4 ms·
> There are recursive layers of social intrigue in this paragraph that people with autism would have a great deal of trouble understanding, much less writing T
by dghf 11y ago
> There are recursive layers of social intrigue in this paragraph that people with autism would have a great deal of trouble understanding, much less writing
That's a bit sweeping. Many doubtless would; but there are autistic people who are capable of self-reflection.
A somewhat exceptional example: Temple Grandin, PhD, who has extrapolated from her experience of having autism, specifically the sense of constantly being under threat from her surroundings, to advise on more humane ways of handling livestock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin#Career http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin#Career
- mapt 11y agoAbsolutely. If you've met one autistic person you've met one autistic person. Basically any reference to autism has the problem of overgeneralizing, especially now that we expanded the spectrum to cover several percent of the population, and started using "autism" for the whole spectrum colloquially instead of a particular subset of the spectrum. But even so - we do on occasion need to talk about autism generically. Referring to a classical profile[1] of autistic symptoms, an abstract-concept-of-autism, is simply a necessary shorthand, because the changes in perception & diagnosis of autism have stolen the language I was taught growing up to describe and classify, and sprayed them over a broad swath of behavioral and cognitive problems. It's also quite a bit more appropriate to use the stereotype (while remaining conscious that it's a stereotype, usually correct but not always) when referring specifically to low-functioning minimally-verbal autistics, I suspect. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Autism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Autism