I can't agree. The lack of imagination is applied to young children that do not do role play or pretend play, like pretend tea parties.
Autistic children do much less of these typical activities and so they use it in diagnostic criteria.
It was not created as a phrasing in order to dehumanize, so your supposition doesn't hold water.
I can't agree. The lack of imagination is applied to young children that do not do role play or pretend play, like pretend tea parties.
Autistic children do much less of these typical activities and so they use it in diagnostic criteria.
But role playing is not the same thing as imagination. by saying that there is a lack of imagination there saying something with a far more broad meaning than that. And I have heard the Term applied to other behaviours including those of adults.
Well, there was earlier "lack of empathy" and "lack of humour", wasn´t there?
And now it´s been said that autistics do have empathy also, and sense of humour, but it doesn´t show itself so easily and is often different from majority.
In the autism-centre where I was, the psycholog said that autists indeed do have all of those traits, even though they show themselves in a different manner. So maybe the diagnosiscriteria should be written in another way?
Well, what do you know? I'm not the ONLY person with this opinion regarding "lack of imagination" as a tactic of dehumanization:
http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2006/09/...ganda.html
I think you gave her the idea for her blog. I know for a fact that the ABFH is a lurker on this forum.
I agree with the original poster. "Lack of imagination", "lack of empathy" and "lack of humor" do indeed smack of "soulless" and it is perhaps subtly, insidiously dehumanizing.
Even if we do indeed "lack imagination" it shouldn't be the litmus test for humanity, or simply treating "us" decently.
The main test--and this goes back to Shylock in the Merchant of Venice--should be the ability to suffer.
Whether or not I'm imaginative, empathic, or have a sense of humor, I know I can suffer. That should be enough.
I agree with the original poster. "Lack of imagination", "lack of empathy" and "lack of humor" do indeed smack of "soulless" and it is perhaps subtly, insidiously dehumanizing.
Even if we do indeed "lack imagination" it shouldn't be the litmus test for humanity, or simply treating "us" decently.
The main test--and this goes back to Shylock in the Merchant of Venice--should be the ability to suffer.
Whether or not I'm imaginative, empathic, or have a sense of humor, I know I can suffer. That should be enough.
But isn't a lot of pretend play a waste of time anyway? Perhaps we just have different priorities as children and prefer doing practical things. After all we are neurodiverse - not inferior: just different.
Secondly, as a writer of fantasy I would like to say that it is such a falsehood that AS people lack imagination. You only have to read some of the flights of fancy that have been posted in some parts of this and other forums to see that this is not true.
I agree. The main differnece in expression of imagination in aspies is that it's a lot more likely to all take place in our heads. What do you think I'm doing when I sit and stare into space? I'm playing pretend in my head. The imagery is a lot more vivid and believable there than it is in the outside world.
The whole "lack of imagination" thing is deeply flawed because it conflates lack of imagination/creativity with putting a high premium on precision. People tend to associate logical thought with rote, mechanical thinking, but nothing could be further from the truth.
In many of the sciences, e.g. physics, math, chemistry, engineering, etc. there's a lot of creative, imaginative thinking--but it's precise.
its not lack of anything, it's impairment, there is a difference. it's not being without, which lack of implies, but more that it is limited in some way. i have a vague idea of what is meant having the sense that i have such an impairment in imagination, my imagination is not <insert something here> but more a copying i often feel, some like to call that being inspired or getting inspiration but i know it is not the same as what they mean.
i understand what you are saying. with me it is more i find myself making something and realise then that it is very similar to what i have seen, that bothers me.
One of many definitions of Imagination:
Imagination is, in general, the power or process of producing mental images and ideas. The term is technically used in psychology for the process of reviving in the mind percepts of objects formerly given in sense perception. Since this use of the term conflicts with that of ordinary language, some psychologists have preferred to describe this process as "imaging" or "imagery" or to speak of it as "reproductive" as opposed to "productive" or "constructive" imagination. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination
“The dehumanized can be legitimately eliminated from the species, after all. One dehumanizes before instituting eugenic measures.”
I believe this is exactly the reason for this type of myth being propagated today. To dehumanize autistics or show as defective in need of fixing is the goal, I believe.
______________
“Perhaps we just have different priorities as children and prefer doing practical things. After all we are neurodiverse - not inferior: just different.”
Exactly! Even the “pretending” is different not inferior not non-existent. My son used to put legos in a particular formation and then dash them into the wall, the door, his brother or anything else. He was pretending it was a rocket and he was experimenting to see at what speed upon hitting an object, it would fall apart. Then he would look at the pieces carefully, and do it all over again. Tell me that’s not imagination! Most parents would just see this activity as destructive behavior, but I knew better.
I've always been, if anything, a lot more imaginative than most people, or at least able to imagine things more vividly, in hyperrealistic detail. It's like watching a movie in my head.
Like a lot of the other people commenting on this thread, though, I didn't play pretend games with other kids much when I was younger. Often, I'd just go off and climb a tree or hide somewhere and sit, and stim, and daydream. Or I'd fantasize while going about my daily routines. So, to an outside observer, I wouldn't have looked imaginative so much as absentminded, if not completely spaced out. Sometimes I'd pretend to be an animal, a character from a book, a person I'd made up, or something really weird, like a rock or a black hole, but again, I probably just looked insane to everybody else, since I couldn't/wouldn't explain what I was doing.
I agree that lack of imagination is used as a way of reducing a person's value. It is also completely untrue when applied to autistics. I hated 'pretend play with others' when it was pointless, like tea parties, but had wonderful war games at primary school with dozens of boys. I had (and still have) a vivid imagination, but rarely felt the need to 'act it out', prefering to keep my fantasies in my head. I also hated the hypocrisy of adults who would indulge the 'tea party set' by acting as if their play was true, but accuse me of 'lying' when I told complicated pretend stories.
P.S. Gareth or Amy, please block NORAD, this is getting tedious. Thank you, you are wonderful.
I have a lot of imagination, I started writing stories (though they were poor in quality) when I was about 4, and I've managed to write one which is the length of a short novel. I have ideas for new stories all the time, but I've only ever managed to complete one.
When I was a child I had a very elaborate pre-life/life history for myself, involving robots and giant invisible birds. I also invented the colour blue, apparently.
No imagination? Rubbish.