Is Aspergers worth killing yourself over?

[alucard]

You lasted longer than I did, Orbit

[AnoymousCanuck]

The problem is, you're relying on an assumption that my definition of a 'disorder' rejects - that there's some arbitrary dividing line between a 'disorder' and something that isn't a disorder that depends on the magnitude of the impairment, although you haven't provided a clear definition of what you'd regard as constituting a 'disorder'

Ah, there is a clear dividing line, in order to be a disorder something has to damage a person's ability to live a happy and productive life.

if you want an example think of Social Anxiety Disorder vs a person who is simply shy, the shy person can still function and live a happy and productive life, the person with Social Anxiety disorder finds it much more difficult.

I would say that in most cases somebody on the AS/PDD spectrum would qualify as having a "disorder" but those on the mild end may not.

[Orbit]

Thanks Alucard.

*munches cake and passes torch to AnonymousCanuck*

[Pobblebonk]

The problem is' date=' you're relying on an assumption that my definition of a 'disorder' rejects - that there's some arbitrary dividing line between a 'disorder' and something that isn't a disorder that depends on the magnitude of the impairment, although you haven't provided a clear definition of what you'd regard as constituting a 'disorder'[/quote']

Ah, there is a clear dividing line, in order to be a disorder something has to damage a person's ability to live a happy and productive life.

This is clear? What qualifies as "productive"? For that matter, what qualifies as "happy" rather than "content"? Is it a disorder only if one is permanently unhappy or unproductive, or only periodically? If they're only a little unhappy or thoroughly depressed?

But perhaps more to the point - why is this the standard? It's not the standard we accept for a physical disability, as I've mentioned in the past. If Aspergers manifested itself physically, no one would be asking whether or not Aspies had a disability, any more than they ask whether my cerebral palsy is. No one needs to ask me whether or not I'm leading a happy and productive life to judge whether that physical condition is a disorder. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why we accept a double standard here.

if you want an example think of Social Anxiety Disorder vs a person who is simply shy, the shy person can still function and live a happy and productive life, the person with Social Anxiety disorder finds it much more difficult.

No, I don't want an example. The example doesn't answer any of the questions I'm asking. I want an explanation. As I say, I've justified my use of a particular definition of disorder and argued from that. My argument on that basis hasn't even been contested on its own merits; it's my definition that people have taken issue with. I know my argument is valid; if you want to persuade me that yours has merit I need to be convinced that the definition of 'disorder' you're using as your premise is as valid as the one I've been working to.

I would say that in most cases somebody on the AS/PDD spectrum would qualify as having a "disorder" but those on the mild end may not.

And what would others say? This comes down to a judgement call, and as such is arbitrary.

Phil

[maufry]

if you want to persuade me that yours has merit I need to be convinced that the definition of 'disorder' you're using as your premise is as valid as the one I've been working to.

Okay....so who's going to make that call?

Quote:

if you want an example think of Social Anxiety Disorder vs a person who is simply shy, the shy person can still function and live a happy and productive life, the person with Social Anxiety disorder finds it much more difficult.

No, I don't want an example.

You don't have to be rude about it. She's just trying to explain her point of view.

And what would others say? This comes down to a judgement call, and as such is arbitrary.

So only stone cold facts are valuable? Opinions are worthless? Maybe you mean it's not relevant as a scientific argument. If so, that should have been specified. As it is, it sounds like you're telling her that she's an idiot for even thinking to bring it up.

[Pobblebonk]

if you want to persuade me that yours has merit I need to be convinced that the definition of 'disorder' you're using as your premise is as valid as the one I've been working to.

Okay....so who's going to make that call?

If I'm persuaded that it's valid' date=' I'll accept that it is. No one yet seems to have even tried to persuade me why they feel my definition is flawed; they have only stated that they feel it is. Fair enough; it's the persuading an atheist to accept principles derived from God thing again. Orbit's already bowed out, telling me she can't be persuaded to work from that premise. Again, fair enough. but I'm still here and still willing to play the game your way - I'll argue the case using the premise that a disorder should be defined as an arbitrary point along a spectrum [b']if[/b] you can persuade me that that premise is tenable and that there's a reason to think of disorders in those terms. If I can't be persuaded, then like Orbit I too will bow out on the basis that you won't have shown you have a case I can accept in principle.

