I am *not* an Aspie

Post Reply New Topic

I no longer believe that Aspergers exists, at least as far as a different way of thinking is concerned. All distinctions between 'Aspies' and 'NTs', therefore, are meaningless to me.

I think how I think, and no-one thinks in the same way I think. Aspereger's is a set of symptoms, not a different way of thinking. I'll still use the term 'Aspie' to refer to those who present enough of the symptoms, but as far as thinking in the same way goes... no way.

Autism is *not* a different neurology. It's a spectrum of symptoms, caused by differing factors. So called NT's can present similarsymptoms, but not be diagnosed.

Okay, now that I've said this I'll quietly retreat back to my cave...

Hi I thought for a bit in my teens AS was also not real because everyone else was having it and I felt no different.

But I know it's real.

Oh, I'm not denying it's real. What 'm saying is that it's *not* a different neurology, but a collection of symptoms.

And what would you put forward as being the cause of these symptoms?

While its true that a flu (colloquial) isn't a virus, it is a collection of symptoms, it is caused by a virus.

You said it doesn't exist and you claim you are not an aspie even though you are diagnosed. I had that same attitude.

Same with "heart disease". There really is no such illness, disorder or whatever, yet many people do bear its symptoms.

Dr. Asperger simply observed a "concurrence, concourse or combination of symptoms" (syndrome, Webster) and we happen to display them. Therefore, we have "Asperger's Syndrome", so to speak.

You do have a point, autism is a different way of thinking.

However, even though it's not on the official diagnosis test, it's still quite well known (in autism circles anyway) that autism is a different way of thinking, and that's something that seperates NTs with Aspie symtoms from Aspies.

I think the OP is saying that Aspergers is not what he perceive many to make it out to be. Aspergers from the OP's view is a syndrome, or collection of symptoms. I think he is objecting to the term "Aspie" as being used in a way to describe a way or school of thought.

The common thoughts/behaviors exhibited by those diagnosed with AS may be similar, but AS itself is not a view or philosphy.

OP, please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of your views.

I am not saying I agree or not, just trying to rephrase the post.

I think I see what you mean but it make no sense in the case of autism for autism is a genetics anomaly (by that I just mean it is not the norm), so it is a characterized difference in neurology (for everyone got a different neurology from the start, it just that ours differentiate more, from the norm, then usual).


EDIT: So someone been autistic is someone who has enough significant anomaly (in our case mostly in processing of cerebral information and social interactivity). So that what autistic is been, it just happen that it also got a social connotation with the internet now, since it let us communicate between each other more easily, since this medium doesn't transmit the information, that cause us to be seen awkward or cause us to isolate ourselves, has the more direct form of communication.

So yes we have a different neurology but don't forget we not in an hive mind so each of us still have a different neurology from each other, like the normal people do.

Last edited by iniudan on 03 Jan 2010, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, and here I was thinking Autism was caused by parents using vaccines on small children

I know of a specific child who definitely experienced some kind of "personality change" or whatever after a vaccination a few years ago, and she can now out-talk me when telling all about the chickens she helps to tend ... but I suppose the neurology was already there just as it is not possible to become an alcoholic (merely evidenced) by drinking.

I know your joke from the smiley but...

That bull s**t if you ask me, but a vaccines could cause a mental trauma it is true, but worse it can do in the case of autism is make the characteristic more evident after the vaccine since it might have triggered a meltdown (through a tactile (touch) sense overload). So the child would still have been autistic without it, it just that it will have been diagnosed later had it not been for the vaccine to trigger a easier to see characteristic.

Glad you realized it was a joke. I made it purely as a sarcastic jest.

And I disagree. A child at the baby age reacts with a full blown autistic reaction to touch AT THAT AGE is pretty far fetched. Also if it were true, then it's still not the vaccine, just the touch. And if a person would have the severe a reaction, then it would be pretty clear something was up the first time they were touched in a odd way.

Have to disagree for a vaccine can be a more intense stimulation then touch, don't forget the intensity of the stimulation got importance in triggering a meltdown (and never said a baby meltdown was the same then in later life, do you react the exact same way then when you were a child to sense overload, for me I don't (except for the part of wanting to be isolated))

That's all good. It's your opinion. My opinion is that autism is a difference in brain development and from brain scans you can clearly see the differences. We can use more or less areas of our brains than 'nuerotypicals' which gives us little 'barriers' in life, especially social communication. There's also a different in the size of certain areas of the brain. And while I do believe a NT brain can rewire itself I think it's difficult for an autistic brain to do that. Believe me I've tried.
As for thinking differently goes I have a much more visual mind than someone who is good at language or math.

I do believe that NT's can have autistic traits, but it's not autism until it causes impairments or as my disability job network provider calls them, barriers.

Does Autism have to cause impairment or disability?

Also as you say, scans of the brain (Aspie/NT) show different areas. But that does not mean it's a different way of thinking by default. Maybe one area of my brain is more functional then another and that would be reversed in an NT, but A) who says that area has to do with thought and B) even if it did, and even if it made certain thoughts more logical, it does not mean I automatically by default think a certain way.