Neurodiversity and Autism: The Other Side of the Story

Post Reply New Topic

I took the fake it till you make it route, since the autumn that I've started college. I was in a programme for adults with disabilities and I wanted to prove to everybody that I wasn't as bad as my colleagues were. I was doing that, until I've experienced job burn-out, at the age of 23. I was faking it to prove to my job placement officer, that I wasn't "Too sensitive" as she once told me, that I was. I knew a man in my college programme who was too sensitive and that's not how I wanted to be. I've even told my mum that I was staying at that job, to show everybody in my life, that I wasn't too sensitive. My mum told me that it was the stupidest thing that I've ever done in my life, and I agreed with her. Staying at that factory job, doing the most basic tasks was the stupidest thing that I've done, considering how smart I am.

"Fake it 'til you make it" seems rather strident dictum to place upon any & all humans. Those who are willing/able to do so will. There are also plenty of folks for whom that is the last thing they need to be doing, as it would be (and may likely already has been) counterproductive/destructive instead of constructive.

Part of issue is that many people (not just ASD or NT, but all humans)-and am not saying I'm any better about this, either-see others as either "sick" or "well", "disabled" or "functioning well enough".

"Black & white" thinking, of the sort "we" are usually accused of operating from. Reality & the individuals populating the world are more complex & varied than these "healthy, robustly functioning" or "diseased, dysfunctional" polarities/extremes. People are made up of many "shades of grey" but it's harder to see things that way, the brain wants something easier to handle conceptually, so it puts people or things in simplistic, reductive categories of "ill & in need of help" or "not ill & needs no help". Yet just about every person has some flaws or weaknesses & some skills or strengths.

My opinion is that people ought not be divided into these groups, but that doesn't mean eradicating descriptors that matter. It's a continuum (spectrum), not only for those who have dx or "difference". There are "NT" people with problems that "ASD" people don't have, "ASD" people with skills that "NT" people lack, but also vice versa. Ideally, in the la-la-la imaginary world that I wish for, people would relate as individuals rather than as representatives of the group they've been placed in. It's hard to explain how I'd like to "split the difference", have things both ways-so that both the positives & negatives of any person would be safe to reveal. There would be thresholds for this or that "condition" or style of processing (as we have criteria today), but these classifications wouldn't be considered the "be all and end all" of who the person is, nor would those with whichever label/acronym be assumed to be same as others who also have that label. All "NT" people aren't the same (nor have they a monopoly on "being well") and all "ASD" people aren't interchangeable (the same as each other), nor are we thoroughly "dysfunctional".

Presence of strengths doesn't cancel out or negate presence of deficits, presence of deficits doesn't void/contradict presence of strengths in any person, no matter what her/his neurological story/situation. Life & society just often hasn't the time & effort to spare, nor the inclination, to look at things in finer detail & notice that (to some degree, on some level) no one's wholly free of infirmity & no one's devoid of physiological assets. We each have different packages of these combined factors, in bewildering array of manifestation/expression, which we call personality. Alas, it's too much mental work for many folks with their rules, laws, codes, institutions, etc. to treat each person as unique blend of sickness & wellness, so people get tossed into one or the other overly broad category ("crazy" or "sane"-no "in between").

I have problems/afflictions/difficulties. I have gifts/abilities/talents. Neither fact cancels out the other. Same can be said of most everyone human. Am not trying to argue away the dx, yet I am saying that understanding shouldn't/needn't end there-just that an official (or suspected) dx doesn't tell anyone what life is like for any specific person, nor does "NT" status reflect much in particular about any individual. I'm in favor of distinctions that are useful (for both the people outside the concerned person as well as for the person him/her self), but am against divisiveness that pits people against each other from stance of artificial constructs, while conflating the dissimilar (as if all "NT" people are same and all "ASD" people are same, and each group is so very different from every single member of each other's group). Our (all humans) notions of other people are rough approximations, not the final word.

Edited to fix couple spelling/grammar mistakes...

Last edited by Belfast on 17 May 2008, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm pretty much right brained. Brain scans points out the differences on neural connections therefore impairing integrative processing but relying on a systemizing approach to compensate.

They say we are dysfunctional but we don't have anything turned off so it can also be viewed as a different way of brain development. There are regions of the brain that variates in size, like the amygdala. It's unclear if we have duplicate or missing genes in the chromosomes 7 and 18. It is also unclear if some hormones don't work the way they normally do.
Serious science reports indicates they'll have a conclusive analysis in 20 years.

