Is Anyone Here 100% Or Close To 100% Autistic?

Post Reply New Topic

I am trying to picture what you said so I can grasp it. I am still on a learning process. I am awaiting assessment. A few months ago I was unaware that I shared any autistic traits! Ok, I always knew I was unique. But I assumed it was all due to having a different upbringing then others had. So it is all a big learning curve. I find what you have said fascinating. I will need to look again to understand it because it is 0430 in the morning. I need sleep. Should have been in bed a long time ago.

Get some sleep. I'm off to bed as well. It will make more sense when you are refreshed.

You seem to have good insight into how your initial post was likely to come across to some people, which doesn't seem like someone with anosognosia.

Glad to reply. An interesting question, but I don't think I can give a meaningful answer as a percentage. Apologies, I'm more an artistic autistic type than a numbers/engineering autistic type. Numbers hurt my brain and its an unnatural way for me to think, but I'm highly logical and I can relate to using my neocortex to make almost all of my decisions. That has made me superior to most NTs in some circumstances, but it has also made it very difficult to find people who understand the way I think. I'm the one who has to accommodate to their thinking style if I want to have friends, which isn't fair. I choose to not have many friends and I'm happy with that. I'd say I'm "mostly" autistic. I'm unable to pass as NT and the NT looking parts of me are highly simulated and simply a learned survival strategy I learned in my youth to throw the predators off my scent. I got beat up less often when I acted more "normal".

It sounds like you have been mauled badly by predators and parasite type people yourself and I hope you find some friends who won't abandon or abuse you. You only need one good person. You seem to be a very evidence based, logical person, so I'm not going to bullsh*t you, but statistically, out of almost 8 Billion homo sapiens on the planet, there is a chance greater than 0% that at least one person is "close enough" to your wavelength for you to make some meaningful connection with. I hope you find that person.

@aquafelix You are very astute. I agree, lt is incredibly unfair to always have to adapt to the other persons paradigm. For Me personally, this is near-impossible. I can only be Myself. Yet strangely, everyone claims to be unaware that I am autistic at first. That's an interesting way of putting lt, they are basically modern day predators.

If only lt could be so simple as having been mauled. The truth is that there is never a moment that I am not being mauled. I am being attacked at all times from all angles. It's exhausting. I have no reason to live other than a biological imperative to save the world & an inability to commit suicide. I have one person who nearly fits the bill of a great friend, but we don't hang out often. He also abandoned Me for three years once, so I will always be paranoid of a sequel event untill he fully regains My trust. I agree, the chance is extremely small. It could take a long time to find such a person.

“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”

I don’t know your situation well enough to speculate much on why you are receiving so much ongoing negative attention from people which is clearly upsetting and exhausting. When I read your last post I had the image of a small fish in pool full of hungry sharks . You sound isolated, under siege and miserable. I wish there was another less hostile pool where the little fish can have a well needed rest?

Maybe you just associate with jerks for some reason. However, if you are being constantly under attack from lots of different people, then the constant variable in the equation could be you. I wonder if there is something in your approach/response to people that that often generates hostility from others and exhausts you fighting back.

Your response to Firemonkey’s brief comments was revealing. I don't know if Firemonkey was intending to bait you, or just expressing his honest opinion. You gave a brief polite light hearted reply to the initial "manic" comment, but then when Firemonkey continued, you couldn't help yourself, and took the bait, constructing very long & carefully argued logical responses to defend yourself. Responses that Firemonkey didn't seem to even read. You got upset and expended a lot of energy on your responses. In Australia we call that “being played like a fiddle”. A wise person would have recognised Firemonkey's response as possible bait and ignored them and then continued with the interesting discussion you had generated.

I define a predator as a person who intentionally exploits others for gain or simply entertainment. Every highschooler knows it can be very entertaining (but extremely cruel) to bait someone and then watch them get upset and react. Your response would likely be entertaining for the kind of people who like to make fun at others expense and I can see why you may be attracting those kinds of predators. You could be fun to provoke cause you react if you are repeatedly baited.

BTW: If you are actually are a narcissist then you will be likely feeling very angry with my reply.

I was just expressing what seemed to be the case on the evidence he provided . A really intelligent person would see there was no baiting involved .

If you were a "100 percent autistic" you would not be able speak, and you be such a basket case that you wouldn't be able use a key board on a computer. kinda like asking "does anyone here not have internet access?"

I don't . I do it all by mind control .

@Peta In My case, My ability is to make good choices.

@Aquafelix That's precisely the problem. But I wonder I feel like the whole ocean is the problem, not just the pool.

