Social, but NO biological reasons that AS is a DISORDER!

Post Reply New Topic

I argue that there is NO scientific evidence that Asperger/Autism is a 'disorder' or a 'disability'. That Asperger/Autism cannot be seen as a biological disorder is argued already (see http://www.autismandcomputing.org.uk/mind.htm ). However, I argue that the only reason Asperger/Autism is label a disorder is a sociological and an economic reason. Like any other species, the human species exhibits biological diversity, too.

Recently, Wired Magazine reported that Gene treatment turns monkeys into workaholics. According to researchers, they stopped monkeys from procrastinating in order to study mental illness. (The original article can be found here:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,128 ... _tophead_5 ).

I suggest to turn 'procrastinating' organisms into workaholics is pretty much the agenda in medical science today. One could argue that Bergerac's & co is not diagnosed because people do not comply to social conventions in the fits place. Rather, people are grown and educated - and treated by psychiatrist - to make them a productive (=profitable) member of our (economic) society. We are not 'disabled' biologically, but 'economically'.

Being economically fit is important. There are studies in the US showing that racism does not root primarily in people's skin color, but people's money. In the end, in western capitalist economies, there is a great social reassure imposing money to be the ultimate judging criteria, with all its advantages and disadvantages.

I do not intend to make a principle argument about capitalism being bad or good. I am just afraid that people will go and try to 'cure' autism and grasper's as long as we are not people integrated in society that make money. This is how illness is defined in our society today.

It is explicit in the DSM-IV: "impaired function" .. to make money! It is obvious, that to 'measure' something like 'impaired function' happens in a social context and an economic framework. It is a cultural process. And it has been shown that adjustment to such social factors leads to people on the autism spectrum coping with life much better (for striking examples see http://www.autismandcomputing.org.uk/NAS/index.htm and http://news.google.com/news?q=Nature%20 ... a=N&tab=wn ).

I am afraid, that if they apply gene treatment to turn procrastinating monkeys into Workaholics, what will be next for us?? We need a society that accepts and accommodates neurological different people without branding them sick for their difference. We need neurodiversity!

How are Aspies different from NTs?! I am not of the opinion that Aspies and NTs have fundamentally different values. Rather, for differences in thinking and communication style, Aspies are much less socialized in any culture, heather be it NT culture or Aspie culture.

For instance, Jordan argues "Individuals with autism may be more different from one another than others because of their lack of socialization into a common culture."

Attwood agrees, and calls the lack of integration in a culture a discovery criteria: 2) free of sexist, "age-ist", or culturaly biases"

Although some claim that Aspies in this world have always existed, and of course have - like NTs - seek to meet people like themselves. There are indeed Aspergias existing all over the world already. Except that today, we call these people Aspies, and ten years ago we did not know the term yet.

For instance, Temple Grandin calls NASA the greatest sheltered workshop for Aspies, and Wired Magazine come up with their own explanation of Aspie in their article "The Geek Syndrome". Lots of people make it into successfully careers, and most of them never heard the label Asperger.

The rising diagnosis of Asperger during the last decade indicates to me changes in society, that by an increase in competition an flexibility on the job markets, social skills might become more important to get the job you want. Of course in such a world it makes sense for people struggling with life to receive help.

Imagine if Asperger would be more common that NTs: You would have to call Aspies NTs, because majority is what is called typical, and you would have to call the NTs some other disorder, because they are minority). What possobile consequences would that have?

It is fine being NT or Aspie, that people naturally seek people like themselves no matter what kind. Except that Aspies - like any minority - has greater problems finding people alike they can relate to. However, this should not lead to discrimination of minorities, no matter what the minority. And especially not by the medical community.

Doctors are not bad, they want to help. But until recently, they have no idea how Asperger looks from the inside. They would not think of treating Bill Gates for Asperger. Not that he might be or not be Asperger. But he makes money. He does not need to seek help in economic terms. On the contrary, most people would spontaneously like to be the 'next Bill Gates' – in terms of being the wealthiest person on earth. Gates and other potential Aspies invented the computer, and now we find people alike and communicate with them in our own ways. That's fine. It changes culture, too.

Still, I am afraid, that the bottom line of us being recognized as in need of help and labeled disabled, is when we don't make money. If we would make money, no one might ever care.

In conclusion, I propose to remove the term 'disorder' at the top of the website 'Wrong Planet Syndrome. Lets call it neurodiversity instead. There is no scientifically evidence that would justify people with Asperger to be called 'disabled' only because they have different skill profilles. We should claim neurodiversity instead. For a more scientific discussion, see http://www.autismandcomputing.org.uk/mind.htm

I've seen that referenced a lot, and I've tried to read it many times. However, the vocabulary is too large and I can't understand it. Is there a version of that website in simpler vocabulary?

I am going to write a simple version of it and post it here soon. Meanwhile, you could see an abstract and some video-clips of the same website to make the idea more clear: http://www.autismandcomputing.org.uk/NAS/index.htm

I agree with what you are saying in theory, but it is important to remember that everyone else sees it as a disorder . . . I mean, really, if my work knew that I had autism I WOULD get fired - maybe not for that, but within a few days they would find some reason . . .

So I like the idea of realizing for yourself that AS is just a different way of existing, but it is important to remember that most people don't see it that way . . . it all comes down to disclosure . . .

Here is a concrete example (since that is the only way my brain works )
A lot of the people that I like to be around have HIV/AIDS and they know not to tell everyone about that - because they know that people will discriminate against them (even though there are only two VERY specific ways you can get AIDS, one of which is using IV drugs and the other I am not at liberty to discuss in detail on this board) - so they know not to tell everyone . . . I think for the time being autism is the same way . . .

