Is Aspergers worth killing yourself over?

[AnoymousCanuck]

as a person somewhere on the Aspergers/autism/PDD spectrum I would like to say that I do believe that AS is a "disorder", but the problem is that when people hear the word "disorder" or "syndrome", they tend to think of it as meaning that the whole person is broken, defective or inferior in some way and needs to be "fixed" as soon as possible.

I know that my PDD has caused me some issues, I do have difficulty interacting with others, I tend to get misunderstood and misunderstand others, and I sometimes become too forceful and opinionated when expressing my opinion. However the difference between PDD and a visible physical disability is that it is much easier for people to understand and accept that a person with cerebral palsy may not be able to walk or do other things that people that don't have CP can do. It's much harder for most people to understand that a person with PDD cannot choose to act normally, and trying to say that it's not a disorder doesn't help.

The real problem is not the fact that people call it a disorder, it's that people tend to focus on the disorder rather then the person and loose sight of the many positive qualities such people may have, we need to learn to minimize the impact of the disorder, by working with the person themselves and their parents/educators to make sure that the person learns skills to cope and the parents and educators learn how to create an environment where that person has the best possible chance of being able to successfully cope, society cannot change completely to accomadate them but if people were as educated and understanding about AS/PDD as they are are cerebral palsy and Down's Syndrome then it would be much easier.

Half the reason many people with AS/PDD have so much trouble is because of people who don't believe it's a real disorder and believe that the person is just being antisocial/rude/lazy etc etc. No need to make it worse by all this "I'm not disabled" shit.

[Pobblebonk]

as a person somewhere on the Aspergers/autism/PDD spectrum I would like to say that I do believe that AS is a "disorder"' date=' but the problem is that when people hear the word "disorder" or "syndrome", they tend to think of it as meaning that the whole person is broken, defective or inferior in some way and needs to be "fixed" as soon as possible.

I know that my PDD has caused me some issues, I do have difficulty interacting with others, I tend to get misunderstood and misunderstand others, and I sometimes become too forceful and opinionated when expressing my opinion. However the difference between PDD and a visible physical disability is that it is much easier for people to understand and accept that a person with cerebral palsy may not be able to walk or do other things that people that don't have CP can do.[/quote']

Precisely the points I've been making all along. If, somehow, the social problems Aspies have were manifested physically, no one would deny that it was a disability. And no one but a bigot would consider that having a physical disability devalued the person with it in any way. I just can't see any justification for treating Aspergers differently simply because it's psychological - all I can suppose is that, because it can affect personality traits, some people feel that describing it as a disorder represents a threat to their identity, but that's a purely emotive reaction, not one based on assessing whether or not Aspergers is a disorder by any objective standard.

Phil

[Derp]

the problem is that when people hear the word "disorder" or "syndrome", they tend to think of it as meaning that the whole person is broken, defective or inferior in some way and needs to be "fixed" as soon as possible.

You forgot "mentally ill".

And yes, a LOT of people think that, which is why I won't wear it. I'm not trying to be bigoted or anything either, but perhaps I'm a bit too used to the fact that so many other people are...

[P.V.P.]

IMO, to claim that Asperger's is not a disorder is not necessarily to claim that it doesn't exist - although there are surely people such as certain Scientologists and Urban Dictionary authors who might well claim that - but to challenge the prevailing notion of "order," i.e., to think that maybe not all of the things considered normal functioning are necessary to have.

This is, after all, how many of the asexuals on here seem to feel about sexual attraction. It may be "normal," but it's not necessary.

But there's still always the chance (probably likelihood) that even in the most enlightened of societies, with as much of the unnecessary bullshit cut through as possible, there would still be important things that Aspies have a hard time doing.

[Pobblebonk]

IMO' date=' to claim that Asperger's is not a disorder is not necessarily to claim that it doesn't exist - although there are surely people such as certain Scientologists and Urban Dictionary authors who might well claim that - but to challenge the prevailing notion of "order," i.e., to think that maybe not all of the things considered normal functioning are necessary to have.[/quote']

Which is essentially akin to saying that cerebral palsy is not a disorder because dexterity is not "necessary to have" - my form is actually particularly rare, and rather mild. Most people with cerebral palsy are confined to wheelchairs. Maybe walking isn't "necessary to have" either.

And this is the thing: there is such a thing as objective normality, simply the empirical fact that there are particular things humans are, for the most part, capable of doing. It's the whole effort to try and politicise this simple observational issue that I find aggravating on this thread, the confusion between what is objectively 'normal' in the sense that it is the baseline in human capability, and the relative notion of cultural 'normality'. This isn't about what's 'normal' as prescribed by a given culture - wherever you are in the world and whatever culture you're in, it's normal to be able to walk, it's normal to be able to see, and it's normal to be able to operate in a social environment. Precisely what that social environment is is irrelevant to an Aspie, just as precisely what there is to see is irrelevant to a blind person. No one is denying that being able to see is normal; why do they find it such a struggle to accept that being able to interact with other people is normal? This is what I mean about people adopting a double standard on this issue.

This is, after all, how many of the asexuals on here seem to feel about sexual attraction. It may be "normal," but it's not necessary.

