Does the Spectrum End?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm pretty new here & this is probably not an original thought - but - is there a line between the autistic spectrum & neuro-typical? Is it possible that all humans are on the same spectrum - and if so, what does the curve look like (bell, logarithmic, exponential)?

I've met a lot of people in my life who seem to share a number of Aspie characteristics with me - and no way to tell how many (like myself) have simply learned to cover up, or overcome, or adapt to those tenancies - so that they no longer show on casual observation.

I've also heard it suggested that "normal" seems to be such a narrow thing & maybe more people fall outside the "norm" than inside (& if so, maybe we need to redefine normal.)

So what does everybody think?

The spectrum doesn't exclude by definition it extends to everybody, it is a relative concept. Neurotypical is a hypothetical range of any neurological spectrum. It is much more of a multidimensional thing than a line.

About half of researchers say it's a spectrum within itself [over a disorder of Autism], the other half say that Autism and Asperger's are self-contained entities. By these "official" lines, it doesn't extend over to "normal" (that's the Autistic Spectrum).

You'll find the traits of ASDs/PDDs within the general population in ones and twos, and certain people have more than a few, but they don't seem to be affected by them like those with the diagnosable conditions (it's mainly family members that display this latter part), but that's about it.

I was just talking about this sort of thing with an NT friend who is married to a Chem. Eng. professor. I am teased by my family a lot, because ever since I've looked into Asperger's and Autism in association with my son, I now think everybody has it [not everybody, but I think I can point it out in others, much to my family's amusement]. When I was talking to my friend, I said something along the lines of what Tony Attwood says . . . that most professor's are on the Asperger's spectrum. She laughed and said "yeah, I bet you think my husband has it" to which I said "NO, not at all, he's much too social" to which she responded "well, let me tell you . . . ."

She proceeded to tell me that when they went on a trip to Venice, her husband sat by a lovely canal, reading a TEXTBOOK. Here she is, vacationing like most Europeans do (for a long time, drinking in absolutely everything, enjoying the total experience) and her husband can't pull himself away from his work long enough to go along for the ride. Fairly Aspie experience, eh?

The interesting thing is, this professor gets along well with most people, is empathetic, is really charming, and one of my husband and my's best friends. (of course, my hubbie's a chemical engineer as well) Yes, most people think he is really into his work and that his whole life experience seems to always point back to his interest in chemistry, etc. But he is well loved by everyone around him, probably partially due to how bright he is, and how animated he is about his work. Is he Aspie? Possibly. But if he is, he has somehow learned to adapt extremely well to his environment. He also married the perfect woman for him -- she is independent and can handle life without him when he works until the wee hours of the morning.

I love to watch people who may or may not be on the spectrum -- and for some odd reason, if I think they might possibly be on the spectrum, I find them that much more interesting than everyone else.

The official cut-off point is arbitrary--a certain number of symptoms from a list, plus the stipulation that they cause difficulties for you.

But in reality, the autism spectrum blurs rather smoothly into NT. Autism is diverse--chances are it's caused by genetics from all over your DNA, not just one chunk--so that NTs carry autistic genetics, and autistic traits, without qualifying for a diagnosis. There are people who are clearly autistic and people who are obviously NT, but determining exactly how strong your traits have to be, and how much trouble they have to cause you, and whether it matters that they were stronger when you were a child, seems to be a puzzle not even the professionals have figured out yet.

Most psychological diagnoses are like that. They are extreme variations of normal personality, emotional, and cognitive traits. They blur into the normal, and the distinction between diagnosable and normal doesn't seem to be very clear.

I think that normalcy is all relative to the person. You can't say that someone is abnormal because what may be abnormal for you is normal and usual for that person.

Related discussion going on here: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt77551.html

As Callista said, "seems to be a puzzle not even the professionals have figured out yet."

Z

Neurotypical means that that person has no neurological disorders whatsoever. For example, people with ADHD, schizophrenia, etc. wouldn't be NT either.

To be frank very few people are truly "NT" because almost everyone has some kind of issue, whether its ADHD, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, etc. And even if they don't think they do in one point of their lives, eventually they find that they do. But for many of those who are under the spectrum refer to those that are not under the spectrum as "NT" simply because they are not under the spectrum. But the fact of the matter is, I think the true neuro-typical population is quite small.

Sort of raises the question - how can it be "typical"?

yeah, there's something of the 'evangelical' in newly dx'ed people. I think I've finally stopped seeing it everywhere.

I think it's a specific thing. NT (and other disorders/mental illnesses) are some other breed. NOT US.

Kind of like "Standard American English," which is a term used in linguistics to describe a "standard" set of phonological, semantic, syntactic, etc. rules, although in reality no one actually speaks Standard American English. Everyone's dialect deviates from SAE in some way.

The largest group of many can still be less than half. So if in a group of people we had 40% NTs, 30% autistic, 30% ADHD, there would be fewer NTs than non-NTs but they'd still be the largest group.

Some Aspies speak standard American English. I used to as a kid--not anymore, but back then it was pretty close. I even avoided ending sentences with prepositions! My English lessons were quite traditional and didn't cover things like the changeable nature of English; and I even learned a lot of archaic language from reading the King James Version of the Bible!

Normal people do exist, they are common.

The bulk have an IQ from 95 to 105, and a functional education of half way through the Eighth Grade, at a C-.

All things must be judged by this Gold Standard of Normal.

I am very defective, and do not wish to be cured.

There is a bit of a line, if you don't have any aspie symptoms then you're not an aspie.

Oh, and to the OP: It's a Bell curve. Autistics on one end of the social spectrum, socially gifted people on the other end. The graph for "autistic traits" might be a bit messy, though, because there are a lot of diverse things that make up autism, and somebody with a really huge amount of one thing and hardly anything of something else might end up someplace in the middle. You'd have to chart individual autistic traits, like the above mention of the "social skill" Bell curve. Plus, you'd have non-autistics in the "autistic" range of the social-skill chart, because people with really bad social anxiety, some personality disorders, mental retardation, and schizophrenia also have low levels of social skills (either for lack of practice or lack of cognitive resources). So do neglected kids and people raised in totalitarian families (not just "strict" but totally controlling).

... umm, yeah. Complicated. But I still think it's a Bell curve.

In other news, I'm going to pester my statistics instructor to spend a little time explaining the Bell curve... I'm getting a bit of a paradox because the Bell curve stretches out to positive/negative infinity but still (by definition) has an area of 1. I bet it's one of those weird "infinite length, finite area" equations.