Taboo thread #1: A possible theory about the nature of AS.
Danielismyname wrote:
I think you're using opinions of people online to base your view of what Asperger's is, and this is wrought with error as they're far too subjective. There's also varying opinions amongst professionals, but most are of a similar mindset.
It's best to go back and read Autistic Psychopathy from Hans himself; he doesn't paint a good picture, even if he was trying his best to point out some positives he saw [so that the Nazi Regime didn't gas the children with AS], most of it is negative and "severe".
It's best to go back and read Autistic Psychopathy from Hans himself; he doesn't paint a good picture, even if he was trying his best to point out some positives he saw [so that the Nazi Regime didn't gas the children with AS], most of it is negative and "severe".
Actually, Hans Asperger's research continued into some of the children's adulthood. One of the children he based his research on, became an astronomer, and solved an error in Newton's work. Allthough the 400 children he investigated were just as autistic as adults, most of them actually did fine eventually.
Hans Asperger wrote:
We are convinced, then, that autistic people have their place in the organism of the social community. They fulfil their role well, perhaps better than anyone else could, and we are talking of people who as children had the greatest difficulties and caused untold worries to their care-givers.
Psychopathy in the 1940's didn't mean the same as it does today, by the way. The term didn't become synonymous with serial killers and such before the late 1970's.
_________________
WP doesn't have a working first amendment.
Fuck. This will override the swear word filter.
anbuend wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
http://thiswayoflife.org/blog/?cat=28
I happen to know the author of that blog very well. He is a close friend, and one of the people I've spoken of where our comprehension of each other's body language was immediate and near-total upon meeting. We also work together in a number of areas online, and have co-written articles together (including one of the ones he mentions in the second post). He was speaking out against pointless and insulting nonsense like your posts to this thread, not in favor of it. He would never in a million years approve of your using his blog entries to support the sort of stuff you have written on this and other threads.
Of course you probably know this already, so I'm writing this mostly for the benefit of people who could be misled into believing that you're linking to something that supports your viewpoint.
A couple of very relevant quotes here:
Quote:
So, you see, there’s something that is missing in the current criteria, something that distinguishes autism and Asperger’s, according to them. No, it isn’t the different spatial abilities that some researchers hypothesize are the difference. Nor is it the presence or absence of a speech delay early in life, as others suggest. No, it’s much simipler.
Autistics are people who agree with me and I believe have autism.
Aspies are people who disagree with me and whom I don’t believe have autism.
(of course you can switch these around if you are an Asperger’s Syndrome Expert rather than an Autism Expert)
It’s really that simple. Sure, you can add another measure in if you need, so that you can make sure you are classifying people rightly - just ask if the person has any area of their life where they have had success. If they have, then they are also not autistic. The key issue is whether or not they agree with the person doing the “diagnosis” - that is, do they want a cure and do they think that autism is nothing but misery?
Make sense? Well, apparently this does make sense to some of the cult leaders in the fringes of autism “advocacy.” No one who has “real” autism, for instance, would not want a cure, while people with Asperger’s really don’t have any significant problems - certainly not a disability.
Autistics are people who agree with me and I believe have autism.
Aspies are people who disagree with me and whom I don’t believe have autism.
(of course you can switch these around if you are an Asperger’s Syndrome Expert rather than an Autism Expert)
It’s really that simple. Sure, you can add another measure in if you need, so that you can make sure you are classifying people rightly - just ask if the person has any area of their life where they have had success. If they have, then they are also not autistic. The key issue is whether or not they agree with the person doing the “diagnosis” - that is, do they want a cure and do they think that autism is nothing but misery?
Make sense? Well, apparently this does make sense to some of the cult leaders in the fringes of autism “advocacy.” No one who has “real” autism, for instance, would not want a cure, while people with Asperger’s really don’t have any significant problems - certainly not a disability.
