Asperger's and Being Considered "Disabled"

Post Reply New Topic

Well that is exactly it. If someone is getting picked on at work according to neurotypical ethics it is okay to pick on someone as long as everyone else is doing it. And if the victim gets fired the neurotypicals are rewarded with steady employment. But if I refuse to pick on someone when everyone else is doing it I suppose that makes me mentally ill.

This statement was worth quoting, I think in the article:



I agree that part of the decision making process in logic in everyday life is based on cost/benefit of outcomes of decisions.

In trying to analyze an argument I often look at logic from the perspective of semantics and mathematics.

For instance, in this discussion a statement was made that "Ohh how I love the fact that being logical is considered a disablility, it's truly an NT world" in reference to the topic discussion on whether or not autism is considered a disability.

It is not a fact that being logical is considered a disability in autism. If this were a fact in relationship to autism it would be evidenced. There is third party evidence that some autistic individuals have problems making logical decisions in every day life, self help care, so if there is disability evidenced in relationship to logic and autism it is a reduced ability evidenced in some individuals in making logical decisions as they relate to outcomes in everyday life functioning.

Deficits in verbal and non-verbal language skills causes difficulty for some in understanding language both written, spoken, and presented non-verbally to make logical decisions in communication, per semantics, and social interaction.

The logical outcomes are highly dependent on one's experiences and common reference points with others in life. Deficits in social interaction and social communication, can result in impairments in these areas of logical communication.

A larger problem in making logical decisions in regard to others can be that there are problems for some autistic individuals, evidenced in the inherent ability to understand that others experience life much differently than they do.

Often in a discussion the reference point comes back to the individual rather than to the millions of autistic people in the world that are being discussed. However, that is the nature of the condition for many, and is to be expected.

But, per the basic rules of logic, the ability to understand the characteristics of the entire subject matter discussed is important, otherwise the subject matter can be reduced as small as the characteristics of one autistic individual rather than millions of autistic individuals. This is another issue that can make it harder among some autistic individuals to reach logical conclusions regarding subject matter.

One area that some autistic individuals excel in, is abstract reasoning, as evidenced in non-verbal tests of fluid intelligence. However, if there are deficits in communication, per verbal and non-verbal communication, it provides limits in how well one can communicate their strengths in abstract reasoning measured through visual rather than verbal means.

Some of these individuals may have difficulties expressing themselves logically in verbal/non-verbal communication, but may excel in other areas of abstract reasoning such as abilities required to program computers, or in solving complex mathematical problems as well as other areas that require abstract reasoning skills per inductive reasoning and logic. This is an evidenced strength discretely measured in some autistic individuals, however it does not minimize the other disabling factors associated with autism.

Nor do those that have conducted the research that provides evidence of the strengths, suggest that it minimizes the other disabling factors associated with autism. In fact, the team of Mottron and Autistic researcher Dawson that provided clinical evidence of these strengths noted that about 80% of autistic individuals require support from families, and about 90% do not maintain full time employment.

You're the most amazing debater I've ever met.
1. You argue against a point way off what was stated.
2. You're hopless at quoting when there's more than one quote.
3. You contradict youself.
4. You don't understand your own replies. (And ironicly uses the same phrase to end the sentence... Twise.)
5. You change the subject.
6. You fail to understand simple none specifict statements.
7. You acctually tries to steal a point by saying exactly what I said.
I think I'll stop here.


I can't stop looking at this, it amaze me every time I see it.



No you didn't, you provided one link to Wiki and one about Psycopaths.


By "many others" you mean Sweetleaf...

I'm going to give you another little brain teaser to ignore:
Why is it so that this forum is flooded with post about how people have suffered consequenses from repeatedly having said "inappropirate" (as in: things true that people don't want to hear) things or speaking completely out of place, whilst this seems (in compraison) very rare amongst (adult) NTs.

From what I've learned from my psychology studies, the most common activity is communicating with others, as such one thing becomes very clear. Feel free to point out any holes you find in the following reasoning.

