4 ms·

I really don't mean to be a dick here, but aren't these two statements in conflict? 1. If you've met one person on the spectrum, you've met one person on the s

I really don't mean to be a dick here, but aren't these two statements in conflict? 1. If you've met one person on the spectrum, you've met one person on the spectrum. The range of non-neurotypicality is extremely broad and highly individualized. 2. Most spectrum people have input filters instead, developed to keep them from being hurt by the world. This isn't a leading question, as I don't really know enough about the subject to have an opinion. But I'm generally skeptical of all message board commentary about autism. So I'm not saying you're wrong, I would just need more convincing before I'm persuaded that most autistic people have "input filters" to prevent them from "being hurt by the world." More generally I can see why grouping people into "output-filter" types and "input-filter" types might be a good faith exercise in empathy...but is it actually true? Going back to your first statement, you're talking about autism as something highly individualized. How is this compatible with an idea that seems to suck all nuance out of it, like a binary grouping? I also have a problem with Gadson's claim: “People with my type of disorder, it’s not that we don’t have emotion,” Gadson said. “It’s that we have too much emotion. We can’t push that stuff back.” On one hand I can see why this is an attractive idea, for the same reason we'd want to empathize with "input-filter" people. On the other hand I see two problems. First, is Gadson's claim a useful one? When people perpetuate the stereotype that autism causes emotionlessness, do they actually care about the interiority of the person or are they talking about behavior? If what they're trying to communicate is in regards to behavior, I don't think Gadson responds to the heart of their meaning; which is probably something more like, "I'm uncomfortable around autistic people because they're robotic and unsympathetic" (NB I'm not expressing a personal belief here). In a very real sense they're still right despite Gadson's reply, because they're talking about behavior and Gadson is talking about a rich interiority. The second problem I see with Gadson's comment is that it seems like he's generalizing autism again. Do all or most people with autism want to be described by the comment, "I actually have too much emotion"? Would they consider that mostly correct, a gross oversimplification, a useful or useless oversimplification, or wrong outright? It seems like no matter what we do, we can't get away from the problem of a few people speaking for everyone when it comes to autism.

dsr_ 8y ago
I don't think you're a dick, I think I didn't convey my point well enough. I picked one column off of a matrix and pointed out that most people considered to be "on the spectrum" have a high value here, whereas most neurotypical folks have a low value in that cell. That's not the only difference, it's just one that's easy to pick out. But it's also not a guaranteed indicator: if you've got an input filter and no output filter but you aren't actually on the spectrum, you can change the value there relatively easily. Read Dale Carnegie and a couple of books on communication styles and practice for a week or two: boom, you've switched over. People on the spectrum can't do that easily. Instead of being a skill that they just haven't picked up, it's a method of analysis that takes a lot of work, remembering all the rules all the time. Except, of course, there are people who find it more or less hard, and have put more or less work into it, so the results vary. Lots of gradations. As to Gadson's comment: it is actually helpful from the perspective of neurotypical people who are trying to empathize with spectrum people, because it provides a reasonably useful metaphor for them to work in. The general perspective is called the Intense World theory of autism. It can lead you to good analysis which yields workable solutions: by reducing the need for strong input filters, they can free up brain resources for doing what needs to be done. Environmental noise? Visual distractions? Organizational improvements? Working with everyone's strengths improves everyone's outcomes. As to "I actually have too much emotion" as a descriptive phrase: if you take out the negative connotation of "too much", yes, I think it does describe one aspect of autism really well. "I feel things more intensely than neurotypical people do, and as a result I want to/have to block things out" might be a more universal description.
- zeroonetwothree 8y ago
  > Read Dale Carnegie and a couple of books on communication styles and practice for a week or two: boom, you've switched over. Please don't trivialize challenges of NT people. It is hard for ANYONE to make significant behavioral changes. In particular the evidence is that 'self-help' books like the one you mentioned are essentially ineffective.
  - faceplanted 8y ago

dsr_ 8y ago

I don't think you're a dick, I think I didn't convey my point well enough. I picked one column off of a matrix and pointed out that most people considered to be "on the spectrum" have a high value here, whereas most neurotypical folks have a low value in that cell. That's not the only difference, it's just one that's easy to pick out. But it's also not a guaranteed indicator: if you've got an input filter and no output filter but you aren't actually on the spectrum, you can change the value there relatively easily. Read Dale Carnegie and a couple of books on communication styles and practice for a week or two: boom, you've switched over. People on the spectrum can't do that easily. Instead of being a skill that they just haven't picked up, it's a method of analysis that takes a lot of work, remembering all the rules all the time. Except, of course, there are people who find it more or less hard, and have put more or less work into it, so the results vary. Lots of gradations. As to Gadson's comment: it is actually helpful from the perspective of neurotypical people who are trying to empathize with spectrum people, because it provides a reasonably useful metaphor for them to work in. The general perspective is called the Intense World theory of autism. It can lead you to good analysis which yields workable solutions: by reducing the need for strong input filters, they can free up brain resources for doing what needs to be done. Environmental noise? Visual distractions? Organizational improvements? Working with everyone's strengths improves everyone's outcomes. As to "I actually have too much emotion" as a descriptive phrase: if you take out the negative connotation of "too much", yes, I think it does describe one aspect of autism really well. "I feel things more intensely than neurotypical people do, and as a result I want to/have to block things out" might be a more universal description.

zeroonetwothree 8y ago
> Read Dale Carnegie and a couple of books on communication styles and practice for a week or two: boom, you've switched over. Please don't trivialize challenges of NT people. It is hard for ANYONE to make significant behavioral changes. In particular the evidence is that 'self-help' books like the one you mentioned are essentially ineffective.
- faceplanted 8y ago