Asperger's and Being Considered "Disabled"

Post Reply New Topic

ohh how I love the fact that being logical is considered a disablility, it's truly an NT world.

I have aspergers traits/bordeline aspergers. I am not disabled, I may have differences which make me an asset. I am fantastic at social interaction but not an excellent communicator.

Asperger's is far more than "being logical". In fact, I'd argue that being logical isn't even part of having Asperger's.

Please elaborate because I've studied my fellow men and psycology on the universety and the only conclusion I have so far is that NTs are not logical, I am.

I was not aware pride(not the positive kind)and logic went hand in hand, I personally would have to agree that it is not very logical to argue you're more logical than all NTs...there is nothing about being neurotypical that prevent's logic just as there is nothing about having aspergers that ensures logical thinking.

Not what I was refering to (althou I agree I didn't make this very clear), I'm talking about behaving logicly.
Atleast to me the habbit of performing negative actions, reflect over said actions, agree they are not benifitial and should be altered, and then not do it for the reason that someone els think it should be as it is, is not logical.

And general statements are not exact data that are implementable to everyone everywhere, that's why they are general a.i not specific. These statements can be recognized by their lack of specifications.


Yes there is (as long as we're talking about a logical outcome), it's called mob mentality (or group thinking if you're inclined of polishing up the word) and I doubt anyone here is unfamiliar with what it can and will do.

The decisions all individuals make in life, and resulting behaviors, are largely determined by emotion. Science indicates that emotion underlies most decisions in life that are referred to as logical ones. Individuals that have problems with emotional processing can be hampered in their decision making process, as it relates to logical outcomes through behavior.

Problems with emotional processing are common in individuals with Aspergers. What may seem like logical behavior to one person with difficulties with emotional processing, may not be perceived as logical by others without emotional processing issues.

Written language can also be impacted through these emotional processing difficulties, in that metaphor is at times neither understood well or expressed well.

Metaphor is at the core of all human language, in providing full communication to others, as well as receiving full communication intent. It can be in part, dependent on emotional processing.

What can be extremely perplexing to some, is that some of those whom have these inherent difficulties, often have an extremely hard time in understanding that they have even have these inherent difficulties, because there is no reference point for their emotional processing difficulties and resulting logical outcomes, beyond their world view.

Having AS/Autism does not make one incapable of following mob mentality or group thinking.

Unless you're trying to say that basing your desicions on emotions are logical, I don't see you point. Since I tend to lack emotions I can safly say I go for the logical approach in most cases, and those cases when emotions do pop up and I look back I realise that my judgement failed me miserably even though it seemed like the best course at the time. There for I do not belive (and no observation contests this) in that people that accually tries to use their emotions as valid arguments ends up making rational decisions.


So please enlighten me on how it comes that every single time I question an emotional desicion it ends with the person admitting it was not an act that had a firm base, whilst if being questioned I can tell exactly how I came to the conclusion and the person admits that my reasoning and thus the act is valid?


Yes thank you, I use metaphores often and have a great success rate, I do appritiate you're telling me this out of the blue.


You're saying that because someone has decided I have difficulties I cannot trust my own judgment because it's flawed...? s**t, I hope he never met himself...
I'd like you to read about Solomon Aschs conformity studies and repeat that statement.


You too, Solomon Asch, and Millgram aswell.
And when did acting logicly become a super human ability...?


I never said it did, but since one of the criteria for autism or related is a decrease in interest in social interaction (as far as I know), it's less likely a spectrumite sucumbs to these feelings since they do not relate to the group or its needs. Logical conclusion.

Its not nessisarly a decrease in intrest in social interaction, its difficulties with social interaction....so many of us still desire social interaction but our difficulties with social interaction interfere. Also having an intrest in social interaction does not indicate one follows mob mentality.

While you may not experience many of these difficulties they are evidenced in others on the Autism Spectrum.

As far as emotions go all individuals are subject to it in their decision making process whether the influence is shallow internal emotions or strong external emotions. Those individuals evidenced as losing their ability for emotion, through traumatic brain injury cannnot even make decisions as simple as choosing what color sock to wear..

Emotions cannot be used as arguments they are feelings not words, they underly what motivates the decision making process and influence whatever logic/rationality is intended and perceived from the decision making process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making



To what degree does emotion influence decision making in this original statement?

