Misconceptions about autism.

Post Reply New Topic

Here's a piece I wrote on my Tumblr. Questions? Thoughts?
Part 1
Part 2

(Mods, feel free to move this thread if it's in the wrong section.)

Yes! Amen sister! I want to print out a bunch of copies of that and carry them around with me. And if anyone wants to talk to me about autism they have to read that first. I get so tired of saying the same things over and over. "Yes, I do have feelings. No, autism isn't caused by vaccines or mercury or the position of the planets on the day I was born." I actually sort of got in trouble with the professor of the "Intro to disability studies" class I took last semester for #7. She was very insistent on person-first language. Actually later in the semester we had a reading assignment about autism that explained point #7, but she still didn't agree with me. That article had an interview with Alex in it too There was a picture and I was like "hey, I know that guy!"

Movies like Adam don't help public perception either.

There are individuals with ASD who fit the stereotypes at times then others not. The social autism differs from the clinical autism because clinical criterion is about all possible symtomotology. A parent and or family members deserves understanding to. Based on their experience they can assume allot about others which is true only for those with autism around them.

Thank you for posting this. I reblogged the first part. I thought they were both really interesting to read.

I am surprised at the more balanced nature of the blogs opinions and views. Still yet I think there is allot more needed in social awareness politics about understanding one another. To get along rather then philosophies to bicker. This is where solutions will be found but some I don't think want the solutions so as to collectively improve the lives of individuals with autism. To them it's more about making big problems out of small matters.

"Myth #16: Autism is the next stage in human evolution.
EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!"

What exactly do you mean by that?

That is precisely how evolution operates. Tiny shifts in the structure of complex systems over time, to meet the needs of the current ecosystem.

An ecosystem of high technology needs precise and unemotional brain operation and decision making, for maximum productivity and new invention. Heavy emotional responses hamper the brain's ability to visualise and interact with highly complex systems, which is rapidly becoming the most important trait for humans living on Earth.

What we don't get, unfortunately, is a society that efficiently teaches people. We have a society that offers crappy education to everyone, and the autistics can't learn in that crappy way. I was forced to leave the public education system to pursue learning. If the education system were designed to assist people in actual *learning*, then it would benefit every child, including all those with autism.

I was mainly referring to the people who think that autistics are superior beings and more evolved than everyone else.

So was I.

The more one takes into account themselves the more biased observation becomes to determine such things. With that said ultimately to determine that either one is or is not superior is strictly bias. Does that make the observer therfor superior if he or she does not determine themselves? That's up to another observer..

I worked around that issue via consciously reprogramming my brain to use a form of simulation and identity dissociation. This allows me to interact with people in any way that suits me, by simulating a consciousness that would be able to interact in the desired way, then teaching my body to follow its lead rather than my normal methods. While this goes on, I occupying myself by quietly observing this program interacting with others, and learn from it.... but I digress.

I was only responding to #14 in the original posting.

The original poster doesn't seem to understand that what they listed as not being how evolution works, is in fact precisely how evolution works.

Last edited by Raven_Morris on 09 Jul 2011, 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Regarding the evolution comment, I've seen the following problems with the people who think autism is the next stage of evolution:

Using it to explain the 'rise in autism' - if autism is rising as much as people claim it is, that's way too fast for evolution. Unless there was a massive epidemic killing off many NTs and no autistics, which there clearly isn't. Plus, in reality, we have no proof of a rise in autism. It may be rising slightly or even dropping slightly, or staying the same, but it's certainly not rising dramatically. The high number of late-diagnosed adults and the many historical reports of people fitting the description of autism throughout the ages both indicate a change in diagnostic patterns rather than a true rise.

Acting as if evolution is somehow planned out - well, it isn't. It's all random chance. Evolution doesn't decide 'we need people like X now'. Thousands of random mutations occur all the time, and most are detrimental to reproductive success (such as MCA/MR syndromes). A few happen to be beneficial.

'Stages' of evolution - it's not like we'll have people with multiple genetic differences from us appearing all at once as the next stage of evolution. It takes place one gene at a time, and for a gene to be selected for, it has to be beneficial even without the other beneficial genes it might later be combined with. For example, bat wings didn't pop up fully formed, they gradually evolved from selection for webbed skin for gliding.

Autistics being more successful than non-autistics - no, we aren't. We're better at some things and worse than others. And the same genes that can cause a Bill Gates can also cause a nonverbal person needing a great deal of assistance. Or just a weird smart person who can't find a romantic partner. I have seen no evidence that autistics are having larger families than NTs, or that BAP people are.

the idea that it means anything of importance if we are the next stage of evolution - you'd have to be a eugenicist to equate evolutionary fitness with a person's value as a human being, or to think we should do anything to help evolution along. We should treat all people with respect and caring, not based on their evolutionary fitness, but based on their humanity.

What does "humanity" mean to you? I means something different to every person you ask...

By the way, I certainly did not advocate for any form of discrimination. I am explicitly not for prejudices such as sexism, ageism, speciesism, etc.

Compartmentalized personalities akin to persona?

From an outside perspective, it is basically DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder), except I have consciously developed it over a long period of time, rather than it being confusing or automatic. I choose when to load programs into my foreground consciousness, and can freely stop using a program and replace it with another (overnight change of outward personality).

There is a lot more to it than that.

Basically, I have always learned and understood the world by simulating complex systems in my head, and how those systems interact with each other, until I am able to accurately predict what the system will do. I studied nature first, then myself, then my family, then my class, then increasingly more unique individuals, then society. I am currently working on a universal Complexity Theory and studying the monetary system.

When I simulate something, I experience being that thing, as it runs within my foreground consciousness. I observe it from the background. Whether this is a person I am talking to, a cat, a tree, a bus, or a society, I simulate it and experience it "being itself". It is the most useful learning tool I have encountered, and allows me to interact seemingly normally with anyone in almost any situation.

When I interact with people, I develop a simulation of that person as I go, filling in blanks until the accuracy of my predictions of their behaviour gets very high, at which point I am confident that I am understanding and experiencing them accurately.

As a bonus, I am incredibly difficult to deceive because of this ability, often catching people who will lie to me in the future, at the start of our first encounter.

Over time, in order to reduce my personal bias, I have updated the foreground programming to be more aware of my background self, opening communication and debate between the two (though not when interacting with other people, as I wouldn't be able to pay attention to those other people).

I probably shouldn't be rambling on, this is far off the original topic of this thread.

It is fascinating.

The question what is self can create this and unify this. We are in part a subscription of the programming around us. That is to say our influences. To adapt within it can be a riddle but to make a riddle out of oneself I believe is a mistake.