I'm afraid I have to ask, but are people reading this thread actually reading posts to it that I've already made? And in this case that Triple A has also made. Aspergers isn't a matter of inclination, nor is it related to whether one is instinctively interested in socialising or not. It is a real inhibition that restricts what one can actually do. Asexuality is irrelevant - being asexual does not entail being unable to have sex. If it did, then it would qualify as a disorder. It does not in any way reduce one's capability to do anything that other people routinely do.

But there's still always the chance (probably likelihood) that even in the most enlightened of societies, with as much of the unnecessary bullshit cut through as possible, there would still be important things that Aspies have a hard time doing.

Just as in even the most enlightened society which does as much as it can to provide nonvisual aids, there would still be important things that blind people have a hard time doing. People seem unable to grasp that there is nothing judgmental about this simple fact - as I've mentioned, I get particularly uneasy at the idea that people should avoid calling something a disorder because prejudiced people might regard it as devaluing them, since that only validates the prejudice: "Your attitude makes me feel that having a disorder devalues me, so I will accept that that is true and claim I don't have a disorder to avoid feeling devalued". It's a simple empirical fact - a blind person has more difficulty functioning in a visual environment than a sighted person, an Aspie has more difficulty functioning in a social environment than a neurotypical person. No, Aspies don't struggle because Western society deems that everyone should have a set ability to socialise or because it makes any particular demands that don't consider their needs. They struggle because they are in a society, and however accommodating that society may become, the simple fact that it's an environment in which people interact with one another makes it as difficult to navigate as a blind person finds it to navigate an environment that relies on vision.

Phil

[alucard]

Maybe walking isn't "necessary to have" either.

It wouldn't be necessary if we were more technologically advanced...

Though, since we're not... :P

[Daysleeper]

Nothing is worth killing yourself over

[Orbit]

I'm afraid I have to ask, but are people reading this thread actually reading posts to it that I've already made?

Just because a point is made by you or Trip doesn't mean it's case closed. *L* Your points are not accepted and therefore others are still trying to make you see why you're wrong.

Asexuality is irrelevant - being asexual does not entail being unable to have sex. If it did, then it would qualify as a disorder. It does not in any way reduce one's capability to do anything that other people routinely do.

BS! We can't feel sexual attraction and that's something sexual people routinely do. Some of us are quite glad we can't, but a lot of people who CAN feel it think there is something wrong with us for NOT feeling it.

People seem unable to grasp that there is nothing judgmental about this simple fact - as I've mentioned, I get particularly uneasy at the idea that people should avoid calling something a disorder because prejudiced people might regard it as devaluing them, since that only validates the prejudice...

And YOU seem unable to grasp that there is a spectrum

of various social blurriness to blindness and a lot of people adapt in a way that they can learn read body language intellectually, even if they weren't born sensing it.

You keep dumping everyone into a total 'social blindness' and disfunction - which is just not true... or fair. For many their AS is a social fuzziness or blurriness and they may have to learn to 'squint' to see things intellectually others can see automatically and that makes them tired and exhausted - but they can learn to do it over time. If provided a safe environment where people aren't lying to and bullying them, aspies can interact quite well and are delightful people to be around.

Also, you don't seem to be able to grasp that AS folks come in varying degrees of intelligence and some are retarded so there are going to be those who may never be able to adapt and interact that has more to do with the OTHER functions of their brain and not their sensitivity to social interactions.

[Derp]

IMO, to claim that Asperger's is not a disorder is not necessarily to claim that it doesn't exist - although there are surely people such as certain Scientologists and Urban Dictionary authors who might well claim that - but to challenge the prevailing notion of "order," i.e., to think that maybe not all of the things considered normal functioning are necessary to have.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel about it. I think my main problem with calling Asperger's a "disorder" is that it automatically assumes that NTs use a superior form of communication. Why is it superior? Because they're the majority? NTs often don't say what they mean, or mean what they say. They also often pay more attention to the delivery of words than the words themselves.* I would call this a Word Usage Disorder myself, but I'm in the minority, so I guess I can't.

I do have to wonder, though... if there's something so inherently flawed about the way I communicate, then why is it that talking to other Aspies feels perfectly natural?

*(Not to generalize, of course; I know some pretty awesome NTs who aren't like that.) :)

[Orbit]

Pobble,

I highly recommend this blog:

http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com/

Her second to last entry, both of the last ones are dated January 21st, but I'm speaking of the Autistic Culture one - explains quite well how when people with AS are allowed to interact WITHOUT NT's interfering it is completely different. It's not that AS folks can't interact or have meaningful AND FUN relationships - it's that the so called 'normal' way inhibits because NT's tend to overwhelm with noise, misunderstanding and correction...

NT's don't get AS folks any better than autists get NT's - there's just MORE NT's in the world.

Again - I'm not talking about those on the spectrum who have other issues going on as well or who may have such a degree of of autism that they are blind.

Definately there needs to be more study done - but until then the label of 'disorder' is VERY debatable.

[alucard]

Definately there needs to be more study done - but until then the label of 'disorder' is VERY debatable.

