Post-Autistic Subculture?

Post Reply New Topic

I can hardly describe my feelings why reading that, I honestly felt like killing someone ( the real monster who lacks empathy, not just anyone). This is proof of the huge rift between the autistic and autism communities, almost to the point where they are nothing but enemies. If that rift is not sealed then there will be serious consequences.

Well, I have certainly seen the "Aspie/Autistic Pride" thing here, but seeing as how I have NEVER fit in anywhere (except once & that was a job) "belonging" or "Group idendification" have never interested me.
I am interested in the Autistic Spectrum since I am likely on it ( Though not Asperger's as I origionally though, more like Classical Autism) and was interested in seeing how others on it acted in Cyberspace. Since I have "existed" in Cyberspace for over 26 years its just natural that I am comfortable with this medium (also I have always expressed myself well in writing). If you met me in person I might not seem so eloquent. And I might not even be talkative at all..

Sincerely,
Matthew

Funny thing... At one time, I think I believed myself not to be cool enough to do much computer stuff. I think it's because I didn't feel smart enough to understand it and because I associated being smart with being cool. I was never destined for programming, so I guess I thought I was stupid. I've also never typed well, always using only "hunt and peck" to do it, and I associated using computers with being able to type. Computer use also seemed cutting edge, and I never felt cutting edge. Later on, as computers and the internet became more popular and trendy, I never felt popular and trendy enough. I always thought I was just a little blip of nothing who would never become anything. It wasn't until I actually began to have things I wanted to do that involved computers that I finally started using them as an adult. I eventually got a refurbished one, and that's the only kind I've ever had since. I've upgraded, but only ever out of the spare parts others have put together for me.

While I'd agree with the general point that autism and empathy is not a well-understood subject, the author of that article seems to have a misunderstanding of what science is about. It's not about proving that something is true. It's about discovering what is true. There is no scientific problem with testing whether Jews are good with money or whether black people develop differently to white people in some way. There is a scientific problem with assuming that they are and setting out to prove that. Any "outcry" against such research would be based on political correctness (what people wish to believe is true and pretend is true in order go get along with each other), not on science. Science is above such things, because reality is above anyone's illusions: it does not change simply because we wish it was different.

Psychiatry and psychology are the softest of sciences, and I think it is a mistake to think that because something is supposedly scientific that it necessarily is properly scientific. You can look up Michelle Dawson for examples of research into autism which had major problems that no one else noticed. She works with an autism researcher whose name escapes me ATM.

So, I think it is a legitimate question to ask just how well tested the "lack of Theory of Mind" theory really is. And also to wonder if ever-hair-splitting refinements of an idea means that is is becoming more accurate, or more convoluted because it because it doesn't actually work that well.

Otherwise, any subject branded as "scientific" becomes true through appeal-to-authority. Also, uncomfortable scientific information is not made more scientific for being so. Such claims need to be examined as much as any other.

http://wayshelter.com/

Beautiful website.

I feel the same way sometimes--like I don't even fit in all that much here, mostly because I am high-functioning compared to many. Unfortunately, I'm still too low-functioning to maintain friendships well or do many of the things it is normal to do in our society, such as hold yourself, your family, and your "clique" above other people, families, and groups. I will never really fit in with a clique as long as the people in the clique think they are innately better than people who aren't in the group.

However, I don't think I am alone in my aversion to exclusivity. I think there are a lot of people out there like me who are probably just beaten down by the world's constant need to categorize everyone and everything as either us or them. It's okay to categorize, I think, as long as you stay open-minded about it and don't exclude people based on pre-conceived notions.

Thank you!

“It’s as if they do not understand or are missing a core aspect of what it is to be human; to be and do like others and absorb their values,” says psychologist Bryna Siegel, director of the Autism Clinic, University of California, San Francisco. “Their worlds are more barren, their social world is very distorted, and they come out of their world not when you want them to, but when they want to.”

That is terrifying. I shudder to think what motivation might lie behind the attempts to portray us this way.

Science = describing the differences between our thinking and that of NTs.
Bigotry = making value judgments such as ""a core aspect of what it is to be human" about a (vaguely described) expression of those differences ("empathy": as another recent thread points out, there are different types of empathy).

What exactly is this site?

If so-called "empathy" is all there is about being human, then I don't think I even want to be a "human" anymore.

