Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
Unless you just want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand for who is and isn't "disordered".
And any arbitrary line u can fantasize about is going to be clearly less logical than viewing it as a spectrum.\
What if I am just below this magic line but need help and don't get it since i am viewed as "normal"?
What if 'I' self-admittedly exhibit neurodivergent behavior but 'I' feel that 'I' function fine and belong in the 'normal' group but this arbitrary line marks me as *GASP* "autistic". Wouldn't 'I' be upset?
Last edited by aamirus; April 29th, 2021 at 11:58 AM.
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
It's dangerous to pretend that autism is just a category created by some arbitrary line drawn in the sand. If we truly believed that before autism became an official disorder, how would autistic people receive treatment today?
I did not say to "pretend that autism is just a category created by some arbitrary line drawn in the sand". In fact I did the opposite and mocked this approach, as the alternative view of autism as a spectrum is commonly accepted nowadays by anybody arguing in good faith.
However, you may not realize this, but your notion of "it's usually pretty easy to tell if someone is autistic"
uses some kind of arbitrary line. A possibly offensive, inaccurate, and just dumb line.
How in your model do you identify those with autism?
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
Last edited by theoneceko; April 29th, 2021 at 09:34 PM.
I should've seen the original post you replied to for context, but I just wanted to bash someone ^-^. Even though I argued against something you said specifically, in the end I was arguing against the broader idea behind Mag's point that "attention disorders aren't a disorder."
What is that broader idea? I forgot.
oops_ur_dead , what are your thoughts?
It's true that deciding whether someone has a disorder or not is subjective, but hey medicine is like that too. Go to five different specialists and you'll be met with 5 different diagnoses. The line is indeed somewhat arbitrary, but it's not based solely on the psychiatrist's whims. There's diagnostic criteria for autism and tests that were arrived at through research, in some cases, probably statistically. I'm unsure whether this is the case for autism itself, but it probably is for the vast majority of 'real' disorders out there.
I leave you on a beautiful note: "autism causes vaccines"
Autistic people should absolutely not be categorized together. Sure as an all-encompassing label, but it's such a vast and nuanced neurological condition it's just downright retarded. The only way "Autism is a functional category" has any real world use is as a general descriptor of someone on the spectrum, that's it.
Example: Coworkers friends kid is on the spectrum. Speaks very erratically (fast, ever changing the topic, etc) yet sometimes he just completely shuts down and goes silent. Seeing this happen without knowledge of his trigger would make this sudden change seem inconsistent, however this kids trigger was the amount of people around him. If there was 7 or so or more people in the room he would shut down completely.
Yeah, but you should still see other behaviours. It's not like autism is just about problems with social interaction. Besides, people with autism betray a lack of understanding of social mores. It's one thing to not understand them and another to be afraid of them.
What makes you think that? Do you know every single person on the spectrum?
Autism is inborn, and doesn't change. Trigger points or not, it's not like an autistic person is gonna be autistic only half the time. If they are then they're not autistic.
Autism causes a fundamental lack of understanding of social interaction. It's not like you can understand it from time to time. You either do or don't.
Your coworker's friend probably displayed signs of autism constantly, not just when he had meltdowns. That's just when they became especially visible.
And the point of my example was the kid had something trigger him. Your post where you said your inability to read social queues comes and goes implies this is inconsistent behavior. What I am putting forward is perhaps, hypothetically speaking if you are autistic, you also have your own trigger you do not realize which makes your inability to read social queues seem like it "comes an goes" or in other words seem inconsistent. This is why I said my previous post, because this is literally an example of my brother. His symptoms come and go, and its a constant battle to identify what triggers him and how to resolve/deal with it.
Autistic people can in fact be incredibly normal for a good portion of time.
Could you provide a source that supports for your claims?
I googled autism triggers, but I only found things that can trigger someone autistic to become agressive or anxious.
Deficits in social interaction is literally one of the diagnostic criteria of autism spectrum disorder. So yes, ALL autistic people have problems with social interaction, by definition.
This isn't just a symptom that some people have - everyone with autism does.
Therefore, if the problem is with understanding, you cannot expect understanding to come and depart occasionally; it either is, or isn't. Even the article says that the behaviours have to be persistent.
My claim that autistic people can be triggered to 'lash out'? My brother. You could be having a normal conversation with him, but if you slip in the word 'ants' he would freak the fuck out quite unreasonably. Interestingly enough this longer triggers him, he doesn't even bat an eye to it anymore. Another example is the one I said before. A kid would be talking (not normally, but that's irrelevant), however if there were too many people around him he wouldn't say a single word, ever.