And that's not just for aspergers.

[Orbit]

agreed.

Any time they find something unique enough in a small enough proportion of society, they stick a label of 'disorder' on it and tell people there's something wrong with them, go on a witch hunt trying to find the cause and the drug companies look for a way to medicate it.

I predict that in several decades we'll be looking back on this time period as the medieval era of psychology.

[Orbit]

Here is yet an other example of the 'disorder of autism' being thrown around as if people know what they are talking about.

Scientists discover the 'kind' part of the brain

Last updated at 12:14pm on 22nd January 2007

Charity begins...in the posterior superior temporal salcus, according to scientists who have traced the origins of altruism in the brain.

A study found that this part of the brain is more active in people who often engage in helpful behaviour.

The region, which lies in the top and back portion of the brain, is linked to sorting out social relationships.

US scientists scanned the brains of 45 volunteers using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging which can watch the brain working.

At the same time, participants either played a computer game, or watched the computer play the game on its own. In either case, winning the game earned money for a chosen charity.

Volunteers were also questioned about how often they put others before themselves - in other words, how altruistic they were.

The brain scans revealed that the most charitable showed the most activity in the posterior superior temporal salcus when the computer game was being played.

Study leader Dr Scott Huettel, a neuroscientist from Duke University Medical Centre in Durham, North Carolina, said: "Although understanding the function of this brain region may not necessarily identify what drives people like Mother Theresa, it may give clues to the origins of important social behaviours like altruism."

Further research in the area may lead to greater understanding of disorders such as autism or antisocial behaviour, say the researchers.

The findings were reported in the online edition of the journal Nature Neuroscience.

The cruelest and most unkind people I have ever met are NT's who use their skills to twist things and hurt people purposefully for their own gain.

Most aspies tend to be a bit clueless, granted, but if they can figure out there is a need they can help with, most aspies I've met react no different in kindness than an NT would.... and some even MORE selflessly.

Scientists. :roll:

[P.V.P.]

Yes, that's exactly how I feel about it. I think my main problem with calling Asperger's a "disorder" is that it automatically assumes that NTs use a superior form of communication. Why is it superior? Because they're the majority?

Unless autists have some kind of special channels of communication that I'm unaware of, the disorder side of the argument could claim that autists don't have the same range of communication abilities that NTs do, and that inability to access the full range of channels makes autism a disability.

But back in the old days, it probably would have been called "eccentricity," or perhaps in the more severe cases, "raised by wolves" or "retarded" or "possessed." Then again, schizophrenia is considered by some cultures as "being touched by the gods," and temporal-lobe epilepsy can sometimes be considered mysticism...

Aha! Social definitions and standards play a big role in deciding which abilities are important and which are not!

Anyway, I do think there is a lot of room for improvement in NT culture. There's nothing wrong with the ability to communicate via body language - whether my sister gives me a look or tells me to watch my mouth, as long as I can read it, it doesn't matter which mode is used.

The problem, IMO, is in some of the reasons why so many people rely on subtlety and indirectness, which at its worst becomes lying, manipulation, and passive-aggression. Our egos are often too sensitive, because there are so many reasons why we expect to be rejected, so many conditions we're taught to put on accepting ourselves and others. Having a sensitive ego feels like a chronic disease to me. Perhaps if we weren't inclined to dismiss ourselves as "bad" or "hopeless" just because of one little sin or setback, a lot of these subtle dances would be unnecessary.

[P.V.P.]

Most aspies tend to be a bit clueless, granted, but if they can figure out there is a need they can help with, most aspies I've met react no different in kindness than an NT would.... and some even MORE selflessly.

From what I've read in popularized neuropsychology, the key factors determining kind behavior are situational variables like a good mood (which can be influenced by a stroke of good luck or a ray of sunshine) and the absence of competing demands (e.g. not being late to a prior commitment.) It probably also helps not to be a sociopath.

I sometimes think of sociopathy as almost an inverse of autism, where body language and emotional communication are intact and maybe even enhanced compared to your average person, but the ability to experience emotive empathy and be morally responsible is lacking. With many autists, the latter seems to be intact while the former is not.

[Derp]

Yes, that's exactly how I feel about it. I think my main problem with calling Asperger's a "disorder" is that it automatically assumes that NTs use a superior form of communication. Why is it superior? Because they're the majority?

Unless autists have some kind of special channels of communication that I'm unaware of, the disorder side of the argument could claim that autists don't have the same range of communication abilities that NTs do, and that inability to access the full range of channels makes autism a disability.

Based on what I've been able to observe from my own interactions with fellow Aspies, I'd speculate that we have as wide a range of channels with each other as NTs have with each other. Perhaps it's not a matter of not being able to read non-verbal cues at all, so much as not being able to read theirs.

That's just my observation, of course. I'd be interested in hearing other peoples'...

[P.V.P.]

[

Based on what I've been able to observe from my own interactions with fellow Aspies, I'd speculate that we have as wide a range of channels with each other as NTs have with each other. Perhaps it's not a matter of not being able to read non-verbal cues at all, so much as not being able to read theirs.

Very interesting.

