4 ms·

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 e

by 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.

by hnbad 4y ago

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.