Quote:

if you want an example think of Social Anxiety Disorder vs a person who is simply shy, the shy person can still function and live a happy and productive life, the person with Social Anxiety disorder finds it much more difficult.

No, I don't want an example.

You don't have to be rude about it. She's just trying to explain her point of view.

It wasn't meant to be rude, just as the obvious rejoinder to "If you want an example..."

And what would others say? This comes down to a judgement call, and as such is arbitrary.

So only stone cold facts are valuable? Opinions are worthless?

It's not a question of 'valuable'. AnonymousCanuck said, in response to my comment that Orbit was working to an arbitrary definition, that there is a "clear dividing line". If this dividing line is in fact a matter of personal opinion, then it is anything but clear and is, as I pointed out, arbitrary. That doesn't mean it's worthless, just that I'm right to point out that it's arbitrary. What I've asked for is clarification on why this arbitrary standard is thought to be preferable to the objective one I've been working to; I realise that most of the contributors to this thread seem to believe that it is, and given that I am genuinely interested in seeing what, if anything, I may be missing.

Maybe you mean it's not relevant as a scientific argument. If so, that should have been specified.

It needn't be a scientific argument. Personal opinion is not relevant as an argument, full stop. If you're engaged in debate, that has to proceed through reason and evidence, whether you're engaged in a scientific, philosophical, legal, theological or political discussion. The function of debate is, after all, to help both sides understand how the other has reached its conclusions or point of view, and to persuade them to accept the other's entitlement to that view. "This is my opinion because it's an opinion" is neither informative nor persuasive.

As every first year science student has drilled into them, the scientific method is not much different from the way people normally reach conclusions and form beliefs, it's just more formalised. Chances are, if something doesn't work as scientific evidence, it doesn't work as any other kind of evidence either.

Phil

[maufry]

if you want to persuade me that yours has merit I need to be convinced that the definition of 'disorder' you're using as your premise is as valid as the one I've been working to.

Okay....so who's going to make that call?

If I'm persuaded that it's valid, I'll accept that it is.

Now that I re-read your post, you did say, "I need to be convinced that the definition...is as valid," indicating that it doesn't actually have to be valid, just that you wish to be convinced that it is. So never mind, lol.

but I'm still here and still willing to play the game your way - I'll argue the case using the premise that a disorder should be defined as an arbitrary point along a spectrum if you can persuade me that that premise is tenable and that there's a reason to think of disorders in those terms. If I can't be persuaded, then like Orbit I too will bow out on the basis that you won't have shown you have a case I can accept in principle.

There's no me in this equation here. I know next to nothing about Asperger's, so I don't have a stance on the issue. Which I did state, somewhere a few pages back. I wasn't arguing the position itself one way or the other, I was simply finding fault with certain aspects of your reasoning.

[Orbit]

Now that I re-read your post, you did say, "I need to be convinced that the definition...is as valid," indicating that it doesn't actually have to be valid, just that you wish to be convinced that it is. So never mind, lol.

A definition could be as valid as 2+2=4 and still leave some unconvinced.

[nick007]

I might have Asperger's and I thought about killing myself in the past but now I'm on meds and I don't think about it much unless I get relly lonley and feel isolated a lot

[maufry]

Now that I re-read your post, you did say, "I need to be convinced that the definition...is as valid," indicating that it doesn't actually have to be valid, just that you wish to be convinced that it is. So never mind, lol.

A definition could be as valid as 2+2=4 and still leave some unconvinced.

Yes, quite. That's what I meant. If he merely wishes to be convinced of the validity of a definition, then it doesn't actually matter to him whether the definition is valid or not, just that he wishes to be convinced that it is. Which means that he's not putting himself in the position of telling someone that they are wrong, only that he thinks they are wrong. Which I don't have a problem with.

If that made any sense. It makes sense in my head, I'm not sure about anyone else's... :lol:

[Brodertun]

I said that they LIST it as a disorder and a disability, which is fine if it is also understood that some people with THIS particular 'disorder' have desirable attributes not found in NT'S.