It kind of reminds me of the view I developed on Theory of Mind and autism after reading some material written by autistics and reflecting on my own gaps of communication and understanding with my mother: autists' difficulties understanding NTs are no different in kind from NTs' difficulties understanding other NTs. All people assume that others more or less think and feel like they would. The difference is, many of the assumptions that NTs take for granted about one another don't apply to autists, and vice versa.

Every once in a while, though, you might find people who have enough in common to understand and communicate with each other across the neurological divide. I feel like I've got at least as much and probably more common ground with my aspie BF than with my mother, in terms of what's safe for one to assume about how the other's mind works. Neurology is just one category of differences between people, all of which can make people confusing to each other.

[Brodertun]

Based on what I've been able to observe from my own interactions with fellow Aspies, I'd speculate that we have as wide a range of channels with each other as NTs have with each other. Perhaps it's not a matter of not being able to read non-verbal cues at all, so much as not being able to read theirs.

That's just my observation, of course. I'd be interested in hearing other peoples'...

I agree. I know COTL doesn't believe he's an aspie, but I don't seem to have much trouble understanding him. Its nothing like a conversation with other people.

Of course it also helps that there isn't the contant criticism/you should be doing that so there isn't the constant being on edge of "how am I offending you now." Like for example I happened to notice we were both playing with our straw paper - i remember being yelled at when iw as younger being told thats not something you do at the table.

[Derp]

Of course it also helps that there isn't the contant criticism/you should be doing that so there isn't the constant being on edge of "how am I offending you now." Like for example I happened to notice we were both playing with our straw paper - i remember being yelled at when iw as younger being told thats not something you do at the table.

Aww, that sucks. What fun is eating out if you can't make scrunchy straw paper worms? :D

[Orbit]

Like for example I happened to notice we were both playing with our straw paper - i remember being yelled at when iw as younger being told thats not something you do at the table.

Aww, that sucks. What fun is eating out if you can't make scrunchy straw paper worms? :D

ha! I'm always doing that and when my kids do it, I make them warn me first, but they're allowed to shoot me with theirs if they can manage.

Very fun.

[Pobblebonk]

I'm afraid I have to ask' date=' but are people reading this thread actually reading posts to it that I've already made? [/quote']

Just because a point is made by you or Trip doesn't mean it's case closed. *L* Your points are not accepted and therefore others are still trying to make you see why you're wrong.

The above wasn't a case of disputing the point already made - it was asking the same question that was made before the answer was given. If the point is "not accepted" it's for the person who doesn't accept it to dispute, not for them to repeat the same question ignoring the point as though it hadn't been made.

Asexuality is irrelevant - being asexual does not entail being unable to have sex. If it did, then it would qualify as a disorder. It does not in any way reduce one's capability to do anything that other people routinely do.

BS! We can't feel sexual attraction and that's something sexual people routinely do.

I repeat: "does not in any way reduce one's capability to do anything that other people routinely do" (emphasis added). We can physically engage in sexual activity. We don't feel sexual attraction, in the same way a gay man doesn't feel sexual attraction towards women, but attraction is, as I've mentioned, an inclination. Even that doesn't imply that we can't feel it. It's a wholly ludicrous comparison: you can choose whether or not and to what degree to engage in social interaction. As Aspie's options in making that choice are limited by their reduced ability to socialise; if you want to draw a sexual comparison, an appropriate one would be with impotence, as you make the choice whether or not to try and engage in sexual activity but physical limitations hinder your ability to do so. Sexual attraction isn't a matter of choice - you don't choose to be sexually attracted to person X rather than person Y, it just happens. You can still choose whether or not to actually have sex with that person, and an asexual is as capable of doing so as anyone else.

Some of us are quite glad we can't,

And an asexual may also be glad to be impotent, or have no issue with being impotent either way. Just as an antisocial person may be glad to have Aspergers or not be bothered by it. That doesn't imply that impotence, or Aspergers, isn't a disorder.

but a lot of people who CAN feel it think there is something wrong with us for NOT feeling it.

Beside the point. You're still going out of your way to turn this into a political issue by comparing it with judgments against asexuality or personal hangups unhappy asexuals may have. Why are you so consistently missing the point (note that: missing, as in ignoring, not as in disputing) I'm making that whether or not something is a disorder has nothing to do with whether or not people suffering from it feel that there's something wrong with them. It's nothing more than an objective measure of capability, it isn't any kind of normative judgment and has nothing to do with whether something is in any sense 'wrong'. As I said above, "disabled" means nothing more sinister than "less able" to do something. Why should that imply wrongness? You made the point yourself that there's nothing wrong with being less able to do maths than someone else; why should there be anything wrong with being less able to socialise?

People seem unable to grasp that there is nothing judgmental about this simple fact - as I've mentioned, I get particularly uneasy at the idea that people should avoid calling something a disorder because prejudiced people might regard it as devaluing them, since that only validates the prejudice...

