Do cats really have Asperger's Syndrome?

Post Reply New Topic

I think it is possible that animals can get their own nuerodevelopmental conditions. But you can't really call it autism. Because autism is defined by human norms. They say that dogs can experience lows similar to depression. Some have even gone as far as to feed dogs antidepressants.

My last quote was sarcasm for the fact that my cat is obscenely stupid.

I think if people cared enough to actually go into depth study of this they would realize that it is possible for an animal to have autism because.. well they have a mind. However, I don't really care and so unless I am significantly bored out of my wits this wont be something I would pursue. However naturally I'd argue it.

Its only a 'human norm' because no one has studied autistic traits in anything other than humans, probably because no one really cares about Autistic traits in their gold fish.

Metaphor is a commonly used device in the English language. I can't be held responsible for your failure to understand that.

Also, congratulations on getting brutally upset and rude over something of absolutely no consequence, and for failing to realize the person was alluding to the title of a book.

btw just encase anyone thinks I'm taking this topic to literally I'm not this is a side discussion.

What I'm saying is autistic traits are defined according or relative to human norms and behaviour. So it is like saying a typical human is x and a cat is untypical relative to a x, which is obviously the case but irrelevant. But yes you could say a cat is untypical relative to a typical cat. But cat autism hasn't been defined yet. Really it is up to what you choose to use that label for. You'd have to come up with cat psychiatry to figure out the full range of cat behaviour and be able to differentiate between neurodevelopmental and other developmental problems. If you can find something that amounted to a common cause of autism and that would be present in other animals (if the science really was that simple), then you might be able to identify an autistic cat by that definition. But there is no reason why that autistic cat would be anything like an autistic person nor that there would be any discernable difference between said cat ant others. When you identify a gene they you can 100% causes a particular thing. (I'm not saying that is the case with autism) It is still particular to that animal until confirmed otherwise.

My guess is autistic cats will have a love of railways, battle re-enactment and saunas. They will also prefer to live underground in specially built bunkers. They will eat mostly food rich in iron due their anaemia. They will have special sun lamps due to their vitamin D deficiency. They will need low frequency noise in order to lull themselves to sleep. They will not be gender specific being able to change much like some amphibians. Certain high pitched frequencies could cause them to swarm Bauxite mines.

Not at all. I love debate, I love idea's and debating them. I'll argue for the sake of intellectual argue.



Well this was pretty much what I was getting at. A development of cat psychoanalysis which I'm sure someone will come up with some day, I mean why not? We have everything else really. However my point was really somewhat much like your own here. No it's not PROVEN but its quite possible. I don't have much of a desire to become a cat psychologist though, do you? lol.

I'm interested in studying animal behaviour to find out a common thread thoughout evolution. It will help us understand ourselves better. But no, cats are not on the top of my list. I would say though that they are co-dependent with humans as apposed to domesticated dogs which are mostly dependent. Cats know something of human psychology.

I'm interested in intelligent animals that have a high degree of self awareness such as parrots, dolphin, apes, etc. But also intelligent predators like shark. Particularly interested in Portia Jumping Spider. It has a unique intelligence not present in any other spider or creature of its size. It is is capable of forward planning or 'forethought'. It has excellent spatial awareness and can scan its environment before deciding on a route. Its brain is smaller than a pinhead. I think we can learn a lot from it because it intelligence is mostly in one area. It is more difficult to descramble the 'higher order' more temperamental animals.

I understand everything you idiotically think I don't understand. What I DON'T understand is the idiocy and irresponsibility involved on your parts. Like I said, I DO understand what was really meant, and it's STILL a ret*d thing to say. Not only do cats not have aspergers in a literal sense, they aren't particularly similar to aspergers either.

And "Do cats really have Aspergers" meaning "Do cats not-in-fact have aspergers?" is NOT a metaphor. 'Metaphor' isn't just a buzzword you can use to relinquish responsibility for a stupid thing you or someone else said.

Species don't have instincts or a "nature", individuals do. If you really need to define a "species nature" in order to make sense of the world, then your definition for this seems to be something like "the set of all traits that are present in the majority of all members of a species". But then you have a concept that exists only in your head, not in reality. There isn't a single individual that has all traits that are present in the majority of all members of its species.
It is further important to understand that these majorities constantly change, due to constantly changing circumstances. This means that your "species nature" constantly changes also. So we may conclude that whatever you believe "human nature" to be today isn't real today and neither real nor accurate tomorrow.

Regardless, though, it all comes back to the fact that ANY psychological defined condition is something to be applied to an individual (not an entire species) in contrast to the majority of the same species. Any sentence structured as "(species) has _____ syndrome" is necessarily false.

Your first statement is incorrect. All human individuals (as well as all non-human individuals that show presence of mind) have a psychologically definable condition. Most psychological conditions have advantages as well as disadvantages for those in whom they are present, and it is very well possible for a condition that is present in the majority of members of a species to cause serious problems for these members, including a reduced chance of long-term survival for their offspring if this condition is retained. It appears to me that this is indeed the case for the human species.

