Is Autism/Asperger a defect?

Post Reply New Topic

But it's not just some coincidence. As I have said before on this forum, the norm is what it is for a reason. I think this is pretty self-evident. I think that a lot of confusion could be eliminated if people grasped the way a species is formed and (more to the point) maintained by evolutionary mechanisms.

Human beings have been "designed", so to speak, to work in a certain way. Of course there is variance, but for the most part the human "idea" is pretty narrow. The problem seems to be that people have no problem accepting this in regard to any body part aside from the brain. Only a pedantic blowhard or some sort of activist would deny that humans are "supposed" to have two arms (please mind the quotation marks there) and people who have a different number of arms are not merely members of some random minority group that happens to be the minority for no particular reason aside from there simply being more of the other kind of people. A person who has one arm, for instance, either a) was born a two-armer and lost one, or b) was born with a fairly major part of their body missing. No mother who just gave birth would look at their one-armed baby and think, "Oh, look at that, he's got one arm" the way she might think "Oh, look at that, he's got black hair" or something.

I hate to say it, but our brains aren't terribly more diverse than our legs. There's a pretty narrow definition for what the brain is "supposed" to work like. They're supposed to facilitate our sight, smell, taste, etc. Our speech, movement, balance...you get the idea. And it's supposed to knit all of that stuff into a harmonious subjective experience which allows for the individual to interact with their environment effectively. When one of these things is missing...well, it's missing. It doesn't mean that person is bad or can't have a good life or anything like that.

Autism is a serious disorder. All of this "arbitrary minority" stuff sounds ludicrous when you keep that in mind.

I can't take credit for what knifegill wrote, but sure, I'll bite. So you do not have very sharp senses then? What were those accommodations your mother did if not for that?

Yes, the only negative aspects are created by society. The OP talked about "aspies just want help and speeecial treatment whyyyyY" but the truth is that there are lots and lots of accommodations already in place, but they are invisible as they are geared toward NTs.

Your analogy is flawed: A major part of the body missing is not equivalent to an internal organ having an atypical mode of operation.

A more apt analogy would perhaps be that of someone born with more than the typical number of fingers and/or toes.

Assuming the extra digit is more or less usable; is having too many fingers a disorder? Or could you legitimately divide people into the sixies and the digitypical?

Depends on whether the extra fingers are functional or not. If they can move to the extent of the other five fingers, it isn't a disability. If they're inert, they're not only useless appendages, but also energy-consuming because of the metabolism within their cells. They'd be clunky and in the way and would quite be a handicap.

If they can move, whether they'd be an enhancement or not would depend on whether they'd add to dexterity when compared to a five-fingered hand. There might just as soon be pros as well as cons balancing each other out.

Is Autism/Asperger a defect?

As I said: "Assuming the extra digit is more or less usable". An inert flesh sock is obviously a problem.

I had a longer post, but I accidentally CTRL+W'd it.

It's an interesting thought experiment, isn't it? It invokes the question whether or not one is 'supposed' to have 5 fingers. Is one 'supposed' to not be autistic? I was never big on predestination anyway.

I actually dislike the word 'defect' for autism. I prefer 'disorder', but I can't put my finger on why.

What about those of us for whom "impairments" mean nothing? I sit here alone. Thank goodness. The last thing I want is to have to talk to people face to face! How am I socially disabled if I don't want to be social in the first place? In this aspect, I am not disabled at all. The thing I am less-able to do is the very thing I wish not to do.

In all fairness, though, I did almost die an alcoholic homeless young adult thanks to being unable to work people. And that was after being over-medicated as a teenager and nearly starving to death. I looked like an anorexic and didn't grow for four years, weighing 82 pounds from the age of 10 to the age of 14. So in some ways, yes, being on the spectrum almost killed me. I should be willing to admit that.

But the box of cool toys is we're born with is hard to ignore!

The truth is, no-one knows. Scientists have not even been able to prove the cause so how can it be called a defect. When people with AS are saying it's a difference, they are not necessarily saying that they don't like the stigma of it being called a disability, but may simply be stating logical fact. Therefore they are not necessarily in denial.

It could be evolution in progress. It could be all sorts of things. Until science has the answers, everything is pure conjecture.

As I said: "Assuming the extra digit is more or less usable". An inert flesh sock is obviously a problem.

These are actually nice analogies. Regarding my opinion, i thought of another analogy. what if NTs were the right handed people and Aspies the left handed people? It's not inherently an impairment but it becomes one if the environment is adapted for right handed people, i.e. right handed scissors and fridge doors. what do people think about these? right handed people are also in the majority and for left and right handed people also differ in terms of brain functionality and which half of the brain is responsible for which activities.

Still a terrible analogy. Left-handed people suck.

Your analogy is flawed: A major part of the body missing is not equivalent to an internal organ having an atypical mode of operation.