I have ponderred this question many times & have come to the same conclusion. The problem cannot just be that everyone is awful. Otherwise, everyone would be abused equally (in theory). I am specifically being targetted. I have decuded several reasons for this. I don't think any one is wrong per se, they may all, in fact, be true. For starters, I am better; & lf the topic comes up, I am not shy about lt. Not to say I'm boastful, but I'm not going to lie either. So this can create an us-vs-you paradigm for many people. I also believe I am targetted because I tend to be naive & vulnerable.

I wouldn't say I took the proverbial bait, because that would suggest that I risked an uncomfortable situation. In reality, I enjoy talking to people, even lf the context is negative. I am not easily offended, which makes the situation all the more perplexing that humanity is bad to the point that I am offended. Had he actually attempted a bait, lt would have technically failed, as even the occasional youtube flame war I end up in, I enjoy. I am much more concerned with being ignored, where there is not much to be positive about. Yet, that's what constantly happens. There is nothing that I despise more than ignoring, there is nothing that causes Me more pain. But that doesn't stop everyone from doing so. There are a couple of people who are so awful that I would rather be ignored, but aside from that, I'm in Hell. I long for social contact & humanity has placed an embargo on social contact. I actually did not get upset, I was completely calm throughout our conversation. You're very astute, so I imagine you sometimes look too' deep & see things that are not there. I did recognize lt as a potential bait attempt, but like I said, that doesn't phase Me, so by nature, I cannot fall for lt. Anyway, he said himself that he was being sincere, not trolling.

I think you are correct, to a degree. Much about My behavior would suggest that I would be fun to pick on. For example, I have this terrible ex-friend with extreme psychopathy who knowingly provokes Me. I then send him essay text messages as to how he is wrong, which he doesn't even read. I actually enjoy lt a lot. I look forward to his next screw-up, because calling him out is the only time I ever get to release stress. Knowing how insanely worse I can be & just being able to passionately write award-winning novels on what's wrong with him is a great feeling. It's like a reminder that I'm right, in case I'm ever in doubt. Because even lf I am somehow wrong about Myself & not as great as I think I am, I will always at least know that I am light-years better than he is, so I can't be that bad.

Nope. Nothing that anyone has said thus far has caused so much as a wince. I am not offended in the least.

@Naturalplastic Your evidence? There is a difference between autistic with high functioning & being autistic with low functioning, both of which have their own percentages. The low-functioning autistic state is actually a disorder caused by a damaged neocortex or damaged connection to the neocortex. Ironically, the meltdowns are caused by regression to the limbicortex, so lt's a purely neurotypical reaction. Being 100% autistic with high functioning means a complete reliance on rational thought & a complete deficit in emotional thought. I believe I have an infinitesimal amount of emotional thought, so I'm likely 99% autistic of the high-functioning order. However, lt is difficult to distinguish an emotionally based logical decision from an actually emotional decision. For example, lf someone tosses stones at Me & I eventually get angry & retaliate, is that a neurotypical reaction; or is logic dictating that being stoned is bad & utilizing anger as the means to rectify the situation? Whether autistic, neurotypical or primordial, every person will defend themselves. A better example would be lf I find a song & come to enjoy lt. Am I enjoying lt because lt is well-made (logical decision, emotional reaction) or am I rationalizing lt because I enjoy lt (emotional decision, logical reaction)? I believe I fall in the former camp, as lt is ultimately the structure that I look for, not the popularity.

*I feel like the whole ocean is the problem, not just the pool.

*I have deduced...

@Naturalplastic Your evidence? There is a difference between autistic with high functioning & being autistic with low functioning, both of which have their own percentages. The low-functioning autistic state is actually a disorder caused by a damaged neocortex or damaged connection to the neocortex. Ironically, the meltdowns are caused by regression to the limbicortex, so lt's a purely neurotypical reaction. Being 100% autistic with high functioning means a complete reliance on rational thought & a complete deficit in emotional thought. I believe I have an infinitesimal amount of emotional thought, so I'm likely 99% autistic of the high-functioning order. However, lt is difficult to distinguish an emotionally based logical decision from an actually emotional decision. For example, lf someone tosses stones at Me & I eventually get angry & retaliate, is that a neurotypical reaction; or is logic dictating that being stoned is bad & utilizing anger as the means to rectify the situation? Whether autistic, neurotypical or primordial, every person will defend themselves. A better example would be lf I find a song & come to enjoy lt. Am I enjoying lt because lt is well-made (logical decision, emotional reaction) or am I rationalizing lt because I enjoy lt (emotional decision, logical reaction)? I believe I fall in the former camp, as lt is ultimately the structure that I look for, not the popularity.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well... hmmmm…

That's a rather interesting theory of yours. Or interesting way to frame it.