There is nothing in the definition of disability that says that something can't be desirable

What it comes down to is that there needs to be a new qualification for AS because if we were able to somehow 'cure' people with the other disorders and disabilities, it would not inhibit their ability to contribute. But if you cured everyone of AS who was on the spectrum, there is a high likelihoold that the talents in science, math and their other traits would be washed away - hurting them and society.

That I disagree. I am smart, but I worked to be smart - I'm not magically smart because I'm an aspie. I'm smart because I'm willing to take the time necessary to develop my skills. Yes I can memorise a text book chapter verbatim in an hour - but again thats not something that was magically given to me because I was an aspie. I trained myself to do. I used to spend hours labriously copying the text and making my own fill in the blank exams on the material that had less and less prompts. It took a few years to get there, and I resent the implication that I did that not because of dedication and determiniation but because I was automaitcally able to since I'm an aspie.

Most of the intelligent people I know are not aspies, but yet they are jsut as smart, and sometimes even smarter than I am.

Therefore, it's BETTER to provide a way to help people with AS by creating environments that support neurodiversity rather than to do nothing but look for a 'cure'.

You don't support neurodiversity by demanding that known disabilities aren't recognized. If anything that supports lack of neurodiversity because you are now presenting reasons why no one should care any more about than to say, "you can act nt, so do it, and stop offending us"

Regardless of the nebefits taht aspies have they DO have significant drawbacks to life, and its those drawbacks that make them disabled. To say otherwise is like saying someone who has a broken leg should have no problems moving because they have three good limbs and are a talented artists - just doesn't make the least bit of sense.

But it's not the broken leg that makes them a talented artist. For Aspies, it is often their AS traits that make them brilliant in ways that people without it don't experience.

One: keyword often - not always

Point 2: I'd like to see some evidence of this beyond your own personal opinion. Real evidence, don't show a correlation, because I can show you a correlation between ice cream sales and people stubbing there toes. Show how these two are proved to be related. Otherwise stop telling me that my intelligence is based on my autism and stop neglecting the fact that aspies often put effort into being intelligent, just like John Doe, who is a genius and not an aspie.

I don't see you attributing NT intelligence to being NT, so why are you discriminitating against the ability of an aspie to be intelligent for reasons other than being an aspie?

Would you gladly give up your talents in intellectual pursuits so that you can better to pick up on social cues and be good at small talk?

My talents in intellectual pursuits have little, if anything, to do with being an aspie. As I said I worked hard to get to the intelligence level that I have. I never made National Honor Society in high school and the only scholarship I was awarded was based on financial need. However, I had determination to go to school and to make the most of it. I used to start waking up early and staying up late 4 days before an exam to study, and I study nonstop - at work, at school, even notes in the car while I was driving. I'm not automatically smart because I'm an aspie. I'm smart because I choose to be. Had I not made that choice, and taken actions toward that choice, I would just be of average intelligence, like many aspies.

Would I gladly be able to understand the nuances of speech I can't begin to recognize? YES

Would I gladly be able to determine if a pair of pants matches a shirt, or if those shoes are inappropriate to wear with this outfit? YES

Would I gladly like to see what its like to have a conversation with a typical person and not greatly offend them? YES

Would I gladly like to carry on a typical conversation? YES

Would I gladly like to be able to sit still, not pick my lip or play with my hands, and still be able to pay attention to what was going around with me? YES

Would I like to be able to realize that when someone is chastising me for something I haven't done its because the saw A and B, and put that together to determine that I have done C? YES

Would I gladly like to be able to know what someone means when they are gesturing to me, instead of still struggling to determine if they were in fact gesturing to me when they stopped gesturing? YES

Would I like to have writing thats more legible than the 10 year olds' that I teach? YES

Would I gladly like to feel the warmth in someone's smile/eye contact directed right at me instead of the terror that I feel now? YES

Would I gladly be able to recognize faces of people I see everyday if they wear their hair different/have a different outfit/wear a hat etc? YES

Would I gladly be able to glean information around me so that I can determine if someone is being kind with sincereness, actiing kind when they don't want to because its expected, or just trying to trick me so they can be downright cruel? YES

Would I have gladly liked to know I needed to iron my clothes for things other than job interviews before someone told me that? YES

Would I gladly have the ability to know what to say in response to someone before a minute has passed? YES

I can write an encyclopedia on these yes, but I think thats far enough

As for trading my intelligence, well yes I'd do that to. Because while being college valedictorian gets me the phone call or that job appointment, its social skills that get the job, and without them it doesn't matter how much educational skills I have - it just won't happen.

