11-13-2007, 01:55 PM
11-14-2007, 07:45 AM
Let's not get too enamored with this "superiority" or "master race" idea, for example there are plenty of AS/autistic people who do not have an advantageous intellect.
11-14-2007, 07:07 PM
Lizmom23 Wrote:
I think of this as the "myth of progress." It seems to permeate everything, not just evolutionary discussions. Some one wrote a book with this title last year, but I've been using those words to describe it for many years.
[/quote]
There is a "better" in terms of evolutionary fittness. A "better" trait is selected for and maintained. But "better" in this context does not carry with it a moral connotation of superiority or even preferableness - although both may get assumed at some point. Most humans today would argue that standing upright is "better" because that it is cultural norm and the circumstance that fits our environment and have even assigned a certain amount of intellectual and moral supperiority to standing upright compared to our crouched cousins and ancestors. Despite the fact that we built our environment to suit that characteristic and not because we objectively choose that standing upright was "better".
[/quote]
So... in the eyes of our society, being NT is actually better. No surprise there!
I also worry about calling AS an evolutionary step. I am better in some areas and worse in others. Some of the ways I'm better are helpful only to me and therefore no one else would really consider it an asset... I say different not better, not an evolutionary advancement.
I also think it lessens the AS cause if we run around saying, "I'm better than you, now respect me and stop putting social skills in job ads."
PS- does any one else hate it when people make a thread or two as their first posts and then completely disappear?
11-14-2007, 07:10 PM
^ wow... sorry, I really mucked up those quote tags!
11-14-2007, 10:12 PM
very right Liz mom, I apologize if I conveyed that. The original poster had the superiority complex, not you. 
Sorry.
Sorry.11-15-2007, 08:20 AM
sarahjoke Wrote:
PS- does any one else hate it when people make a thread or two as their first posts and then completely disappear?
Yes.
11-20-2007, 01:36 AM
Narcissm is quite unrelated to AS... though some Aspies are quite narcisstic and self inflated, as is quite often represented here on AFF... 
However, the best narcisstic aspies are capable of understanding that a theory is only a theory and cannot be anything else without proof.
I disagree with the narcissistic nature of your theory, and therefore do not agree. While your theory could have strains of truth in it (I myself believe that autism is part of the human spectrum and has always exsisted) and could be valid, but it is just another theory. It cannot be proven.
And on that note I don't think that Simen has really said anything offensive... in fact, I've agreed with what he said and find Autistic Shoes demeanor much more disagreeable.
However, the best narcisstic aspies are capable of understanding that a theory is only a theory and cannot be anything else without proof.I disagree with the narcissistic nature of your theory, and therefore do not agree. While your theory could have strains of truth in it (I myself believe that autism is part of the human spectrum and has always exsisted) and could be valid, but it is just another theory. It cannot be proven.
And on that note I don't think that Simen has really said anything offensive... in fact, I've agreed with what he said and find Autistic Shoes demeanor much more disagreeable.
11-20-2007, 08:42 AM
Simen Wrote:
I know, I know. On this forum. I'm not perceived as rude elsewhere. How come?
I wasn't rude, though, just honest.
I wasn't rude, though, just honest.
Simen, just so you know, there is such a thing as a Narcissistic Aspie.
I have some traits of narcissism (well, definitely not the full blown NPD) so I know this is true.
11-30-2007, 07:40 AM
Autistic_Shoes Wrote:
You are right not all are. It comes down to learnt behaviour. From my model of evolution there should be a desire for friendship as I am proposing that our best friend and friendship predates the existence of the single family from where the Asperger personality evolved. If we take the tribal or neurotypical personality as the norm the Asperger pesonality can be indistinguishible introvert or extrovert dependant on learnt behaviour. Obviously indistinguishible doesn't attract any attention it is the introvert and extrovert that does. Both latter cases come from under learning and over learning tribal characteristics. The theory I propose in "Autistic Shoes : Evolution of Behaviour" unifies aspergers and evolution. The answer is so simple yet as radical as proposing the world was not flat 700 years ago. These things arn't immediatly accepted. A species formed from two natural personalities. It is radical stuff I know.
While I love creating theories myself, and tossing ideas around, yes these are fairly radical ideas. And you seem to be positing them as fact, maybe that's why some folks here aren't receiving your work so warmly.
12-02-2007, 06:42 AM
EvilZakkie Wrote:
symbiotic_butterfly Wrote:
While I love the "disorder-or-evolution" debate (having always personally believed that autism is not necessarily a disease), all this focus on "do autistics breed enough for it to be evolutionary?" talk is overlooking the likelihood of emotional inducement. In the reading I've done, I haven't gotten the impression of strong evidence of heredity--why do so many supposedly "normal" parents have autistic children (even allowing for the likelihood of un-diagnosis in earlier generations coupled with this generation's tendency to over-diagnose, doctors generally are still at a loss to pinpoint any definite cause)?