1. If communication is the main activity it must mean that it's where we make most of our decisions during the day.
2. If 1 is true, then it should also be so that most mistakes in the decision making are made there.
3. If 2 is true, (social) errors in the communication are punished by the surroundings, so people try to avoid that.
4. If 3 is true, then people will if possible avoid saying things that might result in said punishment.
5. If 4 is true, most decisions a person makes during the day is if what they are about to say/just heard is socialy acceptable or not.
6. If 5 is true, then most of peoples decisions during the day a emotinaly based.
7. If 6 is true, then it means that a person not following this pattern is either: Unaware of the rules/Ignoring the rules. (Whatever their reason for either option is.)
8. If 7 is true, it means that something els is used as base for most decisions during their day.
9. If 8 is true, (and we assume that most of these people are not pathological liers), that these say are statements of percived facts.
10, if 9 is true, people are more proned to use logic to determine what they consider to be facts or not.
11. If 10 is true, then these people base most of their decisions on logic.

I admit it went a little fast on the end, but it's late and my thoughts are not as sharp as they should be.

Attempting to use logic and being successful at it in providing logical outcomes are two different actions, dependent on innate factors, experience, and environment. The information from Wiki and from the article about psychopaths, are far from the many disabling impacts of autism that have been evidenced by third party evidence by myself and others throughout the full course of this thread.

There is absolutley no third party evidence that has been presented by anyone that it is a fact that being logical is considered a disablility, in regard to autism to the actual disabling effects of autism that have been evidenced in this thread.

The logical process involved in social communication that result in logical outcomes, are dependent on inherent factors, influenced by environment, and experience.

Even the ability to solve math problems is dependent on the emotional process of the intrinsic reward of dopamine that provides one pleasure as they arrive at solutions to problems.

There is no escaping emotion in the decision making process. For an individual that spends their entire day solving math problems, they may arrive at more logical conclusions at the end of the day, than someone that is digging ditches; it is dependent upon the individual, innate factors, experience, and environment. An individual that might not have the innate, environmental, or experience to solve math problems would likely have a deficiency in providing correct logical mathematic solutions, and an individual that does not have the same social/communication skills, will likely have a deficiency in providing logical answers to social issues, per difficulties with social skills/communication skills.

What you have provided above is factors as they relate to the actual impairments individuals with autism experience with social/communicative deficiencies they face in everyday life functioning, per logical outcomes in social comunication. Not being able to participate in logical social communication, is not evidence of an advantage in logical social communication, it is evidence of an impairment.

If a person does not say a thing all day long except for the sky is blue, because it is the only answer in social communication that they are sure that is based on reason, per their ability to answer a question, it doesn't provide an advantage in the skills necessary to engage in social communication that lead to logical outcomes, nor does it make the person a more logical individual.

Some of the emotional factors that drive the solution to math problems, drive the solution to social problems per neurochemicals such as dopamine and interaction with the pleasure centers of the brain. Other hormonal influences and neurochemicals may differ, in providing the same emotive intrinsic rewards per the emotion of pleasure to engage in social communication.

Fear is obviously a major associated emotion, involved in inhibiting social communication, but fear of being able to provide logical outcomes in social communication, due to inherent, experiential, or environmental factors, is obviously not an advantage in providing logical outcomes in communication, instead it is an impairment in social communication that is evidenced to result in disability in autism, per the criteria that measures and provides diagnoses for autism spectrum disorders.

Third party evidence that has been provided in this thread as it relates to autism and disability are statistics from the CDC as it relates to the number of individuals that are in classes for the developmentally disabled, (where the 1 in 88 number is derived, in the US); 85% of individuals with autism diagnosed co-morbid with Alexithymia; diagnostic criteria that details the disabilities in ASD's; inherent limit of brain function per US code, statistics of 80 percent of individuals that must rely upon family or society for subsistence and 90% that do not maintain full time employment, the inability of some autistic individuals to make logical decisions as they relate to self help skills; the statistic that decisions are based on emotion and are influenced 90% by emotion; if you don't want to look through the entire thread to find the third party evidence or if any of the references have been left out, I will be happy to provide them to you, if you like.

