04-28-2008, 03:16 AM
04-28-2008, 03:21 AM
Alias Pseudonym Wrote:
Neurotypical, as in one not possessing a deviant neurotype. Anyone with a PPD or abnormally high or low intelligence (or a learning disorder?) is not a Neurotypical.
Aha, thanks, I've never even used such an acronym.
04-28-2008, 03:30 AM
So basically, an NT is the normal type of person that you find spotting us out, being different? NTs are the bunch of people I can get along with but they find me weird in a sense, socially? They're people without AS/Autism.
04-28-2008, 04:32 AM
I didn't think schizophrenics or geniuses would be classified as 'neurotypical'. I've thought about where people like that would fit into the classification scheme here.
05-09-2008, 05:41 PM
Well I have Tourette Syndrome-so where do I fit in?
It is also said ,in places,that TS is on the spectrum also,although how true this actually is I dont know.
TS is a neurological disorder,so am I N/T or not? ( I hate all this dividing into groups,NT,Aspies,Auties,Touretters,it only serves to separate us more?
And does it really matter?
I am a human being,same as the rest who grace this planet.
It is also said ,in places,that TS is on the spectrum also,although how true this actually is I dont know.
TS is a neurological disorder,so am I N/T or not? ( I hate all this dividing into groups,NT,Aspies,Auties,Touretters,it only serves to separate us more?
And does it really matter?
I am a human being,same as the rest who grace this planet.
05-09-2008, 06:17 PM
The Stig Wrote:
Well I have Tourette Syndrome-so where do I fit in?
It is also said ,in places,that TS is on the spectrum also,although how true this actually is I dont know.
TS is a neurological disorder,so am I N/T or not? ( I hate all this dividing into groups,NT,Aspies,Auties,Touretters,it only serves to separate us more?
And does it really matter?
I am a human being,same as the rest who grace this planet.
It is also said ,in places,that TS is on the spectrum also,although how true this actually is I dont know.
TS is a neurological disorder,so am I N/T or not? ( I hate all this dividing into groups,NT,Aspies,Auties,Touretters,it only serves to separate us more?
And does it really matter?
I am a human being,same as the rest who grace this planet.
I agree big time - I dislike the whole splitting people up/ categorizing - it can lead to some dehumanization - I have taken to mentioning I am a (supposed NT) as I seem to have had a vaguely "normal" school adn social experience - without any definable diffilculties, though I have never considered myself typical. though on this forum I sometimes feel the need to clarify from what perspective I am coming from - as not everyone may "know" me - or anything about me... hence the use of acronyms on here - more of a conveniece short-hand...
Leave it to outsidelookingin for the great link to wikipedia - great description....
05-09-2008, 07:06 PM
Sorry long - but worth it for the attached post:
I'll admit my recent concern when reading about co-morbidity with something else that may be genetic from my moms family - my moms mom had 15 siblings, so my moms aunt - so that would be my great aunt or my (aspie) sons great great aunt - was supposedly in a facility since rather young- which is where people were put years ago - for schizophrenia - but later on looking back, at the possibility it was something else, (that and she was orphaned- during the depression) wrong diagnosis? that were common back then - the family tat is left thinks she was wrongly classified. (scary thing is when my mom visited her -- when she was old, old, old, she and my mom were so very alike) Anyway,my point is when I saw the thread mentioning a link - it caused a stir in me - cuz of only knowing the old sterotypes of the word.. and thinking yikes being co-morbid (someday) with that and ASD for my son might be well not helpful towards his happiness.
Is schizophrenia a nuerotype or a sub-set of a neurotype, and do I care? I guess so huh...I'll have to do more research - I want to quote someones recent post here on some clinicians theories and diagnostic categories and categories and the problem with categorization etc., I love this post :
I'll admit my recent concern when reading about co-morbidity with something else that may be genetic from my moms family - my moms mom had 15 siblings, so my moms aunt - so that would be my great aunt or my (aspie) sons great great aunt - was supposedly in a facility since rather young- which is where people were put years ago - for schizophrenia - but later on looking back, at the possibility it was something else, (that and she was orphaned- during the depression) wrong diagnosis? that were common back then - the family tat is left thinks she was wrongly classified. (scary thing is when my mom visited her -- when she was old, old, old, she and my mom were so very alike) Anyway,my point is when I saw the thread mentioning a link - it caused a stir in me - cuz of only knowing the old sterotypes of the word.. and thinking yikes being co-morbid (someday) with that and ASD for my son might be well not helpful towards his happiness.
Is schizophrenia a nuerotype or a sub-set of a neurotype, and do I care? I guess so huh...I'll have to do more research - I want to quote someones recent post here on some clinicians theories and diagnostic categories and categories and the problem with categorization etc., I love this post :
alectrum Wrote:
I'm going to post a reply I got from a researcher on usenet (Rick, M.A.) about the DSM, which I think you might all find interesting.
"A major problem with the currently favored diagnostic categories, generally
speaking, is that they are essentially descriptive constructs, specifically
because they are tailored to commonly observed behavioral patterns, a
posteriori. As such, they bear little to no relation to etiology.
