4 ms·

I think you might be confusing autistism with high intelligence. The two are very different. I'm not sure it's even remotely comparable. Most autistic truly

by starkd 4y ago

I think you might be confusing autistism with high intelligence. The two are very different. I'm not sure it's even remotely comparable. Most autistic truly autistic people have a severe deficit to the point they have a problem with basic navigation of the world. Not just inconvencies. There's a tendency to turn every difficulty into a syndrome. While reading the article, I had the distinct feeling the author was not, in fact, autistic, but merely had a lack of social practice.

jiggawatts 4y ago
A friend of mine was both autistic and highly intelligent in a narrow way that autistic people often are. It was... fun to watch him take university lecturers down a peg or two. The linked article is by someone who is clearly very knowledgeable about specific topics in the same way. How many IT people do you know who attend conferences?
TimPC 4y ago
There isn’t anything “most” autistic people have. The disorder is defined by having at least three of twelve major symptoms so it’s possible for two people with autism to not even overlap in their symptoms. There is also a huge range of severity and many people with the disorder are high-functioning. High-functioning autism is significantly correlated with high IQs. This dismissal amounts to “this can’t be hard for you, you’re just choosing not to practice” which is a rather offensive way to deal with someone’s disability.
- starkd 4y ago
  That's kind of my point. The traits that characterize the disorder are so varied, it's hard to believe its just one disorder. I think most people can identify with many of the symptons. I know I can, even though I'm not autistic. Personally, I think the economy seems to encourage that kind of productivity in many ways, so it shouldn't be such a mystery as to why some who are hyperfocused on succeeding should be identifying with it. I dont think I was being dismissive of anyone, but is it really necessary to call all of life's difficulties some kind of disorder? Does making it a disorder some how legitimize someone's struggles? I don't think so.
  - shlant 4y ago
    > I dont think I was being dismissive of anyone I think doubting someone is Autistic based on virtually no information would be considered pretty dismissive
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    >is it really necessary to call all of life's difficulties some kind of disorder? Does making it a disorder some how legitimize someone's struggles? You tell me, when I grew up being called autistic I tried to hide the disorder and get my teachers to not know I had it. It was everybody else who insisted on the names disorder, and it did legitimize it in their eyes. It meant a LOT of funding money, an extra teacher in the classroom, overall favourable treatment relative to other students. It was alternatively used as a pretence to discriminate against me. It was used to guarantee me accommodations. It was used as a means of getting a poor family money. Lots of people have lots of different motivations for using that word. What I do know is there isn’t really any scientific basis for the idea that only severe autism is somehow real though. The word autism does legitimize one’s struggles though, and people recognize that legitimacy. It’s pretty sick.
samatman 4y ago
There was a time when the term Asperger's existed to distinguish this particular sort of autistic person from other forms of autism, which as you allude to, can involve severe mental disability and require a lifetime of care by others. Asperger's was removed from the DSM for somewhat opaque reasons, and then, contemporary Discourse being what it is, some people decided the term was offensive, and we no longer use it. Which is good for the people [citation needed] who are autistic and find the string "Asperger's" offensive, but bad for discourse, since one must either specify "high functioning autism" or "autism as highly-intelligent nerds are likely to encounter it in a professional context", and if you leave it out, someone will be along to point out that this condition shares a name with adults who wear helmets when they leave the house. If it were me, I wouldn't categorize my peers in the same category as adults who wear helmets and diapers. It just doesn't seem like the same thing. But, fortunately, categorizing mental diversity and pathology is not my job.
shlant 4y ago
I think you should probably do some more reading into Autism Spectrum Disorder. Your comment echos cliched and harmful ideas of what Autism is. The reason "Spectrum" is in the name is because there is a wide range of ways it can manifest - from very severe on one end to less impactful (and in some ways beneficial depending on context) on the other. People who used to be referred to as having Asperger Syndrome for example are normally highly intelligent and capable individuals, many of whom you'd have no idea had Autism if you met them. Please do not continue to spread this kind of thinking - it is very antiquated. I also don't know why you would doubt someone is Autistic based on a single blog post.
- starkd 4y ago
  the idea of a spectrum is still relatively new. Medicine goes through these fads all the time. There's also a natural tendency to define syndromes broader than they actually are. It still seems a very loose definition of the term, as they still, as far as I know, have yet to identify the underlying biological mechanism. This is not to diminish anyone's suffering. There's also a danger of taking false refuge in a syndrome that can be equally demoralizing and even paralyzing. No one should be defined by their diseases or medical conditions.

by starkd 4y ago

jiggawatts 4y ago

A friend of mine was both autistic and highly intelligent in a narrow way that autistic people often are. It was... fun to watch him take university lecturers down a peg or two. The linked article is by someone who is clearly very knowledgeable about specific topics in the same way. How many IT people do you know who attend conferences?

