?

You do realize that (severe) autism is much, much worse than just difficulty socializing, right? Very many autistics have problems even with performing simple tasks, and while I get what you mean, I feel like you're trivializing the severe cases by saying that autism on the whole shouldn't be considered pathological.

[Vector]

So, do you want your entire neurotype exemplified by the most pathological examples?  I mean, you do realize that the ability to manipulate others emotionally is really nasty when maximized, and many members of your neurotype are massively, incomprehensibly illogical.  Can't perform simple mental tasks.

You should read this.

And this.

You talk to me like you have more of a right to discuss this than I do.  And you're defining the whole by fringe cases, which are being used right now as justification to pursue genocide for the whole.  I have problems with your idea of pathologizing an entire people based on a few members who may have problems, and I have problems with your deciding what is simple, what is functional, and what the measure is of a worthy human being.

[Bauglir]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but autistic behavior is a fairly diverse group of behaviors, some of which are harmless (idiosyncratic mannerisms, for the most part), some of which are "objectively" problematic (difficulty socializing with neurotypical people is strictly worse than having an easy time of it), and some of which are "objectively" beneficial (greater facility socializing with other autistic people, for instance, which I will, for the sake of argument, generalize from Vector's statement).

It seems to me that trying to classify the entire category as good or bad is kind of simplistic, and it's really important to approach each individual to ascertain to what extent the different behaviors are manifest in that person, because hey, maybe for one person they aren't having any trouble at all and maybe somebody else feels that their life is being ruined by it. It's important to base that assessment, too, on what the person in question finds desirable. It's a bit obnoxious to decide that it's vitally important to improve a person's ability to communicate with neurotypical people if this person is okay with the situation.

I dunno. Saying autism is bad seems to me kind of like saying bacteria are bad. I mean, you're only thinking of the unpleasant parts of the category, but you're ignoring the large swathes that don't have a meaningful impact on your life and the ones that are propping up chunks of your life. And even that's not a fair division, because context can move one particular thing out of the good category into the bad, or vice versa.

EDIT: The above analogy is now even more apt. Well how bout that. I guess it's not perfect, though, what with bacteria being objects that can be segregated from one another without necessarily destroying the whole, but let's assume for the sake of argument that we live in a world with wide-spectrum antibiotics (genocide in this case) and nothing else.

[Vector]

Oh, and by the way, for the last time: Stop conflating mental retardation and autism.

[EveryZig]

(I have aspergers myself, but that probably does not make me that much more qualified because of being just one data point.)

I think the disadvantes can outweigh the advantages in some cases, but autism is an inherent part of the way you think rather than a sort of injury. With the example of your grandfather, I think most cases of autism would be more comparable to his stubbornness than his hearing problems. Like the stubbornness, autism can cause trouble, but at the same time it is part of who you are as a person.

On the other hand, from what I hear the more extreme cases of autism can be fairly crippling, with effects such as not being able to learn to speak. I suppose you could try and settle things by pathologizing the cases that do cause severe handicaps.

Oh, and by the way, for the last time: Stop conflating mental retardation and autism.

Is your argument that the problems from 'severe cases of autism' are not caused by the autism but are instead caused by a different mental condition that those people also have? (I don't know enough neuroscience to know if that is true or not.)

[Rose]

My solution: Restrict all inter-personal communication to text-only mediums, that way we don't have to worry about things like facial expressions.

working well for me so far.

^{_{foreveralone.jpg}}