5 ms·

As an autistic person myself, but by no means an expert, I can say a few things. Adding here because there are at least two replies to parent that are the same

by pfooti 5y ago

As an autistic person myself, but by no means an expert, I can say a few things. Adding here because there are at least two replies to parent that are the same "well, it seems like a useful list" at time of reply composition. First: Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore. It's all just autism and autism spectrum disorder. That's in part because we've recognized that it is all part of the same spectrum, and probably at least in part because Asperger was a Nazi. More about both points here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 Second, while some of the notes in the gist align with my own personal, lived experience, the vibe of lacking empathy absolutely does not. The Leader article cited in the parent comment aligns better with my own experience at least. Third, that list is absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Note a particular thing about one particular autistic person, and try to coerce it into aligning with a mental model that you think must be true of all autistic people, with no particular actual supporting evidence. If you're interested in what it is like to be autistic in an informal way, I recommend trying to get your hands on a copy of "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schnumn/sensory-life-on-the-spectrum https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schnumn/sensory-life-on... as it is a good, crowd sourced book about all the different ways autism works. If you want a deeper, more scientific analysis of autism, there's plenty of peer reviewed literature out there. But the linked gist in OP is neither (a) peer reviewed literature nor (b) reflective of autistic experience in general at least. Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. Just say "autistic person".

stared 5y ago
> Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore True, but it is a recent change. At the time of writing (2014), it was a common term; it still has a Wikipedia page. Just because it uses one word or another, it does not make an article valid or invalid. (I am happy to redefine Asperger/HFA as Xvvbhj for the sake of a discussion.) I fully agree that there is no meaningful difference between Asperger Syndrome and High Functioning Autism. > Asperger was a Nazi Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and a horrible person in general. And? > absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Well, not. While most people don't hit all checkboxes, these points are very far from random. Happy to bet $100 that there is a statistical difference between autistic and neurotypical. > "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" I don't know this one. > Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. I find this bizarre. And at least to me (I am autistic), very antithetical to autism. Things are true or not REGARDLESS who says them. I use the term "Aspie" and am equally OK with others referring to me that way.
- pfooti 5y ago
  > Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and an horrible person in general. And? Not sure if you read the linked science article, but there is plenty of evidence that Asperger did some terrible stuff. Not surprising, given the interest in eugenics that was wide-spread at the time, but still terrible enough that yeah, we should probably stop naming things after him. Parenthetically, if you are interested in making an argument where other people presume good faith on your behalf, avoid the term "cancel culture". Like "virtue signaling" it is a turn of phrase that strongly correlates with bad faith argumentation. Instead of arguing around the point, go straight for it - don't say "cancel culture is bad therefore we cannot ever question the actions of people who did questionable stuff", instead face the actions directly and say "Yes. Asperger sent kids to be killed because he didn't want their parents to spend time caring for humans he saw as a drain on society, but he did all this other great stuff trying to highlight how 'autistic psychopaths' (his words) would strengthen German society, so we clearly should continue respecting him". Or whatever it is you respect about Hans, you should be able to say, "Despite all the heinous stuff he did, I respect him because of XYZ". Personally, I am all for canceling Asperger (op. cit). When you just complain about "cancel culture" and don't address the core issue, it is intellectually lazy. As to the central thesis here- I'm sure that there are different between neurotypical and autistic people. I'm even sure that those differences cluster. That's not the point of the linked article (or its sole source, which others have pointed out is also unsourced) and it is bad faith to argue otherwise. The linked article claims single causes for most of the claimed observations, almost always rooted in a supposed (and incorrect) universal lack of empathy. Some autistic people behave in a way that implies a lack of empathy, but (a) not all and (b) that only means neurotypicals think they lack empathy, whether or not they do is another thing entirely. Presenting an unsourced laundry list encourages people to presume that all autistic people are alike, and that the phenomenon is well-understood. It is reductive, and no more useful that any other "scientific" stereotype about race or gender (or zodiac sign for that matter). On "aspie", I've seen the word used as a dismissive insult too often to consider it a label I'd appreciate applied to me. But that is kind of why I hedged it. If you want to call yourself that, go for it. I mainly wanted to highlight that it is a fraught term and that it is not universally applicable.

by pfooti 5y ago

stared 5y ago

> Asperger's syndrome is not actually a recognized diagnosis anymore True, but it is a recent change. At the time of writing (2014), it was a common term; it still has a Wikipedia page. Just because it uses one word or another, it does not make an article valid or invalid. (I am happy to redefine Asperger/HFA as Xvvbhj for the sake of a discussion.) I fully agree that there is no meaningful difference between Asperger Syndrome and High Functioning Autism. > Asperger was a Nazi Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and a horrible person in general. And? > absolutely just a random box of facile observations. Well, not. While most people don't hit all checkboxes, these points are very far from random. Happy to bet $100 that there is a statistical difference between autistic and neurotypical. > "Sensory: Life on the Spectrum" I don't know this one. > Finally, while some folks self-identity as "aspie", I would find it _extremely_ offensive if anyone used that word to refer to me or anyone else without express permission. I find this bizarre. And at least to me (I am autistic), very antithetical to autism. Things are true or not REGARDLESS who says them. I use the term "Aspie" and am equally OK with others referring to me that way.

pfooti 5y ago
> Cancel culture at its best. Von Braun was a Nazi. Haber was a Nazi-sympathizer (putting himself in a difficult spot, since he was Jewish) and an horrible person in general. And? Not sure if you read the linked science article, but there is plenty of evidence that Asperger did some terrible stuff. Not surprising, given the interest in eugenics that was wide-spread at the time, but still terrible enough that yeah, we should probably stop naming things after him. Parenthetically, if you are interested in making an argument where other people presume good faith on your behalf, avoid the term "cancel culture". Like "virtue signaling" it is a turn of phrase that strongly correlates with bad faith argumentation. Instead of arguing around the point, go straight for it - don't say "cancel culture is bad therefore we cannot ever question the actions of people who did questionable stuff", instead face the actions directly and say "Yes. Asperger sent kids to be killed because he didn't want their parents to spend time caring for humans he saw as a drain on society, but he did all this other great stuff trying to highlight how 'autistic psychopaths' (his words) would strengthen German society, so we clearly should continue respecting him". Or whatever it is you respect about Hans, you should be able to say, "Despite all the heinous stuff he did, I respect him because of XYZ". Personally, I am all for canceling Asperger (op. cit). When you just complain about "cancel culture" and don't address the core issue, it is intellectually lazy. As to the central thesis here- I'm sure that there are different between neurotypical and autistic people. I'm even sure that those differences cluster. That's not the point of the linked article (or its sole source, which others have pointed out is also unsourced) and it is bad faith to argue otherwise. The linked article claims single causes for most of the claimed observations, almost always rooted in a supposed (and incorrect) universal lack of empathy. Some autistic people behave in a way that implies a lack of empathy, but (a) not all and (b) that only means neurotypicals think they lack empathy, whether or not they do is another thing entirely. Presenting an unsourced laundry list encourages people to presume that all autistic people are alike, and that the phenomenon is well-understood. It is reductive, and no more useful that any other "scientific" stereotype about race or gender (or zodiac sign for that matter). On "aspie", I've seen the word used as a dismissive insult too often to consider it a label I'd appreciate applied to me. But that is kind of why I hedged it. If you want to call yourself that, go for it. I mainly wanted to highlight that it is a fraught term and that it is not universally applicable.