Aspies For Freedom

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

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

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 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.

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.

There are extremely social autistic people.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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