Aspies For Freedom

Okay, this had bug me for a while, in fact, I've been meaning to post this since I got back and not gotten around to it.

Okay, Wikipedia apparently gave the neurodivergent article a speedy deletion, or something, cant even find deletion vote by serarching.  So I can't quote it specifically.

I do recall that it listed epilipsy, dyslexia, Tourette's Syndrome, and "dyscalcula" as neurotypes.


When I tell people about the concept of a neurotype, most generally nod and smile as their eyes glaze over.

The only ones who do not are professionals.  Psychiatrists, SPED teachers, neuropsychologists, who listen wit varying degrees of interest and disdain.  I've gotten several SPED teachers and my high school's neuropsychologist at least considering the idea, and my psycholoy teacher showed genuine interest.  A few simply dismiss it out of hand.


Any rate, let me share an anecdote.


I'm sure I've mentioned before, the father I know of a girl with actual autism.

He's a developmental psychiatrist or something like that.  Works with the Boston school system.

Any rate, his wife is convinced that Asperger's is a disorder, I was trying to convince him of the idea of neurotype.

He's heard the concept somewhere, but didn't know what it meant.

First I described AS, Autism, and ADHD and the theory behind those as a neurotype.  He seemed interested, though doubted in the case of autism.  Then, because I knew of other syndromes as possible neurotypes, but didn't know much about the syndromes themselves, I asked him about William's Syndrome, Schizophrenia, Bipolar, and Rett's.  Retts he dismissed out of hand and seemed skeptical of the other three, but at this point he seemed more willing to listen.

He genuinely seemed interested in the concept now, even the possibility of autism, as long as I didn't insist that anything other than AS, Autism, William's, and ADHD almost certainly corresponded to neurotypes, with Schizophrenia and Bipolar as possibilities.

I may have brought up the personality disorders as well.

So any rate, recalling that I had seen more proposed on Wikipedia, but not sure precisely what, I suggested he take a look at some point.
Well, they had a laptop open in the other room, so he brought it in.

See where this is going?

Well, I opened up the neurodivergence article, he took a look at what was listed as a "neurotype," epilispsy seemed to be the clincher, he commented on that specifically, and immediately asked where I got these ideas, weblogs?

No, I conceded, forums.

Well, at this point he dismissed the whole concept out of hand as pseudo-scientific amateurism.

I may convince him if I do neurology in college, with my own research, but the article, which so happily declared epilipsy and "dyscalcula" neurotypes, set me back by setting him flat against the concept.

Any rate, I'd like to propose a few rules for neurotypes.

These are the rules that I use when discussing it with people, and they generally get people considering it if I don't show them the Wikipedia article.  I didn't change the article, since, as far as I'm aware, there is no criterion for neurotype, and therefore I'd have had no justification.

First off, an unspoken rule should be that evidence exists that the brain wiring is significantly different.   This should be obvious, but apparently, despite the word "neuro" is not.

I've seen MRI pictures of Autistic, AS, ADHD, schizophrenic, and biopolar brains under given situations.   I've also seen descriptions of tests done for a few other sorts of things, such as sociopathy.  Some things may be worth investigating, but should not de described as neurotypes.

"Dyscalculia" seems to fail here.  Rett's probably too, though I'm lest sure on that.

Now the rules I usually give to people, taking the first one I mentioned for granting:

A. Does it appear to be largely natural and genetic, as opposed to caused exclusively by external stimuli?
I'm sure that it's only a matter of time before somebody proposes strokes and dissassociative identity disorder as neurotypes.  Please don't.  Any rate. . .

B. Does it appear to have evolved to serve some evolutionary advantage?  AS, ADHD, autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, sociopathy, all of these can be described to have had some evolutionary advantage, enabling them to stay in the gene pool.  
Epilipsy cannot.  Dyslexia and "dyscalculia" cannot, because they're learning disorders, and deal strictly with disadvantages rather than general traits, like the others I mentioned.

C. Self-identification.
If schizophrenics don't fell that the advantages of being schizophrenic, as they may be, outweigh the disadvantages, then don't require them to take pride in being schizophrenic.  Schizophrenia is the most blatant grey area that this covers, but others may fit as well.  Most people with AS, when given the full information, probably close to all, would choose to remain AS.  I suspect the same with ADHD.  Others may not.

D. Heretibility.
A neurotype should be based on evolutionary advantage, and thus largely heritable.
Homosexuality is not heritable.  
Therefore, homosexuality is not a neurotype.
I'm not saying that we should discriminate against homosexuals.  Au contraire.
However, we should stop trying to classify sexuality, which largely seems to be a result of hormone exposure in the womb, as neurology.

Which leads to a couple other criterion.

1. Remember that some things are disorders.   Not every listing in the DSM book is neurological.
Depression and alchohol abuse are largely genetic.  Depression is neurological in basis.  Depression is a disorder.  Maniac depression may or may not be, depression is.  Epilipsy is a dirsorder.  It's psychologically harmful, and I've never heard of an epilptic who liked seizures.