And YOU seem unable to grasp that there is a spectrum

of various social blurriness to blindness

This is another point I've answered. This is what I mean about being able to argue - when I make the point that "People seem unable to grasp that there is nothing judgmental about this simple fact" I'm identifying the issue of contention that has been raised here, this seeming conviction that I'm insisting there's something "wrong" with people who have a disorder. When you respond "YOU seem unable to grasp that there is a spectrum

of various social blurriness to blindness" your objection doesn't relate in any way to the argument I've actually been making. Yes there's a spectrum - now how does this fact in any way invalidate anything I've argued? Whatever part of the spectrum you fall along, you still suffer an impairment compared with a norm at the high end of that spectrum - people suffering from shortsightedness are impaired compared with people with 20/20 vision regardless of whether their vision is slightly below par or complete blindness. Aspies are impaired socially compared with neurotypicals regardless of whether they are a little awkward or completely socially incapable. So how is it relevant whether there's a spectrum or not? And if it is relevant, then surely your examples based on asexuality, which is more-or-less binary, are invalid while mine regarding blindness, which like Aspergers does fall along a spectrum, are more pertinent.

I'd ask you to try and keep track of where the argument's going, but you seem to insist on arguing against a straw man rather than actually contesting the points I've made. Which I suppose comes down to another point I made about arguing on another thread - if you're not working to the same premise, there's no common ground.

To summarise: I've been saying all along that calling something a 'disorder' is not a judgment call of any sort, and doesn't imply anything wrong with anyone who has that disorder. My argument follows from this, and the actual points I've made in support of that argument are so far uncontested as support for that argument. On the other hand, you're starting from the premise that calling something a disorder is bad because it's perjorative, relativistic and implies something "wrong" with people who have that disorder. All the points you raise in an effort to counter mine rest on this assumption, and if I were making the argument you apparently want me to be making they would be valid objections. However, they have no bearing at all on the argument I'm actually making - when my argument derives from the premise that "there's nothing wrong with having a disorder", objections that amount to saying "but this condition isn't a disorder because there's nothing wrong with having it" aren't in any way incompatible with anything I've been saying.

and a lot of people adapt in a way that they can learn read body language intellectually, even if they weren't born sensing it.

True. And people with shortsightedness can adapt to that by wearing glasses. It's the fact that they need to adapt that makes it a disorder - it's an impairment they need to overcome, just as I've trained myself over time to become less clumsy.

You keep dumping everyone into a total 'social blindness' and disfunction - which is just not true... or fair.

Again, read the points I've made in the past. I've used blindness as an example because it's more convenient than talking about a spectrum of shortsightedness, and I use 'social blindness' as its equivalent for ease of comparison. It's not relevant to the point I'm making whether or not there's a spectrum, and as I've said before my case isn't based on the magnitude of the disability. Indeed I've acknowledged that my form of cerebral palsy is mild - it's at the high end of that spectrum. But it is nevertheless a disability because it is an impairment compared with the baseline in physical capability. And no one would deny that it's a disability, so again I ask (a question which remains unanswered) why a different standard is accepted for Aspergers.

Let's boil my case down to the very basics: I'm asking a simple question - is one's natural functioning in social environments impaired compared with the general population (whether or not one can adapt) if one has Aspergers syndrome? No one has yet disputed my answer "yes", and indeed the diagnosis of the syndrome requires this to be the case. I've given my definition of a disorder as a condition which impairs one's natural capabilities compared with the general population. So if we're agreed that Aspergers does indeed impair one's capability to interact socially, then it necessarily follows that it qualifies as a disorder. That is all that's relevant here - it is of no consequence how severe the impairment is, whether it falls along a spectrum, whether it can be adapted to, or whether it causes everyone (or even anyone) with the disorder to suffer from any problems, and it is of no consequence whether the person with the disorder or anyone else regards it as "wrong" or not.

Now, your options in disputing this case are as follows:

1. You can dispute my definition of a disorder. If so, we simply can't have the argument - this is the equivalent of the atheist arguing with a religious person about a principle of morality derived from God, working to a premise that only one of them accepts. I can argue my case flawlessly and it can be completely watertight, but if you don't accept this premise then you aren't going to accept the argument. The argument, however, remains valid if this is the only point in dispute since there is no way of proving a matter of definition "wrong" - it's an issue of perspective rather than of evidence. Just as the atheist is never going to be able to poke holes in a Christian's belief that a moral principle is derived from God by pointing out that God doesn't exist; he can only do so by taking issue with the sources the Christian claims demonstrate God's support for his position.

2. You can dispute that Aspergers syndrome impairs one's capability to function in a social environment. So far you have acknowledged that this premise is accepted, pointing out yourself that Aspies fall along a spectrum ranging from slight difficulties to which they can adapt to "social blindness".

3. You can dispute that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Also, you don't seem to be able to grasp that AS folks come in varying degrees of intelligence and some are retarded so there are going to be those who may never be able to adapt and interact that has more to do with the OTHER functions of their brain and not their sensitivity to social interactions.

This would be the same definition as "don't seem able to grasp..." that you might use to say "You don't seem to grasp that elephants are grey" - making a point completely unrelated to the argument I'm putting forward. Non-AS folks come in varying degrees of intelligence and some are retarded, but that doesn't imply that Aspergers doesn't have any bearing on the social difficulties of people who have it. When making points about whether or not Aspergers (or anything else) specifically qualifies as a disorder it is vital to consider the effects of that in isolation - if Aspergers in itself does not inhibit social functioning it isn't a disorder, if it does it is.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

Here is yet an other example of the 'disorder of autism' being thrown around as if people know what they are talking about.

