WP tagline like saying Homosexuality is Not a Disease

Post Reply New Topic

Only problem with tracing back to What aspies where called back in history, is the fact Aspies was created now, & hans Asperger..

Introverts is complex but got to read all is work since it goes back to the times when they said oppisites attract.. as in someone is good at money management, bad at communication, not very outgoing, focus on self So the oppsite would be, good communication skills, outgoing, focus away from self, bad money management..

I.e.: this is one of the opposite it says for my personality:-

Enthusiastic, upbeat, and popular
Can be very charming
Excellent communication skills
Extremely interested in self-improvement and growth in their relationships
Laid-back and flexible, usually easy to get along with
Big idea-people, always working on a grand scheme or idea
Usually good at making money, although not so good at managing it
Take their commitments and relationships very seriously
Able to move on with their lives after leaving a relationship

Jung believed that symbol creation was a key in understanding human nature. Symbol, as defined by Jung, is the best possible expression for something essentially unknown. He wanted to investigate the similarity of symbols that are located in different religious, mythological, and magical systems which occur in many cultures and time periods. To account for these similar symbols occurring across different cultures and time periods he suggested the existence of two layers of the unconscious psyche. The first of the two layers was the personal unconscious. It contains what the individual has acquired in his or her life, but has been forgotten or repressed. The second layer is the collective unconscious which contains the memory traces common to all humankind. These experiences form archetypes. These are innate predispositions to experience and symbolize certain situations in a distinct way. There are many archetypes such as having parents, finding a mate, having children, and confronting death. Very complex archetypes are found in all mythological and religious systems. Near the end of his life Jung added that the deepest layers of the unconscious function independently of the laws of space, time and causality. This is what gives rise to paranormal phenomena. The introvert and the extrovert are the main components of personality according to Jung. The introvert is quiet, withdrawn and interested in ideas rather than people. While the extrovert is outgoing and socially oriented. For Jung a person that had a healthy personality can realize these opposite tendencies within himself/herself and can express each. Dreams serve to compensate for any neglected parts of the personality.

Only ideas I have is Madman or something along that line, outcasts.. Like anyone with advanced technology for the time.... That is a theory about advanced technology, going on why the germans had they technology more forward....

Like to see you wrap your head around this:_

Archetypes

Self-portraits of the instincts. The instinctive forces and instinctive strategies or ways of behaving. 'Archetypal images' are the symbols through which these instinctive things show themselves in dreams.

Archetypal images include symbols that occur in mythology, fairytales and religions. They are older than mankind and belong to the collective unconscious. Archetypal images are symbols that represent contents within the psyche that were never conscious experiences.

They are the 'universal' symbols that are available to us all even though we have no knowledge of them in our waking lives.

Update

http://www.tnnweb.com/mds/jungvsfreud.html

Man way these two people where going at each other, Freud [ Extrovert ]& Jung[ Introvert ], If I use the same model of cover up as used by the gay one, then introverts would be under extroverted work.. They fore Extrovert work would be on top of society's history... Think ill find out what freud was up to...

I know, I picked up a book on physiology, about Freud & his Introvert is listed under personality disorder... Since that goes along with what most of the other disorders say bipolar, schizoid, Asperger ... So would the key word be { personality } extermination... As Personality would be throughout history...



took from near the bottom of the page:-
However, the young generation of scientists saved Freud along with his theory. Jung's association experiment proved that there is some truth in Freud's theory. He defended Freud in almost all scientific debates despite the fact that his career was at stake. Freud realized that his theory was spreading around the world. As soon as international psychoanalitic association had been founded, his theory would be preserved. Therefore Freud viewed Jung as his pupil, successor and a leader of such association. Jung, however, knew that he was not "able to do that correctly, that is, in his way represent his standpoints, because [Jung's] main ambition was not personal reputation, but to research the truth."

Heres a persoanlity test with a twist most of you probably know it..

http://psychology.hypnoticworld.com/inf ... t/test.php

Thank you - that's an interesting site. Though I was more interested in YOUR own experience of non-linear thinking.

I see you posted quite a bit on Freud and Jung. I'm rather allergic to these chaps nowadays. I rather feel that they've done humanity a grave disservice in some ways. I'm really not sure that psychological explanations for AS behaviours are helpful to me personally. Are psychological models really useful in describing and interpreting physiological/neurological effects?

