Neurotypical Disorder (ND)

Post Reply New Topic

I think that Neurotypicals are the ones with the disorder. They are slow or disabled when it comes to using logic, they make impulsive illogical decisions, they are "know it alls" they are close minded, they believe what they read even if the author gives no information on his sources of information. Neurotypicals don't respect those with different opinions. They take criticism of their opinions as though it were a personal attack. They can't tell the difference between fact, opinion and theory. They are as attached to some of their opinions as they are to their dogs. They tend to jump to concusions even if their data set is too small to be statistically significant. They do not understand that a correlation alone does not necessarily mean a causal relationship. They do not understand that large numbers are meaningless unless taken in context. They key to navegating through a world dominated by those with ND is to understand them and treat them accordingly. Many therapists and researchers with ND think that those with AS lack empathy because they are self-absorbed. This is not true Those of us without ND have difficulty with empathy because we do not understand those with ND

Individual 'data sets' are never statistically significant.

I keep seeing people say that people on the AS are more logical, yet I've yet to see that as a necessity for having an ASD. Why are they more logical again?

If someone disagrees with someone else's strongly help opinion, of course it's going to feel like an attack on the person. The person holds that opinion strongly. To disagree with it strongly implies that they're stupid; you are calling them stupid. Do you like being called stupid?

In any case, there are very, very few facts in the world. In my mind, opinion is fact until someone shows me that that opinion is false. Some opinions are going to be more emotionally charged, like ones pertaining to religious beliefs, morality, or opinions that perhaps have never been challenged before and so they've sunk into being a 'fact'. These are topics that when discussed, are likely to set someone off.

Your last points are quite true. It works both ways. If one doesn't understand people around them, social problems ensue.

In general though, in all sorts of people, emotional upsets don't require a logical connection regarding facts. Emotions often are connected to logic, (that's why cognitive behavioural therapy's supposed to work afterall) but if you believe that emotions always follow logic, well, I can see where one might have serious issues socializing. It also follows that if you don't know when someone's going to get super upset before they actually get upset, that too will cause problems. Like if someone's emotionally charged and going on and on about something now's not the time to counter what they are saying even if what they're saying is really, really dumb. They'll explode at you, and if they don't, they're likely inwardly seething. In such cases, emotion gets in the way of anyone being able to logically think about something.

Like me right now responding to, what appears to me, an emotionally charged post (possibly very shortly after it was made), is me ignoring my own advice. I do that a lot though.

Last edited by cavernio on 12 Nov 2013, 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

An example of how rediculous those with ND can be, I read an article about how microwave ovens could chemically alter food. The author threw out a large number, the number of times the electric field changes its orientation in a second. He claimed that these oscilations could "break molecules". What he failed to mention was that molecules are governed by quantum physics not classical physics. That large number that he mentioned has to be multiplied by an extremely small constant, 6.62606957 × 10-34 m2 kg / s, to calculate the energy available for any type of atomic or molecular transition (Einstein 1905,Annalen der Physik 17 (6): 132–148). I do not know if he was ignorant or purposely trying to dupe people, but I doubt that he convinced many without ND of anything. Even if you do not know much about physics you would notice his lack of sources and would investigate for yourself before reaching a conclusion.

I thought pretty much all cooking of food chemically altered food...kinda the point in cooking it? Maillard reaction = yumminess? Was the author trying to say that microwaves are poisoning our food or something?

1. Yes, the author said that microwaves were poisening the food.

2. Does cooking chemically alter food? I never thought about this before, but I suppose it does. On the other hand, maybe cells can be altered without altering the basic chemicals. Come to think about it, I guess there are three levels of biology: the molecular level, the cellular level and the macroscopic level. I understand that cooking increases the temperature and this causes the changes. Temperature is related to the average energy of motion of the molecules, but many molecules will have far more than the average.

Seems to be pushing it to say that neurotypicals have a disorder just by being...well...neurotypical. I find it difficult to use the term ND when it is not an actual disorder.

Individuals with ASD do have a different way of breaking apart information, yes, but I agree with cavernio in that logical thinking isn't a necessary component for ASD. We are prone to this type of thinking because we cannot merely hear an argument and take it for what it is. If there is an incongruity, we will detect it, whether we know the missing link immediately or not.

