Print

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

[Vector]

My argument is that autism has its own range of "intelligence" and there's something called "can't perform simple tasks" in the neurotypical world, too.

[Heron TSG]

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.)

It sounds to me like she said that the extreme cases should not be the stereotype for literally every autistic person ever.

Don't mind me, I'm not putting words in anyones' mouth.

[Vector]

No, that's another thing I'm saying, too.  Thanks, Barbar.

[G-Flex]

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.

You're getting a lot more offended over this than you need to. I'm not saying that everyone with autism (or autism spectrum disorders) is pathological, just that there clearly are pathological cases, so considering the entire thing non-pathological seems silly to me.

Also: When did I say anything about the measure of a "worthy human being"? What does that even mean?

[Vector]

Okay, then you've got to admit that calling neurotypicals "not pathological" is also foolish, because there's extreme cases of your dominant traits going awry, as well.

Saying that some autistic people can't perform simple tasks centers the point of view that there are some tasks that should be universally simply to all human beings; those who do not find those tasks simple are decentered in the discourse and labeled pathological, different from the core of humanity, somehow unworthy.

[Truean]

Meh, real simple. Whether or not autism is a disorder, that doesn't mean you dehumanize the people with whatever it is. Don't treat the person as a disease; treat the symptoms that negatively affect their lives. Medicine, of any kind, should be focused on that. To  the extent that it doesn't, it isn't medicine and it isn't help. In any case, most people in general, do some amazingly foolish things....

I fail to see what "treating autism as a disease," in and of itself accomplishes. It's such a wide range of things, which a person may or may not exhibit at varying levels, that we might actually be describing several different things that we've just decided to clump into one label. People with "Autism" sometimes have trouble socializing. If this is an issue, then treat that. I've seen autistic children self stim with inappropriate behaviors, treat that. I've also seen repetitive, maladaptive behaviors, again treat that.... Unfortunately, instead of treating to make the person's life better, we often just stigmatize them; in common language, most people think "autistic" is the new word for "mentally slow." It isn't.

The thing is how it affects the person's life, high or low functioning. I find it a lot like the trans or gay thing really. There are some transsexuals, who truly need therapy, because how the hell do you deal with that.... I know I needed it (still do?). Having/being the thing itself sometimes causes problems for the person in their everyday life and those problems are partially due to the environment and people around said person. Sadly, we have a major stigma against ... really any kind of difference someone might have. Heaven forbid it's a mental issue.... That stigma, is quite worthless most of the time. Oftentimes, the "help" just hurts....

Fact of the matter is, most "normal people" are pretty nuts and this almost certainly includes me along with everyone else. I could write one hell of a book with the insanely foolish mistakes "normal people" have made and expect me to fix for nothing and quickly....

Summation: "People are people too," "treat to make life better," "stigma bad," "we don't really even know if "autism" is one thing or many different things that we're too lazy to properly identify as more than "high" or "low" functioning, "'normal people' aren't that great."

[Gunner-Chan]

Vector. Why are you treating Autistics and non autistics both potentially having pathological traits as binary? When this this become a personal attack on you like you're treating it as and not simply a discussion that some Autistics have pathological traits? Much like otherwise neurotypical people?

[G-Flex]

Okay, then you've got to admit that calling neurotypicals "not pathological" is also foolish, because there's extreme cases of your dominant traits going awry, as well.

Sure, and those things either should be in the DSM, or already are.

[Bauglir]

I'm gonna repeat myself here. I'm not seeing anything but reasons why "Autism is bad" is a statement with equivalent accuracy to "Bacteria are bad", no disrespect intended (it occurs to me now that it might come off as kinda rude to compare people to bacteria, but I don't intend to convey a sense of worth in the analogy, just a sense of the broadness of the statements in question).

