Aspies For Freedom

Funny, I took seeing to mean just that. I'll answer the way I saw the question.

In http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=5325 I wrote: In a herd of animals (wildebest for instance) there is a core and a periferie. The herd couldn't do without the periferie, the circle around can't do without the central flock either. But someone from within on the outside would probably get crazy in no-time. The view might contain lions, far visions and the occasional zebra. In the core running around you see wildebeest in front and all around you. I tend to get overrun in the middle of the herd. And bored to death to.

Alectrum remodelled it in to apply to birds. And I like it because it makes the model 3D.

It seems that about 70% of the people are considered 'normal'. 30% are not. That can be all kinds of abnormality. A leg less, being blind, being the greatest sportsman ever, etc. All kinds of people that are not fitting in the kernel of the herd. It means in a way they all are loners, in some 'important' aspect of humanity.

These 30% make the loose ring around the flock. Were the vision is totally different from the kernel of the flock. Its wider. But some birds look to the southeast upward others to the northwest downwards.

Of course this model is not accurate. Because we are far more complicated So with regard to noise we can be nort-east, sight; east, etc. And in politic choice we can be totally within the kernel. Where-ever we are there are others having something similar in view.

And I do not connect with all outsiders. But with some I do. Because I've got similar places of being in the flock.

Coming back to your question QuickDuck. I do seem to have places in common with some ADHD people. But also with others. Some things are neurological, others not. But something is similar in our view on the world and the way we are seen.

But its not 'Flocking together', its far more fluent, its always somewhere in the ring around the kernel.

With some in this ring there is something similar. With others less. That's the personal part. Statistically there are lots of same traits in some conditions. So maybe there can be a list of 'official cousins'. But there will allways be illigitimate cousins too. Because every person is different. And someone with unexpected components might have a lot in common with viewing life.

Please try to elaborate Ando. I'd like that.

That's where the herd comes in again. Some wildebeasts are far from the herd. Some in the kernel. Some on the outside of the kernel, some on the inside of the outer ring.

And then its on different levels too.

I can be on the inside when its about how I vote. But on the outside in how I came to that decision. But if you are in many ways on the outer ring you are there. Not in the middle of the herd. And your function is different, your life is different. I think it is a continuum in a sort of way. But there also is a yes area and a no area. There are salt water plants. There are sweet water plants. If you walk from the sea to the land you'll see them both but not in the same place. And there is just a small area for plants that like salt and sweet and thrive on that. It's a slow change, but a defined one.

With plants we can only look at the salt. With humans there are so many things to consider that it is far more difficult to define areas I think.

I see the spectrum as more of a graph, where the traits are on the x line and the more or less you have in combination, the more aspie-like you experience the world.  But the y line is above or below the x line and the further below you go the less you understand about your aspieness or the less you have learned or attempted to communicate/interact with others.  The higher on the y line above the x, the more you are assimilating into society...

I like this view so far because it explains why some people who have AS seem to function better, even though their experience of the world ie sensory sensitivity and social blindness, is still there... They've just learned to cope or compensate.

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.

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.

Where did you obtain this information? What was the study? So far as I understand it, there has not been one AS gene discovered... let alone a determination as to where it came from.

When I think of people, I think of a Bell curve--the kind you see in probability distributions. Only it's a 3-D Bell curve--it looks kind of like a hill. If you really want to think of it properly, there should be a fourth dimension, allowing one to place a dot in one place, while still putting it at several different places on the 3-D projection of the 4-D curve. But let's stay with 3-D for now.

The autism spectrum is a plane that transects the 3-D Bell curve, creating a 2-D Bell curve of the sort you see in all sorts of books.

On the left end are people with autism, and as it gets further and further to the left, the autistic traits become more pronounced.

On the right end are ultra-social people: Presidents, movie stars, the guy "everyone knows", the con artist who can talk anyone into anything.

In the middle are the NTs: People who use social skills competently, but aren't smashingly good at them, either.

There are other spectrums intersecting the autism Bell curve, at all sorts of angles--the ADHD spectrum, the sexuality spectrum... spectrums for personality traits and behaviors.... Those spectrums form the range of human behavior and mind. And, for each person (which is why you need the 4th dimension), you can place a dot on the curve to signify his traits.

The thing about Bell curves is that the "middle range" is always arbitrarily determined; and so "NT" is arbitrarily determined. Most people agree that the nonverbal person who spends most of the time stimming isn't NT; but what about me, with my verbal skills? What about the quirky engineer who prefers to socialize with other engineers? What about the shy kid who has a small circle of friends? Where does the "autism" part of the spectrum start, and the NT part end?

Fact is, nobody can say where it does. Autism blends smoothly into NT; and where you put the line depends on how you define autism--which is also completely arbitrary.

People are just people. Some people have more autistic traits than others; some have more social skills than others. That's all.

