Adept theory

Post Reply New Topic

Well, whether autism is a disorder or merely normative human variation depends on one's views of neurological difference. However, I agree with you about the problems with privileging those on the autism spectrum with some unique spiritual value.

Neurology refers to the brain and nervous systems. Spirit, at least as I would define it, is a more transcendent, or nonphysical, quality. Anyone can be spiritual, irrespective of their neurologies.

By the way, that is the difficulty, reducing spirits to neurodiversity, I have with the whole indigo children construct. It attempts to turn persons with certain neurological variations, in particular those on the autism spectrum and those with ADHD, into innate spiritual giants.

Actually, I do. On an individual per individual basis, I am skilled at forming relations with people. It's only when you add excessive others to the mixture that I start becoming shy and reserved, and I fall back.

I'm actually empathetic to a fault. I don't always get my assessments correct, but, if it is clear how another person is feeling, it becomes very important in my mind.

Compulsive chatterer. In real life, I've been known to sit down and ramble for hours over miles of my obsessive interests, and I usually manage to relate it to the other person somehow.

Depends on their personality type. If they're people I strongly identify with, I tend to take leadership in conversation and social interaction, to the point that a fellow (younger than me, ironically) once remarked, "does this kid ever shut up?" My social energy is endless once I feel comfortable and "in" around a group of people. I only feel shy if I'm unsure as to my place in a group. If this isn't clear, I tend to fall by the wayside, listening more than talking.

I tend to be "schizophrenic" on this one. I tend to bump between highly self-centered and pathologically altruistic.

Yes. I don't think you quite have it right, though. Not all Aspies necessarily fit the stereotypes. I'm dead certain that I have the disorder, but it's a version that is characterized by unusually high levels of serotonin, to the point of causing verbal tics and perpetual upper respiratory infections.

Well, the OP listed a whole gantlet of related disorders, to tell you the truth.

What you posed sounds more like an argument for neurodiversity. Not just in favor of autists but also in favor of NTs, extroverts, introverts, people who are creative or lacking in imagination...I'm sure that you are correct in thinking that "adept" and suchlike are a bit supercilious. Perhaps we'll come up with a term over the course of this thread that avoids conveying any such sense.

What we need is a term that is neither self-derogatory nor arrogant. We need something that underlines our strengths while acknowledging our deficits. I think that "Aspie" is a good start for those who have AS, but what we're trying to get at here is a much more diverse population. "Paratypical"? We'll think of something.

I was making generalizations about NTs and aspies. Not all of the things I said are necessarily going to perfectly apply to everyone who is NT or autistic.

It sounds like you equate being a chatterbug with being social and being a good conversationalist... but I know that's not necessarily true. My dad likes to talk a lot, especially about his obsessive interests. But they're not really conversations, because he's doing all the talking. Communication is a two-way thing.

All I was saying was that the threadstarter was making it seem that aspies are superior, and like there's nothing wrong with them at all. That's because he was picking and choosing the traits. But in reality, there are a lot of problems that come with AS and you can therefore easily flip the adept argument around. Quadripelgics are adept... you know, cause they often deal with adversity so well! Burn victims are adept, because they make other people seem so pretty! Clowns are so adept, because they make everyone laugh!

I don't see the need to come up with a word to signify the strengths or weaknesses of aspies. I think aspie is a fine name. It's just like any other word. It arbitrarily signifies something. Although that does seem to the PC trend these days... handicapped people being called "differently advantaged." Whatever. I think that's personally even worse than being called handicapped. Best to keep it simple. Handicapped. Autist... aspie.

Understood, but autists are not necessarily restricted from any of those abilities. They just...aren't.

There isn't as much difference between the two as you imply. I just demand in-depth discussion of particular subjects. I can't stand to have conversation chopped and hacked into pieces. Neurotypicals, on the other hand, tend to be surprised to find that someone is capable of analyzing and combing over a particular subject with the depth and insight of a person whose personality falls along the lines of my own. When I encounter a person whose mode of conversation is similar to mine, we tend to function exceedingly well, simply because our thinking follows similar patterns. I've had conversations (two-way conversations, mind you) lasting upwards of eight hours. As NTs do, I only actually relate to a few people on any real level. Finding and relating to those with whom we can identify and find something in common is what we call, "making friends." It's perfectly normal in that sense, really.

