4 ms·

Being married and gainfully employed and able to build and maintain relationships as well as hold conversations with strangers when necessary can come at an exc

• sneed_chucker 2y ago
  I agree with what you're saying, but also - everyone has problems. Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical? Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't? (These are non-rhetorical questions, I'm really not sure about the answers to them myself)
  • sctb 2y ago
    > [...] everyone has problems They certainly do. And I don't think we can make meaningful comparisons between individuals in terms of their problems, how they struggle or suffer, etc. For me personally, I don't assume to have it any worse than anyone else, and I always assume that others have deep challenges that I won't ever know about. > Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical? Again, these concepts become strained when applied to individuals. It's like the family who has 1.5 children: they don't exist. These are ever-changing labels that we make use of within an extremely nebulous social process. I try to apply them only in well-defined contexts and then throw up my hands in the general case. > Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't? I have no idea; in my mind this question is trying to peer closely into the nebula.
  • alistairSH 2y ago
    Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't? Very roughly, because some people can't function without intervention (for loose definitions of "function"). And some treatment (therapy, drugs, whatever) can help them function. Autism 1/Aspergers is sometimes kind of borderline - some people can function with it, but it can exact a heavy tool on them as a sibling comment noted. Depress and suicide are relatively more common. Why go through life miserable if it's not necessary? People without autism or other diagnosable issues are generally more resilient. a bad week, one-off negative occurrence, etc won't send them into a tailspin. That's a very real concern with some neurodivergent individuals. And you do have to remember, it's all a spectrum. And as observers, we don't know what a person is feeling/thinking internally and not expressing.
    • faeriechangling 2y ago
      I asked this elsewhere but will ask this here - does calling people autistic and medicalising actually prevent misery, depression, and suicide? This whole thought that autistic people who appear to have no problems are all secretly on the verge of not just burnout, but AUTISTIC burnout and will tailspin into the nether at any moment is a recent idea I have yet to see any actual evidence of other than self-report. The entire idea smacks of non-falsifiability to me.
      • ocschwar 2y ago
        Non-falsifiability on account of self-report is a pervasive problem in mental health. But just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it isn't true. If I told you I had to consciously monitor my tone of voice, and mannerisms, and level of eye contact to pass for normal, and had to silently drill these things in my mind before starting or joining a conversation, that I basically had to be like a method actor and get into character before speaking, what would you propose as a way to falsify or verify my claim? You're right: it's non-falsifiable. And you'd be right to raise an eyebrow about the idea that keeping it up would lead to clinical depression. Doesn't mean it isn't true.
        • iraqmtpizza 2y ago
          [dead]
      • intended 2y ago
        There is survivorship bias at play as well. Theres people who go in and DONT get diagnosed with ASD, but get found out to be having other issues, ranging from endocrine to trauma. The evidence for treatment is the improvement in quality of life for people who do manage to get help. The control would be people whose challenges make their lives, and the lives of those around them, harder.
        • fragmede 2y ago
          The literal survivorship bias is from those who've managed to not commit suicide.
  • TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't? Because there are effective forms of treatment available, but are gated by diagnosis because of $reasons. Validation of the medical system enables one to access those treatments, perhaps most important of which is being able to tell yourself, as well as others, that you're having an actual problem and are not "just lazy" or need to "just get yourself together", etc.
    • pantalaimon 2y ago
      What forms of treatment are there for autism?
    • marcus_holmes 2y ago
      I want a diagnosis of ADHD so I get free speed :)
      • disgruntledphd2 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure that I would get a diagnosis of ADHD, because of my experience (in my youth) with amphetamines. Everyone else would be off their heads and I felt really focused and together (and could sleep!).
      • TeMPOraL 2y ago
        I don't think it's ever free anywhere in the world?
  • ergonaught 2y ago
    > Is anyone truly normal or neurotypical Yes. I get that your questions appear to be sincere and genuine, but, yes. Relative to the actual, demonstrable, neurological differences in connectivity and so forth in the “neurodivergent” brain, the overwhelming majority of people are “normal”. Relative to the actual lived experience of “neurodivergents”, the overwhelming majority of people are “normal”. These kinds of questions are asked by people who simply don’t understand the enormity of the difference. Much like people who don’t have aphantasia speaking to people who do. And so forth.