Excuse my poor english skills. lol

I'm also very right brained, as well.

And who exactly is deciding which people are "faulty"? Does not the conception of a "faulty person" vary across time and geography? Is not everyone "deficient" in some way, with the difference being that some people have an easier time working around these "deficiencies" due largely to external factors? The "majority rules" argument is tiresome for me, as it has been used to justify oppression of minorities in numerous instances.

As for what society "owes" people with disabilities, your explanation is rather simplistic and omits a lot of information. Here are some excerpts from the UN's Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (preamble):



Contrary to what some might think, society is not "supposed" to operate under some kind of social Darwinism. Our society professes to provide everyone with full human rights and equality, which is not the same thing as everyone being identical BTW. I simply want "society" to live up to its ideals.

People on the autism spectrum just have a slower developing right brain.

Excuse me?! Where did you read this s**t? It's at best not proven, and most likely downright wrong.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to all these posts.

"Fake it till you make it" works in moderation like any other activity. Of course you are not going to become mathematical genius overnight from an average joe just because you strongly believe it will happen, but that's beside the point.

The point is, your social skills will be better if you fake it, and even if your differences are noticeable, at least you'll be more confident and have better self-esteem. I've never claimed anyone would eliminate his social differences, only that faking it would be for the better.

Also, the whole idea has empirical support. If you don't believe me, check out a psychology textbook.
BTW, we deceive ourselves everyday to get by. Because if we didn't, we'd be too depressed to achieve anything!
____________
No, AS is not a minor differece like left-handedness. That's wishful thinking.

Everything about humans is in some way social. Relationships, empathy, and social cues are not minor differences like left-handedness, but involve whole sets of characteristics that are on display to others virtually 24/7.

Nothing affecting our interactions with people in a way they'll notice--and they will notice--could possibly be minor.

The faulty individual themselves, obviously. If an individual can't feed themselves, whether preparing the food, or some other task that is mundane to the majority of individuals, they're faulty. We're lucky in that the society we're a part of actually makes allowances for those of us who can't prepare food to survive; without these allowances, said individuals would die. People deriding society for making their "difference" a "disability" is hypocritical to the extreme as those with disabilities have it as good as it has ever been throughout history (not for everyone, of course). The food example can transpose over everything, whether being unable to work around people, unable to study, or some other impairment in a specific or broad category--society allows those with these problems to work by themselves [by providing help in many cases], provide education that's tailored to those who can't attend mainstream, or any other allowance made.

Society is made by the majority, and if the majority deems certain groups as unworthy of anything, so be it; the weak die out in this society. Some societies look after their weak, and their weak survive, and perhaps aid society in ways that the majority can't. Society can operate however it likes (none are "right" or "wrong" if they tailor to the majority and its wishes). Over here (Oz), I'm treated the same as anyone else, and I'm given allowances for my faulty mind; what else can be done? They live up to their ideals here.

It's not fair to equate pointing out the social aspects of disability with "derision".

In fact, if people had not pointed these things out, then in most cases you wouldn't have anyone making changes for you. So it seems more to me that you shouldn't be so hard on people who point out that disability is what happens with the clash of innate differences and a particular society -- if that viewpoint hadn't developed there wouldn't be most disability laws that exist in many countries today (as well as internationally).

Aspergers is not only benign but also beneficial; the problem is really that we have to “exist” in a society developed for and by NTs. It is really an issue of discrimination not disability. NTs have as many or more disabilities than we have, society has just been structured to accommodate for theirs.

bookwormde

Of course, "feeding oneself" is a questionable term. Is the person who inherits wealth and hires a cook feeding themselves? Is the man who gets his wife to cook for him every single night, though he himself can barely boil water? Keep in mind that the latter situation was fairly common throughout much of history, and still is to some extent. Yet these people don't consider themselves faulty, nor does society. Again, everyone has abilities and disabilities. Everyone is "faulty" in some way, but the manner in which some people's disabilities are emphasized more than others is problematic.



Yes, and in the modern world everyone is interdependent to some degree. We're not Henry David Thoreau, growing and cooking our own vegetables and building our own houses by hand. Drop your average American in the wilderness for a few days with no tools except those he made himself, and see how "fit" he really is.



