Frontal Lobes and the Spectrum

Post Reply New Topic

I haven't read anything on EEG studies in autism other than that a certain percentage have such (30% or so).

Here's an interesting article [on brain imaging]: PET scanning in ASD

The autism equating to brain damage is here: Autism

I had an EEG as recently as three years ago. They are painless. I never had a seizure induced and would have refused that procedure.

Thank you.

Yea I cried last night. It is a nightmare to realize everything I have missed out on life. I've lost out on so many great social relatinships because of my AS. It pisses me off. It destroys me to think about how rigid and miserable I have been in my life. I hate it.

This is the second time today I quote danielismyname but this is just coincidence.

Autism is not brain damage. I can tell you this from my observations and from reading the article. I may not have a PhD but I have enough of an academic background to know a solid argument from a hollow one. I can't tell you if his motives are psychological or professional but I can assure you they are not based on either scientific insight or an understanding of human behaviour.

Also, with all due respect, danielismyname thinking he's got brain damage would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Your posts are always utterly lucid, thoughtful and calm. I think that's why nobody's taken issue with this post because they don't want to argue with you. But I'll suggest one rule of thumb for your future reading: don't respect the minds of writers who don't respect yours.

I suppose the reason I don't take much issue with it is because I do not attach an over-riding importance to labels. To me, "brain damage" is merely a social construction of neurological difference.

I prefer to say we are all neurodiverse. That is also a social construction, but it is, I think, a more neutral one than "brain damage."

Does that make my view correct and the other one incorrect? No, but I also do think that the term "brain damage" is particularly helpful

If some people are "brain damaged," that would imply that others are "not brain damaged." A dualism has been established. On the other hand, the term, neurodiversity, does not establish, in advance, any fixed number of categories.

People get far too emotional over facts and the currently known truths.

People with MS have acquired damage to their brains; it severely affects their movement and sensory system (among others), there's no difference to autism here as autism severely affects ones' ability to interact socially, to communicate and their imagination.

Said writers do understand and respect my problems, I cannot [verbally] communicate out there with people; I cannot communicate for there is something seriously "wrong" with my brain. Just like the person who cannot talk with CIDP due to neurological damage, different cause, same effect.

MS, CIDP and autism are all neurological disorders (see: brain damage).

Everybody's got their own take on reality, and obviously mine is not the same as yours! To begin with I don't believe there are any "currently known truths", since different things are known in different places.

BTW attributing opinion to emotion is a standard way for men to dismiss women, although I don't think that's what you were doing. I'm old enough that I don't internalize it but you might want to be careful with it in the future.

I don't see myself as damaged goods. I see myself as a person with a unique, and wonderful brain.

There's an objective take, and there's a subjective one; the former is the correct one when dealing with illnesses. People tend to become emotional when one uses terms that they apply a negative connotation to; when I use brain damage, ret*d, impaired and what have you, there's nothing negative applied other than the correct definition in this context.

I saw an emotional reaction, one that's of no use to discussing the clinical picture of autism. If I saw incorrectly, I'm sorry.

OP: this is from an eMedicine article: