What's up with all the hate on" neurotypicals"

Post Reply New Topic

What you described might be referred to as "NT-splaining". This is when an NT attempts to explain the "Autistic Experience" to us in a condescending or patronizing manner, or tries to explain the "Autistic Experience" to us without regard to the fact we know more about being autistic than they ever will, despite all of their famcy book-learning.

THAT is what annoys me about NTs.

I agree. I don't hate NTs at all. In fact, I am very close to some. And I don't think it is right to categorize entire groups of people because of things that some of them do. But this "NT-splaining" thing, is something that I absolutely hate. I don't hate the people perse, but I do hate that behavior.

About 99% of the world's population is "NT". So if you hate NT's, you basically hate everyone on Earth.

NurseAngela, I really don't think B19 had you in mind. To be honest, based on things you've written I think of you as a person who is probably autistic or BAP (subclinical ASD). And even if you're completely NT, you don't make the types of ignorant, condescending, and sometimes outright nasty posts about people with ASD that she's talking about.
Check the thread D.I.V.O.R.C.E in the Adult forum if you want to see some of that.

But there are a number of flaws in your logic:

1) Being autistic doesn't mean you know more about autism. This is the negative aspect of the 'if you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism' statement.

Our own experiences are all we have, whereas the medical community conducts research on many individuals.

It could be argued that those working with & researching autism will understand the spectrum more than us. We are, of course, a point on the spectrum - but we aren't the spectrum.



2) Having direct experience of (or 'being') doesn't equate to 'being able to effectively communicate to others'.

A flower can't tell us what it's like to be a flower.
A dog can't tell us what it's like to be a dog

Many autistics can't effectively communicate their experiences.


3) You said 'we know more about autism than...'

I'd disagree.

We 'know' our own experiences (whatever it means to 'know' something) - but I'd never claim, as you just did, to 'know' more than the likes of Baron-Cohen/Wing etc on the subject of autism.

All I'd claim is an understanding of what being autistic feels like to me as an individual.


But I certainly wouldn't claim to 'know' more, or even think about claiming I know more than such people 'ever will'.



Should the opinions of autistics be taken into account when discussing issues involving autism? Of course.

But the only feasible solution would be to ask every autistic person their opinion, given we are all somewhere on the spectrum.

Again, the problem with this is many won't be able to communicate an effective answer to you.

As you'll see even on this site: being autistic doesn't necessarily mean 'being in agreement'.


I think the world of autism would descend into chaos if all autistics were given the right to have a say in every decision made regarding autism.



But autistic opinions certainly are taken on board by NT's.



Question - should autistics therefore diagnose other autistics?

You only know your form of autism. As do we all.

People conducting medical research into autism might not actually be exposed to the everyday life of an autistic person. They might obtain certain findings--but those findings might be limited to, say, the type of autism which they are studying, or the gender of the subjects. They might not allude to specific type only to the fact that the subjects had autism

With relative frequency, autism in research is considered a sort of one-dimensional sort of disorder. The findings obtained should, instead, reflect the Spectrum nature of autism.

Relying solely upon research studies, without taking anecdote into account, is really not the path to take when one desires to obtain a full understanding of anything.

Many Autistic people are perfectly capable of researching Autism. And many Autistics express themselves extremely well even if they are non verbal. So I don't think it's fair to say that Autistic people can't know about Autism in general. I don't see any reason why Autistics can't diagnose other Autistics. Those Autistics who are able to get the qualifications to do so can become qualified just like anybody else can.

Last edited by skibum on 05 Jun 2016, 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

But 99% of the population aren't NTs. 99% of the population are ALLISTIC. Allistic isn't the same as NT. Allistic is non-autistic, NT means neuro-TYPICAL. I don't see what's typical about a person with severe mental-retardation but not autistic.

Why won't Aspies get that?!?!?!?!?!?!

I don't believe I said they were.

However: this could be seen as one of the reasons why assessment involves questions regarding defecits in functioning.

If you're having difficulties in everyday life, this would be addressed in the diagnostic process.

If you don't have difficulties, you won't be at the doctors.


As above.

Plus - findings being 'limited' could be described not as limited, but as 'specific'.

Which does have value.



What do you mean 'sort of' disorder?

Research has to go from general - specific. Eliminativism often is the very nature of progress.



As above.

I'm giving examples of NT's who likely understand autism better than any of us to counter the point made that autistics 'know' more than 'any NT ever will'.

'Any NT' includes researchers who are not autistic.

Therefore, many NT's actually know more about autism than autistics.

That is hilarious!

Yeah ... but at least now I have an excuse!

I actually had a point and I as going to use these definitions to make it but after looking all these up I forgot what I was originally going to say. But I will post this anyway and if my train of thought returns, I will post it.

Here is the definition of NT according to the Macmillan Dictionary
used to refer to someone who has a normal ability to process language, in contrast to people who are on the autism spectrum

Here is the definition from the Oxford Dictionary
Not displaying or characterized by autistic or other neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behavior

Here is the definition from the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary
Medical Definition of neurotypical
Not affected with a developmental disorder and especially autism spectrum disorder : exhibiting or characteristic of typical neurological development <With developmental disorders, there is an added layer of confusion because people often appear neurotypical; they function well in some situations and not in others.—Sallie Tisdale, Harper's, April 2012>

And here is Wiktionary's definition
Adjective

neurotypical ‎(comparative more neurotypical, superlative most neurotypical)
Having a normal (usual, ordinary) way of processing sensory, linguistic, and social information; used especially to contrast with autistic.
Noun
neurotypical ‎(plural neurotypicals)
One who is neurotypical; one who is not autistic, dyslexic, schizophrenic etc.

Here is the definition for allistic
This one came from Cracked Mirror
It just means that someone is not autistic. Allistic is a term that members of the autistic community came up with.Apr 12, 2013

This one is from Wiktionary
allistic ‎(not comparable)
(neologism) Nonautistic.

I don't think all Aspies don't get that.

OK, so it's 90-95% neurotypical. Why are you so worked up about it? They just got the stat wrong a bit.

And why assume they were confusing allistic & NT? Maybe they underestimated how common autism and other neurodiversities are, instead.

I don't know if you were referring to my post with the definitions when you asked if we assumed that we don't know the difference between NT and allistic. But if you were, I did not assume that people did not know. I actually had a point that I wanted to make and the definitions were going to help me make the point. But I forgot what I was going to say but since I had already put the definitions in the post I just posted it anyway.

That makes the most sense and is what I refer NTs as when posting in general.

I just get worked up because I used to volunteer at a club for teenagers with learning and functioning difficulties, and while only a few of them were on the spectrum, they all were different from "normal" teenagers. Some had Down's, others had Fragile-X, others had mental retardation, the list goes on. Some of them were more sociable than others, but they still seemed more immature than their peers, whether it's socially delayed or intellectually delayed. Some even had both.

My friend has Fragile-X, but not Asperger's, but she has always had trouble making friends, and is having difficulties finding a job. She's 26. She finds lots of things challenging.