Explains allot really http://www.azcentral.com/families/artic ... t1108.html

Check bottom bold for fast track of bottom of website

Introversion is trying to fight for us to be who we are.... It's trying to work in behind the scene... & let us find ourself rather than trying to force us to be something, society is aloud to do on it's own ( Extrovert's are aloud to find themself's & have common interests ) Introvert's on the other hand end up fighting with each other even though they have things in common, they hate who they are & most people don't even know they describing alot of things that they should be describing in the way they do... Most people want to fix things that is a part of what they are, because someone said it's a defect...

Introvert's have gifts just as extroverts have, you swop them gifts around what you get? You have balance. Innie & outtie... Yes they is problem's with people but I think they just making the same mistake with Autism they made with schizoid, most of the problem's caused can be explained from other medical problems, like allergies, had brain tumour removed, might be genetic defects, could be an imbalance of neurons, but the fact is hardly anyone here actually knows what it is to be an Innie..

& if it is a defect, why the h is it also recorded in the animal kingdom...

I think they tactics to destroy you making anything but trapping us into something that can't be helped due to the fact its made to make us go round in circles, they do not know what causes Autism... What's the only way to trap someone like me, to look at something that can't be solved by just looking at it..

How come they don't say that most As people seem to be Introverted.. Are they scared that them people will then look at it... I don't see the NAS saying that..

"The signals we get from the world agree that extroversion is valued," said Sanford Cohn, an associate professor in curriculum and instruction at Arizona State University. "A lot of the messages we get from society have to do with being social, and in order to be social you have to behave a certain way."

But that is impossible for introverted kids. Raising them isn't easy, particularly if parents, family members, teachers, coaches and other adults don't allow them to be who they are.

Introverted children enjoy the internal world of thoughts, feelings and fantasies, and there's a physiological reason for this. In using brain scans to study personality differences, researchers found introverts have more brain activity, in general, and specifically in their frontal lobes. When these areas are activated, introverts are energized by retrieving long-term memories, problem solving, introspection, complex thinking and planning, Their brain pathway also switches on the "rest and digest" side of the nervous system, so they can slow down to conserve their body energy to do all that thinking.


Took this from the bottom
Although they would never tell you so, the world is a better place with introverts, Cohn said.

"They're the scholars, the scientists, the inventors, the writers, the poets, the artists," he said. "Imagine life without them - it would be a TV commercial."

You say that "the behaviour which we today call homosexuality is ancient"; .. I disagree!

I would like to point out something critically important, which is that in fact " behaviour" has CHANGED as a result of the newer/recent labelling/social construct. It was not just a change of name. That the behaviour is not the same. The new label changed peoples sexuality. That in fact the behaviour which we call homosexuality is NOT ancient. It is only 130 years old, or less.

Peoples behaviour with their own and the other sex changed as a direct result of the invention of the social construct of "homosexuality". People nowadays do not express, or even feel, their sexuality, their relationships, with their own and the other sex in the same way as before 1875.

A social construct is NOT just a different "title". It forms people, it forms how they think and feel, WHAT they think and feel. To pretend that it is just a change of name is disingenuous in a world containing the ideas of Michel Foucault.

I posted this thread to suggest that the term/construct aspergers forms how ALL people think and feel about themselves and others, WHAT they think and feel, in that same way as the new word "homosexuality" transformed expression and experience of feelings for ones own sex. It is not just a new title for something already in existence , it is acting on people, their idea of what is socially acceptable, what is good, what is normal, healthy, etc.

Last edited by ouinon on 04 Jan 2008, 6:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.

I agree with you - and Foucault! Not exactly sure that nominalist is saying this, but forgive me, I'm not being very attentive to the thread at the moment.

Also, wholeheartedly agree that I rather liked being just 'different', 'eccentric'. A friend once said to me 'There are people and there are people - and then there is LUPIN!' apropos my quirkiness and Professor Brainboxing!

Somehow, 'There are people and there are people - and then there's the Aspie!' doesn't have the same positive, celebratory ring to it, does it?

And yet, I'm the same person as I ever was. I think knowing about my aspergerness has indeed changed my whole outlook and insight - both positively and negatively. I'm glad at last to be able to understand myself fully. I have become more of who I am and I no longer go through agonies of self-castigation because I am so shy, I no longer role play 'normal' and I feel so much better about myself because I do not have to put on a front - so to that extent the label is positive.

But I do not like what people seem to do with their concept of 'Aspergers' and the connotations that the label signifies. Some peoples' attitudes towards me have changed and I can actually hear them hunting for the stereotypical aspienesses that they are expecting me to produce. (Well, close friends that is). And every little quirk is put down to Aspergers when, probably, these quirks may just be more ordinary personality deviations.

What am I saying? A label focuses and intensifies?