The above quote is meant absolutely facetiously, as he explains here:
Quote:
This is of course a rather obvious tactic of “divide and conquer”, and another example of people trying to prevent all autistic people from having a voice in the autism debate. After all, we’re all Aspies if we disagree with these people, and thus don’t know what we’re talking about, certainly not when it comes to real, full-spectrum, full-blown, tsunami autism.
Yes, there’s sarcasm in this. I’m feeling particularly sarcastic today, but those who know me know that I have a bit of a dark sense of humor sometimes - it keeps me sane in a world where we are excluded, abused, murdered, raped, and otherwise mistreated. So I hope you understand that the sarcasm is my way of dealing with these things (and, yes, autistic people can use sarcasm, and, no, that wasn’t sarcasm).
Yes, there’s sarcasm in this. I’m feeling particularly sarcastic today, but those who know me know that I have a bit of a dark sense of humor sometimes - it keeps me sane in a world where we are excluded, abused, murdered, raped, and otherwise mistreated. So I hope you understand that the sarcasm is my way of dealing with these things (and, yes, autistic people can use sarcasm, and, no, that wasn’t sarcasm).
In the second post in that category, he writes:
Quote:
And that I’ll fight for the right for the autistic adults to identify as autistic, even without the written diagnosis at the right age combined with the proper stereotypical childhood experiences and political views that Thomas seems to be demanding. But then again I don’t see the hordes of faux autistics that Thomas and the curebies see.
So... yeah. Nothing in that, that even begins to support the OP's views. His whole point was to point out that the idea that there are hordes of non-autistic people claiming to be autistic, is totally and completely false, and that attempts to divide up the autistic community into "real" autistic people and "fake" autistic people, are politically motivated rather than factually motivated.
Hmmmm in fact, I am agreeing with many Thomas A. McKean 's points : self-diagnosed shouldn't speak against cure , no one should , let every one decides if he/she wants a cure or not.
I will put this as simple as possible.
It is not normal human behavior to be introverted.
People with AS are lacking a fundamental human characteristic. Even animals in the wild form social groups and have a form of society.
Being social is a fundamental human characteristic.
You don't understand that. Not understanding something does not make it untrue.
End of discussion.
Last edited by JWRed on 14 Oct 2008, 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
LePetitPrince wrote:
^^ so that make AS= disability?
So in other term you are saying = not naturally social people = Aspies.
Simple as possible
So in other term you are saying = not naturally social people = Aspies.
Simple as possible
Yes, it is a disability.
Through hard work, it can be somewhat overcome. But the first step is to admit something is wrong with you. This is something most people on this board refuse to do.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
anbuend wrote:
Spokane_Girl wrote:
I thought classic autism was different than regular autism.
No, they mean the same thing. It's a synonym for "autistic disorder", but some people (usually either badly misinformed, or politically motivated) insist it means something a lot more specific. The same people often refer to it as "Kanner's autism", which they then proceed to define as something that almost none of Kanner's patients would have fit, because they have either not read Kanner's papers, or not read them closely enough to see how wrong they are.
I have a friend who whenever he hears "classical autistic," insists on referring to himself as a "Baroque autistic" (and knowing him, it fits ).
So I have classic autism?
My parents say I do not and I know my doctors would say the same too.
JWRed wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
^^ so that make AS= disability?
So in other term you are saying = not naturally social people = Aspies.
Simple as possible
So in other term you are saying = not naturally social people = Aspies.
Simple as possible
Yes, it is a disability.
Through hard work, it can be somewhat overcome. But the first step is to admit something is wrong with you. This is something most people on this board refuse to do.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Exactly, most aspies disagree that it's a disability , yet they refute the possibility that it can be a personality type despite that there's no medical test that proves asperger in a person.
But they also say that AS is a part of Autism and Autism is NOT just social ineptness
what you are saying is very vague , you are saying that introverted and being not social= AS and that introverted behavior is not normal , so let me ask you straight: AS is just equal to social ineptness?? because I am sure that severe social ineptness can be caused by many different and various enviromental factors , many war kids here became abnormally introverted but they were normal before ...does that make them Aspies?