This is only the tip of the iceberg of the disabilities directly associated with autism, and co-morbid conditions associated with autism that can be disabling. Other co-morbid and clinically disabling factors are associated with ADHD, Depression, Bi-polar, GI infections, short term working memory deficits, executive dysfunction; the list goes on and on.

Can you see why from the broad perspective of autism spectrum disorders, that any advantage one might have in logic per solving math problems, creating computer programs, or providing facts only in conversation, pales in comparison to the many evidenced actual disabling factors associated with autism spectrum disorders.

Well good for you.

Swing and a miss.


Why do you keep bringing this up?
And that's "other", since it's still only one, who simply posted the criteria for the diagnosis.


You do realise that you just said that people who do not get a kick out of it (no matter how small) can do math, right?


And basic statistics says that people inclined towards logical decisions will end up making more logical decision, than someone who isn't. It's very simple, if something is more likely to occure, it will generaly occure more often. That is why it's easier (a.i statisticly more likely) to hit 7 with two regular dice, than 2 or 12, and much easier than hitting 0 or 14.


Failed example, specific conditioned agruments cannot be held against a general conditioned argument unless it disproves the base of the argument. Yours do not.

As I've stated before, lack of evidence is not an evidence to the contrary.


Are you implying that most uncommunicative people on the autistic spectrum is this because they fear the responce? If you do, I want to know where the heck you got that from, and if you don't... then I have no clue what you're trying to say.


Did I miss the post that made this thread a contest in irrelevant statements?


If this clearify a bit I'll use this example to show my position. It's a broad image of how I percive the differences in NTs and spectrumites:

Someone suddenly realise that he/she has not watered his/her (from now on it's a he, less letters) flowers, here there's a fundamental difference in the approach.

Logical: Go and check if they seems dehydrated, if not, no water. (Base: Facts, they did not appear to need water.)
Rational: Fill up water and water them a bit, just in case. (Base: Emotion, consern they might need water.)

(And just for the fun of it.)
Irrational: Break into the neighbours appartment and starts watering their flowers.
Illogical: Starts licking the wall.

I responded to this statement you made by providing a comprehensive list of the real disabling aspects of autism that are evidenced by third party sources, and by others in this thread. I provided most of the third party evidence on Autism as a disabling condition as provided summarized in my previous post. One individual provided third party evidence on the diagnostic criteria that provide specific impairments that are the source of disability in autism, and Janissy provided evidence that emotions are involved in 90 percent of decisions that human beings make.

And, while you have provided only anecdotal evidence for your claim, there are many others in this thread that have provided their own anecdotal evidence for the other reasons that their autism spectrum disorders are disabling in their lives that have nothing to do with advantages in making logical decisions. Your anecdotal evidence of how you see things in your own life carries no more weight in evidence than their anecdotal evidence of how they see things in their life, per the disabilities associated with autism spectrum disorders.

I stated the ability to solve problems with math are dependent on inherent, environmental, and experential factors. The ability to solve math problems is in part dependent on inherent factors, which include the emotional process which occurs automatically in the limbic system, providing the neurochemical dopamine that provides the ability for individuals to problem solve, including mathematical problems and social problems. Dopamine provides a reward in the pleasure Center of the brain, no matter how small, in providing motivation to arrive at solutions to problems in life. And research provides evidence that increases in the neurochemical of dopamine provide greater incentives for individuals to complete math problems.

ADHD symptoms are clinically recognized as co-morbid symptoms associated with autism spectrum disorders, so there is a direct relationship, in the problems that some have in staying motivated to gain logical outcomes in math problems. Dopamine provides the motivation to complete any task in life, including movement. Humans are dependent upon the limbic system and emotions for survival.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15229048



While there are people who are more inclined to make perceived logical based decisions, there are no statistics that individuals with autism are more inclined to make logical based decisions on average.

Some do make very good logically based decisions, however there is evidence to the contrary that as a group individuals with ASD's make more logical based decisions on average than the general population that are not diagnosed with a disorder that inherently limits brain function.