    • alistairSH 2y ago
      Much like people who don’t have aphantasia speaking to people who do. And so forth. Aphantasia is one that I find extremely hard to wrap my head around. The notion that somebody who’s otherwise normal can’t visualize things is really interesting. I have a friend who has it. The only outward symptom is his dislike of fiction and most TV/movies (and you’d only notice that if you knew him fairly well).
      • lizard 2y ago
        Reading about aphantasia was a trip. I couldn't even understand it at first, so curious if this condition fit me I looked up the test for diagnosing aphantasia which started describe scenes of a beach, now with a sunset, and so on, to which I was hopelessly lost because the responses seemed to suggest I should be "seeing" something. I could "imagine" a beach, and think about how wet sand feels and what waves sound like; but of course I couldn't "see" it, it was just imaginary. I had to read an essay from someone else with this condition discovering that other people do "see" things before I had my little spit-take moment. I think I _used_ to be able to visualize things. I remember feeling frustrated when I was younger and did a more art because I could never imagine the same thing twice when I wanted to draw it. Every time I tried to think about about it, it would have a different pose or texture or orientation. But even then I think I just had a different "level" of aphantasia. I could never figure out how to use color. I kept to pens and lead pencils for art and couldn't get into painting. Even now, staring at a wall and thinking about repainting it, I cannot visualize it with any other color, much less two or three colors for trim and accents. One of the advantages, perhaps, is that I don't need to close my eyes to imagine things. There's no point, there's nothing there. I may let my focus drift so I don't get distracted by shiny or moving things. But I can stare at a wall, or go for a hike or a run and just let my mind go wild. That said, I do enjoy fiction, though I never really get "into" anything in particular. In light of this discovery, perhaps it is because I'm not really able to "visualize" scenes to recreate memorable moments, I can only really enjoy it in the moment and maybe recall a few quotes and descriptions, which are harder to get excited about.
  • banannaise 2y ago
    > Why do some people's problems get the validation of the medical system and others don't? I'm going to give a pretty out-there answer for this: because they piss us off. A problem is medicalized when the people who have that problem can no longer be ignored, either because the effects are so severe that their demands for treatment become loud on a societal level, or because the effects naturally bother other people. We started treating HIV/AIDS only after years of the affected communities refusing to shut up about it. We medicalize mental health issues because the people with them cause problems for the people without them. It is notable that many mental health conditions have names describing the experience of being around them rather than the experience of having them. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder feels like neither, but people around someone with ADHD get annoyed that they don't pay attention and move around a lot. For another example, we still diagnose some children with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder".
• faeriechangling 2y ago
  Good thing I see no to negative evidence that autistic men actually mask. Autistic women I see more evidence for. Also, saying "this deserves medicalisation" and throwing a label on people doesn't mean you're actually helping. Lets say somebody was masking - how would medicine help them?
  • alpaca128 2y ago
    Did you ask autistic men or how did you come to that weird conclusion? They likely mask just as much as women, even if you may not notice from the outside (which is the point of masking). I agree about medicine not really being the solution, though. If an environment requires masking all meds can do is suppress symptoms, at best.
    • faeriechangling 2y ago
      CAT-Q survey results mostly, a screening tool designed to detect masking, and autistic men report masking a statistically insignificant less than neurotypical men. Autistic women report masking a statistically insignificant more than neurotypical women. But the women did report masking a significant amount more than the men. Not strong evidence but what exactly is the evidence that autistics are going around masking far more than the average bear? Low social motivation is an old theory for the cause of autistic social behaviours which is a theory which would indicate less masking. I’ve heard all this mask mask mask talk over the last few years, but I haven’t seen any persuasive science. I should also be clear - I’m not saying autistic men don’t mask, or don’t struggle with masking, I’m saying I can find no convincing evidence that autistic men as a group mask an unusual amount. The diagnostic criteria does not indicate masking as a symptom, just as a potential risk that may confuse diagnosis especially in women by making actual social deficits which actually get you diagnosed harder to detect but not impossible.
      • kazinator 2y ago
        It seems like a no-brainer to me. Women are more expected than men to exhibit emotional intelligence. To be understanding and supportive toward others and so on. A woman exhibiting autistic traits will be judged more negatively than a man, and so may feel more pressure to conceal them. For instance, a woman who doesn't react in certain ways to someone's cute baby is some kind of child-hating alien monster. The man who doesn't react in those ways is assumed to be wanting to do that, but actually masking in the other direction so as not to appear effeminate.