gwynfryn wrote:
"I identify as autistic and do not think of myself as defective.
I think of autism as a specific set of traits. I think of autistic as a person who has these traits. Some of these traits are good some are bad. The people and the structure the autistic is surrounded by has a lot to do with how "impaired" the autistic is."
We are in agreement that one can be autistic without being defective, but autism applies to a set of defects, so they are different things!
"You seem to think the difference between "autism" and "autistic" is more radically different then I do. I am not understanding the radical differences you see between the two terms. I agree on testing for these traits are subjective and inconsistent and there no exact agreement as to what those traits are. I don't understand how a set of traits and the person who exhibits traits is such a radically different concept."
How often must I point out that, as demonstrated by Rosanoff's paper, the Humm & Wadsworth temperament scale, and as used by C & M (before they got PC) that the label autistic properly applies to one of those aspects of the psyche that together determine our overall personalities? This is a matter of record, not an opportunity for you or anyone else to craft their own individual understandings!
Autism and autistic are radically different; autism is something that can occur, historically, to those who are dominantly autistic, as Kanner described, which is usually only accepted as a diagnosis if they are of low IQ. It follows that those with an elevated IQ can be autistic, but without autism (as we both appear to be). It was very simple back then, and definitely did not need to be fixed. Now, though, we have this raft of new "autisms" for which personality is irrelevant, and which are held, without justification, to be part of a spectrum, of which Kanner autism is considered one small part (as is NPD, which is a polar opposite of autistic, on nearly every measure, so how can they be considered to be in the same category?). This is what happens when anyone messes around with definitions; it just creates an unholy mess that does nobody any good! If you don't wish to adhere to the historic understanding of autistic, there's nothing I can do about it, but it will make debating with you quite pointless!
Now I have a better understanding of your point of view.
The meaning of the term autism is evolving and is somewhat of a mess because the condition is not fully understood. The condition was not understood at all during the 1800’s. Rosinoff came out with his paper just after that. It is lazy to claim he completely discovered and defined the condition thus there is no need for further research, problem solved.
The definition of the term has been a mess because of a lot of false assumptions by people researching it. We are in an era where finally there is autistic input in the research process, as well as advances in brain imaging and genetic science so hopefully we should get a good understanding of the condition.
Autism is a set of traits some of which are defects, some of which are strengths that are widely seen as defects due to “majority rule”. This is true for a number of conditions. If you have these traits you are autistic. It does not matter if these traits completely impair you or make you a savant who contributes greatly to society.
If you are going to separate a condition autism that makes you defective from autistic a person without autism with high IQ it is counterproductive to have two terms that sound similar. Aspergers was a separate diagnosis but it was never thought of as a radically different entity but a mild/high functioning form of autism.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
26 Jul 2019, 10:35 am
