Can we own and 'take' the term 'A-Type' for ourselves?

Post Reply New Topic

How about:

Autism: Visual-Sensitive Neurotype (VSN). We have a preference for lower level visual processing and lack the desensitization to stimuli, seeing all the details.

NTs: Symbolic-Verbal Neurotype (SVN). They process in verbal symbols that also filter the stimuli into a simpler form and allow increased central coherence.

If they're not mature, then I'm not going to interact with them unless there's hope they'll mature. Not unless I can get something out of the relationship.

I took that outlook as well, although for me, it didn't end well (sitting in front of cpu alone). But at least I dont' have to hear about their whining and complaining that I'm "doing something wrong".

Bottom line: People are self motivated in everything, including passing judgements, that's not likely to change.
I do agree with you though, I don't bother with immature people either lol.

What is wrong with "autistic"? I am autistic. What is wrong with that? Does there need to be some other term? I don't see the need.

Well, we want to fake around a bit and put it in a nicer way than what people have in mind.
Play the game.

Otherwise I think you're right.

Stupid that this has an effect for NTs.
They'll never tell the truth anyway

That's exactly what I'm saying!

It's not what we think of the word, it's what "normal" people think about when they think of the word.
Trying to use a different word would potentially make people think about us in a better way. Although as I've said before, I don't think it'll help in the longrun because people will only use the new word as another label with negetive connotation.

Begeebus, who cares what anyone thinks about the word?

It's not the word itself, it's the negetive sense that people get from thinking of what the words reputation has.

That's fine. It's not as simple, but it works.

Yes, the world was primarily neurotypical, last time I checked, which means there are stereotypes which can be held against us, and give us a harder time in life. I'd rather "spin" that stereotype to be more positive, so that those negative things are mitigated.

Yes, I'm aware of the whole "Type A Personality" thing, which is not clinical, whatsoever, and using some advantages of people's presumptions of overachievement present in that, combined with the general understanding that many of the geniuses of the world have been on the spectrum to make it so that people can focus on the good we give to the world instead of the negatives present.

Why can't we 'own' our image so that we mitigate the negatives placed onto us?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand you correctly you're confirming that it is the Type A personality concept which you're suggesting adopting partly because it isn't clinical and partly because it has positive overtones which could be usefully commandeered? If that is the case, then I would say:
1. No Type A isn't "clinical", but it is "established" as I can testify since I was made to read studies on it and write essays about it for psychology many years ago now. It has a firm definition to describe a particular type of person who I would say doesn't fit spectrum traits all that well.
2. My personal opinion is actually that Type A carries with it numerous negative connotations. Because I'm familiar with the term, I often find myself applying it (completely non-scientifically) to describe people I come across in life. The people to whom I've ascribed this term are those who have struck me as being career driven to the point of ruthlessness or dishonesty. I'm not saying that's what the term specifically means, but to me it jars with what I value in people. I've known bosses who readily tread on fingers as they climb the ladder to the top and who don't necessarily even realise they're doing it because they're so absorbed in their goals. These are people who are more competitive than they are good-natured. That's what Type A often means to me and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

If a label is required (I realise some people feel the need for that and I personally feel the need for that a lot too), I'm seriously not sure this is an appropriate label to choose. I think better, far more positive ones could be found. Why not just keep terms like Asperger? It's established enough now that it would be hard to eradicate even with the DSM changes.