Scientists discover the 'kind' part of the brain

Last updated at 12:14pm on 22nd January 2007

Charity begins...in the posterior superior temporal salcus, according to scientists who have traced the origins of altruism in the brain.

A study found that this part of the brain is more active in people who often engage in helpful behaviour.

The region, which lies in the top and back portion of the brain, is linked to sorting out social relationships.

US scientists scanned the brains of 45 volunteers using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging which can watch the brain working.

At the same time, participants either played a computer game, or watched the computer play the game on its own. In either case, winning the game earned money for a chosen charity.

Volunteers were also questioned about how often they put others before themselves - in other words, how altruistic they were.

The brain scans revealed that the most charitable showed the most activity in the posterior superior temporal salcus when the computer game was being played.

Study leader Dr Scott Huettel, a neuroscientist from Duke University Medical Centre in Durham, North Carolina, said: "Although understanding the function of this brain region may not necessarily identify what drives people like Mother Theresa, it may give clues to the origins of important social behaviours like altruism."

Further research in the area may lead to greater understanding of disorders such as autism or antisocial behaviour, say the researchers.

The findings were reported in the online edition of the journal Nature Neuroscience.

The cruelest and most unkind people I have ever met are NT's who use their skills to twist things and hurt people purposefully for their own gain.

Most aspies tend to be a bit clueless, granted, but if they can figure out there is a need they can help with, most aspies I've met react no different in kindness than an NT would.... and some even MORE selflessly.

Scientists. :roll:

Again, I'm simply seeing nothing at all perjorative in the above. This is probably because I'm working to my judgment-free objectivist definition of "disorder" and you're seeing the implication that "disorder" = "something wrong" that you have on the rest of the thread.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

Pobble' date='

I highly recommend this blog:

http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com/

Her second to last entry, both of the last ones are dated January 21st, but I'm speaking of the Autistic Culture one - explains quite well how when people with AS are allowed to interact WITHOUT NT's interfering it is completely different. It's not that AS folks can't interact or have meaningful AND FUN relationships -

Have I ever suggested anything of the kind? I recall mentioning a couple of good friendships on this thread alone, only one of which ended in disaster.

it's that the so called 'normal' way inhibits because NT's tend to overwhelm with noise, misunderstanding and correction...

NT's don't get AS folks any better than autists get NT's -

Well, given that you just mentioned the tendency for NTs to misunderstand Aspies, that seems rather inevitable. Not to mention part of the problem. Sometimes I think it would be quite nice to be able to spend time with good friends and to show an interest in spending more time with them without them getting the impression that I'm coming onto them, just to take one example, or for that matter for me to take the time to get to know strangers without them getting the same impression. And it doesn't very much matter how accommodating of that they are or how willing to clear up the misunderstanding - it can be awkward and beyond that just downright irritating.

Though Aspies aren't immune from misunderstanding one another by any means - Triple A and I have had a couple of minor cases when talking in the past, usually to do with interpreting emotions (she might get the impression that something she'd said had annoyed me, for example, when it hadn't done anything of the kind).

there's just MORE NT's in the world.

There are more sighted people than blind people in the world too. If we belonged to a species which didn't rely on sight as its primary sense, blindness would barely be an issue. No doubt if we were a species in which social awkwardness was the norm, Aspergers would be much less noticeable. And when discussing a condition that inhibits social interaction, pointing out that there are more NTs than anyone else serves to do nothing but highlight the extent of the problem, even for Aspies who can communicate with one another without misunderstandings.

Phil

[Derp]

Like for example I happened to notice we were both playing with our straw paper - i remember being yelled at when iw as younger being told thats not something you do at the table.

Aww, that sucks. What fun is eating out if you can't make scrunchy straw paper worms? :D

ha! I'm always doing that and when my kids do it, I make them warn me first, but they're allowed to shoot me with theirs if they can manage.

Very fun.

Hee... I usually just take them off the straw, and then use the straw to drop water on them, and then watch 'em grow. I've never tried shooting them, though. I'll have to do that sometime. :twisted:

[Orbit]

Pobble, after painfully going through your post and not finding anything useful to respond to, (useful in that I think we would get anywhere) I've come to the conclusion that I've come to many times and said, which you just disagree with. I'll state it one more time.

Those with traits that put them in the AS spectrum often are impaired to the point that they behave similar to someone with a disorders and/or disability.

Others with traits that put them on the AS spectrum are not impaired to the point where they behave as someone with a disorder and/or disability - in fact they are more functioning in certain areas than those without AS.

To quote something I read on another board,

"To say many aspies go on to live normal lives is - well - rather silly. Many go on to win Nobel Prizes."

Here are two lists. One of 'disorders' and one of 'disabilities'. Autism is on both of them.