Your second statement is correct. I should state my opinion then to be that "most or all individual cats have Asperger's Syndrome".

Let me just remind everyone watching what willem mistakingly thinks autism is defined as:

You're also contradicting yourself. All felines have autism. Almost all felines have asperger syndrome. Make up your damn mind.

EDIT: Also, one of the diagnostic criteria for aspergers is no significant delay in language. So, why don't we just ask some cats, "do you have asperger syndrome?" and see what they say?

I've noticed a few of the vague similarities perceived on the surface in cats relating to autism too, in the past. But there's a fine line between the idea of humoring yourself with the idea, and the idiocy of actually kidding yourself that felines have asperger syndrome.

You are displaying a lot of irrational NT behavior here. There is no reason to get upset. We are not fighting, and if anything I wrote was experienced by you as hurtful in any way, then I'm sorry I made you feel that way.

There is no contradiction between the above statements you're quoting, because the term "Asperger's Syndrome" is a subset of the term "autism", i.e. an individual with AS is an autistic individual.



Cats do indeed not display any significant delay in (human) language; what isn't there cannot be delayed. Applying these criteria blindly, without looking at individual situations, does not lead to clear insights. A deaf person with AS would likely start using language later than s/he would have if s/he weren't deaf. This might make a diagnosis with AS difficult or impossible, but it would change nothing about the fact s/he has an AS mental state. What is there is there, things do not become real through recognition and labelling by a psychologist (or by any of us).

I'm done with you. Find someone else who will actually stop to humor your idiocy.

EDIT: Well, I'm done right after I say these things:

I actually was NOT pissed before you dared to pervert the truth by using the "you're displaying irrational NT behavior!" catchphrase. Now I am utterly enraged. It's typical of an NT to be irrational, but it's typical of (I guess not all) people with aspergers to be obsessed with the truth to the point of extreme disgust at those perceived to be DESTROYING it. All you're obsessed with is your fantasy of being a f*****g tiger. Grow a f*****g brain.

Maybe I disagree with you, and maybe I've called you some names, but at least I have the intelligence and dignity not to accuse you of being NT or NT-like. I'm fully convinced you're very aspergian; Typical of someone with aspergers to spend so much time having little conversations with themselves and getting so obsessed with a specific idea (in this case, cats having aspergers) that they would defend it to the bitter end, using literal wordplays to come up with such idiotic statements as:

This is VERY revealing of how your aspergian mindset has, in a strange turn of fate, brought you to completely misunderstand the diagnostic criteria. For relevant intents and purposes, human language not being there at all is essentially equivalent to there being an INFINITE delay in development of language. If any human psychological condition applied to cats, it's more likely it'd be mental retardation than autism.

I'm perfectly willing to have an endless discussion with you where you never end up learning anything, but don't stoop down to the level of accusing me of being NT-like. That's just.. ugh.. you disgust me.

Hah, and then you go on to compare what I did there to "blind application of diagnostic criteria." How hard is it for you to just ACCEPT REALITY? CATS are not HUMANS. ASPERGERS is a HUMAN CONDITION. If you want to invent a term for a cat equivalent of aspergers, go right ahead, but it doesn't exist yet. And CATS DO NOT HAVE f*****g ASPERGERS.

Sheesh.


EDIT2: Needless to say, that irrationality comment pushed a button. Normally, to get it out of my system I would have just played some Bach Inventions on the piano, but it was too late at night to play the piano. I still think you're wrong about cats literally having aspergers syndrome, but I do feel much more calm now.

I was giving you an observation of your behavior, not a "catchphrase" nor an accusation. You are now displaying even more irrational NT behavior by continuing to feel personally hurt by someone's opinion that cats are Aspies, as well as by making implicit references to "common sense", the idea that reality results from concensus among humans and that an argument can be disproved by ridiculizing it. You should ignore my observation if you deem it to be of no value to you, or you may use it to reflect on the possibility that perhaps you have been misdiagnosed. There is really no good reason to get "utterly enraged" over anything I have been telling you. We have not been discussing your person until now.



I will discuss the matter with my counselor (the psychologist who dx'ed me with AS) and report back to you with his opinion. I think perhaps what upsets you about this discussion is that being human is very important to you, and this conflicts with my suggestion that "human nature" is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things?

Where did I make a reference to "common sense?" A term I find laughable.

Er, no. Being human is not important to me at all, as I relate very little with most humans. The "irrational NT behavior" thing did have to do with how it made me feel, but everything else has only to do with me finding it ridiculous that you think cats have asperger syndrome.


K. *leaves*

Tagging something as "ridiculous" and the idea of "common sense" are closely associated in my mind - ideas that aren't in accordance with "common sense" will be found "ridiculous". Evidently this association does not exist in your mind, so I am sorry for suggesting the pack mentality that is behind these notions might be present in you.
It is not productive though to think of an idea as "ridiculous". Ideas may be wrong (they usually are), but they're always useful in some way, they always shed light on something. For instance, the idea that there was a God who created all life in a few days is a wrong idea, but nevertheless very useful because it gets us thinking about how & why evolution may have the appearance, in our minds, of functioning intelligently.