Saying that all neurotypicals are these things is quite a generalization. It is uncommon to come across a good sample of individuals with ASD in a community, so I think I can understand why you would make the assumption that most neurotypicals are like the way you described them since that must be the majority of people you've encountered.

Your descriptions are accurate and you make several points, it's just seems odd to me to try to call it a disorder.

Well I'm NT and I don't think most of those things apply to me (unless I'm too disordered to see it!). I find it best to think of both NT and AS as differences without viewing either as a disorder.

if you apply the term disorder generically and arbitrarily like this, then word loses meaning.

Strictly speaking we ARE the ones with a disorder for 3 reasons

1) We are in the minority

2) We are the ones with asymmetrical brain activity.

3) Often our neurological set up comes with unwanted and disabling physical co-morbids like dyspraxia.

Last edited by thomas81 on 12 Nov 2013, 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Analogy Time!

I hate it when people make generalizations of men/woman "All men are _____" "Women are too ______".
When there are only two reference points, it makes generalizations arbitrary. You say "All men are _____" "Women are too ______". Maybe, in reality: "Women should be _____" "Men aren't _____"

Its just that NTs and Autistics are different.

Without a third option, you can compare them, but you can't draw good conclusions.

If I made sense, good
If not, disregard it

....I would hasten to add some things

Autism isn't an 'illness'.

Autism doesn't demand a 'cure'

Autism isn't necessarilly a 'bad thing'.

There have been several posts on WP consisting of similar criticisms of NTs. I don't think that NTs are the problem; I suspect that it's a particular group of personality types that may be more prevalent amongst NTs: the feeling types, as specified by the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (MBTI). And the people here doing the complaining are quite likely thinking types. Here is a decent explanation of the two:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-pers ... eeling.asp

This is false; not everyone views such disagreement as an attack. Furthermore, disagreement does not imply an insult to the intelligence of the person with which one disagrees. There are several reasons for which a person can be wrong besides being "stupid."

I think it's generational and related to the invention of the World Wide Web. If ones just sticks to internet forums, comments sections I could understand why one would think all disagreements are personal attacks. With no consequences many posters on say youtube tend to play "gotcha" and demean and bully others. The poster being attacked responds in kind. Related is a zero sum game mentality , ie if I give an inch it is the inevitable first step to utter defeat and humiliation. This has now spread to society. You see it in everything from reality television to the recent (and future?) USA government shutdown.

I come from a generation where this mentality was a lot less prevalent. People on the spectrum both tend not to think that way and not understand others motives. This leaves us on the outside , naive and vulnerable. Because of the zero sum game mentality some NT's learn how to zero in and exploit weakness. Those are the ones we deal with and scar us so we do what we accuse them of doing generalize and stereotype. The word "neurotypical"by definition is a generalization.

I think your descriptions are very well stated. I have certainly observed many of these characteristics and attitudes in others on many occasions, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that they can be incredibly frustrating to someone like me whose mind does not work that way. However, I think calling NTs "disordered" is a slippery slope simply because it reverses a prejudice rather than removing it. I read an essay about dichotomies in a freshman philosophy class that has always stuck in my mind; the author (Nancy Tuana, I believe) talked about how simply reversing the dichotomy in order to privilege, for example, black instead of white or female instead of male does not really fix any problems because it still reinforces the reductive "this vs. that" mindset that created the problem in the first place. Saying that NT people are "disordered" and AS people are "normal" is really no better than saying the reverse, because either way the dichotomy remains in place insisting that some group must be "other" and therefore "disordered." I think a more productive perspective would involve trying to subvert the dichotomy itself by acknowledging that people are just different from each other, and no one is necessarily inherently less than anyone else.

Why does it mean they are stupid?

All it means is you feel their opinion is incorrect, that does not by default make the person stupid. Even very intelligent people can hold incorrect beliefs.

People seriously need to stop adding meaning where it is not.

Personally, if I am incorrect about something I'd rather they say.

Aside from which an opinion is not a fact and is a very subjective thing. It is just that, an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Opinions change, evolve, grow...well mine do anyway.

THe thing is, everybody has wrong beliefs. But when you have a super smart person, like Einstein or Newton, everyone talks all about "Well they believed this! Lol!", as if by being brilliant they should have all the answers.

NTs' are not neccesarily defective, just different