First off: I never heard of anyone but you talk about autism as being in "percentages".

Second: What most folks DO do is break it down into levels (level one, two, three) or "high functioning, middle functioning, and low functioning. Aspergers being kinda of under the high functioning or type one rubric..

So if I were to adopt your notion of "percentages" then my assumption would be that you parsing the function levels by percentage. NTs have a low percentage of being autistic, HFA higher, middle higher still, and LFA the highest "percentage" of "autistic". No one but you would take each level - and put them on a spectrum of low to high percentage. If you get what I mean.

Third I go by the word "autistic" itself to frame it. The "aut" in autism means "self", being within one's self, and therefor hard to reach by others.

So TO ME when you say "100 percent autistic" that would connote to me some unfortunate child in the corner of a ward who never speaks, and just rocks back and forth, and is totally unreachable. Has nothing to do with lack of emotion as such.

So when you say "100 percent autistic" it conveys something to me (and I suspect to most folks) very different from what you mean by the phrase. So maybe you find another way to say it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Okay...lets go with your idea. That there is spectrum going from all thought to all emotion. I don't agree that "all thought" equal "all autistic", but whatever.

It just doesn't work to frame it that way for me. Austitics can be just as emotional as NTs. I am trying process it that way, and for me it just doesn't work to think of it that way.

@Naturalplastic You also don't hear people talking about the percentage of vanilla in an Oreo cookie, but that doesn't mean lt's not there. Everything has a percentage, whether or not lt is orthodox to measure lt. Unless you can find something that mathematics cannot describe (It would be quite challenging, since math has thus far described the vast universe, over 13 billion years of history & the evolution of life, among many other things.), a percentage will be there. My wall is 100% wall & 0% dog. Likewise, mental states can be measured on a scale. Yes, but the problem with that is that ones ability to function does not necessarily equate with the strength/frequency of synapses connecting to the neocortex (how autistic a person is). According to your model, an LFA is much more logical than an HFA. But where is the logic in being unable to function properly? And lf LFA's are at the peak of the autistic hierarchy, then why are they prone to meltdowns, which are so clearly emotional reactions? The accepted model is rarely the correct model. By the way, Asperger's Syndrome no longer exists. It was officially phased out in the DSM-V in 2012 (effective 2013). I was originally diagnosed with AS, but would now be medically classified as an HFA.

Okay, I see now what you're having trouble with. Yes, a true neurotypical would fall under 0%. However, neither an HFA nor an LFA is necessarily more autistic than the other. The major difference is the ability to use the neocortex. Unlike neurotypicals, whose default mode is limbicortical, an autists default mode is neocortical. If the neocortex is damaged or inaccessible, as is the case for LFA's, then for all purposes, the mind is damaged. Trying to think with a damaged mind causes distress & distress causes the TPN to switch modes to the closest backup, which would be the limbicortex. They default to an emotional mode in a state of crisis, hence the meltdowns.

There is such thing as a low functioning neurotypical as well: the Dark Triad/Tetrad. Since the limbicortex is the default mode & lt is damaged for these individuals, the inevitable distress will cause the TPN to default to the repticortex, responsible for survival. This is why a distressed NT is so dangerous. They enter fight-or-flight mode. As with the LFA, an LFNT is no more or less neurotypical than an HFNT. Imagine you have a computer running Windows 7 & you are running a virtual copy of Windows 98 from 7. What happens when a system file gets corrupted? 7 becomes unusable & so does 98. You can technically still run 98, but lt would be very difficult. If 98 becomes corrupt however, lt has no bearing on the operation of 7. 7 represents the neocortex & 98 represents the limbicortex. Is a copy of Windows 7 with a fresh copy of the system file a higher percentage more Windows 7 than the one with the corrupt file? I would say no. Unless a file is added or removed, both will be 100% Windows 7. Or to make the analogy more complete, the more RAM allocated to the virtual copy of Windows 98, the less the percentage of being Windows 7. If 100% RAM is allocated to 98, then 7 becomes unusable. This is a good representation of a true neurotypical.

You are correct about the etymology of the word, but you are confused about the actual definition. According to your school of thought, an LFA is stuck in his (or her) own world & unable to exit. That's a nice theory & all, as lt does make sense, but ultimately there is no evidence to suggest that this is true. We cannot read minds, but we can examine neurons. The brain of an LFA will either show damaged synapses or actual damage to the neocortex. Empirical evidence suggests that there is not much cognition present at all, let alone imaginative cognition.