I'd have to agree that "Neurotypicality is good" is a statement of equivalent validity to "Plants are good", to continue this analogy of arbitrarily assigning health values to concepts too broad to accept them. I guess I should make clear, just in case it wasn't already, that it's limited to health value to some arbitrary animal, since I don't want to start any arguments over the relative merits of complexity or relative biomass or organism counts or whatever other metrics of "goodness" might be brought up to cloud matters.

Okay, then you've got to admit that calling neurotypicals "not pathological" is also foolish, because there's extreme cases of your dominant traits going awry, as well.

Sure, and those things either should be in the DSM, or already are.

Are they listed under "Neurotypicality Disorders", or a similar category? The actual name doesn't matter so much to me as the association with extreme forms of "normal" behavior.

[Vector]

Vector. Why are you treating Autistics and non autistics both potentially having pathological traits as binary? When this this become a personal attack on you like you're treating it as and not simply a discussion that some Autistics have pathological traits? Much like otherwise neurotypical people?

Sorry.  It's partially that I'm too wound up over trying to deal with this class, which I can hardly tell anyone IRL about, and it's partially that I'm tired of butting heads with G-Flex over this one issue of "why I'm not calling the entire spectrum pathological because some members have particular problems/why I have problems with autistic organizations attempting to 'cure' autism when there are a number of cases that are really bad."

I'm kind of freaking out right now because I'm trying so hard to do something that isn't working so well and is very scary, which means that I probably shouldn't be on the web.  But I'm here... at least for a little bit, as I snack around.

[Gunner-Chan]

But that doesn't change the fact that if you know you shouldn't be getting involved with these sorts of discussions at the moment you probably well. Shouldn't. Do something that's not going to keep you wound up instead since between putting words in G-Flexes mouth and lashing out like some kind of wounded animal, you're making yourself look like a damn fool.

[Vector]

Well, now I know, don't I?


In an attempt to move the conversation somewhere a bit less volatile on the same subject, I'd like to offer the DSM V's proposed diagnosis criteria.  What do y'all think?  I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about it.

[Truean]

[hugs]

I don't really know what words to say to make Vector feel better, but let's pretend I said them. Odds are, this professor will continue to think as they do. The only question is, are they also going to manage to piss you off too. I used to really care if people were wrong. Then I realized their ignorance is bliss and they just want to be happy. By disturbing that ignorance, they think I"m making them unhappy and attempt to do the same to me. My usual response now, is "Good luck with that," followed by ignoring them.

People often don't seem to want to be accepting of others, especially GLBT. They don't want to know things.

Don't let them burn you out and waste your life.

In re DSM V Stuff:

In that case I was totally autistic as a kid. Honestly if that's the criteria alone.... So, if you have trouble socializing, some repetitive behaviors, and "odd" interest, that's it?

[G-Flex]

But that doesn't change the fact that if you know you shouldn't be getting involved with these sorts of discussions at the moment you probably well. Shouldn't. Do something that's not going to keep you wound up instead since between putting words in G-Flexes mouth and lashing out like some kind of wounded animal, you're making yourself look like a damn fool.

Don't worry. I'm used to not being the one to get any sympathy.

[Frumple]

In an attempt to move the conversation somewhere a bit less volatile on the same subject, I'd like to offer the DSM V's proposed diagnosis criteria.  What do y'all think?  I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about it.

S'kinda' weird lookin', to me, especially how C factors in. What about when the "symptoms" are picked up later in life but don't really fit that 'manifest' thing?

I had learned pretty much all of A by the time I hit double-digit years, due to a sort of passively hostile environment (It was either pick up the behavior patterns or pick up broken bones... or possibly murder charges. Except the eye contact thing. That's always been around, gives me a headache via information overload.), and I trained myself up to B4 (Hypersensitivity in particular, though I guess a fairly low key example.) during the early teens (Middling meditation mixed with mild paranoia, heh. Some days I have trouble seeing how other people can be so unobservant of their surroundings.).

Mostly though, I'm curious as to what the impact would be. Howzat different, other than a bit more pleasingly formatted and (possibly, if I'm reading the orig right) a little looser in what'd qualify?