That's not what I saw in it. This is why I tried to propose a less supercilious term. My own reflection on it is that people affected with these oddities of character, thinking, and behavior also have values to which their deficits are an essential part. To discard one is to do away with the other. The feelings behind the OP seemed to stem from a desire to understand people affected with these lopsided neurological endowments as something aside from mentally handicapped, which I think is a good cause.

Of course. We shouldn't disregard the talents and specializations of NTs simply because we have talents and specializations of our own. To do so would be a reckless disregard for the value of neurodiversity, which is really what the original poster seemed to be out in support of. If we want the world to rise up in support of neurodiversity, we should certainly show appreciation for those who are endowed with superior social functioning. In that, the neurotypicals and people affected with certain irregularities which impart similar skill are far more advanced than most of us. We should show appreciation for these people and herald them as deeply gifted individuals, and we should expect our own gifts to be appreciated.

Your comparisons seem to be intentionally negative, which strongly suggests that you take a necessarily negative view of AS. This isn't very productive, really. Many Aspies are highly gifted individuals, as are many people who are affected with certain forms of ADHD and many who are affected with schizotypal personality disorder and OCD etc..

I think that the original poster intended to come up with a term to signify a much broader group of people widely held to be "disordered" whose net level of functioning is essentially equal to that of unaffected individuals.

Aspies aren't necessarily handicapped, though, except in some specific areas. They may be highly talented in others. It doesn't necessarily mean we're inferior, but it's much like being left-handed in a world populated chiefly by people who are right-hand dominant.

Your fixation on comparing Aspies to people who are physically handicapped is telling.

I think that the original poster had in mind people whose net level of functioning is more or less equal to that of neurotypicals. The trouble is finding a term suitable for it. Paratypical? Atypical? Equitypical? Contratypical?

your

Agreed. Those traits (or lack of traits) that I mentioned are just stereotyped characteristics of aspies and NTs. I never pretended they were different.



Well, I'd kind of disagree with you there (not that it's really that relevant our main argument). To be a good conversationalist you need to listen; there has to be two way communication. That's what conversation is. You can be a chatterbug and a great conversationalist, but you need to also be receptive and let the other person be the chatterbug--otherwise, it's just masturbation. Those eight hour conversations you've had with other people (whew!)... unless you had the other person bound up and gagged, it's likely that you were also a good listener and there was a good amount of two-way between the two of you. In that case you're not just being a chatterbug. You're being a good listener, and likely, a good conversationalist.

I maintain there is a rather large difference between being a simple chatterbug and a good conversationalist.


Ahh, I see. It certainly seemed supercilious to me, putting all of these different aspie traits under the umbrella of "adept."


I don't really have a negative view of AS. I'm all for neurodiversity, as you said (not just for NT and AS, but for all different personality types (except maybe anti-social)). I do, however, think that aspies have it tougher than NTs and that they have more problems with finding jobs, being happy, having friends, and otherwise being successful. Of course, there are exceptions, and there are a lot of them. But I do consider it a disorder, or at least debilitating, if one is afflicted with it heavily enough (which most people who are diagnosed with it are). I know I would rather be NT if I could. But yeah, I do see it as a hindrance, like being blind or deaf, or quadriplegic (of course those are worse--in most cases, but you see my point). The cons outweigh the pros. Not everyone sees it that way, but I do and I think I'm more right than those who don't.


That's true. He didn't mention "aspie." Maybe he just meant the high functioning aspies. The best of the best.


You can't be considered disabled unless it's in some context. You can't be disabled in a vacuum. We happened to live in an NT world. That's our world, that's our context. We're not good at it! We have a tough time. There I am speaking for myself... and other aspies. Although I'm sure there are many here who agree with me. Maybe it would be completely different if we lived in an aspie world or a world full of left-handers. Somehow, I still doubt it would be that easy.


Aspie? super aspie?

Copycat?