Per logical analysis, there is no scientific evidence anywhere that individuals on the Autism Spectrum as a whole have an inherent advantage over individuals outside of the diagnosis, per their ability to make logical decisions that result in rational behaviors in life.

Furthermore there is no clear definition of what "NT" even means, other than non-autistic. While the world is evidenced to comprise close to 99% of non diagnosed autistics, there is no commonly understood definition for typical neurology, not even within the science of neurology. The closest description in neuroscience is an unremarkable MRI. The differences in neurology that separate autistics from non-autistics is not even well understood.

And finally, autistic traits are evidenced in up to 30% of the population in studies done both in the US and Sweden. So, the neurotypical individual that a person whom considers themself as neuro-atypical, may think they are looking at in close to 1 out of 3 people they meet in life, may have similiar neurology, that can neither be identified in science, or necessarily identified in overt behavior.

In conversations on this site, rarely is NT used as a non-emotional term. For the most part it is used as a pejorative, which at it's base is a descriptor for a term used for emotional intent, rather than logical analysis of an issue.

It's not unusual at all though, because everyone is ruled by their decision making process and resulting behaviors, to different degrees through their emotions, either internal and/or external; autistics are not exempt. Only those that have traumatic brain injury are evidenced as being exempt, and also evidenced as being disabled in their decision making process, and resulting behaviors.

Even psychopaths have a range of internal emotions that consist of emotions such as pleasure, irritibility, and anger, with extremely shallow pro-social external emotions that may appear as non-existent such as remorse and guilt. They too are ruled by internal emotions in the decision making process, and behaviors that result from those decisions.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-justice-and-responsibility-league/201011/how-managerial-psychopaths-use-emotions-manipulate

Have you actually seen the diagnostic criteria?

(DSM-5 proposal: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/P ... spx?rid=94 ,
Gillberg criteria: http://www.bbbautism.com/asp_gillberg.htm ,
ICD-10 criteria: http://www.iancommunity.org/cs/about_as ... s_syndrome)

Being "logical" to the point where its impairing will let you meet less than half of what Asperger's is, but only that will not allow anyone to be diagnosable.

And I never said or implyed that it did, it would be pointless since this is not a debate about how to get diagnosed.
But thanks for the links, I've been looking for those for quite a while.


Notice this difference: "Base" is not synonomus to "Influense".
And what are you trying to tell me? That I do not have a traumatic brain injury? I already knew that.


Incorrect, the following example proves this: "I will take this lottory ticket, because my gut tells me it's a winner." A person basing decision on emotions will go for a gut feeling rather than a statistical (and there for logical) option.


And to simply turn that around, there are none to prove otherwise.


Somewhat incorrect, NT means you're not meeting the criteria for any of the different spectrums, there are more of them than the Autistic.


Erhm... Is there a point?


[Sarcasm]Wow... after ~700 post you just blew my mind.[/Sarkasm]
And in what way is this contradicting my statement?


Lack of evidence is not evidence of the contrary.


I never said you said it, but in order for you to feel it neccessary to contradict it someone must have said/implyed it, otherwise it's just a random remark, which would be utterly pointless.


This might be more of an opinion on my part, but from my experience, if we are interested to learn about something, we do learn it, if we don't, then we don't. To simply have a wish/desire to learn, because it might simplyfy things are not enough.


No, again, I did not state such is the case, I said risk is elivated if you identify with the group. (Technicly I said the reversed, but one follows the other.)

The entire demographic of individuals that are measured in the US, the 1 in 88, are 8 year old children in classes for the developmentally disabled. Thirty eight percent of whom are measured as having intellectual disabilities. 80% of individuals with autism spectrum disorders are evidenced as needing support from families or society to survive and 90% are evidenced not to be able to maintain steady employment. The issue of any potential advantage for any one person in logical thinking does not play into these statistics of disability in functioning in life, for the majority of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, measured as such.

You may be the most logically thinking person to walk the earth, however that does not diminish the disabilities of millions of individuals in the world diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders.

I've provided third party evidence that decisions are based and influenced on emotion in human beings, including those individuals that are understood to have the shallowest of external emotion, psychopaths; you have provided no third party evidence to the contrary.

You made the statement that being logical is considered a disability, per this topic.

All forms of professionally diagnosed autism spectrum disorders are considered inherently disabling due to limits in brain function, per medical and legal definition.

The impairments resulting from limits of brain functioning are impairments in social interaction, social communication, and repetitive stereotypical behaviors and interests.