It's fine to argue for the rights of alchoholics to treatment.

And even if it's not a neurotype, it can't hurt to devolop techniques for those who have it to interact as best as possible with the real word.

But don't be afraid to call a genuine disorder a disorder.  Not doing so puts us on the extreme end of political correctness, and threatens to keep us from ever being taken seriously.


2.  A neurotype is one distinct wiring.  You can't dual boot.
Even if you're diagnosed with AS and ADHD, and both correspond to neurotypes, you can't have both neurotypes.
Either you're one or the other, or you're in between, or you have something completely different.

Also

3. A neurotype is complete.  Dyslexia might be defined as a learning difference.  It might also correspond to a neurotype.  It is not a neurotype in itself.

This leads me to my next point. . .

4. Diagnostic psychiatry is a psuedo-science based on symptoms.  Neurology is a hard science based on scientific method. Not all neurotypes will correspond to one, or even any psychiatric diagnosis.
Personally, I think that neurotypes should be given differnt names to highlight this eventually.  We can say "Aspeger's Syndrome" for now, or "the neurotype that corresponds to AS"  As more neurological wiring types are identified, we should come up with a new name.  Asperger's Neurotype, perhaps, or even something completely different.  Not until we have neurotypology well established.  Right now it would have a similar effect as calling epilipsy a neurotype did.

5.  Keep various definitions straight.
It is fine, more than fine to argue for different learning styles for various students, even regardless of neurology.
Dyslexia may or may not correspond to a neurotype, but it is certainly a learning disorder.
Likewise, regardless of neurology, different students learn differently.  Not all kids with AS learn the same way.  Learning styles is independent of neurology.
Same with sexuality, same with gender identity, same with random gene mutations like Down's syndrome for that matter.

Keep the definitions straight.

Remember, blurring the lines to be politically correct alienates us.
Better to draw them sharper to be safe, and eliminate them later if need be.

6. Same goes for internal lines.  I draw a distinction between AS and autism because there seems that there may well be a neurological difference.  How great and where the line is drawn, I can't say.  But it helps to be safe, and most people who deal with such things draw the same line.

Not making the distinction here, I think, is another big issue we have.
It's not conceding too much to the parents of children with autism if those of us who don't have classic autism do not, for the moment, pretend not to recognize a difference between limited verbal skills and high verbal skills.

Claiming autism as a distinct neurotype, probably related to AS, or a verbally limited form will our arguments a lot more than pretending that no difference exists.


Finally, two general comments on lexicon:

I. Avoid cute terms as much as possible.

I see some of these terms as too politically correct.

Neurotype's good, but was probably introduced too early.  We should have waited until we had more scientific evidence.

Neurodiversity's probably a bad term, since many people in the country seem to be feed up with any more "diversity"s.

Try simply tolerance rather than a new term.

"Curebie" is one of those terms that nobody uses to describe themselves.

It's better to tar the word itself, and more effective.
Lompare "liberal" in most of theUnited States as well as "conservative" where I live to terms such as "anti-second amendment-rights-activists," "pro-death" and "the anti-choice lobby" (on abortion), etc.  These terms don't catch catch on, and marginalize us.

II. Be aware of apparent euphemisms.

"Differently abled" for example, immediately seems to lead some people to thing "***."
I've seen several cases where people have taken that to mean that we must have a learning disability, apparently as a result of that term.
Unfortunately, politically correct speak has done that to us.

Also:

I don't really care if you call me insensitive for some of these things.
I feel that they need to be said, and the sooner the better.

The strength of an idea is largely based on the success of those pushing it.

Cure Autism preaches to the choir, we need to convert it.

Oh, and Amy and/or Gareth.  Do you think we could have a new forum to discuss strategy?  

I know that that's said to be the reserve of average minds, but average minds are what we need to reach.

Any rate, hope to get some responses on this.

Peace, Truth, Liberty, and Justice,
Luke

There are people with both autism and ADHD, so according to your statement one must be a neurotype and not the other.  

I think it's possible they affect different portions of brain anatomy, and so can coexist easily.  Whether that means they can constitute neurotypes I must leave to someone else to figure out

Autism and autism spectrum is a fundamental difference in the way that the brain is wired--this I am sure of.  I don't have the same surety of ADHD.  

I'm not sure exactly what the advantages of ADHD are.  I've been diagnosed as such, and I do have a tendency to flit fromthing to thing, but I'm not certain that that counts.  My flitting ensures I do more, autism ensures it's meaningful and at least slightly repetitive.  But I am not certain I am ADHD--I have posted elsewhere the circumstances of that particular diagnosis, and am inclined to doubt it therecause.  

Tourrette's and autism also co-occur, along with epilepsy and psychosis.  They also occur independently.  (I don't know anything at all about william's syndrome, so cannot possibly comment.)  

And yet, it does not seem reasonable to state that these do not result from differences in brain structure and composition.  To be certain psychotic disorders are genetically heritable, and there has been determined an organic difference in brain chemistry, if not in structure.  Therefore, I don't see any reason for considering autism a neurotype and considering psychotic disorders as not neurotypes.  

