Similarities between 'NTs' and Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

I was looking at the criteria for Aspergers, and something struck me: some of the criteria for Aspergers are often displayed more by so-called 'NTs'.

It's best shown by Gilbergs criteria. For example, the imposition of routines and interests on either:
(a) self, in aspects of life, or
(b) on others.

(b) reminds me of the routines that society demands it's members follow, i.e. absurd social requirments.


Also, there's:

2.All-absorbing narrow interest
(at least one of the following)
(a) exclusion of other activities
(b) repetitive adherence
(c) more rote than meaning

(c) is often displayed by 'NTs', as is (b). Could it be that the interests and routines are merely altered in Aspies?

All-absorbing narrow interests are fine if they're to do with sport (men) or fashion (women.) Although it must be said that people are less likely to undertake these activities on their own. And there's a big difference between talking about the recent [insert sport of your choice here] results and giving a verbal list of all the managers of Arsenal FC in chronlogical order to someone who isn't remotely interested.

Also, IMO, a lot of the things that NTs do are done because others are doing them, or it's all the rage. And Aspies may do things because they are interested, and don't care much if others are or not.

What the hell is NT?

nt=neurotypical, people without anything "wrong" with them

That's quite debatable . . .

Personally, to me its the "mental norm," or "average joe." NT is more of a societal description or trend rather than a diagnosis. I think hartz nails it though. As an example (im sure most of us have come across this scenario): In elementary school, the kids with the "cool shoes" (ie the shoes that cost a ridiculous amount and will be worn down/out before the end of the year)are the big shots (often bullies) or whatever; but an aspie would wonder how on earth a pair of shoes is supposed to make one a big shot . . . you walk in them, they protect your feet, and will wear them out after 6 months. Who cares?

It's normal for an NT to have autistic like characteristics, it's just that we aspies have it in such an extreme. Some NT's have trouble with flexible thinking. NT's normally get nervous around a person they are attracted to. NT's can have problems adjusting to change. Those problems are normal for aspies, but it's mild in the NT's.

How extreme is also a matter of opinion. There is no hard-and-fast line where AS/autism/etc ends and NT begins. The differentiator is, essentially, clinical impairment. As this can vary over the course of one's life, one could theoretically go back and forth between autistic and not using this definition. People here on WP don't like to talk about that.

There is some science behind a differing neurology in those with autism, although there is absolutely nothing that can be generalized. The best you can say is that a different neurology appears to be related to those with AS/autism, but in no way is such a neurology a forgone conclusion of an autistic individual.

Considering all of this, you're likely to find that people are people, and that the ways in which we differ are smaller than the ways in which we are similar. Websites such as this one, however, are simply more likely to dwell on those differences, so it may appear that the differences are much vaster than they are.

Good point!

Whoa.... this went off topic quickly.

I didn't mention all absorbing special interests Well, not in the sense you seem to have taken it. I was refering to obsessing over social status and other shilatte.

Well yes, but NT's 'special interests' are quite different from an Autistic person's special interest. Although some (and only some) NT's spend a lot of their life worrying about their social standing and deliberately going out of their way to ensure that their egos are preserved intact, it's not quite the same somehow.

The problem with “lay interpretations” is that because texts are not aimed at “lay people” they do not include relevant context that the professional (those the texts are aimed at) would be expected to know to apply.

When a clinical condition is being described, a relevant contextual factor is that the symptom not be culturally normal or socially expected/endorsed. Gillberg then is not stating that any imposition of routines or interests is a clinical indicator of AS, but rather references imposition that defies the cultural and social context and norms.

Haha you just gave me an idea for a joke...

What do you call a weird person's flaws?
Insanity

What do you call a normal person's flaws?
Human nature

PS: I'm not anti-NT, just pointing out a common hypocrisy.

I imagine there are more similarities than differences between NTs and Aspies. We're all human. And we're all different in many ways that aren't related to whether we're NT or Aspie.

These are criteria for childhood disorders. Most children don't develop rigid routines on their own, their parents and others provide a routine. They tell them when to eat, sleep, go to school, etc. Many of them will comply with the routine that's established by the caretaker. Some, however, refuse to do so...
Many children do not have a narrow interest. They are interested in socializing with other people (including their peers) and their interests, whatever they may be, take a backseat to this primary interest: interacting with others. They devote a lot of time to this. Certain people want to say "children have narrow interests" and it could be true, but you have to look at the primary interest. What is it? The narrow interest? Or, is it going out and interacting with others, meaning, talking about what others want to talk about, doing what others want to do, not just what they want to do.

My husband and I are NT and our daughter is LFA. We have noticed that many of the traits that got her this label are traits that one of us or another relative also have except in her it's X100. Perhaps it is the X100 that makes for the true difference between AS and NT. She is our daughter after all and therefore heir to the DNA we both carry so it makes sense she has family similarities. She is like us, like her other relatives, yet so very different. It seems that the things that cause no problem or only mild problems in her various relatives cause her great problems because they are so much more pronounced.