Few people with other disorders and disabilities experience 'benefits' such as the deaf Franklin described.

Clearly you aren't looking at this from their point of view. While teaching today I hapepend to pick up a Choices magazine (sort of like a weekly reader) and they had several pages on disabled people and why their disability wasn't a hindrance to them.

I rather get the impression you are arguing against disability because you see it as meaning UNable, as opposed to the "less able" that it actually means.

For Aspies, it's almost across the board that they have benefits... it's just that they are so marginalized for their impairments and treated like scum for not getting 'NT's' that they don't get to enjoy them

.

In my experience I was treated like scum till I let people know I was an aspie - prior to that they weren't willing to accept my differences, because they were seeing me as being just like them, which meant that I was offending them on purpose or lack of concern

I'm an idealist at times and I would like to see the world change to better accept people, not label them as misfits for not 'normalizing'

Theres nothing in the world disabled that means "misfits." It just means that you are less than able then the majority to do something - be that seeing, walking, reading, or socializing. You don't help a person learn to read by refusing to consider that dyslexia is a disability, just as you won't be able to help a person have a happy social life if you don't first recognize that they are disabled when it comes to socialization.

Perhaps this is because I've experienced the coming together of minds in a social setting with Aspies, Autistics, NT's and at least one who believes she has ADD... With some understanding and kindness we now are able to learn from each other and communicate in our own unique ways always trying to make up for the others 'impairment'.

And how do you expect to get that understanding and kindness if you don't first allow for the fact that impairments are present? What reason do people ahve to show any understanding if they first do not have a reason to believe that the party who is offending them has neither the skills or knowledge to know what should be down to not offend them?

Believe it or not, but NT's often misunderstand each other too and some have a hard time being 'real' they are so used to using social short hand that we don't get. And some NT's really don't 'see' when they are talking over quiet people or that they are being too loud or that they need to listen.

Oh, most of those ones see. Sure they don't all see but many more see than people usually give them credit for.

Alot of them engage in this behavior intentionally - especially when it comes to men overlooking women (was it on aven that there was a link to the article about a male professor knowing that there was definatlely a glass ceiling in academia because he used to be female?)

Most times people talk over quiet people because they can tell the qwuiet person is uncomfortable in the social setting - and when they do talk to the quiet person they usually get the "mm hmm" response.

When i started at Joy Cone, most people didn't talk to me and I didn't talk to them. Then Seth became my trainer and he made me talk - he'd ask me the same question over and over again till I answered it, and he keep asking questions that required more than a yes or no answer. One of the things he told me was that he requested to be my trainer because everyone was commenting on how I didn't talk and he could get me to open up - Prior to that I had not heard any of that conversation around the factory. No matter where I sat in the lunchroom Seth would arrange things so his friends, or his family would be sitting around me - with a bit of time, and Seth's prompting of me to talk they became my friends as well. Then a lot of them mentioned how I used to be so quiet, never speaking.

Aspies help them learn to overcome their particular communication deficiencies and calm down and connect in ways that are deep and honest.

As other people can overcome their disabilites. A blind person can read braile, and learn to feel their way around rooms. A person without an arm can learn to use his feet to help him. (this was acutally the point of the Choices article - a disability in no way means that someone is UNable to do something, it merely means that they are less able)

I've learned alot of social skills since finding out i was an aspie - but that doesn't negate the fact that I had to be told about these skills, and that I need to make conscious effort to employ them. And that is why asperger's is a disability, regardless of what benefits it may or may not bring

[vits3k]

For those who like to call anyone who's the least bit eccentric a "retard"...

[AntiBubble]

Autism is a developmental disorder. Asperger's Disorder, also known as Asperger's syndrome, is sometimes called high-functioning autism.

At the risk of getting into another debate about autism, I'd like to point out that the above statement is wrong, and a good example of appallingly lazy journalism. Asperger's and High Functioning Autism (HFA) are not the same thing at all - the main difference being that early development is normal in people with Asperger's, and there is no language delay.

