What does "Autistic" and "Neuro-Typical"

Post Reply New Topic

I generally find the words confounding, a sort of "them and us" feeling coming from the words. As seemingly ill-crafted psychological constructs, I think their worthless as definitive absolutes. I have to wonder what my so-called "autistic" traits are that got me labeled as such?

Hyper-Logic?

If this is a trait that's so-called "autistic" then I wonder about the "autistics" that have "holey-logic"?

Obsessive-Compulsion?

My OCD is actually mild, it only runs along with thought, in other words I "think to much".

Not "seeing" "social cues"?

I see what may or may not be a "social cue", the fact of the matter is if I read into it I'm deemed as "over-analyzing" and if a so-called "NT" does it, he/she is "right on spot" no matter how ridiculously absurd they sound, this is just "pot screaming at the kettle" type of stuff, it doesn't make any rational sense. Just because I'm not delusionally-narcissistically stupid doesn't mean I don't "see" so-called "social cues", I ignore them because what you see is not always what it seems. Assuming without uncertainty makes you a fool, but it seems to be perfectly fine with so-called "NTs". Just another ridiculous "Do what I say, not what I doism" of the so-called "normals".

Intense hobbies?

Who doesn't have intense hobbies? I love to sing and learn martial arts and learn various things, how is this anymore "abnormal" than another persons hobbyism?

ADD/ADHD?

How does this make me anymore "autistic"?

Routine/Ritualistic behaviour?

I'd actually classify my own behaviour as less ritualistic than those of "NTs", but some people in regards to my "Autism" seem to grasp at the straws, making a unplanned walk that has no specific time or date, that may be done in variables of 0-3 times a week into "ritualistic behaviour", completely ignoring their own daily day-to-day ritualistic behaviour that completely outclass' my own.

---

I truly don't get it, is it truly "Autism" vs "Neuro-Typicality"? Or trying to annoy the "target" with deceptive BSery? Some members of my family who are "NTs" describe life as a "game" as do some of my "NT" friends, maybe it all comes down to "those who play by the rules" and "those who make it up as they go along"? I have no clue, I'd really like to know, but I am certainly not going to play by "rules" that "NTs" feel no obligation to play by themselves.

I'd like to hear everyone elses thoughts on the the concept of "Autism" and "Nuero-Typical" and the so-called difference between "us" and "them", because I'm not seeing a difference here.

There is no such thing as an NT in real life. Everyone's brain wiring is different and there are many different groups. There are also many people who are aspie like who do not get diagnosis because they are "too high functioning". They would be grouped in with NT's by most of the aspie population.

The whole NT vs. aspie speak is more of a "Us vs. Them" thing.

When you go to the beach do you walk on the sand or walk on the water?
Why do I ask this?
Because at some point on the coast there is 50% water and 50% sand and according to decontructuralists this means that there is no such thing as sand or water.
People animals plants and everything else on Earth and the Universe can be divided into categories or groups on the basis of behavioural traits,abilities,lack of abilities,appearance,genetic make-up,etc,etc.
Just because some individuals don`t fit the category 100% does not mean we have to pretend that everyone is the same-despite how much the pc brigade might want that.

I agree it's not so black and white. There's people on the mild end of the spectrum who have both NT and Autistic traits. Some don't even know they have it, but I recognise obvious signs in them.

This is one of the reasons why I object to labeling people (even in the abstract) as "NTs" or "Aspies." It gives people the false impression that there is some global, absolute criteria that anyone with two brain cells can use to determine whether they have Asperger's or autism. Couple that with the trait of seeing the world in black-and-white (not exclusively an AS trait but perhaps more common), and people become those labels with judging to follow and the "us vs. them" mentality.

It's often important, however, to describe the differences in traits between someone who is on the spectrum and someone who is not. When describing someone on the spectrum, I try to use adjectives to describe the traits instead of nouns: autistic person, someone autistic, someone with AS, a common AS trait, etc. Likewise, someone not on the spectrum may have NT traits, be more NT than not, be NT, etc. The difference between "being an NT" and "being NT" is subtle, but I think it's a very important distinction to make.

Thanks for the replys guys, I feel like we have a common understanding on this mess.

Agreed, I think "normalcy" is just a social construct in which with the "normals" being the "accepteds" and the "abnormals" being the "unnaccepted". It seems to be a primitive pack-type hierarchy thing that points to the fact that humans are social/pack animals and seems to inevietable lead to "packs and cliques". Of course this is just an evolutionary psychological understanding of some forms of human nature.