I think we should just come out and say that autism confers advantages and disadvantages and save the confusing terminology for when our people are safe from genocide.  Questions of neurotype don't make much difference to the facts, are just something else to be explained, and yet another argument that is easy for curebies to reject.  Thus it may in fact be a good thing that the article on neurotypes was removed, as one false premise detracts from the perception of the entire platform.

According to my statement, neurotypes do not necessarily correspond with psychiatric diagnoses.

Psychiatry is at best an art, and all too often an overplayed pseudo-science.

Neurology is a geniune science, but still a relatively new field, and nothing has been done specifically on neurotypes.

That's what I'd like to do in college if I get half a chace.

What I'm saying is that I would define neurotype as a type of neurological wiring.

Not just one feature, a complete wiring.

The urge to create mulitple neurotypes with multiple feature sets comes from pyschiatry.

In neurotypes you will certainly have overlap, but each complete feature set I think should be called a neurotype.

Probably neurologies will eventually be classified like taxonony, eg, schizoid supratype, autistic type, subtype C, or something like that.

At the moment the only neurological studies are done in relation to psychiatric "disorders" and hence of necessity vague.

I've seen pics of ADHD brains compared to normal brains in certain situations in psychology classes.

Though personally, based on those with ADHD I know, I think that there are problably several neurowirings.  For example most people with ADHD have smaller than normal heads, and no real difference in IQ, and the mixed subtype.

Then there are a number I know with larger than average heads, higher IQs, and appear to have the hyperactive subtype.

And probably a lot of ADHD is misdiagnosis.

As I said, diagnostic psychiatry isn't a real science.

Evolutionarily?

People with ADHD would have been more aware, more active, and more responsive to external stimuli.

Most people with ADHD are more social, but also seem to be less conformist.

Human anscestors were carnivores, and this would have been advantageous.

Like with AS, hierarchal societies would have supressed ADHD traits, or possibly even the neurology itself.

Many neurologies seem to be genetic predisposition, plus external stimuli.

Again, that is the imprecision of psychiatry when trying to use it for neurology.

I don't believe I said that.

I believe I said that to get neurotype accepted we should use certain criterion, among them self-identification.  

I'm indeed glad that the article is gone, however not because of the issue of neurotype.  I merely commented annoyance because I couldn't quote it for my point.

My issue is that the neurodivergent article took a number of random psychiatric diagnoses with probable neurological roots, and declared them neurotype.

I personally think that neurotype is a good idea, though I likewise agree, as I mentioned above, that I feel that it was introduced to early.

I think that we should have waited until neurology was more developed, say two dozen years or less would probably more than sufficient, such as neurology would be an established field and differences in neurologies more clearly determined.

That said, it has wide currency within the autism rights movement, and it's too late to recall it.

What I'm proposing is that it's reformed into something coherent.

Neurological comparisons are still in infant stages, and neurology not yet used for diagnosis.  That said, anybody with access to a good library can find out about some of the early neurological observations.

So a working definition of neurology can be produced.  I already shared the one I use, as well as a few explanations and notes.

There currently aren't all that many major nuclei of the movement.

So I think that if I can convince people here to use it in a more specific and precise context, as a working definition until neurological diagnosis improves,  it'll help the argument.

Not sure what you meant about forum to discuss strategy, what would the forum be called?

If you want to put the article you made on the autism wiki, it is open to edits and new articles every saturday. Add it then. :smile:

Perhaps "Public Relations"?

I mean, to talk about ways to present our cause in the best light.

The way we present it now seems like ranting, and in my case often is ranting.

I didn't write an article, I was just saying why I didn't change the Wikipedia one, namely, that because there's no commonly accepted definition of neurotype, anything goes.

Which is why I'm proposing a working here and now.
If I can get you guys to accept some form of it, then we're on our way to a better understanding.

It'll be a couple years before I'll be able to take a neurology course most likely, and four years until my Div III, where I'm really hoping I'll be able to secure an MRI.  We have a lot of them in the area, so I may get lucky if I meet the right people.

At that point, I'll have at least some authority to present beyond a working definition and secondary research, since hopefully I'll have some primary investigations of my own, which using my methods I'll be able to more clearly present my point.

Four years is a long time in the life of the internet though.

Four years ago few people knew of Wikipedia and the bloggers were on the verge of taking over the world to read the newspaper accounts.

So I'm proposing that we adopt a working definition now.

I know of at least one person with ADHD doing research similar to what I want to do (an in-depth look at the neurological makeup of ADHD), at UMass Amherst, but they're only one year ahead of me.

Hopefully others are working on similar topics, but I think I'm the only one who wants to look at distinct groups of neurotypicals, using subjective groupings (nerd, math geek, overachiever, jock, and one for which I do not have a name), for the basis of neurological study.

Most neurological study is currently done on the "disordered."

Which helps us in some ways, but the stuff I read gives general trends by psychiatric disorder, rather than breakdown within them, which would relly help.

Any rate, sorry I'm repeating myself a fair amount I think.