Asperger's and HFA are two very distinct disorders, and the actual classification difference is that Asperger's is a Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) related to Autism, whereas HFA is actually a form of Autism. They are both on the Autistic Spectrum (which actually includes Autism and related disorders), but only one is an actual form of Autism itself, and I wish more people understood that. Another difference is that in some spheres, Asperger's is disputed as a valid disorder/diagnosis, whereas HFA is not.

[retrophile]

NT=Neurotypical, i.e. most people. Or to put it another way, Aspergers won't cause depression if you're not engaged in human contact in any way.

In which case the lack of human contact will probably cause it instead...

Phil

So a person with Asperger's is damned if they do and damned if they don't? Harsh.

At the risk of getting into another debate about autism, I'd like to point out that the above statement is wrong, and a good example of appallingly lazy journalism. Asperger's and High Functioning Autism (HFA) are not the same thing at all - the main difference being that early development is normal in people with Asperger's, and there is no language delay.

Asperger's and HFA are two very distinct disorders, and the actual classification difference is that Asperger's is a Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) related to Autism, whereas HFA is actually a form of Autism. They are both on the Autistic Spectrum (which actually includes Autism and related disorders), but only one is an actual form of Autism itself, and I wish more people understood that. Another difference is that in some spheres, Asperger's is disputed as a valid disorder/diagnosis, whereas HFA is not.

I call myself autistic when I'm dealing with people who wouldn't know what Asperger's is, since sometimes I don't have the time or energy to be a public service announcement.

[Guest kos]

Could someone please explain to me what's normal.

Normal, norm.

Is it normal to create the general theory of relativity, is it normal to paint the Mona Liza, is it normal to build the Parthenon, to write the Othello, to invent the electricity, to walk on the moon.

Tell me what is normal there and what is normal here, what is normal when.

I say it is normal to be abnormal. Everyone is abnormal. Humans are abnormal, this is what makes them so wonderful and so horrible at the same time. So, i'm normal because i'm abnormal, i'm abnormal because i'm normal. How's that? What are you?

[Hallucigenia]

Is it normal to create the general theory of relativity, is it normal to paint the Mona Liza, is it normal to build the Parthenon, to write the Othello, to invent the electricity, to walk on the moon.

No, it is not normal to do those things.

However, it is constructive to do those things.

Some non-"normal" behaviors are construcive like those. Many others are neutral, neither helping or hurting anybody significantly. Still others are destructive and do hurt people.

When people condemn things for not being normal, it is usually because they see those things as the destructive kind of not normal. Whether they are correct in that view or not is another story.

[Damaris]

[after 5 pages, brain just imploded]

:shock:

[Pobblebonk]

Autism is a developmental disorder. Asperger's Disorder' date=' also known as Asperger's syndrome, is sometimes called high-functioning autism.[/quote']

At the risk of getting into another debate about autism, I'd like to point out that the above statement is wrong, and a good example of appallingly lazy journalism. Asperger's and High Functioning Autism (HFA) are not the same thing at all - the main difference being that early development is normal in people with Asperger's, and there is no language delay.

Well, in fairness I don't think you can accuse the journalist for pointing out that it is "sometimes called high-functioning autism". It is sometimes called high-functioning autism. The people who call it that are just wrong... (I think I made that point at one stage; the thread's so old now my memory's hazy).

Phil

[Guest kos]

No, it is not normal to do those things.

However, it is constructive to do those things.

Some non-"normal" behaviors are construcive like those. Many others are neutral, neither helping or hurting anybody significantly. Still others are destructive and do hurt people.

Yes Hallucigenia, i agree with you on that.

When people condemn things for not being normal, it is usually because they see those things as the destructive kind of not normal. Whether they are correct in that view or not is another story.

No, i don't agree with you on this one. Please forgive my cynical view but i believe that most of the time, people condemn things for not being normal in order to degrade anything that is different, anything that is better, anything that can be degraded. At the end of the line, i don't blame nobody too much, it is a rather constructive behaviour for the ego; I degrade you, i upgrade me. It works fine for many, sometimes it works fine for me.

[Wolf X Omega]

Asperger's syndrome isn't lethal, unless you have a very low willpower, the vocalist of the band the vines has it, he hasn't killed himself yet, and he looks happy to me, people just have to learn to separate one subject from the other, not everyone is equal just because some disorder of information in their brain is roughly equal to of other people