Just another personality type?

Post Reply New Topic

Is asperger's just another personality type rather than a 'condition'? Is it just a dot on the 'personality spectrum' rather than the autism spectrum? More like, is the autism spectrum just a subset of the 'personality spectrum'? Is it really the wrong planet or just another place on the right planet? If it is considered 'wrong' then it gives an out to other personality types not to engage or to treat people with asperger's traits differently. Whereas other personality types need to accept and live with the difference as equals. Just like in this globalised world we have to accept and live with people of different cultures as equals.

No, AS is definitely not a personality type.

I see it as a subset of personality/temperament types for what that's worth.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Let's not do this again. This topic has been done to DEATH here. Use the stupid search at the top of the page. Most of us here are sick to death of this conversation.

Do yourself and the rest of us a really big favor. Read this:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt172380.html

It's not an "official" list from the admins. It was posted by a long time, very respected user, and MOST of us who have been here for any length of time totally agree with her.

EDIT: Sorry for the tone if your motivations are truly genuine. If you read the post I linked to above you should be able to understand why we do get really sick of this stuff. This being your very first post as well, seems a bit suspect. There are users who leave and come back and do this knowingly.

If that doesn't describe you, welcome to WP. If it does, well...

it is a genuine question from one who is new. so.
there are further questions for those who want to engage.
there is no doubt that AS describes a certain type of person but does it become a 'disability' due to the cultural emphasis on being social and outgoing. there are cultures which do not regard social skills as highly and are more accepting of people with AS traits as just another personality type. is it really a 'disability'!

Huh, that's exactly backward from what I've observed--people feel justified for hating people with unpleasant personalities, but feel guilty for hating people who are disabled.

If you prefer to identify as a personality type rather than a diagnosis, you might research the Myers-Briggs xNTx types (particularly INTJ, the most common Aspie one) or the "Highly Sensitive Person" works of Elaine Aron.

People on the spectrum often suffer from sensory sensitivities and executive dysfunction that are inherent rather than the result of social prejudice against them.

Last edited by arielhawksquill on 06 Dec 2011, 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AS is not the same as social introversion.

Being autistic is more than just not having the same social skills as others do. Asperger's, like other forms of autism, does require being more than just being socially awkward.

Personally, there's no question that I'm disabled whether you isolate me from people, put me in a room of autistic people, or throw me out into society. In each of these cases I'm clearly disabled. Between sensory sensitivities, alexithymia, having difficulty generalizing instructions, and such, I'm disabled even if not reading facial expressions is the norm.

Okay, I'll take your word for that for now. Did you read the post I linked to? Of course you don't have to, but it'll give you an idea of how tired this topic has gotten here, among many, many others.




No, it doesn't. It is a disability. Period. It is defined as such.



That, above, is one of the criteria for it. If what is going on with a patient cannot be described as above, AS should not be diagnosed.



Could you name me a culture wherein social skills are not highly regarded? This just does not compute.

Again, all these arguments and questions have been asked here, hundreds, if not thousands of times. Why don't you search for them and read, and read the post I linked to. It would save you a lot of time and bother. Oh, and it'll save everyone else the bother of answering already answered questions too.

i did read the post you linked to and no it does not give me any of my answers. also its like the tv if you dont like the channel just dont come back to it. it is a choice to engage. this forum belongs to everyone not just people who feel a perticular topic has been done to death. as i said, 'change the channel!
as for cultures that are not solely obsessive or place a high emphasis on social skills there are many 'old' southern european and asian cultures. also native cultures which have now all but disappeared. in such cultures there is a higher tolerance of different personality types without it being seen as a disability. because they are old cultures they have found a balance over time in partiuclar with things related to human relationships and interactions.
there are many boxes you have to tick to 'qualify' as having AS. how many are enough. and who decides based on what. out of a list of say 20 if I can check 16 am i 'in'.
if it is a disability, what is the 'cure'. if there is no cure maybe it is not a disability to begin with.
just some thoughts and questions not meant to be provocative but a search for answers. maybe its been done before but maybe someone new could have a new view.

I see all 3 of your posts are in this one thread. You haven't indicated what your position is, or who you are. So, I can't tell whether you want to engage to try to learn more, or whether your intent is to argue. Have you done any research so that you know what ASD entails? It's not clear from your posts.

i know very little about anything and this is not about me. therefore i only have questions no position. guess one of the main questions i have is that is AS really a definational thing based on the society and time we live in. some years back the consensus was that homesexuality was a disease and a disability. will AS go the same way. is it just a problem with the society we live in and how it defines normal (what is normal!). is it just the larger society being myopic on issues related to temprament and personality type.
i have other questions too as you can see above. also all my posts are on this thread as i have just joined the forum a few hours back and am concentrating on this for now. if you go easy on me i might stick on here for longer;)

I think that is a two-hedge sword - people could like you more if you are disabled, but respect you more if you have an unpleasant personality (comparing with being disabled).



At least at this moment, these things are not official symptoms of autism or AS.