Disorders

Disabilities

I don't have trouble with including some parts of the spectrum of AS on the list. It's the fact that people tend to ignore that some traits being attributed to AS are useful and productive parts of society!! There are amazing Aspies in the world who just happen to not be as social as NT's and to say they have a 'disorder' is to miss something major in the diagnosis.

Because if you look on that list, there aren't any other disorders or disabilities which include a 'gifted' aspect to them. Some require mere accomidation, others look to be cured but ALL of them on both lists are something that people would like to eliminate from the gene pool if possible.

And THAT is the problem I have with calling it a 'disorder' or 'disability'... Not just because I don't believe in eugenics on a moral level but because it is fundimentally flawed to believe we don't benefit emensley from people on the AS spectrum.

I'm not sure how much more I can take of this back and forth - we just don't see eye to eye on this and IMO it's on a very small, yet profound detail in the definition.

[Brodertun]

Now you're really not making any sense Orbit. You basically say that yes aspergers is a disability and a disorder, then say it shouldn't it be.

No one ever said there couldn't be positive aspects to disabilities as well - many deaf people, for example, feel being deaf enables them to better concentrate on their work (something Ben Franklin said after losing his hearing)

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.

It doesn't matter how many college degreees I get. how many times I graduate as valedictorian. That doesn't stop me from being disabled because at the end of the day, i'm still unable to figure out if someone is being serious, if what I'm saying is inappropriate, or more common lacking critical details for their comprehension. Being gifted doesn't erase that.

[Orbit]

You basically say that yes aspergers is a disability and a disorder, then say it shouldn't it be.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

It doesn't matter how many college degreees I get. how many times I graduate as valedictorian. That doesn't stop me from being disabled because at the end of the day, i'm still unable to figure out if someone is being serious, if what I'm saying is inappropriate, or more common lacking critical details for their comprehension. Being gifted doesn't erase that.

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?

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

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'

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'.

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

If you still don't think I make sense, I'm sorry - I don't think there's much more I can do to clarify...

[Pobblebonk]

Pobble' date=' after painfully going through your post and not finding anything useful to respond to, (useful in that I think we would get anywhere) I've come to the conclusion that I've come to many times and said, which you just disagree with. I'll state it one more time.

Those with traits that put them in the AS spectrum often are [u']impaired[/u] to the point that they behave similar to someone with a disorders and/or disability.

Others with traits that put them on the AS spectrum are not impaired to the point where they behave as someone with a disorder and/or disability - in fact they are more functioning in certain areas than those without AS.

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'. This qualifies as an issue of rejecting my first premise because it doesn't accord with your belief system (and equally, my rejecting yours because it doesn't accord with mine), giving us no common ground from which to argue in the first place. However, it is reasonable to ask how you justify that premise, as I've justified the definition I'm working from - where do you set the dividing line, why do you believe there is a dividing line at all, and is that dividing line the same for, say, a physical disability as for Aspergers? So, for instance, would you say that someone like me, with mild cerebral palsy that does not represent a particularly significant or uncorrectable impairment but which is nevertheless a minor impairment, does or does not have a disability?

To quote something I read on another board,

"To say many aspies go on to live normal lives is - well - rather silly. Many go on to win Nobel Prizes."

So do people without Aspergers and indeed those with a range of disabilities. Hawking has never won a Nobel Prize, but if he did would that mean that his condition isn't a disability? If I were to win one, would that imply that cerebral palsy isn't a disability? Of course not; that's idiotic.

I don't have trouble with including some parts of the spectrum of AS on the list. It's the fact that people tend to ignore that some traits being attributed to AS are useful and productive parts of society!!

No, no they aren't ignoring that at all, and in fact I addressed that in past posts. We aren't talking about Aspie traits here, we are talking about Aspergers syndrome. The whole shebang. Plenty of people can have the more positive traits of Aspergers without being Aspies. One only has Aspergers syndrome if one suffers from the social impairments that are used to diagnose it. Being focused, accomplished in a narrow field or obssessively passionate about something does not make one an Aspie, although all these traits are common to many (but not all) Aspies. Some degree of social impairment, however, is common to all Aspies simply by virtue of the fact that that's the way the syndrome is defined. No one is saying that having this-or-that Aspie trait qualifies them as having a disorder, whether that trait is positive or negative (although in the case of negative traits that represent an impairment they would be), any more than the physical symptom of being sick qualifies you as having tuberculosis. We are saying that the aggregate combination of traits defined as Aspergers syndrome is a disorder, just as physical diseases are diagnosed based on cross-referencing a range of symptoms.

There are amazing Aspies in the world who just happen to not be as social as NT's

I thought we'd got past the point where we'd established that Aspergers has nothing to do with whether or not one is "as social" as NTs - it has to do with whether or not one is as socially capable as NTs, whether their instinct is to be social or not.

and to say they have a 'disorder' is to miss something major in the diagnosis.

Is it to "miss something in the diagnosis" to focus only on incidental positive 'symptoms' associated with the condition or to treat the syndrome as what it is, a whole range of traits both positive and negative. You seem to be being led astray by oversimplifying both the diagnosis and the process by which it is reached.

Because if you look on that list, there aren't any other disorders or disabilities which include a 'gifted' aspect to them.