The way I see it, the genes (and indeed there seem to be multiple genes) that make people autistic are spread so much throughout humans (the genes identified in connection to autism are prevalent amongst NTs) that there is a range of manifestations of these genes in their expression. Many appear to be very NT, some seem to be part-autistic part-NT, and some appear to be very autistic. Since autism isn't caused by a single gene or something so cut and dry, so either-it-is-or-it-isn't, then the distinctions will be fuzzier. It is not like the chromosomes of X and Y where someone is born either a girl or a boy (and even that isn't always clear, as there are people born whose sex is unclear, and transgendered people).

Even the most NT people I have ever known have acted in a way I could identify as autistic sometimes. and There are many NT behaviors that are like counterparts to autistic behaviors: we stim mostly by rocking, hand flapping, and the like; NTs tap pencils, twiddle thumbs, and such things. These activities serve similar (if not identical) purposes for NTs as for autistics. however, since the majority of the population is more NT than autistic, then the NT methods of stimming are more common, whereas autistic stimming stands out and looks weird. So, autistics stimming becomes categorized as pathological and NT behaviors that are nearly identical in form and function, save for the fact that it's usually less obvious in NTs (tapping a pen is usually less noticeable than a full-body rocking), are overlooked and considered normal.

After all, with autism being uncommon but also very genetic, it seems to follow as necessary, even without the experience of seeing autistic traits in NTs with no autistics in the near family, that there must be slightly autistic NTs around, with perhaps fewer of the genes expressed. Ever since I got diagnosed, we pretty much immediately assumed it was from my dad's side, since he seems very likely on the spectrum, and he has speculated that his father and grandfather likely were. Nevertheless, on my mom's side, while mostly very NT, among her siblings there is a talent for computers and some social awkwardness, suggesting maybe that there were some autistic genes on her side (and that would make sense, since I'm a girl and so have an extra X chromosome, that traits on both side would probably be needed for me to show as autistic as I am).

Anyway, that's my take.

I'm Aspergian, but I am a bit more "feeling" than thinking!

Possible?

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 if they are really varying degrees of the same thing or if they are different things that happen to look alike, I cannot say. That is not a question for me personally to answer, it is a scientific question and I'm not a scientist.

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

I still like the ocean analogy.  My kids are near enough to the shore to feel the ground under their feet, but the ground keeps shifting and big waves knock them down.

I like to see the person, it is hard sometimes.

How do I see the spectrum?


Sophist and Ellen have put into print an excellent contribution. I wish I could articulate my view so well. Best for me just to concur with their thoughts on the subject….

Hah! I just have to say something.  And it is a personal view. Though there’s not enough room here to put into print all of this view.  How can anyone possibly state the entire context of this ‘spectrum’ we debate? Elements out of context without the ‘whole’ considered skew my view, which can sort of ‘short-circuit’ my brain when considering the facts.

In the context of genetics, womb, birth, brain injury, Group dynamic, demography, diet, blah, blah, blah, and more… lest I not forget: Spirituality and the Universe, where does the spectrum begin and end? Where are you, where am I on the spectrum if at all?

Jeeze… I didn’t answer the question yet. I can sum it up with one word, as: Vast…

As to attempts to identify whom might be on or off the spectrum, imagine this: A large square room divided equally in the middle by an opaque rubbery membrane, which is very thin, stretched ceiling to floor, wall to wall (make it any color you want). You are standing six feet back from this rubbery wall, facing it. On the other side of the wall are three individuals who are facing you, nearly touching the wall, victims that you cannot see; but you are to diagnose them spectrum or not.

What is the DX for candidate #1, #2, and #3? Don’t know, do you? Let’s have each victim step forward an inch.

Hmm…  three little protrusions appear at ‘nose’ level. One is square-ish, one is very round, one is, well, pointy… we know a little more now…  Care to DX yet? Nah… let’s have them move another inch into the wall between us…  Hmmm… Appearing now are big lips, little lips, hairy lips… under the aforementioned noses respectively…. Time to DX? Hardly… (Sorry, I’m bored, Ill stop now...)

Though lastly, consider 6-billion (or are we 7-billon now?) occupants in the room on the other side sharing their noses and lips of a different spectrum, humanity...

What I just stated above is my analogy of my first two-visits to a counselor/shrink many years ago.

Let’s see, what was my point? Oh… I’m one of the victims! (hairy lips). Slowly becoming visible though a clouded rubbery membrane.  Nowadays, my visits to a Counselor/Shrink have changed a bit.  I tend to want to diagnose them. Please don’t take this as any disrespect for an industry that has kept my family well, repairing teeth, mending broken bones, and administering antibiotics to cure infection. But matters of the ‘Mind’ are different. And that is mine to resolve.  No pills please for that…

There is no ‘wall’ between me and a mirror now (I forgot to mention that there is a mirror behind you in the square room. The victims have one on their side too).

Healing began when I stopped listening to perspectives that just could not see me. I couldn’t see myself. And when I turned to look at the mirror, look into myself…  A haze began to clear. I began trusting my intuition, myself, with amazing results… With the correct input, my brain is healing itself. Input came from AFF, WP, my own research. Though I found my own answer, I still need to deal with the  ‘short-circuits’/overload, social pooh, remembering to get some sleep, and, well, the mirror…

This thread was fun… And I only speak for myself…  Thanks

Time for some time out…   Beammeup