5 ms·

You didn't use this word specifically but this whole conversation has the underlying prior of the "everything is a spectrum" mindset. In that context, everyone

You didn't use this word specifically but this whole conversation has the underlying prior of the "everything is a spectrum" mindset. In that context, everyone is neurodivergence because, afterall it's a spectrum we're all on and nobody is going to be deadest average. At some point we have to define at what point these spectrums become clinical. The kind of language you see in the DSM for stuff like this is "does it affect daily living/relationships/health in a negative way". Being neurodivergent isn't a disorder, not showering because you're obsessed with programming probably is.

kylebenzle 2y ago
Autism is a result of neurons failing to "trim" or being over-connected. Being "on the spectrum" refers to the degree of above average physical over-connection of neurons. The opposite, when neurons fail to connect or lose too many connections is called schizophrenia. People that are between the two, the vast majority of people, are not said to be either autistic or schizophrenic (you can't be both at the same time but can go from autistic to schizophrenic with a degenerative disease). Everyone is not "on the spectrum" for autism, again by definition no one that is schizophrenic is "on the spectrum" for autism at all so your comment is nonsensical.
- parineum 2y ago
  You've really only redefined the spectrum. It's now a single spectrum from Autism to Schizophrenia. You can't be on two spots on the spectrum at once. You've still put everyone on a spectrum and my question still stands. How far on the spectrum towards schizophrenia have to be before they are clinically schizophrenic? I don't disagree with the tendency to place things on spectrums but I find that people fail to adress that some people are so far on any spectrum that they become clinical.
- magicalist 2y ago
  > not said to be either autistic or schizophrenic (you can't be both at the same time I've never heard this before and a quick search can't find any evidence of it. The "over-connected" suggestion did pull up studies like this[1], but that's one effect of one set of genes sometimes associated with autism, and, of course, it was in mice. I'd definitely like to learn more, but at first impression, a spectrum with autism and schizophrenia at opposite ends seems way too simple a model for human brains. [1] https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/in-autism-too-many-brain-connections-may-be-at-root-of-condition/ https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/in-autism-too-many-brain-con...
makeitdouble 2y ago
> At some point we have to define at what point these spectrums become clinical Thing is, I'm not a psychiatrist, the author probably isn't, most of us aren't. The question of whether it becomes clinical is IMHO irrelevant to most of us. We won't be standing in front of someone pondering whether they can apply for disability, the better question will be how comfortable they are at keeping eye contact for instance.
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  It's a philosophical question not a psychological question, so I see no reason to appeal to the authority of psychologists here, who are pretty throughly unqualified to determine this.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    The term "clinical" implies qualified medical professional to me.
- parineum 2y ago
  "We", as a society, are very much concerned with whether or not someone is eligible for various assistance programs. We're redefining previously binary conditions as spectrums but the programs there to assist still available as a binary.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    It's the same for any most conditions leading to assistance programs though. Whether you're legally blind or not, legally deaf or not is binary, but each person is on a spectrum and when interacting with someone we might want to adjust to their level where it matters. You don't talk the same way to an elderly with only half of their hearing left, even if legally they're not deaf. Or choose your color schemes with color blind people in mind, even if they won't be registered for governement assistance. That's where I see the distinction between the administrative part of it, which needs binary criteria because of the management nightmare it would be to have gradual scales for everything, and the human/everyday life side of things, where caring about the different shades matters a lot IMHO.

kylebenzle 2y ago

Autism is a result of neurons failing to "trim" or being over-connected. Being "on the spectrum" refers to the degree of above average physical over-connection of neurons. The opposite, when neurons fail to connect or lose too many connections is called schizophrenia. People that are between the two, the vast majority of people, are not said to be either autistic or schizophrenic (you can't be both at the same time but can go from autistic to schizophrenic with a degenerative disease). Everyone is not "on the spectrum" for autism, again by definition no one that is schizophrenic is "on the spectrum" for autism at all so your comment is nonsensical.

parineum 2y ago
You've really only redefined the spectrum. It's now a single spectrum from Autism to Schizophrenia. You can't be on two spots on the spectrum at once. You've still put everyone on a spectrum and my question still stands. How far on the spectrum towards schizophrenia have to be before they are clinically schizophrenic? I don't disagree with the tendency to place things on spectrums but I find that people fail to adress that some people are so far on any spectrum that they become clinical.
magicalist 2y ago
> not said to be either autistic or schizophrenic (you can't be both at the same time I've never heard this before and a quick search can't find any evidence of it. The "over-connected" suggestion did pull up studies like this[1], but that's one effect of one set of genes sometimes associated with autism, and, of course, it was in mice. I'd definitely like to learn more, but at first impression, a spectrum with autism and schizophrenia at opposite ends seems way too simple a model for human brains. [1] https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/in-autism-too-many-brain-connections-may-be-at-root-of-condition/ https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/in-autism-too-many-brain-con...

makeitdouble 2y ago

> At some point we have to define at what point these spectrums become clinical Thing is, I'm not a psychiatrist, the author probably isn't, most of us aren't. The question of whether it becomes clinical is IMHO irrelevant to most of us. We won't be standing in front of someone pondering whether they can apply for disability, the better question will be how comfortable they are at keeping eye contact for instance.

faeriechangling 2y ago
It's a philosophical question not a psychological question, so I see no reason to appeal to the authority of psychologists here, who are pretty throughly unqualified to determine this.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  The term "clinical" implies qualified medical professional to me.
parineum 2y ago
"We", as a society, are very much concerned with whether or not someone is eligible for various assistance programs. We're redefining previously binary conditions as spectrums but the programs there to assist still available as a binary.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  It's the same for any most conditions leading to assistance programs though. Whether you're legally blind or not, legally deaf or not is binary, but each person is on a spectrum and when interacting with someone we might want to adjust to their level where it matters. You don't talk the same way to an elderly with only half of their hearing left, even if legally they're not deaf. Or choose your color schemes with color blind people in mind, even if they won't be registered for governement assistance. That's where I see the distinction between the administrative part of it, which needs binary criteria because of the management nightmare it would be to have gradual scales for everything, and the human/everyday life side of things, where caring about the different shades matters a lot IMHO.