Not relevant - they're on the list because they all have a negative aspect to them, some form of impairment. Which is what a disorder is. The issue you seem to be having here is that you're working to a private definition of 'disorder' which is at odds with that used by the medical profession, and it doesn't seem to make very much sense to complain about psychiatrists or psychologists using the term in the context that they understand it on the basis that it means something else the way you understand it. And it certainly isn't the case that all Aspies or autistics are 'gifted' - indeed a New Scientist article a few years ago warned against hailing autistic savants as representative of the majority of autistics, who lack savant 'gifts'.

And THAT is the problem I have with calling it a 'disorder' or 'disability'... Not just because I don't believe in eugenics on a moral level but because it is fundimentally flawed to believe we don't benefit emensley from people on the AS spectrum.

While I feel that it's fundamentally flawed to read into the term "disorder" or "disability" any implication of the sort, or any belief that such things ought to be "eliminated from the gene pool". It's precisely the stigma being read into these terms that makes it important to combat it and say "I have a disorder/disability. These are my achievements in spite of the impairments I suffer from".

On a personal level I also feel it belittles those struggling (and succeeding) in achieving great things to attribute their success to a condition they have rather than their accomplishments as people. Plenty of Aspies contribute in ways that we "benefit immensely from". The majority don't, at least not to any greater degree than the majority of the general public. Just the same can be said of people with any disability or disorder, from Stevie Wonder to Stephen Hawking. We have no reason to think that Aspies are proportionately any more likely to be significant contributors, or to contribute more, than anyone else. Even where Aspie ways of thinking may have played a part in their success (and it's unlikely that one could ever really prove that someone wouldn't have achieved the same thing without Aspergers), it's a gross and unfair simplification to credit their life's achievements to being Aspies, and moreover I find it ethically reprehensible to denigrate someone in that way for the sake of pushing a political point about Aspergers.

It's not even as though we have any known correlation between Aspergers and high achievement, any more than we have any known correlation between blindness and high achievement - all we can say is that some high achievers happen to have Aspergers syndrome, just as some happen to be blind. We certainly aren't in any position to say that being Aspies contributes to one's chances of academic success. We can speculate on ways in which the two might be connected, just as we can speculate that Ray Charles' greater reliance on his hearing was connected to his superior music-writing skills, but no one would dream of saying that Ray Charles' blindness was responsible for his accomplishments.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

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.

On what are you basing this assumption? The majority of scientists and mathemeticians are not Aspies, including some of the most renowned. Do you have any sources that even correlate Aspergers with an increased chance of scientific success, let alone suggest a causal link between the two? You just seem to be making an assumption that's no different from saying that "blind people are accomplished musicians. If you cured everyone of blindness, there's a high likelihood that their talents in music would be washed away."

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.

How do you know that? Maybe their reduced ability to walk prompts them to practise more on their art at home. Maybe the difficulties they face fosters their determination to succeed. Would Ray Charles have been as accomplished a musician if he were fully-sighted? Almost certainly not; he did train his hearing to levels most people don't, and he did have a sense of determination instilled into him to avoid being treated as a 'cripple'. But his blindness wasn't responsible for his accomplishments. You're oversimplifying again. For the successful Aspies, how much of their success relates to their ways of thinking, and how much to their need to persevere in a social field such as science or a perceived need to prove themselves to colleagues who found them difficult to accept?

I already mentioned the Hawking example - had he not been crippled by his illness, would he have had the same incentive not just to be a competent physicist, but to become known as a highly-respected physicist with a public profile? I very much doubt that he'd have put the effort into becoming a public spokesperson for his science if he hadn't had that incentive to show the world that badly disabled people can succeed (and, incidentally, as I recall his doctors only gave him a few years to live when he was first diagnosed, which may have helped to spur his efforts as well).

It doesn't matter how many college degreees I get. how many times I graduate as valedictorian. That doesn't stop me from being disabled because at the end of the day, i'm still unable to figure out if someone is being serious, if what I'm saying is inappropriate, or more common lacking critical details for their comprehension. Being gifted doesn't erase that.

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?

Few people with other disorders and disabilities experience 'benefits' such as the deaf Franklin described. For Aspies, it's almost across the board that they have benefits...

Again, what evidence are you using to support this?

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.

Ah, so they don't enjoy those benefits after all, just like most disabled people. It's just that for other disabled people it's because they struggle to benefit from them naturally, while for Aspies it's just because they're specifically being discriminated against. Okay... Never mind that I know of precious little evidence for this discrimination quite aside from anything else - from the views expressed in that woman's journal you linked to, she seemed to be ascribing her own social difficulties to other people discriminating against her simply by being NTs, which seems akin to a blind man ascribing his difficulties to fully-sighted people discriminating against him simply by being fully-sighted.

If you still don't think I make sense, I'm sorry - I don't think there's much more I can do to clarify...

Oh, I think we know what you're saying - lack of clarity isn't the issue. It's just the argument that doesn't make sense.

Phil

[Orbit]

I give up. I can't wade through all your words to hear the same thing all over again.

We disagree. End of story.