LePetitPrince wrote:
Hmmmm in fact, I am agreeing with many Thomas A. McKean 's points : self-diagnosed shouldn't speak against cure , no one should , let every one decides if he/she wants a cure or not.
Well, you were pointing to Joel Smith's blog, so it's not unreasonable for people to expect you thought his views somehow supported your own, which they don't.
If people speaking out against cure means people aren't able to choose, then should people be stopped from speaking out for cure too? Your viewpoint doesn't make sense.
_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams
anbuend wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
Hmmmm in fact, I am agreeing with many Thomas A. McKean 's points : self-diagnosed shouldn't speak against cure , no one should , let every one decides if he/she wants a cure or not.
Well, you were pointing to Joel Smith's blog, so it's not unreasonable for people to expect you thought his views somehow supported your own, which they don't.
If people speaking out against cure means people aren't able to choose, then should people be stopped from speaking out for cure too? Your viewpoint doesn't make sense.
oops I just checked the link and I guess i pasted the wrong one , in fact I was reading both pages and mispasted this one instead of this one:http://www.thomasamckean.com/articles/speaking.htm
sorry for the invonvenience
Last edited by LePetitPrince on 14 Oct 2008, 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ishmael wrote:
LPP, how can you expect any passable result when your hypothesis is clearly built upon a foundation of plainly wrong "factoids"?
A paradigm;
LPP: The earth is flat! The earth is flat!!
Everybody else: Why? What makes you say that?
LPP: 'cause I don't want to think that it might be round!!
Somebody, please, play my theme music - I'll fade out now... roll credits...
A paradigm;
LPP: The earth is flat! The earth is flat!!
Everybody else: Why? What makes you say that?
LPP: 'cause I don't want to think that it might be round!!
Somebody, please, play my theme music - I'll fade out now... roll credits...
Don't ridicule things here , " AS is autism and not a personality type" is not yet fact as round earth, science could see round earth , Airlines prove round earth. What does prove "" AS is autism and not a personality type"" that much? nothing.
Spokane_Girl wrote:
anbuend wrote:
Spokane_Girl wrote:
I thought classic autism was different than regular autism.
No, they mean the same thing. It's a synonym for "autistic disorder", but some people (usually either badly misinformed, or politically motivated) insist it means something a lot more specific. The same people often refer to it as "Kanner's autism", which they then proceed to define as something that almost none of Kanner's patients would have fit, because they have either not read Kanner's papers, or not read them closely enough to see how wrong they are.
I have a friend who whenever he hears "classical autistic," insists on referring to himself as a "Baroque autistic" (and knowing him, it fits ).
So I have classic autism?
My parents say I do not and I know my doctors would say the same too.
I don't know what your specific diagnosis is, so I have no idea. Many parents, doctors, autistic people, etc., don't actually know the usage of the term, though, and think it means something other than what it means.
But it's supposed to refer to people much like Kanner diagnosed, and Kanner diagnosed people who ranged from unable to speak at all (one or two of them), to speaking early and learning to interact by speaking at length about their special interests. And everything in between. He made some false generalizations about them, and framed some of their interactions in odd ways (like describing one girl as not listening, but being able to understand instructions anyway, when a more precise view would have said that she lacked certain body language while listening -- that kind of error has to be watched out for in all the literature), but if you look at the actual people, some of them would today be doubtless dxed with AS, and some with autism, and most would be called high-functioning by one measure or another (seeing as their IQs as measured were mostly above 70, and one was even 140 or 150, and also seeing as most of them spoke, etc).
And it's generally considered (in the DSM etc.) to be synonymous with 'autistic disorder' as opposed to other autism-related dxes. (Not agreeing with the categorizations, just mentioning them.)
