Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

The NT myth?

Page 2 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

b_edward
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 244

30 Jan 2014, 10:40 am

briankelley wrote:
There seems to be this mythology that there are two different beings like elves and humans, or vulcans and humans or witches and muggles. But I don't see it being the case in reality. In reality here is no separate race of beings called NT's. The idea that society as a whole is supposedly mainly comprised of these NT beings who are supposedly... Never picked on, singled out or bullied. None of them are shy or have social difficulties. None of them have anything like OCD, or ADHD, or paranoia, or anxiety, or depression, or lack self esteem or lack self confidence. They never have trouble getting a job. They never have trouble fitting in. They never have trouble making and keeping friends. They don't in in pain and despair turn to alcohol and drugs. They don't commit suicide.
And myth number one: all of them are accepted by all other NT beings...
Does anyone really believe these NT beings actually exist?


When I say something like, "...but in an NT world... " or "You know, an NT will respond by doing this or that..." and so forth, it is because this is an NT world (by definition of the word "typical".) And usually I'm complaining that they are doing something to make my life miserable; it is usually related to specific tendencies and patterns that can be observed and demonstrated.

However, I'm willing to take posts like these to heart; my cup is not overfilled and I'm willing to learn. I think it would be fine to say "people will tend to do this, or that". Or point out typical patterns exhibited by "people". It may be more to the point. No promises though :)



Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

30 Jan 2014, 4:34 pm

Quote:
I think it would be fine to say "people will tend to do this, or that". Or point out typical patterns exhibited by "people". It may be more to the point. No promises though


Personally, I don't like that terminology. There's a tendency to label the ones who are considered 'different', while not labeling the ones who are seen as 'normal', and in my opinion this contributes to discrimination. For example feminists noticed in the 1960s and 70s that people tended to assume a 'person' (gender-unspecified) was a man, and only think of a woman when the terminology explicitly referred to her gender. For example, when they asked people (of either gender) to describe a 'healthy adult', a 'healthy man' and a 'healthy woman', their 'healthy adult' traits were the same as 'healthy man', while they described a completely different set of traits for a 'healthy woman'. Same sort of thing goes on with being white, being heterosexual, being NT, being hearing and sighted, being able-bodied, etc.

I think it's important to label the majority/group-in-power, to remind people that not everyone is part of that group. If you just call them generic 'people' it makes the minorities less visible.



b_edward
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 244

30 Jan 2014, 5:10 pm

touche'



Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

30 Jan 2014, 8:15 pm

Ettina wrote:
Quote:
NT is a term that was originally meant to mean "not autistic." It's not supposed to mean any of those other things you heaped on it in your post. It still doesn't mean all those things, although it no longer strictly means "not autistic."


No, it doesn't mean 'not autistic'. It means 'neurologically typical'. There's a difference.



Yes, it was originally coined to mean "not autistic".


_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I