I have begun toying with the idea that the DSM has autism and aspergers defined extraordinarily badly.

For instance, I am inclined believe that issues with social interaction are like "side effects" and that autism affects more specifically the WAY the brain sorts out information (not necessarily our ability to empathize, etc). I have a feeling that perhaps aspies do not filter information (sensory and emotional) the way that NTs do, so that it is very easy for us to get overwhelmed and need a private space (time alone, away from people, stimuli).

I think also that 'obsessions' and stimming are adaptations. We get so much information at one time that in order to remain stable, we must focus our mind on only a few things...if we were to turn them towards too many things at once, it would probably cause us to have a stroke (at least thats how it feels to me).

Also, logic is an adaptation. I think that we get so much emotional information from people that it would make absolutely no sense to us, so in order to make sense of what is going on we use concrete, observable, or reasonable facts.

I also think that the emotional information we get from others might confuse us about our own emotions because we lack the filter that says "this is my feeling" and "that is their feeling"...which may be why autism seems to onset drastically around age two, the age our brains develop our 'ego sense', the "I" in the crowd...but I think that in order to develop a proper sense of who we are, we tune out a lot of the extraneous information the world throws at us which makes us seem unfocused, in our own world, etc, but really, we are extraordinarily focused.

I am also thinking that our openness to information actually gives us a broader grip on the world, and contributes to our ability to disregard bias and context all together and focus on details (because we are not limited to one context, and to view something through a general 'big picture' would involve us CHOOSING which big picture to see. Apparently NTs see things through essentially one stable big picture all the time, while I think we have at our disposal multiple big pictures).

What do you think?

I guess what I mean to point out is...diagnosing someone based on outward symptoms rather than assessing the way they process information internally can lead to a lot of misdiagnosis and confusion.

I like this very much, it was nicely argued.  

Because we are the minority population (at the moment) our adaptations are seen as abnormal.  On the other hand, if everybody acted as we did, with the focus, etc. there would be no problem.  But the majority population also has it's obsessive interests, I feel.  Just that, unlike us, they are focused on the social, and the status of the individual in the hierarchy of the herd.  They have an adaptation to living in large groups.  Whereas I like to think of we autistics as the non-social variants of the species.  But our numbers are growing, and I hope to live long enough to see the two groups more evenly-balanced as regards numbers.  But it might be problematic.  Humans tend to be very intolerant, even with imagined variations in their own group (skin colours, facial features, differing cultural practices, silly little things like that).  If another type of human looks to be in truly be in competition with them, things could get sticky.  

Alison

This post was last modified: 10-04-2012 10:26 AM by Alison.

The DSM is all about defining autism as a disease or a disorder.

I do agree with you.

That's what the DSM is all about. It's not science (meaning that you search for causes), it's just putting some symptoms into a list. It's a question of (lack of) resources, of course.

You want to know something interesting...the outward symptom categorization is what the temples in ancient greece used to do before the Great Hippocrates came along and said that it was NOT effective.

why do we forget the lessons of the past and start over as if we are grappling in the dark for the first time?

I was always told that that is why the word "syndrome" is used.

You may be sick of hearing me throw out prophecies here and there, but according to several sources, the Golden Age is supposed come with a 'rise' in human consciousness. I sort of think this rise in awareness is occurring with the growing numbers of Aspies...not that being Aspie means we are at a higher level, but that having such large numbers of a different neurotype is going to force a change in the way us humans think about our own 'nature'. If the theory of evolution is correct, then it is reasonable to assume that there will be great conflict, and that conflict may even be justified as attacking the threat to humanity.

But I feel that as numbers grow, there will be growing acceptance, and also better understanding about what it means to be human, and how we view "mutations" in community DNA. I do not believe its all about survival of the fittest. Humans are communal and there have always been those among us who are deviant, ill, crippled, "simple" (as would have been called), and who seemingly only "burden" the race by not contributing with labor, ingenuity, or social morale.

I mean, think about our growing awareness of the power of women (to pick on something I know is close to your heart). Evolutionarily (and religiously), it was argued, that women are bearers of children, great at needle work and such, and are the banes of abstaining men. It led to a lot of female infanticide, abuse, and control of women's freedom and rights. Now, with much effort, the world is changing, we are seeing the value of women as powerful, and not a weak sex. We see that their role is not merely procreative ability, and our definition of a "fit" lady is evolving -ironically.

Same with people with disabilities. It was thought by many that the disabled are only to be pitied, and even now aborting someone with a disability is seen as more desirable than keeping them. But slowly, attitudes have been changing. People see that a disability really isn't a "disability" when the community cares and loves its children. In fact, we begin to learn from those who we considered disabled, and they show us that they have something to offer humanity, even if it doesn't fit the model of evolution.

That's my thought line at least....

I really think we take evolution for granted and use it to explain away too many things. We need an einstein of biology; someone to put out a new, modern theory that challenges the old in subtle ways...

This post was last modified: 10-05-2012 05:37 AM by sg1008.

To:
Everyone
What do I think?  
That I cannot come out w/ any snap response.  I think there is
enough food for thought on this page for an intellectual banquet
for all, so I will stop typing and start thinking.
Thank you, SG1008, beyond mere words.
Respectfully,
kullervo

You are most welcome, though I cannot really take credit--I'm just putting gathered information together, I could be completely off.

sg1008:
Afterthought, after the 297.0 sec. deadline & off topic:
I think it's brilliant!
(BTW sorry; never get the hang of l.c. "sg" in your moniker)
kullervo

http://www.neurodiversity.com/cognitive_strengths.html

*drools*




thanks!

This was a fascinating read, I've bookmarked it and will be going back to it.  It seems to be saying that studies reveal, not that Autism is a deficit, rather that it is a valid and unique form of intelligence.  Seen through NT eyes, perhaps it does seem odd that we think in such a very different way to them.  The nature of intelligence is far more than any of us, AS or NT, ever realized before.
Alison

Agree. What is the nature of intelligence? In all honesty, we don't know. We just arbitrarily draw fences around the cognitive skills that traditionally make people successful, and then judge a person's societal worth by their ability to excel in them.