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/autism.htm





Those are your statements above that I was responding to; my response on fear and avoidance was in agreement that it can play a part in limiting social communication, but it is not necessarily predictive of whether or not someone is more logical than someone else. Some are rarely afraid to make responses in social communication, regardless if the responses are accepted as logical social ones or not.

I have provided the broad perspective of the impact of autism spectrum disorders, that provide evidence without a shadow of a doubt that the majority of individuals diagnosed do not have the ability to make the logical decisions in life, required to gain independence in life. There are millions of individuals evidenced in the world that experience autism spectrum disorders as a disabling disorder.

You based your statement on your own personal opinion that autistic individuals are more logical than the rest of the population. That statement is solidly disproven by thousands of third party resources that provide the extent of the problem that most autistic people have in making logical decisions in every day life functioning. I can start listing them one by one if you like. Here are a few.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/health/your_health&id=7870808

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=66015

And there is also evidence that this is not just limited to those that are often called "low functioning individuals with autism".

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/people-with-milder-forms-of-autism-struggle-as-adults



Can your provide any third party evidence to refute any of these findings?

Your opinion is meaningful to you, however it does not match the evidence as it exists on the issue of people with ASD's, being more logical on average than the rest of the population. The fact is that ASD's for most individuals diagnosed, are inherently disabling in making the decisions required for independence in life.

And just in case you don't feel like the evidence I provided is precise enough to match what is or what is not logical decisions in life, in regard to the ability of autistic individuals; that specific question has been studied and evidenced. While autistic individuals are evidenced to perform well on non-verbal tests of reason, they are evidenced as less logical than than non-autistics per their ability to contextualize complex verbal material.

The control group in the study was evidenced as having cognitive abilities that were not significantly different than the group of autistic individuals studied.

This study does not address the 38% of individuals measured with autism that are measured as having intellectual disabilities, or the over thirty percent of individuals that are in the boarder line range of intellectual disability. Only about a third of autistic individuals are measured as having normal to above intellectual abilities, per the study funded by the Government CDC agency that provided the 1 in 88 statitistic.

Last edited by aghogday on 10 May 2012, 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The most common activity in comparison to what?

you must agree that most of the time autistics are generaly more rational in there way of thinking

An observation that a plant does not need water based on the observation that the plant is not dehydrated is not logic based on fact, it is logic based on speculation.

The understood logical way, based on fact, to determine if a plant needs water is by testing the soil to see if it is moist or dry. By the time a plant is dehydrated it is stressed and potentially subject to die.

That is an easy fact to evidence.

http://voices.yahoo.com/a-beginners-garden-five-favorite-annual-flowers-5159485.html



When one realizes they haven't watered the plants the base emotion of concern is what motivates action. If one is not concerned about the plants, the plants have a much better chance of not surviving.

When one gets to their plants they can either base their logic on speculation in the proper way to take care of a plant, or become properly educated on the process, and base logic on facts.

Not checking the soil is not a logical choice based on evidenced fact nor is waiting to observe the plant under stress a logical choice based on evidenced fact, in a decision to water the plant. Particularly when it is so easy to use google in determing what the facts are in relationship to a logical choice in watering one's plant.

Both choices can be perceived as rational or logical, by the individual who make the choice, depending on perception and available knowledge. However, if someone with an understanding of the facts observes the behavior, it is not likely considered the most logical choice per the facts as they exist.

Logic and rationality are highly subjective and are not necessarily perceived the same by any two individuals.

For example, licking the walls is a sign of a disorder called pica, it can either be of psychiatric origin, per mineral deficiency, or a child copying the behavior of a family pet.

If a child does it, it is not necessarily an irrational behavior. However if one did not understand the knowledge that underlies the condition of pica, one might come to the conclusion that their child's choice in licking the wall is illogical and/or irrational, instead of a result of mineral deficiency or modeling a family pet's behavior.

Breaking into someone's apartment just to water their plants, is neither logical or rational per the basis of the punishment of going to jail, as well as the fact that it is not a cultural norm.

But, for someone who puts their freedom and concern for social norms, below their concern for the plants they may see it as a rational and logical decision. Likely considered strange, irrational or illogical to an observer, but not necessarily strange, illogical, or irrational to the individual with the emotional concern.