Agreed, but I'll have to add that it's not just our individual "brain wiring" which is different, our experiences, trains of thought, and the conclusions we reach are also different. But this is just a fancy way of saying "Everyone is different" which is true without a doubt and just echoe's what you were saying, albeit with different wording and a little bit of extra data to go along with the infomation.



Yeah, I've met quite alot of people who I would consider "crypto-auties", I count them among some members of my family and friends as well as others. They were never diagnosed, they hold the belief that some "social rules" are silly just like myself and that no one takes these "rules" seriously, I wonder why some of us acknowledge these "rules" as ridiculous and yet follow them anyway when the so-called "NTs" don't follow them? Survival? Desire to fit in? Being tactful and nice to a mysterious "them" who don't seem to be considering our own feelings? I'd say the reasoning of it all boils down to the individuals reasoning.



So I was correct in my assertion?



That sort of reminds me of Solipistic philosophy which holds that no other minds can exist because we can only know our own minds, lol. But I think solipisism is a kooky philosophy anyway, if someone can disagree with you and you have no control over others, I think it lends credence that the world is not a Solipistic simulated-reality and that the world consists of numerous entities besides oneself. But that's philosophy and this isn't a "philosophical" thread.



Yeah, but what happens when the difference preceived isn't real? I mean objective fact when I mean real by the way. Of course we're all different, our individual biology combined with sociological and enviornmental factors with a dash of the "chaotic" free-will factor leads to this truth. But what happens when it's a farce? And their really isn't any real difference between "them" and "us"? We are humans after all, we are not perfect, we're prone to errors and imperfections and irrationality and faulty judgement, what if this "them and us" thing is just one of those faulty judgements?



Yeah, "abstracts", "figuratives" and "metaphors" are nice and all, but some people don't really seem to understand what these things are and end up taking them to literally resulting in bizarre thinking which is why they're useless for scientific catagorization.



I don't think "black and white" thinking is nessisarily more common among APS people. It may be that APS people just tend to be more introspective and more prone to seeing their own faults and flaws then "NTs". Basically maybe APS people have lower levels of "narcissism" than "NTs", which leads to more introspection and intellectualization matters.



Yes but what is the difference between "us and them" though? If the differences are false, then why should we take "them" (imaginary differences) seriously?

Everyone's brain wiring is different to some degree. This isn't some corny statement either, there's scientific evidence that people have different sizes of each brain region, and different amounts of chemicals in their brains.

But socializing as an intuitive thing is pretty much consistent among people who aren't autistic. Hence the labeling of AS and NT. Who else has problems reading faces and body language?

But then there's some people who can read facial expressions but have several other AS symptoms - obsession with routines, attachments to objects, extremely strong tactile senses etc... These people are said to be "on the Autistic spectrum" rather than purely Autistic or Aspergers.

So what makes a behavior intuitive rather than just learned through experience?

Here's an example, taken fresh from my routine this morning. I walked up to the cashier in a noisy cafe and ordered a small coffee. In response, she said nothing but she turned her head to the side. I have learned through experience that this particular non-verbal cue meant that she didn't hear what I said, so I repeated myself. I think the thought process of, "Oh, she's turning her head to the side, that is a gesture indicating she didn't hear me, so let me repeat myself" is really quite fast... so fast that it's basically automatic. I don't think about the individual steps of doing so. I also think that most, if not all, people here would be able to process, correctly interpret, and respond to this non-verbal cue without any difficulty. (Or am I sorely mistaken?) Is this something that I intuitively just "knew" from birth, or did I learn it when I grew up in my particular culture? Maybe it was easier for others to learn, but the fact is that I learned it, one way or the other. Is this intuition?

Certainly, social situations are more complex than this, but for the most part, socializing is a series of learned behaviors. The rate at which you learn the behaviors may vary, or even the ability to learn all of the nuance may be very different. But at the end of the day, what is intuitive and what was simply learned as a fundamental?

I've heard the analogy that being NT is like driving an automatic car while being autistic is more like driving a manual car. My point is that, even if you have to think at first about manually changing gears, eventually the manual behavior of shifting gears at the appropriate time becomes automatic.

Yet the part of the diagnosis criteria that seperates Aspies from NT's is... "significant impairment in important areas of functioning." Someone could completely lack intuitive socialising and fail to be diagnosed as an aspie because of the other parts of the diagnosis as well.