TimPC 4y ago

There isn’t anything “most” autistic people have. The disorder is defined by having at least three of twelve major symptoms so it’s possible for two people with autism to not even overlap in their symptoms. There is also a huge range of severity and many people with the disorder are high-functioning. High-functioning autism is significantly correlated with high IQs. This dismissal amounts to “this can’t be hard for you, you’re just choosing not to practice” which is a rather offensive way to deal with someone’s disability.

starkd 4y ago
That's kind of my point. The traits that characterize the disorder are so varied, it's hard to believe its just one disorder. I think most people can identify with many of the symptons. I know I can, even though I'm not autistic. Personally, I think the economy seems to encourage that kind of productivity in many ways, so it shouldn't be such a mystery as to why some who are hyperfocused on succeeding should be identifying with it. I dont think I was being dismissive of anyone, but is it really necessary to call all of life's difficulties some kind of disorder? Does making it a disorder some how legitimize someone's struggles? I don't think so.
- shlant 4y ago
  > I dont think I was being dismissive of anyone I think doubting someone is Autistic based on virtually no information would be considered pretty dismissive
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  >is it really necessary to call all of life's difficulties some kind of disorder? Does making it a disorder some how legitimize someone's struggles? You tell me, when I grew up being called autistic I tried to hide the disorder and get my teachers to not know I had it. It was everybody else who insisted on the names disorder, and it did legitimize it in their eyes. It meant a LOT of funding money, an extra teacher in the classroom, overall favourable treatment relative to other students. It was alternatively used as a pretence to discriminate against me. It was used to guarantee me accommodations. It was used as a means of getting a poor family money. Lots of people have lots of different motivations for using that word. What I do know is there isn’t really any scientific basis for the idea that only severe autism is somehow real though. The word autism does legitimize one’s struggles though, and people recognize that legitimacy. It’s pretty sick.

samatman 4y ago

There was a time when the term Asperger's existed to distinguish this particular sort of autistic person from other forms of autism, which as you allude to, can involve severe mental disability and require a lifetime of care by others. Asperger's was removed from the DSM for somewhat opaque reasons, and then, contemporary Discourse being what it is, some people decided the term was offensive, and we no longer use it. Which is good for the people [citation needed] who are autistic and find the string "Asperger's" offensive, but bad for discourse, since one must either specify "high functioning autism" or "autism as highly-intelligent nerds are likely to encounter it in a professional context", and if you leave it out, someone will be along to point out that this condition shares a name with adults who wear helmets when they leave the house. If it were me, I wouldn't categorize my peers in the same category as adults who wear helmets and diapers. It just doesn't seem like the same thing. But, fortunately, categorizing mental diversity and pathology is not my job.

shlant 4y ago

I think you should probably do some more reading into Autism Spectrum Disorder. Your comment echos cliched and harmful ideas of what Autism is. The reason "Spectrum" is in the name is because there is a wide range of ways it can manifest - from very severe on one end to less impactful (and in some ways beneficial depending on context) on the other. People who used to be referred to as having Asperger Syndrome for example are normally highly intelligent and capable individuals, many of whom you'd have no idea had Autism if you met them. Please do not continue to spread this kind of thinking - it is very antiquated. I also don't know why you would doubt someone is Autistic based on a single blog post.

starkd 4y ago
the idea of a spectrum is still relatively new. Medicine goes through these fads all the time. There's also a natural tendency to define syndromes broader than they actually are. It still seems a very loose definition of the term, as they still, as far as I know, have yet to identify the underlying biological mechanism. This is not to diminish anyone's suffering. There's also a danger of taking false refuge in a syndrome that can be equally demoralizing and even paralyzing. No one should be defined by their diseases or medical conditions.