While clinicians and insurance companies may benefit from their use, the
research community has tried and tried to use those categories for many
years to define experimental groups in an effort to identify causes, to no
appreciable avail. Their use is rapidly fading in research now, but the
public mind is likely to cling to them for a long, long time yet, much as
they have clung to Freud and Jung's rather useless theoretical framing and
terminology.
The comorbidity problem cuts across all DSM categories, and sometimes even
across the major axes, but that's not necessarily because of genetic or
other relationships between the causes of separate diseases, but almost
certainly because the diagnostic categories simply do not define any
specific diseases.
If we hang onto the label, "schizophrenia" going forward, as etiology
improves, we will eventually end up with hundreds of subcategories to cover
all of the unique combinations of hundreds, possibly thousands of factors
that ultimately underpin the observable syndromes that currently fall under
the whole SZ umbrella. That many of those factors are shared with what are
currently classed under other umbrellas is utterly inevitable, because all
of them affect emotive and cognitive mechanisms, which are all inextricably
wired up together and functionally co-dependent.
We (researchers) are struggling to break out of a dark age of tyranny that
has been ruled by the oppressive DSM since its institution. It's going to
take good long while, but in the meantime, we should all strive to develop a
more sophisticated notion of psychopathology.
> You were talking about the stigma of schizophrenia? Well, the stigma
> is one of the reasons why few folks are too keen to see schizophrenia
> added to the list of autistic spectrum disorders. The reason why I
> said autism was a small skip and a jump from schizophrenia was because
> autistics suffer from much higher rates of co-morbids (related and
> associated disorders), including schizoid episodes.
The social stigma surrounding psychopathology is indeed a huge problem, and
there is no question that it makes a suffering population whose very
problems make it difficult to recognize the need for and to subsequently
seek treatment even less likely to get what little help the medical
community can provide. Consider why that might be so.
For countless centuries the most commonly recognized psychopathology was
encompassed by terms like "lunacy" and "madness," and the "condition" was
readily recognized and considered hopeless. Because people suffering were so
far out of the norm and potentially dangerous to themselves and others, they
were both pitied and separated from society, permanently.
Everything else that we might consider to be psychopathology today was not
historically considered pathological at all, but rather viewed as a weakness
of character that one should be able to overcome by an act of will. If one
was "excitable" or "melancholy," etc., one merely needed to make a choice to
not be that way anymore. This "blaming the victim" mentality reached its
pinnacle of social legitimacy in Freud's theories and treatment approach,
which of course grew out of that very attitude. "
"A major problem with the currently favored diagnostic categories, generally
speaking, is that they are essentially descriptive constructs, specifically
because they are tailored to commonly observed behavioral patterns, a
posteriori. As such, they bear little to no relation to etiology.
While clinicians and insurance companies may benefit from their use, the
research community has tried and tried to use those categories for many
years to define experimental groups in an effort to identify causes, to no
appreciable avail. Their use is rapidly fading in research now, but the
public mind is likely to cling to them for a long, long time yet, much as
they have clung to Freud and Jung's rather useless theoretical framing and
terminology.
The comorbidity problem cuts across all DSM categories, and sometimes even
across the major axes, but that's not necessarily because of genetic or
other relationships between the causes of separate diseases, but almost
certainly because the diagnostic categories simply do not define any
specific diseases.
If we hang onto the label, "schizophrenia" going forward, as etiology
improves, we will eventually end up with hundreds of subcategories to cover
all of the unique combinations of hundreds, possibly thousands of factors
that ultimately underpin the observable syndromes that currently fall under
the whole SZ umbrella. That many of those factors are shared with what are
currently classed under other umbrellas is utterly inevitable, because all
of them affect emotive and cognitive mechanisms, which are all inextricably
wired up together and functionally co-dependent.
We (researchers) are struggling to break out of a dark age of tyranny that
has been ruled by the oppressive DSM since its institution. It's going to
take good long while, but in the meantime, we should all strive to develop a
more sophisticated notion of psychopathology.
> You were talking about the stigma of schizophrenia? Well, the stigma
> is one of the reasons why few folks are too keen to see schizophrenia
> added to the list of autistic spectrum disorders. The reason why I
> said autism was a small skip and a jump from schizophrenia was because
> autistics suffer from much higher rates of co-morbids (related and
> associated disorders), including schizoid episodes.
The social stigma surrounding psychopathology is indeed a huge problem, and
there is no question that it makes a suffering population whose very
problems make it difficult to recognize the need for and to subsequently
seek treatment even less likely to get what little help the medical
community can provide. Consider why that might be so.
For countless centuries the most commonly recognized psychopathology was
encompassed by terms like "lunacy" and "madness," and the "condition" was
readily recognized and considered hopeless. Because people suffering were so
far out of the norm and potentially dangerous to themselves and others, they
were both pitied and separated from society, permanently.
Everything else that we might consider to be psychopathology today was not
historically considered pathological at all, but rather viewed as a weakness
of character that one should be able to overcome by an act of will. If one
was "excitable" or "melancholy," etc., one merely needed to make a choice to
not be that way anymore. This "blaming the victim" mentality reached its
pinnacle of social legitimacy in Freud's theories and treatment approach,
which of course grew out of that very attitude. "
05-10-2008, 11:08 PM
love the graph and the visual of the .3 child - yikes! :O)
Pages: 1 2