I'm not saying a normal person can be triggered to be autistic if that's what you think I am putting forward?
The way you asked that question implied to me you think people with autism can't (internally and externally) navigate a social interaction normally, ever. This is simply not true, I say this because it seems like you do actually believe this.
Well, autistic people have a brain, so even if they can't understand situations immediately, they can learn to analyse them intellectually and be rid of most of their difficulties. This I can believe, but isn't necessarily the way 'normal' people work.
Also there is a difference between consistent and persistent.
Returning to the original topic. I think it will be handed much better than sexism and racism for a few reasons.
Firstly, it's not always visible. So there isn't that easy method of splitting into groups from just simply observing.
Secondly, its something we have only recently realised and classified that it exists, which has also fitted within the anti-disability discrimination. So the fact that we are sorta already fighting against the discrimination, paired with we have created it (in a sense of being able to diagnose it) which enables how people can view it
One of the Major changes we need to make. Is to teach kids more real life knowledge and skills.
My education had 0 teaching of disabilities, personal finance, government and council explanations and basically just sociology
Yet we forced people to learn a language (which is now near obsolete due to translocation technology)
Religion (A somewhat dying ideal which is all down to interpretation)
History (on topics that teach very little value and is completely biased towards w/e nation is teaching it)
Sorta gone off topic a bit there ^^
Cryptonic made this sig
I think ceko isn't wrong. The difference between normal people and autistic people is so great that it's not really correct to view autism as a spectrum.
I just read what an autistic meltdown is, and it looks something akin to having a major temper tantrum whose effects are drawn out over a significantly longer period compared to normal tantrums regular people have. I can't possibly see how you could have anything 'in-between' those two.
Besides - I think it's incorrect to view it as being merely a functional diagnosis. There seem to be significant neurological differences associated with autism, and as such is not merely a diagnosis of convenience - it's representative of something real that exists.
I've known maybe 5 or 6 people with autism over my life, as friends. One was like a stereotypical sheldon cooper, a couple were ridiculously weird, a couple were just nervous with a few weird social ticks, and the last who I know quite well was all over the place in school but with age has gotten much better at social interaction, to the point where you wouldn't have guessed he was autistic, unless maybe you got to know him for a while. From an anecdotal perspective, it doesn't just seem like a spectrum - it looks like it actually manifests in different ways from person to person. I can't possibly imagine how you would define such a thing as a binary, because trying to imagine some definitive link between those people beyond being "kinda awkward" is very difficult. And a lot of "kinda awkward" people aren't autistic at all.
Like, okay that friend I mentioned clearly did have the "autistic tantrums" where he'd just go utterly apeshit over something absurd and unreasonable, but it wasn't like that was who he was, 24/7. Get me? XD. And as he aged he got a lot better at controlling it. He was the only one I knew to have "tantrums", but perhaps they're more common than I know, or I didn't know some of the others well enough to see that happen.
I know a guy who (probably) had autism. He had some weird, extremely specific interests - he had an obsession with railways (specifically Swiss and Austrian ones) and mountains and I think he knew almost everyone of them. He was also obsessed with Ítzi the Iceman (some mummy located in the Alps) and said he would want to sleep next to it. You can't make this shit up. He was hella weird, but a kinda cool guy. He got bullied a lot by morons though.
I remember I used to play Hangman with him in grammar school and the motherfucker would give me random railways or peaks in the Alps.
As for the "I" part, that is a permanent issue with anything related to humans. Science has to establish reasonable criteria to make categories if it wants to make any. Being "upset" about it is ridiculous: if you're upset about biologists saying 50 Celsius degrees is too hot for most human beings, that doesn't change the correlation between "temperature of 50 degrees" and "danger for human beings". Of course, things are not always that clear, but that doesn't mean trying to draw a line about disorders has to be banned, unless the very principle of disorder is to be banned (which it isn't, because then you'll have people needing help who won't recieve it).
I'm much more inclined to listen to . more than anyone else in this thread because of his extensive personal experiences with autistic people. I could learn a lot from . about autism.
I haven't researched the autism spectrum, but I think the claim that autism is a spectrum makes sense. It's what everyone says anyway, except for Mag »\_(ツ)_/»
I just don't want to see people on TikTok look up autism symptoms, then claim they're autistic once they realize they've one or two of these symptoms. I hope that isn't how the spectrum works, but there are people that are dumb enough to interpret serious mental disorders that way.
UWU OWO, UWOWU HEWWO!!!
Last edited by theoneceko; April 30th, 2021 at 02:30 PM.
The future "racism" debate goes on. UWU!!!!
Last edited by theoneceko; April 30th, 2021 at 02:32 PM.