So, ultimately, I agree with what you are saying, but I think it is important to be realistic as well . . .

I always thought the word for asperger's should be too-ordered as opposed to disorder.....(due to our tendency to need routine and everything in order)

does that make sense? oh well, made sense to me!

Actually people can (and have) get it from blood transfusions. There are other ways to get it, too, but not like from casual contact or toilet seats or anything like that.

This is a very interesting discussion. I haven't yet read the links that were posted, so I will reserve comment until after I do. Thanks for starting a thought-provoking topic.

Yeah, but the chances of getting it from a blood transfusion is .000001% now (with all the testing that is done on donated blood) - that didn't used to be the case, but it is nearly a negligable chance now . . .

What I was getting at is that there is nearly no chance that you would be exposed to HIV if you worked with someone who had it unless you performed some very specific behaviors with them . . .

I've said for some time now that mental illnesses (or differences or whatever term you want to use - remember that most people view autism as one of the BEST examples of a severe mental impairment) a great example of the prejudice that is still out there . . . I mean, a lot of people suffer prejudice, don't get me wrong, but I think that mental illnesses are one of the few things that people still feel ok saying 'Yeah - I just don't want to be around you because of that . . .'

It's sad, but true. I think people are more comfortable thinking this way about people who have problems which are not visible. What I mean is, if you're not in a wheelchair or using a cane or something, they aren't inclined to "pity" you, or even relate to your difficulties. If they can see what's "wrong" with a person, then it's easier to identify with the problem, and it's easier to understand. Things based on the mind are much more difficult to comprehend, especially in the case of autism or mental illness, where those who are autistic or mentally ill probably have completely different thinking processes or ways of experiencing the world than most people do. It's harder to relate to, and many people just don't want to take the time to try and understand. They don't want to face it so they dismiss, they dismiss it because they fear it, they fear it because they can't understand it. It also seems like it's very easy to discount anything someone who is mentally ill has said or experienced, because it can all be attributed to the "illness," rather than the person. Something which I think is just very wrong.

I use a wheelchair some of the time, I'm autistic, and I have various things that other people would call mental illness. (I wouldn't; I don't like the medical model of the mind.) I don't think the wheelchair causes people to understand anything any better. I think it just makes them think they understand (and pity is what they feel when they think they understand but don't). When I am not in the wheelchair, people can tell immediately that I am autistic. When I am in the wheelchair, people assume that any autistic behavior, no matter how blatant, is the result of some undisclosed physical condition. I don't really like pity any more than I like undisguised prejudice (and I do think pity in the modern sense of the word is simply disguised prejudice, requiring one person to be looking what they think is down at another person and feeling pseudo-sympathetic emotions in response to an imagined "plight" that may or may not really exist in the first place). If that makes any sense.

Sorry if I said anything wrong, anbuend, you obviously know more about this area than I do. What I meant by "understand" was that they can identify a physical condition, not that they know what it feels like to be in a wheelchair. I guess it's more of a labelling than an understanding, and either way, as you've said, it's not good.

This is very fascinating. I'll be following this thoughtline.

I think what I was meaning about mental disorders vs. physical disorders is that there is more accomidation for physical disorders than mental disorders - for example, like Civet was saying if people see his (?) autistic traits as the result of a physical issue they aren't bothered by them but if he said that they were because of autism - then THAT would be a big problem . . .

Here is another example - with my job - if I got in a big bad car accident and lost a leg, after I got out of the hospital and was in a wheelchair or had a prothesis then everyone would be ok with that - they would make sure I had a work station on the isle, etc . . . but if I walk in today and say 'By the way, I'm autistic and bipolar . . .' I guarentee no one would speak to me until I got fired . . . that is the difference I'm talking about . . .

Hello,

I found another article to explain the concept of monotropism. There are lots of graphics to illustrate the idea. The article is written by one of the authors of mind as a dynamical system, Dinah Murray.


URL: http://www.isn.net/~jypsy/owpsdinah.htm

Note, that the following article does not link to "WrongPlanet.net", but to "Ooops Wrong Planet! Syndrome - Autism Spectrum Ressources" which is a wonderful website. It can be confusing that "WrongPlanet.net" sounds so similar than the Ooops wrong Planet! Webpage which already is a standard on Autism on the internet. The home of Ooops Wrong Planet! Syndrome is this URL: http://www.isn.net/~jypsy/

I agree attention tunnel this does sound very much like jypsy's site - therefore do you think it fair or appropriate to post links to her site and writings taken from there. Is there not a rule about posting links without first asking the site owners permission? I thought there was, I know this has been raised before on another forum of which I'm a member.

Maybe to save any problems it would be courteous to ask Ms Murray and Jyspsy if they have any objections to their links being posted here. I did ask Alex when he posted the link for here on AI where he got the name wrong planet as I've been visiting the long running site for over eight years although not certain of the exact time - seems like forever

Anyway just a thought - I posted a link on AI but asked the permission of the NAS to post the link which they readily gave, I would think people will be only too happy to share if they're asked?

DAS

No there is no rule (written or unwritten) that prohibits anyone from linking to another site. The whole web consists of sites linking to each other. Usually sites encourage linking. Even high volume sites (like slashdot) commonly link to smaller sites without asking first.


I don't think this would be necessary.



The interent consists of many hyperlinks. Google does not ask permission before it links to other sites, and there is absolutely no problem with our linking to any internet webpage even without permission.