The etymology does not refer to how deep inside oneself one goes, but to how much of a distinguished self one has. A neurotypical has a very weak sense of self, so they will let others do all of their thinking for them (as evidenced by adherence to social norms & only seeking out the contemporary). An autist has a very strong sense of self & tends to be very individualistic. Therefore, a true NT is unable to think autonomically & a true autist is unable to think dependently. And lastly, you are confusing emotion with emotional reasoning. Autists have emotions just like NT's. We are simply less likely (lf at all) to use an emotion as the basis of a decision. Emotions are sporadic & unpredictable. Logic is static & unchanging. A logical decision at 5:00 will be exactly the same as a logical decision at 10:00. No matter the time, a logical decision will make sense & therefore be correct. Meanwhile, an emotional decision based on anger is likely to be destructive & ill-founded. An emotional decision based on joy is likely to be biased & discriminatory. Emotional decisions do not take into account the well-being of others, they only take into account the person experiencing the emotions. Therefore, emotional reasoning is truly selfish & about dependence, whereas logical reasoning is about interdependence (more on this at another point) or at least independence.

To give you another example, to explain the difference between an emotion & an emotional decision, imagine two people getting angry, because they don't agree with a third person. One is an autist, the other a neurotypical. The autist will get angry, because he is human. But he will probably not act out on that anger. Logic dictates that lt is okay to have differring opinions & to lash out would be illogical. The neurotypical lacks this conscience, as each emotion is like a button being automatically pressed. The NT will act out on that anger, possibly by insulting & harassing person #3. The NT is deciding an action, with the emotion of anger being the motivator. For the autist, knowing better than to misbehave is the motivator. They're both experiencing the same emotion, but react in entirely different ways.

The more autistic one is, the more nonverbal and and withdrawn they are going to be. That's how autism works. Every once in a blue moon we get someone here who goes on about how autism is the next step in human evolution and how they are an ubermensch (superhuman). It seems more likely that have psychological issues and that you should probably talk to a therapist.

Most likely in your view of yourself as human 2.0 & better than everyone else, you have alienated yourself and that is why you can not make friends and get along with others.

Last edited by EzraS on 20 Nov 2019, 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ A good reply .

@EzraS I'm asking why, in your mind, you cannot. What would happen lf you tried to make eye contact while talking?

I see you share the sentiment that Naturalplastic believes. But as I was telling him (her?), there is no foundation for this belief. I am not less autistic than an LFA. Equating functionality with degree is a logical fallacy. To suggest that an LFA is more autistic than an HFA is to suggest that the state of being autistic is a disorder and that the higher the person functions, the less autistic (and by association, more neurotypical), they become. There are numerous plot holes in this script. Perpetuating the dying myth that autism is a disorder is a dangerous act. You may have let the world defeat you, but give other people a chance at life. Your entire theory is ruined by My mere existence. By being an HFA, I should be close to NT by your reasoning. However, that could not be further from the truth. As I said, I am treated as though I am of an entirely different species. I have nothing in common with neurotypicals other than being human. Yet, I am high-functioning. To be autistic is not to be non-verbal. Yes, we're less likely to communicate, for a variety of reasons, but we do not have an inability to do so. Before I turned 3, I did not speak because I had nothing to talk about. Not much changed at 3, so I still barely talked. Hell, today I barely talk. But I'm not non-verbal. I simply see no reason to expend energy speaking when there are no benefits. There is a small correlation, but one should not judge how autistic someone is by individual traits. That's like judging how neurotypical someone is by how much of a jerk they are. Obviously some are less than others, with limited correlation to degree of neurotypicality.

Autism is not only the next step in evolution, lt is long past due. The neocortex evolved about seventy five millennia ago & scientists have found autistic genes in DNA dating back at least three millennia. Dozens of other mammals have been discoverred to have some autistic members. You can deny lt all you want, but this is what evolution has been pushing us toward. All mistakes in evolution are filterred out. If autism was a mistake, lt would have been eradicated by now. It is not a disorder, by definition. The world you are in has been built on autistic inventions & discoveries. If you're suggesting that lt is a disorder, then you are suggesting that a world without Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Nikola Tesla, Sir Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, Nicholas Cugnot, the Banu Musa brothers, Felix Nadar, Ralph Baer & John Logie Baird, plus many others, would be better. I have to disagree. If autism never evolved, we would still be running around the wild naked & struggling to survive. Neurotypicals can learn, but they cannot innovate. Well, they can to a tiny degree. Birds were left to their own devices for 150 millennia & aside from Alex, their only innovation is building nests from twigs. I prefer media, transportation & comfortable housing over twig nests.

I do have psychological issues. Autism is not one of them. Therapy is overpriced & only helpful to neurotypicals anyway. I'm not against the idea, but unless you want to hire one, lt's not going to happen. Autism is no more a disorder than neurotypicality (though some people on this site beg to differ). It is simply a different school of thought.