4 ms·

Can you explain why? "Disease" doesn't mean that it is bad in all cases, it doesn't even mean that it needs to be cured. All it means it that it's not an optima

Can you explain why? "Disease" doesn't mean that it is bad in all cases, it doesn't even mean that it needs to be cured. All it means it that it's not an optimal state in the eyes of most other people (i.e. it is normative). f.e. I don't think anyone has a problem with saying sickle cell is a disease, even though it has a large upside as well.

wpietri 4y ago
Trying to suggest that "disease" is a positive or even neural term is a giant stretch. And yes, my exact problem with it is that it is normative. Just because neurotypicals are in the majority does not make them better. Imagine if it were reversed, for example. In my view, the neurotypical fondness for drama is incredibly harmful. Ditto the way neurotypicals not only believe in all sorts of nonsense (UFOs, angels, gods, devils, etc.) but use that as justification for all sorts of dominance-driven behavior, up to and including genocide. And in practice the normative nature combined with the disease model leads to "medicalization of deviance". E.g., queer people's deviance was medicalized, seen as illness. ANd since they were sick, treatment was necessary, sometimes violently enforced treatment.
hnbad 4y ago
Many autistic people would disagree that being autistic is "not an optimal state". It's a different state. There are even some autistic people (on the extreme end: "aspie supremacists") who argue that being allistic (i.e. non-autistic) is actually more of an impairment. However most would at least say that autistic brains are not more or less "optimal", just different, and that normativity is more harmful than helpful. There are aspects of the kitchen sink that is Autistic Spectrum Disorder that can reasonably be argued to be an impairment (e.g. sensory overloads, situational mutism, etc) but autism is not in any way objectively suboptimal in itself, other than when it comes to interacting with allistics (but that goes both ways).
- causi 4y ago
  but autism is not in any way objectively suboptimal in itself For this to be true, autists would have to communicate and/or work with other autists as competently as neurotypicals mesh with each other. Strictly speaking, we should be able to work with other autists more easily than we work with neurotypicals who have a basic familiarity with autism, since we also have that advantage. In my experience we are not. Replacing your left hand with a sword also has measurable advantages but that doesn't make it not an overall impairment. Personally I find this cultural trend where "your deviation is your identity" to be illogical and offensive.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    > would have to communicate and/or work with other autists as competently as neurotypicals mesh with each other Not at all. You're judging by the standards of neurotypicals. Suppose we discover a genotype that correlates with extremely high social competence, people who are just naturally much better at communicating and working with others. (This isn't much of a stretch; we know there are people like that; we just don't know if it's genetic.) If we document this new, higher level of social functioning, does that mean that neurotypicals are now also defective, diseased?
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Arguably autistics are far better at communicating and/or working with other autistics AND allistics than allistics are at doing the same with any autistics because of the double empathy problem.
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    > Personally I find this cultural trend where "your deviation is your identity" to be illogical and offensive. Part of, not the whole I am who I am, in part, because of my quirks. Saying they are not part of me would be denying who I am. I don’t understand what’s offensive about people being happy with who they are.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - adolph 4y ago
    > Personally I find this cultural trend where "your deviation is your identity" to be illogical and offensive. Question: isn’t identity that which makes one distinct from others, like name or government identity number?
- jklinger410 4y ago
  > but autism is not in any way objectively suboptimal in itself The entire community you are here representing with your comment is intellectually dishonest, at the least, and at the most, actively harming our understanding of autism. I remind you, like others have in this thread, that there are non-verbal people who share the designation of autistic. There are people in jail, permanent homes, and who do not have power of attorney over themselves who share the designation of autistic. There are children who spend their days wanting to bash their head into the nearest wall, and who cry and cry due to sensory issues, that share the designation of autistic. I COULD GO ON. By sharing the thoughts you just did you are directly denying that those things exist. The community who promotes those opinions operates as if those things do not exist. It is bad.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Like the others, you apparently failed to read my full comment before deciding what I must have said. There are traits that can arguably be considered "suboptimal" that can be part of an ASD diagnosis. But they are neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to be autistic. That's why I said "autism is not [..] suboptimal in itself" (emphasis added). Also, can we please stop pointing at children when talking about autism? Somehow everybody who does so stops caring about them as soon as they're old enough to speak for themselves. Autism isn't defined by autistic trauma, we just don't care enough about autistic people to acknowledge them for anything other than their trauma responses.
- mrangle 4y ago
  Aperger's is both a different state, and in many contexts, a sub optimal state. In some limited contexts, it is a superior state. Its undeniable that a dominant part of both the human experience and survival depends on social interaction success. In this context, its undeniable that autism is sub-optimal. It doesn't go both ways, for the vast majority of interactions, because the vast majority of the population is not autistic. And they can easier cooperate with one another against you than you can gain any cooperation. Therefore, the playing field is not equal and your impairment is much more of a disadvantage than their impairment in communicating with you. "Aspie supremacists" who think that their state is undeniably superior are ironically failing in logic. Insofar as they are actually aspie. No adult true aspie (with inevitable comorbidities) with a lifetime of experience would want to repeat it. They'd opt out at the first opportunity. Rare exceptions aside, like for individuals with an engineer for a father who tracked them into the Ivy's and beyond. My theory is that Asperger's individuals are perhaps a human genetic mechanism for slowly integrating genes for certain types of intelligence. With immense deselection pressure on those genes that assures that growing intelligence doesn't spread like wildfire in the population, perhaps to bad outcomes for other portions of what it means to be human (like reproduction speed, perhaps). So I get the views of the aspies who want to recenter what it means o be normal on themselves. It just isn't the case. That's fine. There are worse lots.
brookst 4y ago
Some people feel it is more similar to casting left-handedness, homosexuality, or red hair as a disease, where the definition of “disease” is just “trait that only a minority of people have”.
- sweezyjeezy 4y ago
  I agree with the OP's point about not painting the whole spectrum with the same brush - but personally I don't have an issue calling extreme autism a disease - people who have that usually can't speak and often can't feed themselves - that doesn't really have an equivalent in your analogies.
  - brookst 4y ago
    I think I did a poor job explaining. The key point is that, if “extreme autism” is a disease, that doesn’t mean all autism is a disease. To improve my example, it’s like describing left-handedness as a disease because a small percentage of lefties experience extreme left-handedness where they can’t use their right hand at all.
  - andai 4y ago
    It's similar with other traits. Being more aggressive than average might increase your success in life, but if you have too much you will get in trouble. Another way to look at it is that some traits are harmful for the individual but beneficial for the group. Insomnia does a number on your health, but the tribe wants someone to jump at every cracking of a twig in the night, just in case it's something bad.
    - saalweachter 4y ago
      I mean, we also call extreme aggressive tendencies a mental illness or disorder. In general, the standard in mental illnesses is that in order for a diagnosis to be made, the condition must interfere with leading a fulfilling life; a narcissist is only diagnosed with NPD if their narcissism prevents them from achieving their goals in life (hold down a job, maintain relationships, etc).

