Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: How do you see the spectrum?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

quickduck

What's your personal view of the autistic spectrum? Where does it start? Where does it finish?

I have enough aspie traits to satisfy myself that I'm not NT; but how pronounced do my aspie traits have to be before I can call myself an aspie?

Where do ADHD and other related disorders fit on the spectrum?

I've heard the term aspie-cousin quite a lot recently; how would you define a cousin on the spectrum?

Or does AS defy precise definitions?

What do you think?
My views of the "spectrum" theory are a little...unorthodox.

quickduck

Ando Wrote:
My views of the "spectrum" theory are a little...unorthodox.


Care to be a little more specific?

Well, it's kind of unorthodox when one questions the existence of the spectrum.

quickduck

Ando Wrote:
Well, it's kind of unorthodox when one questions the existence of the spectrum.

Unorthodox is good...I like unorthodox Smile

quickduck

I suppose it can’t really be either aspie or NT.

Like…

I’m an NT…
I’ve reach critical mass (BANG!)
I’m as aspie.

Its more like a continuum

I’m an NT.
I’m an atypical NT.
Ahh…I’m a very unusual NT.
Ooo…I’m an NT with subtle aspie traits.
Now I’m an aspie.

But I think there is a tendency to define ourselves as either/or; which can prove difficult for those with more subtle forms of AS.
I see the autism spectrum as multi-dimensional, still you are either autistic or not. What varies in the spectrum is how the "autism" shows off.

That's my personal view.
I don't see a spectrum.

I do see a huge number of traits where people can differ in any one or more of the traits from each other, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
There are extremely social autistic people.

Ellen Wrote:

Sophist Wrote:
I don't particularly like thinking of autism as disordered versus non-disordered. I don't like thinking in terms of pathology because in evolutionary terms, either you pass your genes on or you don't, and in the meantime, either your phenotype helps you to pass those on or it doesn't. There's no "disorder" in nature. That's a human label.

I see autism (Autistic Disorder, Aspergers, PDD-NOS) as genetically related within families since they often occur within the same families. Between families, there's probably some variation although still maybe some larger genetic markers in common. I think autism, "disorder" aside, makes up a solid portion of the population, leading up into a Broader Autistic Phenotype which I still consider autism although which may not win a diagnosis by a professional. Still, it's the same underlying issues. To me, I find little sense in trying to separate out the different labels used today from one another; I don't bother to take part in discussions these days as to whether Aspergers should be considered "autism" and "What are the differences between HFA and AS", etc. To me, these variations are no longer very relevant and not particularly integral in my view to understanding the whole of autism.

Instead, I prefer to look at the similarities and differences from person to person, rather than label to label. I think things are clearer that way. I like thinking of "autism" from brain to brain, body to body. Generalizing things too much I think runs the danger of ignoring the fact that evolution (unwittingly) designs each creature anew, albeit based on the genes it was given. But each creature is still a new attempt to beat the next one to reproduce, whether they're of the same species or not. And either they're successful or they're not.



I look at behavior and mental processes and genes the same way!

Like the article Max referenced (shadow syndromes), the number of "disordered" or "pathological" diagnoses in the DVM has jumped to over 400 now (from 80), which makes the terminology nearly passe at this point! What is "disordered" when nearly every behavior IS disordered?

I see autism (Autistic Disorder, Aspergers, PDD-NOS) as genetically related within families since they often occur within the same families. Between families, there's probably some variation although still maybe some larger genetic markers in common. I think autism, "disorder" aside, makes up a solid portion of the population, leading up into a Broader Autistic Phenotype which I still consider autism although which may not win a diagnosis by a professional.

I agree totally with the above, that if you could capture the "autistic" (primarily thinking vs. feeling; solipsistic vs. emphathetic, etc.) tendencies in the greater population, the one not yet diagnosed, you would find that it DOES "make up a solid portion of the population". Maybe someday it will be seen as comprising a near majority even (40 or more percent).

To me, the final, and only truly important distinction is one's spiritual status, which varies from soul to soul, and which will never be quantified by science.  All other distinctions- gender, social status, the intelligence quotient, etc. - are meaningless and should never be subject to categorization like "good, better, best" because they merely reflect the shell, the "costume", the role, the soul has elected to take on to learn certain worldly lessons, to grow spiritually. For example, most Perfect Masters work in obscurity, but if you are ever lucky enough to come into their orbit you will find they appear often like madmen, oblivious to their clothes, hair, appearance. They mostly live in the East 'cause they would be institutionalized (or people would try anyway) in the West. Smile

To get back to genes, since AS was originally a N. European gene, it will probably just manifest itself in a big way where racial/cultural (Jews AND Christians; Buddhist AND Christians, etc.)  inter-marriage is possible/condoned (and also where there are many more personal freedoms) and so will be most concentrated in developed countries probably and slower to manifest in Africa, China, the Middle East.



It may also be faster to manifest in 1st world countries because of medical intervention. Many of us had complications during birth and in days of yore, we might not actually be alive today. Not to mention early childhood infections, like inner ear infections, which could put our survival into adulthood in jeopardy.

Also, there's travel. People with more money tend to travel more, meet more people, marry from out of their communities. And many times like attracts like, so there's an increase, naturally, in the probability a person with autistic genes will be drawn to another with autistic genes, and transport makes it easier to get to those people and met more of them.

I'm sure there's other factors too. But those are two bigs ones I've noticed. I for one, without the aid of medical intervention, wouldn't likely be here.

Simen Wrote:
You cannot deny that there is a spectrum of capabilities in all human skills: socialization, archery, painting, mathematics, concentration, and so on. So obviously, there's going to be a spectrum of capabilities and traits that corresponds to those in the diagnostic criteria of ASDs.


But that's capabilities plural that appear in the diagnostic criteria.  Not capability singular.  Hence, no autism spectrum in my eyes, because that would imply that all of those different capabilities are all going to be at the same "level", which they're obviously (this can be told just by observing a number of autistic people) not.

Batman55 Wrote:

Sophist Wrote:
It may also be faster to manifest in 1st world countries because of medical intervention. Many of us had complications during birth and in days of yore, we might not actually be alive today.


Do I detect the "hard birth/brain damage" theory again?


No, not at all. I for one definitely feel the underlying traits are developmental. But prenancy/obstetric complications do seem to occur more in our ranks and I suspect it's because whatever may make these more probable are genetically linked to our developmental profiles (i.e., linked causes). The brain and body are connected and despite phrenology's ugly past, there may be some medical conditions and/or physical conditions which may occur more often with autism. And with this increased risk of complications, brain damage is more likely to occur, adding another layer to the autism.

If it's true (as some sources claim) that aspies tend to have larger heads than the norm, that could lead to more difficult births and more likelihood of interventions such as forceps deliveries.
All the same, I'm not really convinced that damage at birth CAUSES autism but it would certainly make it more likely that they would have other problems such as lowered intelligence.

Because autism in various forms is so prevalent within particular families, there is an excellent chance that it is mostly genetically determined.
Some people like to think:

"Bigger heads, bigger brains"

But a norwegian expression is:

"Er du tjukk i huet?"

Which means in its direct translation:

"Do you have a thick head?"

But really means:

"Are you stupid?"

But then again, monkeys aren't really that smart even though they have smaller heads than us. (monkeys... and cats! Fetched the double meaning?)
I also think that would be a good analogy for those of us who have the condition too.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's