The reason the notion of autism spectrum should be offensive

Post Reply New Topic

Have anyone wondered how come autism was lumped together with schizophrenia back in the 60-s? I mean, regardless of the fact that the idea was later proven wrong, the question is: how come this idea came around on the first place? Do autistics have delusions and hallucinations? Clearly not, so in what way are they similar?

The answer to this question is that they are similar because they both involve social withdrawal. But wait a second, social withdrawal is just a side issue of schizophrenia, and by far not the main issue. Apparently thats not how the psychiatrists thought. Instead of viewing schizophrenia as mainly delusions/hallucinations with side issue of social withdrawal, they viewed it as social withdrawal with side issue of delusions/hallucinations. Well, if they take the latter view, then no wonder they would lump it together with autism. The only problem with that view is that delusions/hallucinations cause a patient to be dangerous to themselves and others; social withdrawal doesn't. But, because of all the prejudice against the introverts, they overlooked this basic fact. They thought that social withdrawal is so awful that it is even worse than delusions and hallucinations and all the other symptoms of schizophrenia put together. This being the case, no wonder they would lump schizophrenia together with autism: both are about social withdrawal, the ultimate evil; the rest doesn't matter.

Now, the same kind of mistake is being made today -- if you replace the word schizophrenia with the word "mental retardation". Why are profoundly ret*d autistics who can't speak, can't take care of themselves, and just sit there and rock all day, be lumped together with high functioning autistics that have average or above intelligence, successful careers, hold jobs, and get married? The answer to this question is, again, a prejudice against the introverts. They think that introversion is so awful that it is even worse than mental retardation! Instead of thinking of profoundly ret*d autistics as "first ret*d, then autistics", they think of them as "first autistics then ret*d". But why? If they can't even do so much as hold the spoon by themselves as they eat, who cares about them not being social?! Well, apparently, not being social is even worse than not being able to hold your own spoon. I mean seriously, go read any description of autism online. They mention both high functioning and low functioning people, and then say "one common feature they have is that they don't socialize appropriately". REALLY?! Who cares about that common feature if the differences far outweigh it? So what one has to read between the lines is that social skills are judged as far more important than basic intellect. And THAT should be offensive to high functioning autistics -- or even non-autistic introverts for that matter.

To sum it up, lumping together autism and schizophrenia as well as lumping together high functioning and low functioning autism, is a symptom of one and the same misconception: namely, viewing introversion as something so horrible that it outweighs everything else. In this case, of course, different introverts would be lumped togehter: whether those are schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic introverts OR high functioning and low functioning introverts. In the first case the implication is that being introverted is worse than having delusions and hallucinations; in the latter case the implication is that being introverted is worse than not being able to take care of oneself. Both are the symptoms of basic assumption that being introverted is THAT bad, that nobody dares to question.

Sorry, kid; but you should really pick up a copy of the DSM-V and actually read it sometime.

Why are the ideas of stages of cancer not offensive? Why are people who need a few drugs or watching and waiting lumped together with emaciated people who cannot control their bodily functions and are screaming in pain? Because of the core symptoms are the same. Same with autism.

Introversion is not a diagnostic criterion for autism, deficits in social communication and interaction, and "Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities" are as well as sensory issues are.

The Spectrum idea is correct, it is the incorrect way the spectrum concept is often misunderstood and misapplied that is the problem.

The reason this analogy doesn't work is that pain is a consequence of cancer, but being profoundly ret*d isn't a consequence of having poor social skills. So looking at a profoundly ret*d autist and saying their core symptom is poor social skills is basically saying that poor social skills is more serious than being ret*d.

Such as with the OP's post.

About 50% of the world are introverts and about 50% are extroverts. Introversion is not a problem. Introverts have jobs, get married, raise families. Most Aspies are introverts. The obsession to covert introvert Aspies into extroverts in my opinion seem misdirected.

Because some people who can't speak have average or above intelligence. Because some people with average or above intelligence can't take care of themselves. Because even seemingly high-functioning autistic individuals can have troubles with verbal communication and independent living. Because it's harmful to deny someone's capability due to their verbal difficulties. Because autism is not so black and white. Because we are all people. Because intelligence isn't the pinnacle of human worth any more than social ability is.

Last edited by TheAP on 16 Jul 2018, 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I know there are gray areas. But the same gray areas apply to the line between high functioning autistics and NT-s. So why is it okay to lump high functioning with low functioning (by using the same label) but its not okay to lump high functioning with NT-s by un-diagnosing them?

Because those with autism have the traits to a profound enough degree to cause impairment.

All the other symptoms of Asperger are comparable to intoversion in terms of how mild they are. So my point remains: why put those traits (be that introversion OR some other piculiarities) on such a high level as to lump a person with profoundly ret*d for having them?

P.S. Several years ago I read a list of traits that viewed as a problem (no it wasn't a diagnostic criteria for anything specific, just a list of traits that doctors should watch out for) and introversion was one of them. I don't remember where I read it though it was a couple of decades in the past.

You hit the nail on the head when you used the word "profound". Except for one thing: I don't see how they are profound EXCEPT FOR the fact that society CHOOSES to isolate me for having them. So those traits aren't, in and of themselves, profound. The problem is the NT-s and how the NT-s view them as such. That, in turn, is also related to why NT-s chose to classify high functioning and low functioning under the same label -- which is why I think labeling is part of the problem.

The same thing could be said for "low-functioning" traits, though. Why are people isolated for not being able to communicate verbally?

In low functioning cases, they can't function regardless whether they are isolated or not. Even if the society was really accepting, fact remains: they can't feel themselves and do other basic functions. On the other hand, in high functioning cases they would have been able to do well if only society was more accepting.

The introvert-to-extrovert thing exists for NTs too. It's not a big issue, just an inconvenience.
Perhaps Aspie introverts just have more trouble resisting and thus feel the pressure more.

But some of us are extroverts. (And somehow get mistaken for introverts?)

There are autistics who are extroverts. But they tend to dominate conversations.

I think that the OP feels offended because the currently-accepted concept of autism having a 'spectrum' is that it figuratively puts him in the same room as people he despises -- those whose intelligence is somewhat less than the common mean.