The desire to feel you belong somewhere, for some people (at least for me), can be very strong I think. Also the desire to be accepted just based on commonality of interest, and the confidence and security it can bring, especially if you struggle with socialising otherwise can be quite strong I think.

I've had experience of joining and being part of a different sub-culture for a while.

At 18 I joined a local motorbike sub-culture and very happily met and socialised (kind of) with people most Sundays. We only talked about motorbikes, and because I rode my own bike this was respected, and i was treated as a biker first, and everything else (including female and possibly a bit socially inept) afterwards. I could talk at length at motorbikes and liked hearing about them too.

I lost touch when I moved away and also the group split off and went their seperate ways for various reasons, and I split up with the guy who'd introduced me to them, which made things a little awkward in some ways, mostly though I lost touch cos I did not live in the area any more.

However, I still strongly identify with biker culture in some ways. As soon as I have a bit of spare cash one of the very the first thing on my list to get is another bike (or more likely for my husband to upgrade and for me to get his). I guess on a bike non-verbal cues don't really matter as much (you can't really see eyes through a helmet anyway) so you tend to wave or nod to others, and subtle body language is quite difficult to do in full leathers...I once had someone I worked with see me in my leathers in a town centre and she said I looked different, more me, more confident. I guess that's sort of an example of the confidence being part if a sub-culture can sometimes give you, as a biker I know who I am, otherwise I'm less sure.

I don't think a post-autistics culture or sub-culture or community would be as focused as the biker culture I was part of. As I think the interests of those attached to it might be more diverse, this could make the culture or community harder to maintain.

I'm interested by the suggestion it might be mainly an online community, and I wonder if, as other have said places like WP are an early manifestation of what it might be like, or are already the post-autistic subculture.

On the other hand sometimes as I'm not officially diagnosed, and remain unsure if I meet diagnostic criteria or not, even though I identify with a number of autistic traits, I'm unsure may not be 'autistic enough' to be allowed to join the formal sub-culture if one exists.

To be a biker I really needed to ride (and preferably own or have owned) a bike, but that was about it.

So to be an autist or an aspie do you require will you require some kind of diagnosis, whether that be official or self-diagnosis? Or will this develop into a wider community for all who just do not feel neurotypical in some way, who respect th good and bad parts of their differences?

I'm not trying to get into a debate about whether someone is actually autistic or not is defined by daignosis (this debate has been had a number of times elsewhere on WP).

I'm just wondering if the post-autistic culture will have some kind of criteria you need to meet to join or be included, and if so what this might be? Will it be an inclusive or exclusive community? WIll it have elements of both inclusivity and exclusivity?

It's my Website. It's full of lots of things, most of them my own, but with some contributions from others. The newest section, which has no icon yet but does have a link to it from the homepage, is the Cabinet. It was intended to have various resources, though right now it only addresses a couple of areas. I had to remove an area where the link I had that related to it was to an organization that's having some difficulties currently. I still have the suicide prevention list. Under that, I've developed a group of autism spectrum listings. I've just made the blog entries documenting my entire assessment process available there.

TalksToCats, I've had a peek at that sense of belonging by riding a motorcycle, even though my girlfriend is technically the owner and we don't belong to a club, just by way of encountering other bikers out on the road. You're right, it is a great thing. I can hardly wait until the bikes are in good repair and ride-able again. It's been a few years, and I really miss it.

I also get that same ability to belong and connect, on a limited level, by having tattoos. I only have a couple, but it's enough so that I can chat people up about theirs, even if they're strangers.

I've relied a lot on these sorts of things over the years, so that I can have something to make me feel like something less of a total outsider. Reading poetry at open readings has also done this for me. I guess there are all sorts of things that will work. If you have enough of them, you can get by, even if it's tough to get to know anyone well.

As I've said before, socializing with the help of my girlfriend and also being in the SCA, where we have activities all the time to engage in, helps a lot. Encountering strangers that turn out also to be in the SCA is like meeting other bikers or people with tattoos. But meeting strangers who also write poetry doesn't matter, I guess because so many people take stabs at it that nobody really cares who else does it too.

The thing that confuses me is the whole basican thing.

I like indentifying myself as a hippie even though a lot of Autistics don't think of themselves as a hiipie. I like calling myself an Autistic hippie. I like using two terms to describe myself when those two terms are usually contradictory of each other.