wpietri 4y ago

Trying to suggest that "disease" is a positive or even neural term is a giant stretch. And yes, my exact problem with it is that it is normative. Just because neurotypicals are in the majority does not make them better. Imagine if it were reversed, for example. In my view, the neurotypical fondness for drama is incredibly harmful. Ditto the way neurotypicals not only believe in all sorts of nonsense (UFOs, angels, gods, devils, etc.) but use that as justification for all sorts of dominance-driven behavior, up to and including genocide. And in practice the normative nature combined with the disease model leads to "medicalization of deviance". E.g., queer people's deviance was medicalized, seen as illness. ANd since they were sick, treatment was necessary, sometimes violently enforced treatment.

hnbad 4y ago

Many autistic people would disagree that being autistic is "not an optimal state". It's a different state. There are even some autistic people (on the extreme end: "aspie supremacists") who argue that being allistic (i.e. non-autistic) is actually more of an impairment. However most would at least say that autistic brains are not more or less "optimal", just different, and that normativity is more harmful than helpful. There are aspects of the kitchen sink that is Autistic Spectrum Disorder that can reasonably be argued to be an impairment (e.g. sensory overloads, situational mutism, etc) but autism is not in any way objectively suboptimal in itself, other than when it comes to interacting with allistics (but that goes both ways).

