ok, i'm just going to say it: aspergian is superior to NT-ism.
I never said we were superior...
Lawl.
i only meant that we are better, in a qualitative sense. better is not a superlative, denoting superiority. In marketing and advertising; better is, in itself, an improvement, of sorts
But when you use the phrase in comparison to another group/object/idea/etc. (as in "better than"), it most certainly does denote superiority. You did not mean it in the sense that Aspies were once "bad" but then improved, as the quoted text seems to imply. You did not compare them to themselves, which invalidates that statement. You compared them to another group, therefore necessarily implying superiority.
Also, if you're so obsessed with Aspie superiority, why don't you talk about it on your MySpace page? I didn't even see any reference at all to Asperger's, but the "falling snow" theme makes the page extremely difficult to read. It would be much more effective to tell "them" (the NTs) how you truly feel about them than it would be to talk to Aspies about it.
Yes, you can call a genius an NT in my opinion (do they tend to emulate the people around them? do they express their emotions with fluency? are they spontaneous about their desires/interests/mood? do they have a fully intact theory of mind? If yes to all and more, then you have an NT, regardless of cognitive gifts.)
I don't see why everyone insists on neurodiversity for anyone who's IQ is 130 or above.
Gareth I am sure you will cut me down if I say things that stray from established fact, I am hoping you will excuse the naivety in this case because I'm not 1/100th as well-read as you are.
These are just my opinions, please don't give me the Aspie self-righteous talk about how wrong I am.
Yes, you can call a genius an NT in my opinion
Correction--this supposing they are not another neurotype such as ADHD, OCD, Bipolar, etc.
A genius-level IQ by its very nature would mean that a person was not neurotypical - an exceptionally high intelligence quotient is, quite simply, not typical, and therefore the person cannot be considered "neurotypical" in the truest sense of the word.
A genius-level IQ by its very nature would mean that a person was not neurotypical - an exceptionally high intelligence quotient is, quite simply, not typical, and therefore the person cannot be considered "neurotypical" in the truest sense of the word.
I was certain someone would raise this point. I still don't think someone in the IQ range of 120-140 would "not be NT," anyhow. 130 points, 120 points, what's the difference. Moot point I guess.
Yes, genius-level is indeed not typical--but I mostly use the NT definition in reference to behavioural characteristics, and if they fit the "social neurotype," to me that is NT despite strong cognitive gifts.
That's my take on it, oh well. I guess my definition is restrictive because it only looks at the "social aspects"--oh well, that's just the way I use the definition, and I realize it is not the most accurate.
I think there can be High-IQ NTs, and that's just my opinion.
all of my family save few and all of my friends save 3 are NTs.the are postives and not so postives to every theing and three sides to every story.
I think there can be High-IQ NTs, and that's just my opinion.
Agreed. I think that neurotypes have to be about thought processes, not about skill levels.
If you found a way that genius level people had a different "type" or "method" of thought, that would indicate a new neurotype. If they use the same process as NT's, and just happen to have skill in a particular area, that would indicate that they were NT, regardless of their IQ.
Thanks, I was thinking I was alone on this one... 
To clarify a few points:
I have seen just as many aspie sheep as i've seen NT sheep, the difference is that the aspie sheep like to obsess over how to grow wool, while the NTs do so without thinking. In this sense you could argue the aspies are the superior sheep (they think about their sheepness), but they're sheep nonetheless. However, those who aren't sheep are most certainly not NT, though they may not be on the spectrum either.
What is your definition for "sheep"? Someone without significant cognitive gifts?
Sorry, I'm quite lost tonight.
in this context, "sheep" would indicate someone who follows the flock mindlessly. Chavs are a good example of sheep.
Sheep, in terms of Aspies, would mean the Aspie-elitism/superiority thing? That's what I'm thinking, esp. as it pertains to this thread.
I think it's important to not that using social osmosis doesn't necessarily equate to a "sheep" mentality - for instance, social osmosis from a source considered to be a negative one will actually have the opposite effect - creating an anticulture to society.
Also, a herd instinct is only one instinct - a powerful one, but still only one. NT's can also be effected by experience and logic.
The operative word is "can"
OH WOW I get to use my word today Yay
Lots AutArrogance I see today :3
I'm sorry, but aspies are no better than NTs. Being a rotten, shallow person is an equal opportunity employer. There are nasty people on both sides of the field, and good ones too. You have to take each individual on an individual basis.
I might get along with aspies and be able to relate with aspies better than I can with NTs, but I don't credit any of that to superiority or virtue.