They could be potentially extremely upset that the neighbor doesn't take care of their plants, it's quite a step up in empathy for living things like animals and children, however some people get upset, when people don't wash their cars.

It's all a matter of perspective in the decisions people make, and what may be perceived as logical or rational outcomes, are highly influenced per an individuals subjective perception, per experience, knowledge, and inherent factors that impact emotion and empathy. It is safe to say that most people would consider it an irrational and illogical action because it is not part of acceptable cultural norms, and can result in jail time.

This is similar to how things work in the real world of social communication; if one neither has the inherent propensity, or the knowledge to make a logical decision in interacting with others based on cultural norms, those interactions are often not viewed as logical, and at times are possibly viewed as irrational.

I don't agree.

Neurotypicals can only be persuaded by logic if everyone else jumps on the bandwagon.

I disagree with this on account of it likely not being true of all neurotypicals, just like the opposite would not be true of all autistics.

@aghogday
you present very well that autistics are rational thinkers just by the way you post
for instance your arguements are based on evidence and facts typicaly coming from wikipedia.when people disagree with you present a link that suports your claim and refutes the others claim.your posts are long and contain many facts that you use to present your arguement.you dont show much emotion when discussing things even when others are rude.neurotypicals on the other put more emphasis on emotion,neurotypical respect self confidence and will believe who ever sounds like they know what there talking about.who ever has the most self confidence when they speak is who neurotypicals will believe regardless of what evidence is presented.talk loud and have much confidence and neurotypicals will believe anything you say.
you saying that autistics are not more rational then neurotypical is like the" pot not calling the kettle black" to use an old expression.

...


This is so obviously not true it's unbelivable you even posted the crap here.
And to be very picky, this thread, and thus my first statement was about Aspies.


Yes, and that's the beuty of statistics, these "some" will always be a minority. What is more likley to occur, occurs generaly more often than something less likely. That is undisputable.


And you made a whopsie again. Logic has no goal, it can't be judged by a persons "quailty of life", because these are fabricated by our culture. Logic is a way of thinking and a tool for problem solving, nothing els.


No, he seems to ignore everything implying it, so i guess he doesn't.

Autistics have been shown to excel in non-verbal tests of reasoning, per the evidence provided above, that equal and actually exceed control groups in some cases, however per the study above their ability to contextualize complex verbal material is less than those of similiar tested intellectual abilities, resulting in lower logical abilities.

Many logical decisions in life, are associated with social interaction, so while there may be strengths in the ares of non-verbal reasoning, there is evidenced disability in the type of logical reasoning required in social interaction that requires heuristic processing and the ability to contextualize complex verbal material.

In testing individuals with Aspergers in card games where winning and losing are subjective emotional factors that normally influence decisions, this can provide an advantage for individuals with Aspergers over those without Aspergers, because some are not influenced as much by emotion as the control group members.

This is an advantage in this type of scenario, alone the lines of non-verbal testing, but not one evididenced where complex verbal material must be contextualized.

Rationality has different definitions.. As it relates to schizotypal or "magical thinking", there is a correlation studied in individuals with Aspergers that correlates with higher levels of schizotypal or "magical thinking".

So, individuals on the autism spectrum have strengths and weaknesses per different definitions of rationality, but overall they are not evidenced as being more rational than the rest of the population per schizotypal thinking studied in individuals with Aspergers, or the overall ability of individuals with autism spectrum disorders to contextualize complex verbal material. Inidivduals across the spectrum, though, do quite well on non-verbal tests of Abstract reasoning.

If one were to use this site as an example to their only exposure to autism spectrum disorders one would come away with many different viewpoints of this issue, per anecdotal evidence, per forum, or per which individual they were reading.

It is highly dependent on individual differences, environment, diagnosis, inherent factors, culture, education, and probably a thousand other factors. But, per the majority of individuals that have difficulties to disabilities in functioning in everyday life actually measured as professionally diagnosed, there is no overall advantage measured in rationality or logical ability per all those studied with ASD's.