causi 4y ago
but autism is not in any way objectively suboptimal in itself For this to be true, autists would have to communicate and/or work with other autists as competently as neurotypicals mesh with each other. Strictly speaking, we should be able to work with other autists more easily than we work with neurotypicals who have a basic familiarity with autism, since we also have that advantage. In my experience we are not. Replacing your left hand with a sword also has measurable advantages but that doesn't make it not an overall impairment. Personally I find this cultural trend where "your deviation is your identity" to be illogical and offensive.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > would have to communicate and/or work with other autists as competently as neurotypicals mesh with each other Not at all. You're judging by the standards of neurotypicals. Suppose we discover a genotype that correlates with extremely high social competence, people who are just naturally much better at communicating and working with others. (This isn't much of a stretch; we know there are people like that; we just don't know if it's genetic.) If we document this new, higher level of social functioning, does that mean that neurotypicals are now also defective, diseased?
- hnbad 4y ago
  Arguably autistics are far better at communicating and/or working with other autistics AND allistics than allistics are at doing the same with any autistics because of the double empathy problem.
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  > Personally I find this cultural trend where "your deviation is your identity" to be illogical and offensive. Part of, not the whole I am who I am, in part, because of my quirks. Saying they are not part of me would be denying who I am. I don’t understand what’s offensive about people being happy with who they are.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- adolph 4y ago
  > Personally I find this cultural trend where "your deviation is your identity" to be illogical and offensive. Question: isn’t identity that which makes one distinct from others, like name or government identity number?
jklinger410 4y ago
> but autism is not in any way objectively suboptimal in itself The entire community you are here representing with your comment is intellectually dishonest, at the least, and at the most, actively harming our understanding of autism. I remind you, like others have in this thread, that there are non-verbal people who share the designation of autistic. There are people in jail, permanent homes, and who do not have power of attorney over themselves who share the designation of autistic. There are children who spend their days wanting to bash their head into the nearest wall, and who cry and cry due to sensory issues, that share the designation of autistic. I COULD GO ON. By sharing the thoughts you just did you are directly denying that those things exist. The community who promotes those opinions operates as if those things do not exist. It is bad.
- hnbad 4y ago
  Like the others, you apparently failed to read my full comment before deciding what I must have said. There are traits that can arguably be considered "suboptimal" that can be part of an ASD diagnosis. But they are neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to be autistic. That's why I said "autism is not [..] suboptimal in itself" (emphasis added). Also, can we please stop pointing at children when talking about autism? Somehow everybody who does so stops caring about them as soon as they're old enough to speak for themselves. Autism isn't defined by autistic trauma, we just don't care enough about autistic people to acknowledge them for anything other than their trauma responses.
mrangle 4y ago
Aperger's is both a different state, and in many contexts, a sub optimal state. In some limited contexts, it is a superior state. Its undeniable that a dominant part of both the human experience and survival depends on social interaction success. In this context, its undeniable that autism is sub-optimal. It doesn't go both ways, for the vast majority of interactions, because the vast majority of the population is not autistic. And they can easier cooperate with one another against you than you can gain any cooperation. Therefore, the playing field is not equal and your impairment is much more of a disadvantage than their impairment in communicating with you. "Aspie supremacists" who think that their state is undeniably superior are ironically failing in logic. Insofar as they are actually aspie. No adult true aspie (with inevitable comorbidities) with a lifetime of experience would want to repeat it. They'd opt out at the first opportunity. Rare exceptions aside, like for individuals with an engineer for a father who tracked them into the Ivy's and beyond. My theory is that Asperger's individuals are perhaps a human genetic mechanism for slowly integrating genes for certain types of intelligence. With immense deselection pressure on those genes that assures that growing intelligence doesn't spread like wildfire in the population, perhaps to bad outcomes for other portions of what it means to be human (like reproduction speed, perhaps). So I get the views of the aspies who want to recenter what it means o be normal on themselves. It just isn't the case. That's fine. There are worse lots.

brookst 4y ago

Some people feel it is more similar to casting left-handedness, homosexuality, or red hair as a disease, where the definition of “disease” is just “trait that only a minority of people have”.

sweezyjeezy 4y ago
I agree with the OP's point about not painting the whole spectrum with the same brush - but personally I don't have an issue calling extreme autism a disease - people who have that usually can't speak and often can't feed themselves - that doesn't really have an equivalent in your analogies.
- brookst 4y ago
  I think I did a poor job explaining. The key point is that, if “extreme autism” is a disease, that doesn’t mean all autism is a disease. To improve my example, it’s like describing left-handedness as a disease because a small percentage of lefties experience extreme left-handedness where they can’t use their right hand at all.
- andai 4y ago
  It's similar with other traits. Being more aggressive than average might increase your success in life, but if you have too much you will get in trouble. Another way to look at it is that some traits are harmful for the individual but beneficial for the group. Insomnia does a number on your health, but the tribe wants someone to jump at every cracking of a twig in the night, just in case it's something bad.
  - saalweachter 4y ago
    I mean, we also call extreme aggressive tendencies a mental illness or disorder. In general, the standard in mental illnesses is that in order for a diagnosis to be made, the condition must interfere with leading a fulfilling life; a narcissist is only diagnosed with NPD if their narcissism prevents them from achieving their goals in life (hold down a job, maintain relationships, etc).