Gary Numan's self diagnosis criticized in Sunday Times

Post Reply New Topic

I understand your points. Do you understand this one: a primary diagnostic criteria for autism is severe inability to read and respond to social cues as normal people do (as a birth condition, which could be ameliorated somewhat through effort and practice over time - indeed a mask would be absolutely fundamental to functioning among normies - but the condition would persist because it is a brain condition that has no medical treatment at this time).

You can't really take that out of the diagnostic criteria for a host of reasons, one of which is that this function, in developing diagnosis, is wedded to brain activity patterns (more and less active neurological regions, especially in the amygdala and lymbic system), which are wedded to behavioral patterns that can be measured and diagnosed in preverbal infants (eye/gaze patterns in autistic children vs neurotypical ones that are evident at birth, just previously never noted and not measured).

Someone with autism as it is theorized and defined today will not be able to become as fluent in social cues as Numan is now, today. It's unlikely that that will change as far as the diagnosis goes, because if it did the diagnosis itself - and the emerging and intertwined diagnostic/identifying material - would cease to exist as they do today.

I am not playing a semiotic game, here. I presume (possibly wrongly) that the diagnosis is valid (not Numan's, but autism as a categorical condition, that there is a real condition that is specific and consistent, if within a fairly broad range). Older analytical criteria that are behaviorally defined (which are where autism as a diagnosis comes from) are expressions of neurologically specific conditions that are neurologically defined, are apt to be found to be valid analytical groupings over time. As the ability to identify it with fMRI, and other more materially substantial tools, increases over time, the diagnosis will just become more exact, not less valid or more seemingly arbitrary. It will become less arbitrary both in practice and in reception, over time. This has already happened with psychopathy, which was categorized/theorized from behavior originally - language usage and behavior - which unsurprisingly turn out to have very specific neurlogical pattern formats when measured with fMRI.

I get it, where you are coming from with your skeptical stance as far as categorizing/labeling etc., but there is more to say that this will turn out to be a generally overweighted angle of approach than underweighted.

This may be a useful contrast: compare the affect in this person's public presentation to Numan's, in particular his vocal and gestural physical traits:

[search "how the elite rigged society David Brooks" in Youtube to pull up this video]

Brooks probably is on the spectrum, but he is a contrasting example of someone who is and has sought to be a public figure - a public speaking figure, "performing" in front of people (he likes doing it, pursues it, seeks out public visibility), but his presentation is unintentionally incongruent. His gestures are finite, not diverse, and quite often not fitting of the circumstances of their usage. He is not so much expressing himself in connection to a listener as trying to perform in a certain way, in order to be effective. The primary feature I am underlining is the lack of diversity in his gestures, their lack of "granularity," and their lack of diverse communication variations, in concert with his flat affect, and a relatively unpleasant speaking voice. His voice is not unpleasant because he's not trying, but because he is not aware it's unpleasant and not seductive. I'm using him as an example just to illustrate that with significant "social awkwardness" and limited ability to read social cues, even well-trained performers are going to show their seams to normies, although other people on the spectrum may miss them. I am not convinced at all by your counterargument re Numan, and I doubt any normies who read my post in full would be. My agenda is just to further better and more accurate awareness and thinking about autism in all people, both on that spectrum and not, because not having better and more accurate awareness is just plain bad, is having bad effects on society, and that will become even more true over time.

p.s. edit today: I hope I did not upset anybody with the Brooks material. I do not agree with his points of view, but recognize that some people on the spectrum will, and others really will not. I used that video only because it popped up in front of me today, and it stood forth as an obvious example to use. Many of you know that "journalist" is common and very good profession for an "aspie" to pursue, which I took into account while considering posting that, too.