Normalitis

Post Reply New Topic

A few years ago, I was stumbling around the internet and bumped into this definition of autism:

http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-autism.html

My first reaction was, this is crazy. How can not being a social butterfly be considered a mental illness? But then I tried to think like a psychiatrist and lo and behold I discovered a new psychiatric condition which I have named "normalitis". I constructed my own diagnostic criteria of this condition by slightly changing the wording of the definition of autism. I suspect that a huge number of Americans, probably the majority, suffer from this ailment. It particularly affects women. So please, next time you see a psychiatrist, ask them what can be done to cure normalitis. Here is my definition of this disease:


(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)

(A) time wasted in pointless social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. excessive dependence on nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction at the expense of actually considering the content of what is spoken

2. indiscriminately develops shallow relationships with others

3. spontaneously seeks to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people who may have no interest or understanding in what is being shared, (e.g., by showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of their interest to other people arbitrarily)

4. lack of independent thought and action ( examples: not actively participating in solitary independent activities, preferring simple social play or games, or involving others in activities only for social, as opposed to practical, purposes )

(B) qualitative impairments in thought as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of rational thought (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of reasoning such as deductive or inductive)

2. in individuals with adequate reasoning, marked impairment in the ability to get to the point in a conversation with others

3. stereotyped and repetitive use of flawed logic or arguments based on convention instead of reason

4. lack of varied, spontaneous inner thoughts

(C) unfocused and stereotyped patterns of thought, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. lack of dedication to one or more areas of interest either in intensity or focus

2. apparently inflexible adherence to generally accepted, nonfunctional social customs or rituals

3. stereotyped and repetitive thoughts and arguments (e.g arguing that something is true because everyone knows it to be true, or rejecting unusual ideas as being "ridiculous" without explanation)

4. persistent preoccupation with social status

(II) Delays or non-superior functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 5 years:

(A) deductive reasoning
(B) logic as used in debate
(C) symbolic or imaginative thoughts and arguments

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by mental retardation or other neurological defects in analytical capacity

Last edited by fs on 22 Aug 2010, 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LOL. Not to knock all NTs but it's funny and a valid point. Being normal has things wrong with it, too.

Oh goodness, I might get into trouble with point A3. I sometimes show things which interest me to others. The others if they are not interested in the thing might think it is a random choice of things.

While it is possible in some cases to know if a person will be interested (or not) in an object it is easy to get it wrong. So I say rule A3 is a dangerous rule. You might DX us all with "normalism".

ha... fantastic. i hope i never develop normailitis
Makes me even more comfortable with the fact that i could be an aspie.
great job

This needs to be submitted for inclusion in the DSM-V

Only through diagnosis can these poor b*st*rds begin to get help and therapy. Who knows, someday there may even be a cure.

Why be normal, when I can be interesting?

There's a lot more to an ASD than just "not being a social butterfly".

Like what?

This site is called "Wrong Planet". But really it should be "Wrong Culture". Most people here would do fine in the right culture.

Try reading the diagnostic criteria, for a start. It mentions a lot more than introversion. In fact, it covers social IMPAIRMENT not social DISINCLINATION. You can be an extrovert and still meet the criteria for an ASD.
I'd provide links to other resources now, but I have to go to work in about 5 minutes. I'll provide more links if I remember; otherwise you could try searching yourself.

"really it should be "Wrong Culture". Most people here would do fine in the right culture."

A definite point on which I have thought much. Sources on research on how the spectrum works in non western non urban cultures?

Research? Academia and psychiatry are liberal-feminist cesspools. This is like asking the Catholic Church to research how well non-Christian beliefs work in non-Christian cultures.

I suggest broadening your horizons so that you can reach your own conclusions. Travel and read original historical works to get a feel for alternative cultures. Even studying a religious sect that keeps culturally apart, like the Amish, Mennonites, or Hasidic Jews is a good start. I have done some research on Hasidic Jews who I admire in many ways. Watch the movies "Arranged" and "A Life Apart: Hasidism in America" and then tell me if you think people here would have trouble fitting into Hasidic Jewish culture socially. (Of course the Hasidic beliefs are a problem, which is why I wouldn't fit in.)