If one does not meet the required criteria for these disabling impairments, that lead to actual limits in functioning in life one does not meet the requirement for a professional diagnosis.

The only place that the criteria for autism exists, is in diagnositic manuals created by the psychiatric profession, that created the term autism and Aspergers to describe behavior in human beings that results from limits in brain functioning.

Without an understanding of the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorders, there is no way to determine if someone has the condition. ASD's do not exist without the criteria.

It appears that you may not have seen the criteria that specifies what is disabling about the disorders, so your analysis that logical thinking has anything to do with the disabling aspects of the disorders does not appear to be based on the facts as they exist associated with criteria that describes the impairments.

The ability to think logically is not addressed in any of the diagnostic criteria that specifies impairments that are inherently disabling in ASD's.

An analysis of the "NT world" as you define it, is at best a guess, because there is no way to know for sure who isn't diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders in the general population. There is no requirement for anyone to disclose it.

And some people have learned to hide the symptoms well enough not to be noticed as anything but within the range of odd, that is seen everywhere in the population.

While the term "NT" can be used to describe non-autistic in a rhetorical conversation to describe those that are not labeled with a diagnosis, there is no scientific evidence of typical neurology in the general population.

Many people now use the term "NT" to describe those who are not neurodiverse, within the moving target of what defines neurodiverse, also an invented word that has no clearly defined meaning.

That was my point on the evidenced 30 percent of the population that has traits of autism, however you as everyone else has a right to define the terms "NT" or "neurodiverse" however they want to, because they are not clearly defined terms, that even exist in dictionaries.

I never said you said it, but in order for you to feel it neccessary to contradict it someone must have said/implyed it, otherwise it's just a random remark, which would be utterly pointless.

I was not contridicting anything you said there...the basis of this thread indicated AS supposedly gives us super human abilities or some crap. You were saying we are by default more logical then neurotypicals figured you were more or less agreeing with the op about it being some special ability. And so I was disagreeing....I don't see whats so utterly pointless about that.


This might be more of an opinion on my part, but from my experience, if we are interested to learn about something, we do learn it, if we don't, then we don't. To simply have a wish/desire to learn, because it might simplyfy things are not enough.

In my case being intrested in something usually does not mean I automatically am able to learn it...I do like to interact with people, like close friends and I like to make friends but no I've never been able to learn to put on some neurotypical act to come off as normal so people don't pick up on my weirdness and treat me like crap over it....and trust me I wanted to and tried as a child when I felt it was the only way. But now I can just stay away from most people, which is what I prefer....less exausting for me.


No, again, I did not state such is the case, I said risk is elivated if you identify with the group. (Technicly I said the reversed, but one follows the other.)[/quote]

Ok well it seemed you were implying because people with autism aren't usually as much part of the group they are not as likely to follow mob mentality, but I think that would all depend on the individual. I mean there are plenty of people with AS who want to fit in with neurotypicals.

Irrelevant for the mere reason that if you fill all the lower ends of the criterias (which are not even consistent, it all comes down to the doctor) you'll be labeled as having a disability, no matter what acctual problems you have.


Feel free to quote me where I stated such opinion, I sure can't find it.


Percived disabilities are the product of the beholder from their view of the surroundings. Without understanding this no one can break free from the notion.


This is incorrect, existens is not based on the surroundings ability to describe it. Spectrumites where around before the word came into existance, they where just not recognized as a related group. (Or what ever you want to call it.)


You have the wrong impression.


*Points to answer below the first quote*


I can't really decide if I should mock this or view it as a genuine (although horribly stu... strange) argument and respond.
You just said that everyone I've ever met could have been on the spectrum and there for my experience counts for nothing...


What? Do you really mean no one has ever taken the time to scan atleast 50% (or more untill a norm pattern could be found) of the worlds population? Man, scientists are getting sloppy aren't they...


I must again thank you for this random information.


I still see no point.
And please stop writing every single sentence seperatly, I can baraly make heads or tails of what you're trying to say when you chop it up.


You disagreed with an unquoted post from five pages ago and expected everyone to get that? Not even I am that optimistic. ^^
Being logical is nothing more than being logical, it starts and end there.


I think we have different definitions of the word "interesting".


That was (sort of) exactly what I said, and it's mathematical proven, it's the same principal as evolution theory. AS individuals have a higher chance/risk of not indentifying with a group (this is a part of the diagnose), thus: Less prone to fall into conformity.