My point was that same-sex relationships are ancient. It is the modern linguistic and social construction of homosexuality which is recent. I make little distinction between linguistic and social construction. Therefore, when I referred to linguistic reconstruction, I also assumed social reconstruction. I am a Foucaultian.

At the risk of apparently not specifically replying to any individual comment, but more on the topic as a whole - I am a new member to this site and perhaps would be considered an interloper, since I am a parent of Aspie/autistic and a partner of a possible Aspie. I would like to share my opinion on both the concept of labelling and identifying this group of people, and also on homosexuality.

I do not think you can truly compare the two - it is clearly causing confusion, misunderstanding, and as a result, heated feeling. And yet - superficially at least, I recognise the initial argument of stigma and medicalisation.

Homosexuality IS known historically. I admit my current reference is Wikipedia, which is highly likely to be made biased by being constantly monitored and modified by those with vested interests. However, my own wide reading and study tells me that all that I was taught in a conservative Christian upbringing, is wrong. It was written with a specific purpose in mind - to encourage a small group of people, a remnant of a race now wandering in the wilderness, to build up in numbers sufficient to become an army. Prior to that period, the same people had been discouraged from breeding, as a very early example of attempted genocide.

Back to homosexuality - a modern understanding which I saw presented several decades ago now on a TV program entitled "Brain Sex" (there was a book released with the same title) gave some fairly clear evidence to indicate that sexuality, both orientation and degree, is formed within the brain during fetal development. While there may be some degree of genetic component, it is the hormones to which the fetus is exposed during development which have the greatest impact on the later sexuality of the individual. This does not mean "it is the mother's fault" because she is not in control of hr own hormone production. They did some experiments with rats (a large number of widely varying experiments) which showed that maternal stress can cause large enough swings in maternal hormones, to modify or totally change the sexual orientation, as well as degree, in the offspring. The theory presented was that stress changes in a mother carrying a male fetus caused changes in the brain of the progeny which resulted in it expressing homosexual behaviour. "Ratopolis" was one particularly compelling experiment.
They also invited participation from some homosexual males who considered themselves obligate homosexuals, and measured their brain response to certain female hormones. A heterosexual male brain would not show a female hormone response, as some of these men did.

The program made the point that whatever causes variations in sexual orientation and sexual degree, is a large and complex variable most likely the result of hormonal effects in utero. An individual's sexual 'fingerprint' can have levels of orientation (in terms of how obligate they consider themselves to be - purely gay, bisexual, heterosexual and the full range in between any of these) and also in degree (as in how highly sexed they are - gotta have it constantly, through to fairly indifferent, to totally asexual, disinterested).

Back in my uni days I had a good friend (male) who was much sought after by the girls. He was happy to be popular and took full advantage of it. Then he was thrown into circumstances that required him to try to identify as homosexual - he was cast in a play as a homosexual prostitute. He talked about it only a little with me as at the time I was still very conservatively Christian in outlook and knew I would disapprove, but he made a choice to try to have sex with one of his male (and gay) co-stars. He had to get very drunk to do so and ended up fairly embarrassed by the whole thing; but perhaps still slightly curious. Plus there are men these days, 'happily married' who do not consider themselves homosexual, but who regularly indulge in what could only be called homosexual acts, to satisfy some need they perceive in themselves. "oh, but I'm not gay."

It is a complex topic and the more you discover the complexity, the less (in my mind) it resembles Asperger's or autism.

And now to the validity (or otherwise) of labelling those who are currently being described as Asperger's Syndrome - why do this? Is it merely another form of discrimination?
As a parent, I will say that I have found value in this. If for no other reason, than the label has made it possible to get extra support and consideration from educational and employment authorities. Both my boys were struggling in school. My older son had a label of ADHD only, until he was 15, and I was very naive when it came to knowing what rights we had in the education system. Once he got the label and I was given more information about support, I applied. Initially we were refused, but Asperger's is a 'stronger' label than ADHD in terms of being able to nag for support, and we got it. Too little too late, but again - the label helped us get him enrolled into a correspondence school (state-based) which was exactly what he needed. He is now registered with a job placement agency which specialises in people with a registered disability. Because when it comes to the workforce, it does take compassion, consideration, understanding and support from an employer to help the person adapt. The situation is not perfect, but it is far better having this sort of agency available on call, than for there to be nothing at all.
The same scenario is developing for my younger son - he has a diagnosis of high-functioning autism. He has had school support from the very beginning, but it was not enough. It helped a great deal more than if there was nothing at all. In this process, a much better level of understanding has been achieved in the local schools and the local education authorities.