While I like your idea, I can't bring myself to believe it, as Autism has other traits than just thought patterns - for instance, sensory issues and motor skill issues are common, and neither of these has much to do with "logical intergrity".
Also, as Autism is apparent from a very young age, this also leads me to believe that it is not due to logical vs emotional thought patterns.
As far as "normal" parents having autistic children, I tend to think that once the genetics of Autism are determined, it will be seen to have a much wider set of behaviours than is currently considered to be on the spectrum. Many researchers have also introduced the idea of "autistic inhibitory genes" that could allow someone to be a carrier with being Autistic themselves. Personally I tend to think these don't exist, but I thought I'd throw it out there...
The main reason that I believe in genetic Autism is that both myself and my partner can trace the "Autism gene" back through 3 generations of family (my grandfather, my mother, and myself), which would imply that it's a direct inheritance gene. I'd be curious to find out if others can do the same...
even if austim is not defined as such a diffrance is appearate from a young age.
12-02-2007, 07:54 AM
EvilZakkie Wrote:
My point was that survival has little to do with superiority or equality, and that it's ridiculous to use evolution as "a relevant barometer to your beliefs".
For example, the Incas were a highly advanced society for their time, and they were entirely wiped out by the Spanish. Likewise, if Autistics were wiped out via pre-natal testing plus abortion, we would still have been the equal of anyone else.
In other words, evolution isn't a good tool to use to argue Autistic rights.
I believe in equality, but it's much better to argue it as a human rights issue than a "genetic equality" debate.
For example, the Incas were a highly advanced society for their time, and they were entirely wiped out by the Spanish. Likewise, if Autistics were wiped out via pre-natal testing plus abortion, we would still have been the equal of anyone else.
In other words, evolution isn't a good tool to use to argue Autistic rights.
I believe in equality, but it's much better to argue it as a human rights issue than a "genetic equality" debate.
Amen.
12-02-2007, 08:08 AM
EvilZakkie Wrote:
As far as "normal" parents having autistic children, I tend to think that once the genetics of Autism are determined, it will be seen to have a much wider set of behaviours than is currently considered to be on the spectrum. Many researchers have also introduced the idea of "autistic inhibitory genes" that could allow someone to be a carrier without being Autistic themselves. Personally I tend to think these don't exist, but I thought I'd throw it out there...
What reason would you think this manifestation couldn't occur?
I've heard plenty of people on AFF--often parents of autistic kids--call themselves "NT with AS traits." In other words, someone who primarily exhibits NT behavior, but has a couple of tendencies in the AS direction. These same people would say they are far from the diagnosable range.
I know this is only an anecdotal observation, but I tend to think a person can be a carrier for autism genes, without being affected or only *slightly* affected. Do you agree/disagree?
12-03-2007, 07:37 AM
EvilZakkie Wrote:
I personally disagree, only because I think that the autistic geneset covers a much wider set of behaviours than is currently promoted. For example, I tend to think that "NT with AS traits" people probably have the autistic gene or genes, and it just effects them in a different way than to others.
I think the level of "affectedness" probably has more to do with how quickly and how well the person develops coping mechanisms - not that I'm saying that functioning level is the persons fault, but that it has many factors that are more complicated than just genetic makeup.
I think the level of "affectedness" probably has more to do with how quickly and how well the person develops coping mechanisms - not that I'm saying that functioning level is the persons fault, but that it has many factors that are more complicated than just genetic makeup.
How quickly a person develops coping mechanisms... could it be assumed you are implying a higher IQ score would mean the person learns coping mechanisms earlier in life?
Doesn't really make sense to see how so many Aspies are "very obviously affected" but also have an IQ in the 130+ range.
12-04-2007, 07:32 AM
I'm still not sure that someone who is an NT with AS traits (as said before, just a "couple" tendencies) could have the same specific genes as someone affected by Kanner's autism. And that the difference between the two people would be coping mechanisms learned early in life. I'm not so sure about it.
I think another user here postulated that there is a mutant sensory gene (S), and a normal sensory gene (N.) Thus Asperger's represents the in-between state of autism (SN), Kanner's/LFA has two copies of the mutant gene (SS.) While of course not proven, I'm leaning more toward genetics on this issue.
I think another user here postulated that there is a mutant sensory gene (S), and a normal sensory gene (N.) Thus Asperger's represents the in-between state of autism (SN), Kanner's/LFA has two copies of the mutant gene (SS.) While of course not proven, I'm leaning more toward genetics on this issue.
12-05-2007, 06:37 AM
EvilZakkie Wrote:
Not so sure about this one, just because if there's only one parent on the spectrum, their child can still be Kanner/low functioning - which wouldn't be possible if one of the parents was (NN).
Yeah, fair point...