Yes, and "being able to work" (at a particular job) and "being unable to study" (at a particular educational institution) are contingent on both innate abilities and social factors, as anbeund said. There are many ways one could "study" or "have a job." And even if someone truly is unable to do these tasks, there are still other ways to be a valuable member of society. I differ from you in that I see accommodations as a human right, not a privilege or "allowance," and current disability legislation agrees with me. BTW, the ADA covers "perceived disability" as well as "actual disability." It's an interesting distinction.



Well, I just can't agree with this viewpoint. This example may be hyperbolic, but if that were the case than there'd be no problem with Jim Crow society. It's what the "majority" wants, after all. Moreover, in the real world, "the majority" doesn't always win out. Look at apartheid South Africa for an example of this. Power dynamics control society just as much as "the majority," if not more so. If simply being a "majority" guaranteed power, then women never would have been denied rights. Even so, modern society recognizes that the "majority" does not have the right to deprive "minorities" of equal rights. That is what I mean by society living up to its ideals.

If you prefer to think of yourself as having a "faulty" brain, then be my guest. I prefer to take an approach which takes multiple factors into consideration, though I am trying to mitigate my most significant impairments.

Wishful thinking. Asperger's is not beneficial for the most part. Imagine a society of aspies, everyone with their own incompatible perseverate interests and priorities. Also note that aspies often have impaired motor skills, executive function, are sensitive to their environment, lack empathy, lack time management skills, are poor at multi-tasking, and are poor at generalizing, instead tending to focus on minor or irrelevant details.

I don't believe a society full of aspies would function as well as one full of NTs.

Humans evolved as social animals, being especially adapted to cooperation within their own groups and competition with outside groups. There's a reason why autistic genes did not become predominant, aside from the purely social aspects.

For example, imagine an aspie living thousands of years a go. Being detail-oriented, he focuses on an interesting rock he finds and becomes preoccupied with imaging the things he could make from it. Meanwhile, a hungry lion is stalking him. The aspie is killed, and so does not pass on his autistic traits.

Also note the false dichotomy between discrimination and disability--they are not mutually exclusive.



Like what? Not being able to obsess over narrow interests? The ability of aspies to perseverate is most often cited in these debates as an enabling trait, but is that really the case?

Perseverate interests are generally a bad thing because you put all your eggs in one basket. You have fewer skills and are less well-rounded as a result.

I don't normally think of things in terms of "who is beneficial to who".

But if you do think of things this way... why would something not being good if it were in the majority mean not being beneficial?

I mean, what if there's supposed to be a few autistic people, and a few of this sort of people, and a few of that sort of people, and a whole lot of people who are whatever way most people are? Sort of like a machine might need more of Part 1 than Part 2 to run. It wouldn't mean the machine could get along as well, or possibly even at all, without Part 2. And the fact that it's reliant on some small amount of Part 2 doesn't mean it would be better if the entire thing were made only or primarily of Part 2.

For that matter, when I'm baking I use a lot of flour and a little yeast. But it wouldn't be the same end product at all without the yeast. And the fact that it wouldn't be the same without the yeast, doesn't mean that it would be any good if it were all or even predominantly yeast.

If a society is like a machine or a loaf of bread, then it might need a lot of some parts/ingredients and only a little of others. But the ones it needs a little of aren't supposed to be left out of it either just because it only works if there's a little and not a lot.

That's not necessarily the way I think, but I'm just posing this as from within that way of thinking because it always puzzles me when people come up with that particular train of "logic".

well I guess I can throw that theory away . Why do we develop so slow socially? Social skills is a right brained task. We are not midding a right brain either, but if we develop our right brain that does not mean you are no longer autistic.

I don't see how aspies are necessary for a society to function. I only see how some autistic traits may help, but I fail to see how they can be beneficial for society in their noticeably autistic forms.

In general, an NT can do many more things than what an aspie can do. Generally, there is nothing an aspie can do that an NT cannot.

Fellow aspies often cite Bill Gates and others as examples of successful aspies, but fail to note:
1) Vast majority of the time, we don't know that they had Asperger's.
2) They are far the exception than the norm, assuming they had Asperger's.
3) Even if they had Asperger's, it does not follow that their Asperger's was responsible for their success, or even that it was not a hindrance.