How much "intuitive" socialising does one require to be an NT? How much must someone be missing to become an Aspie? I know all the facial expressions intuitively, but i don't understand the emotions that go with them, and i'm unsure as to when to use them. "Sad" is nothing but a word to me, why do people make eye-contact, why would i wish to know what someone is "feeling"?.

The truth is that everyone is on the...

Autism Spectrum
Schizotpy Spectrum
Neuroticism Spectrum
Extroversion Spectrum
Etc, etc, etc

So people get diagnoses of disorders when they are too far along on a specific spectrum? That doesn't mean there are "neuro-typicals" out there, it merely means they are somewhere else on the spectrum and have less impairment in functioning.

I never said it wasn't, infact I agreed. I just added the extra data that pure biological fatalism is logically fallacious, twin studies have demonstrated this time and time again. "One or the other" is "black and white" thinking, I reject this irrationality.

Example: If identical twins show a 50% biological concordance rate of a behaviour/personality trait, you can't write 50 to mean 100. 50 = 50, always, to do otherwise is to paint a illogical portrait of "2 +2 = fish". There are clearly other factors at work which in the Psychology buisness is called "social/enviornmental" factors.

Why do you think Psychologists say that our mental state is a combination of "biological, enviornmental and sociological factors"? Because it's quite true, not just because they say it, but because the evidence points to this fact.



"Intuition" is just "instinct", it's a proto-emotion, it's very much fallable.



I have no problems reading faces and body lanuage, as I said as soon as I read into it I'm "over-analyzing", while other people "NTs" assume themselves to be "right on target" without uncertainty, this is why they get themselves in such messes, they put a delusional trust in their "instincts" and "emotions" completely ignoring the fact that they cannot infact read other people, you can speculate and theorize another person's thoughts and feelings but you can never really know.... well unless you're a "telepath".

I think it's not a question of being able to read or not read social cues (although NLD may be a part of some people's issues). The problem comes with how to apply this information in the relevant social framework so as to not be construed as unusual.

What is "unusual" is generally subjective upon the individual at hand. Some people will find me "unusual" and others will not, I don't really care if some narcissist, paranoid, or schizotype thinks I'm unusual and jumps to false conclusions based on nothing but instinct , proto-emotion, and paranoid or schizotypal thoughts. The opinions of delusional individuals on myself mean little, the opinions on me that really count are my own, my friends and family, and those of rational sane people.

Sorry, a better word choice would have been "inappropriate."

Define widely accepted criteria for "inappropriate" social behaviour? The only behaviour I can think of that is widely accepted is anti-social criminal behaviour which I do not engage in (and other autistics do not) but "NTs" regularly do. So define a widely accepted criteria for "inappropriate" pro-social behaviour.

A widely accepted criteria for inappropriate social behaviour is behaviour which makes the other people nearby feel uncomfortable or even threatened. There are exceptions. I think the greatest exception is when the behaviour is done intentionally to shake up a social norm which needs shaking up, such as Rosa Parks intentionally sitting in a bus seat when it was "appropriate" for the time for a white person to sit in it. This made the white people uncomfortable yet it was an appropriate thing to do since that social norm needed shaking up. But those situations are so few and far between that they become a part of history if they are succesful. Outside of those iconic shake-ups, making the people around you feel uncomfortable is inappropriate. Yes, NT people do this too. This isn't one of those things that are only done by certain people. The main difference that I see between AS and NT is that an NT person's inappropriate behaviour tends to be intentional while an AS person's inappropriate behaviour is often unintentional.

For the record, anti-social criminal behaviour is not widely accepted, or accepted at all. That's why it has been criminalized. By definition, behaviour which is literally criminal is the epitome of widely unacceptable.

Also for the record, I'm using the terms "AS" and "NT" as shorthands for debating purposes. I fully realize that 6 billion people can't be lumped into precisely two groups with no commonalities between the groups or variation within the groups.

edited to add; ok, now that I think about it, the behaviour that makes nearby people uncomfortable yet is appropriate doesn't actually have to be as groundbreaking as Rosa Parks or recorded in history. And it's more common than I gave it credit for. Appropriate behaviour which makes other people uncomfortable by shaking up social norms that need shaking up is as common
as any two gay people walking hand in hand or celebrating their marriage. I'm sure other people can think of different examples. But my point is really that this behaviour which makes others uncomfortable is really only appropriate when it is shaking up a social norm which is repressive and wrong and needs to be shaken up.

Last edited by Janissy on 30 Jun 2009, 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.