Last edited by TPE2 on 06 Dec 2011, 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It was just a momentary exasperation. If you haven't noticed, I'm trying to engage you now, in civil discussion. Yeah, I already disagree that it's a personality type. But that's because I have had this discussion many, many times. Believe it or not, from your angle. I once wondered the same things. But I've since learned AS is not "just a different personality." It really IS a disability.

Understanding the historical roots of certain words might help you understand a little more.

Society: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none

Social: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none

Culture: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none

Both words, Society and Social, have the same roots. Both carry meanings that imply friendly relations, and getting along, as well as following, partially implying leadership. The word culture, originally had to do with tilling the soil (i.e. "agriculture"). To construct a working relationship involving friendly relations, a hierarchy of leaders and followers, toward a common goal (in most of history, that would be agriculture to feed everyone), requires good communication skills. There have been, and in rarer instances today than most of history, some exceptions to agricultural societies. Hunter-gatherers, warrior-raiding tribes for example, but even those societies have always required some form of communications rules and constructs. Most included writing in some form, but all have always included language, both verbal and visual. Spoken and unspoken language have been extremely important to every known society, because without them, societies cannot exist.

Societies (or cultures ~ you pick the word), rely so much on them, they must hold them in high regard.

But here's where things get a little foggy. Each society is different. Some are very different in the ways of communication than others (and I don't mean just that the language is different). Some put less emphasis and value on body language. The Finnish come to mind, partly because I happen to be part Finnish and have read some about it, and partly because, according to what I have read, it's a society that values restraint, both in words, and in body language. I read in one book that the Finns tend not to trust more animated cultures, especially those that use a lot of hand gesturing. It also stated that economy of words is highly regarded there. Finns apparently tend not to trust people that talk too much.

It's a great example for two reasons. On the one hand, they may trust Aspies more because we tend not to use so much body language, but on the other, they may trust them less if they start onto a monologue of their "special interests," because they will probably talk too much.

The point is, cultures do differ. But the point also is, that isn't the issue. The issue is, "Would Aspies be more accepted by certain societies that others." And the answer is YES!

If you read enough posts right here on WP, the question of how Aspies are treated from one culture to another comes up pretty regularly. Some report that being an Aspie in certain Asian cultures seems to be much harder than it is here in the U.S. I've no idea if it's true, but I believe treatment differs. Our societies are very different at a fundamental level.

So some cultures are more accepting. But the real question that must be answered is, "Are there any that would simply accept Aspies as nothing more than 'a little different?'" Well, I'm sure there might be, but what does that really prove? It does prove that the society in question is a very tolerant one. It doesn't prove AS is not a disability.

So, what does? Can't answer that question until we agree on what disability means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disability

https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&gcx= ... 7&bih=1083

If you want to get deeper into it, you can dig around into legal definitions.

If you take the time to really understand what it means, you'll find that it varies from place to place. What will qualify in one culture, may not in another.

What's the usual commonality though? It's usually how well you can function, work, and be a productive citizen, within the society in which you live.

In other words, even if there were a culture that would accept all Aspies just as they are, and Aspies could function perfectly well within it, even working and doing financially well, contributing to that culture, that does not matter. What matters is whether you can right in the culture within which you live.

If you can't you are disabled. That is how societies define disabilities.

If you think about it, it's a good thing they do, otherwise the only way we could survive if disabled, is to move somewhere where we wouldn't be considered disabled, because we are, in fact, not.

Does any of this make sense to you?

Like it or not, we live in the world in which we live. We are disabled because we do not function as well as others around us. It's that simple. Really.

On a quick side note, this is not TV. TV stations decide what plays on the one channel they own. That isn't how forums work. Everyone is on every channel, and may post wherever they choose so long as the forum rules are stuck to. That said. I'm not here to annoy you. You asked, I'm answering. No more, no less.

Well, according to the diagnostic criteria officially in use in almost all the world, it can.

And, even with the "clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" remains the question that we are talking about a condition usually diagnosed in children and teenagers, meaning that "[t]he disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" could mean "the parents and/or teachers think that he has a problem".

For example, a children who loves to spend all day in their room reading and living imaginary adventures; even if he is perfectly happy with himself, I suspect that many professionals will think of him as having a "problem"



Could you name me a culture wherein social skills are not highly regarded? This just does not compute.[/quote]

Well, it could be useful to distinguish between "social skills" and "social interest" (and I think that BeigeSage mixed a bit the two things when he wrote "cultural emphasis on being social and outgoing. there are cultures which do not regard social skills..."). Probably social skills (being capable to behave socially in appropriate ways) are highly regarded in all societies in the world (what change is the "appropriate ways"); but I think that the valuation of "social interest" (desire to socialize) varies from one culture to another (contrast South with North Europeans).

And. now, we have a problem - is that AS is diagnosed by behavior, and behaviorally could be almost impossible to differentiate between someone with low social skills and someone with low social interest*, meaning that in cultures who values highly "social interest" a person with low "social interest" could appear as having low social skills.

*not that many scales to asses your probability of having AS (like the AQ, the Australian Scale, etc.) have many questions that don't really make a difference between low social interest and low social skills; the AQ is a bit bizarre in this point, because the questions in the "social skills" subscale are almost all about social interest, and the questions thar are really about social skills are in the "communication" subscale