Yes, it is highly likely that what we describe as Asperger's and autism (and homosexuality) is merely another part of the spectrum of humanity. "Normal" is an artificial construct, where someone looks at the spectrum and draws some dividing lines while stating, "everything inside these lines is normal. Everything outside is not."
Having a label does not change the individual to any great degree, although for my older son there was a huge sense of relief when he finally realised that his inability to concentrate in class and simply fit in, was NOT HIS FAULT. All that time he had been told by his teachers that he just wasn't trying hard enough, or he was being deliberately naughty. he had come to think of himself as a naughty child by nature and had simply stopped trying. And of course, he is not a bad person. he is in fact (like a lot of people described as Aspie or autistic) extremely law-abiding and honorable. And intensely loyal.

Humanity tends to label, to quantify, to try to sort out and separate into discrete packages, what is merely the human spectrum.

It may be perhaps easier (although equally simplistic) to compare Asperger's and discrimination against them, to left-handers and the struggles they have endured until the mid Sixties. I am a left hander. So are two of my children. And like homosexuality, there is a spectrum of 'handedness' with degrees of obligation. My older son is an obligate left-hander - he couldn't write with his right hand to save his life. I, on the other hand, had some choice but preferred to use my left hand for writing. I can switch to using my right hand if I choose - I can play tennis or table tennis by switching hands, which really confuses my opponents! My younger son is an obligate right hander.
We live in a world with tools designed to be used in the right hand. Not much of a problem for me, a huge problem for my older son. Left-handers feel discriminated against. We have to work harder to adapt.
My oldest sister was born an obligate left-hander. She was forced to switch to her right hand, treated harshly if she used her left. She stammered for two years and was aphasic part of the time, until she adapted. Another sister was born right-handed (not sure to what degree) but at five years old, was brain damaged by fever and had to learn to write with her left hand. I remember her at age 10 or 11, still struggling. We were both learning to write at the same time. But she had to get special dispensation from the doctor, to be permitted to use her left hand to write. Crazy.
The number of left-handers is increasing. I do not think this is due to some environmental poison (such as mercury), nor is it related to a stressful environment. I think it is simply due to a broadening of acceptance and acknowledgement that everybody is different and we should accept these differences in one another as a driving force in survival for the human race.

Interesting. I've often thought of AS as simply more pronounced introversion; at least that is how it seems to manifest itself in me.

I continue to find, on the contrary, that comparing the two clears up confusion in my mind, and helps me to understand, and consequently feel calmer about, the whole issue. It is not however as simple as taking a single behaviour, like left-handedness. It is the selection of the characteristics TO BE stigmatised by medicalisation which is particularly crucial. A collection of behaviours which superficially very easily resemble a person; that is a powerful construct. Because people will actively align themselves with it, or "not-with-it" in a very different way than if it was a simple question of which hand one uses.

Sexual activity with the same sex has probably existed for as long as humanity; chimpanzees engage in it too. But the behaviour called homosexuality has only existed for the last 130 years since the word homosexuality was invented . Before that time people were not so systematically divided up into groups of those engaging it and those not, for the simple reason that it was not considered sufficient/all that relevant as a definition of a person. Sexual activity with ones own sex was, depending on class, situation or status, often considered normal, except to the church. The invention of homosexuality not only stigmatised sexuality and other strong feelings for ones own sex but channelled them, shaped them, made a different thing out of them.

I disagree because what you have described there sounds very like what they are now proposing as a likely mechanism in the creation of some elements in autism. Hormones acting on brain during its development in utero.

It is easier for society to label some people as disordered than to change the system which is putting them in difficulty. Which in many many cases is school. In fact you have taken him out of school.
... that labelling children as dysfunctional is a very effective way to avoid having to reexamine the entire education system.
Please see history of sexuality , and non-sexual behaviours, between people of same sex, for ample proof that this is not the case. How peoples behaviour and feelings towards members of own sex have been altered by a label. For instance passionate platonic friendships between men, and between women, which now don't quite fit anywhere, in fact have trouble even being born, because of what that "kind" of feeling between members of same sex "means" now.
Why do you think so many people with "disabilities" campaign to be called "differently abled"? And etc etc . Not just because it shapes societys treatment of them but because it shapes their own construction of themselves. . I entirely agree that this can be wonderful. The school can blame a "syndrome" instead of a person for its own monstrous non-adaptation to human needs. Your son is excused.
Easier, yes, because although it is a good example of how stigmatisation causes the suppression of a precise behaviour, the history of handednes does not show people using their hands in a significantly other way at earlier times than left, right, or ambi, whereas the history of sexualtiy with own sex shows very different kinds of relationships between people of same sex than exist now. In fact some of them are so different from the structure we are used to that we have trouble recognising them or imagining them. Nor it does explain the power a term like aspergers has in terms of identity, which includes and excludes people in a way which handedness never did, whereas the word/construct homosexuality did.
Schools, and society, now accept lefthandedness, but only tolerate certain other behaviours when labelled as dysfunctional/disorders.
As the numbers ( of diagnosis ) grow, and hysteria on the part of some parents mounts, the State comes nearer and nearer to justifying a total takeover of childrearing, in the interests of autism-prevention.
Now that most scientists seem to agree that autism is the result of env factors, like hormones, acting on gene expression and/or brain development; that the group of behaviours known as autism is probably very largely a result of both genes and environment in the widest sense of the term, ie; incl the womb.