_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams
LePetitPrince wrote:
anbuend wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
Hmmmm in fact, I am agreeing with many Thomas A. McKean 's points : self-diagnosed shouldn't speak against cure , no one should , let every one decides if he/she wants a cure or not.
Well, you were pointing to Joel Smith's blog, so it's not unreasonable for people to expect you thought his views somehow supported your own, which they don't.
If people speaking out against cure means people aren't able to choose, then should people be stopped from speaking out for cure too? Your viewpoint doesn't make sense.
oops I just checked the link and I guess i pasted the wrong one , in fact I was reading both pages and mispasted this one instead of this one:http://www.thomasamckean.com/articles/speaking.htm
sorry for the invonvenience
Okay thanks.
Also (because there's been a ton of misunderstanding) people should be aware that when we wrote the thing we did write against those views, it was meant as a challenge to the viewpoint Tom presented, and not at all because of who he was specifically. We'd have written the same thing if he was, say, Jim Sinclair. Several of us who wrote the response actually like a lot of his writing, but he's got it in his head that we hate him. So our views should not be taken as license to bash him or something.
_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams
Orwell wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
Psychiatry is so subjective and so that's why it's so biased.
And you in your infinite wisdom are perfectly objective in your online diagnoses?
I was diagnosed as HFA formally and locally but I constulted someone else online years later , since I saw other HFA Autistics who can be visually seen that they have all much more severe cases of autism than 'mine' and my doubts aroused about my dx since then .....
I don't feel it's fair that i should speak in the name of any of those auties, I seem very typical compared to them. Heck , even NT loners are much more like me than them. How the hell me and them have the same dx? that's not even possible.
JWRed wrote:
I will put this as simple as possible.
It is not normal human behavior to be introverted.
People with AS are lacking a fundamental human characteristic. Even animals in the wild form social groups and have a form of society.
Being social is a fundamental human characteristic.
You don't understand that. Not understanding something does not make it untrue.
End of discussion.
It is not normal human behavior to be introverted.
People with AS are lacking a fundamental human characteristic. Even animals in the wild form social groups and have a form of society.
Being social is a fundamental human characteristic.
You don't understand that. Not understanding something does not make it untrue.
End of discussion.
very good point. it doesn't mean that all introverts are aspies though. but if you're naturally introverted (not as a result of something that happened to you and left a mark on your psyche) or naturally unable to do well socially however much you'd want to, it does mean that there's something deeply wrong with you.
Danielismyname wrote:
Daniel can't wait till the label "Asperger's" is struck down.
Anna can't wait either.
_________________
not a bug - a feature.
anna-banana wrote:
JWRed wrote:
I will put this as simple as possible.
It is not normal human behavior to be introverted.
People with AS are lacking a fundamental human characteristic. Even animals in the wild form social groups and have a form of society.
Being social is a fundamental human characteristic.
You don't understand that. Not understanding something does not make it untrue.
End of discussion.
It is not normal human behavior to be introverted.
People with AS are lacking a fundamental human characteristic. Even animals in the wild form social groups and have a form of society.
Being social is a fundamental human characteristic.
You don't understand that. Not understanding something does not make it untrue.
End of discussion.
it doesn't mean that all introverts are aspies though. but if you're naturally introverted (not as a result of something that happened to you and left a mark on your psyche) or naturally unable to do well socially however much you'd want to, it does mean that there's something deeply wrong with you.
Not all introverts are aspies. But if you are introverted and lack social skills to the degree that people with AS do, there is something deeply wrong with you.
Lacking a fundamental human characteristic says that something is deeply wrong with you. Something that needs to be fixed.
You just are unable or unwilling to realize this.
Don't beleive the horsesh*t that mental professionals feed you that you are just "different".
What? Do you expect a mental professional to tell you that you are a weirdo?
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Leonard Susskind calls the end of String Theory |
07 Nov 2024, 6:51 pm |
Observed manipulative strategy thread? |
09 Nov 2024, 12:30 pm |