Last edited by ouinon on 05 Jan 2008, 12:21 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Butterflykids - actually, I have found the comparison between 'Aspergers' and 'homosexuality' to be extremely useful in this fascinating dialogue on the social contruction of disorder and the resultant medicalisation of differences that are perceived to be of threat in some way.

I do accept however that it may be a difficult comparison for some people. Maybe those who feel most heated (if it's here it's passed me by though I have to say) are those who are not so comfortable with variant sexualities?

But I would take issue with your contention that 'having a label does not change the individual to any great degree'. That would be true if I lived alone on a desert island. But I don't. I am subject to the same sorts of societal and peer pressures as everyone - though for differing reasons.

Externally, the label 'Aspergers' means that even my friends now can dismiss a lot of what I feel as 'oh, it's just her AS sensitivity!' or similar. Imagine this attitude ramped up and applied by public services...'it's just a disorder - she's 'wrong', we're right, we don't have to change anything just for her...'

OK, that's a crass, blunt way of putting it. But it does happen like this all the time in more subtle ways. OTHER PEOPLE'S attitudes towards me have indeed changed me and my thinking.

Internally, the Aspergers assessment actually gave me an immense feeling of liberation and joy - at last! everything explained! It has changed me and the way I look at myself profoundly, in very positive ways. (Though I suspect that's because I don't subscribe to the view that AS is actually a disorder, that it's other people's self-serving attitudes that make it so).

I had that reaction too, of excitement and relief and "YES" and "it isn't depression like i've thought over and over again depressingly!" etc . And felt like i've found my place etc .
And then my need to understand reassserted itself and tried to make sense of all this new data!!

So, here am, taking Aspergers and Autism apart as i do so love doing, and which made almost all jobs intolerable to me, and me sometimes very annoying colleague!!

Anyway, wanted to say, latest thoughts, provoked by postings by The_Q on my thread "State Control", are to wonder what the biggest change in "our" and/or everybodys behaviour will be/already are in response to this construct. Because I realised/remembered that one of the huge ones resulting from the invention of homosexuality in 1875, was to weld passion and sex together as had almost never been welded before.

See my post at : http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp1128771.html#1128771

And to take the passion out of (a lot of) friendship. Because "passionate feelings" had been labelled "neurotic" ( other new term) and had been included in the description/definition of homosexuality.

Then sexologists decided ( still about 100 years ago) that passionate feelings were alright/healthy (ie: not neurotic) between men and women within the framework of a sexual relationship, which was henceforth referred to as..... "heterosexuality".

Last edited by ouinon on 06 Jan 2008, 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Perhaps it is that the binding together of sex and passion at the end of the 19th century, "unhealthy in homosexuality , healthy in heterosexuality, thus "encouraging" reproduction, has unfortunately had a disastrous effect on the reproductive chances of fluid intelligence, and higher IQs in general. The formal, contractual, almost impersonal nature of many reproductive unions/marriages, before that time, had "protected" the genes which together with certain environmental ( incl. in utero)triggers produce interesting intelligences, whereas making marriage a matter of passion introduced a new selective element.

And now trying to redress balance by stigmatising/belittling those with high IQs and fluid intelligence who do not mate and reproduce?

Last edited by ouinon on 06 Jan 2008, 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

seriously i think that this is an interesting angle/slant/interpretation!!

Does anyone have figures for reproductive activity in people with Aspergers/Autism/ASD?

I have just posted a new thread with poll to see what reproductive situation is with AS population on WP.

Weighing in as someone who is both gay and AS: I think it is different. I feel that both of these things are the way I was born but AS is something that "challenges" me, that could be considered a disability (although as we all agree it has its upside). I'm willing to accept it as, if not something "wrong" with me, a sort of "quirk" in my makeup I guess, but my being gay I think of as just something I am, like being short or having brown hair.