Page 4 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

08 Dec 2014, 2:07 am

Jaden wrote:
That link is the scientific definition of an ASD,
Yet more to prove my point: <Links DSM criteria. Links wikipedia.>
not everyone would qualify for diagnosis under the criteria as specified by the DSM V,
If you want to challenge science fact, with yet more semantics
and even still refuses to accept facts outright (facts established by science I might add).
You have insulted my intelligence at least twice and that is what I was referring to. I could care less...
you have yet to produce any evidence to support your claim, whereas I have produced evidence 3 times now to prove that you're wrong.
I will never find common ground with someone who readily dismisses science in favor of personal opinion.

This reminds me of a quote:
Image
See, what you're actually doing, is blindly believing something, because its given you the impression that it's scientific. Not unlike the creationist museums, for example, where they look at the bible and view it as scientific. It's quite sad really, that you're not capable of questioning this, when being inquisitive and questioning what's around you, is actually one of the cornerstones of science. Worse still, it's as I feared, you consider the definition and the diagnostic criteria of the DSM, as evidence for the DSM, without realising how circular that is. It reminds me of the most common circular argument; "God is real, because the bible tells me so."

First, you talk about wanting a real discussion and debate. Ok, you can't have that while you're shifting so thoroughly. If you're not painfully aware, I'm talking about the part where you say I've made a claim about the DSM, this is false. You see, the burden of proof does not work that way. The default position is not "AS is a disorder", you have to prove that it IS a disorder, and that the DSM is factual. Here's a tip: You can't. What you have provided, is painfully weak, and to have someone on wrongplanet proudly announce that as evidence, along with "I know better, I've been here for years" is embarrassing. Also, I'm really hoping I don't have to explain to you, in detail, why it's not evidence of DSM fact. Citation needed.

Also I explained to you why talking about your arguments, criticising them, and saying why they're bad is not an insult. I didn't insult your intelligence, you wrote those things yourself, remember? How there is absolute green light, and don't forget blue, therefore it validates my argument, what did you expect when you wrote this.

Here's my explanation again:
Moromillas wrote:
So basically, in your eyes, anyone that is critical of your opinion, is insulting you. To point out the obvious, criticism of your ideas, does not equate to insults.

You said something that is simple-minded and slow, and refuse to accept facts outright -- It's not an insult to point all these things out. I've not insulted you at all, I question the very simple things that you've said.

I am deeply concerned by your behaviour here. This ad hominem tirade of yours, accusing me of insulting you, is based purely on insinuation, and innuendo. And no, your accusations do not validate your opinions.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Dec 2014, 2:44 am

BlueAbyss wrote:
I've sometimes wondered about this.

It seems to me that's the definition of "spectrum" - it would include extremes at both ends of a scale - very autistic, to almost not at all autistic.

According to one definition, spectrum: "used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points."

Still I would think the neurological or psychiatric definition would still have more to do with whether someone's place on the spectrum caused them significant issues. I do think one can be high functioning and still experience significant limitations.


I do not think autism and neurotypical are 'opposites' like it all being one spectrum with autistic being on one end and neurotypical being on the other. Seems like they are just different neurologies so that is why I do not get the whole we're all on the same spectrum madness when it comes to things like autism.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Dec 2014, 2:49 am

Moromillas wrote:

No it doesn't, and you appear to be mincing the words autism spectrum and autistic. Er, yes they are, there are some that do sometimes show AS traits, and they're clearly NTs. That's a fact, no matter how you slice it.

AS people or Aspergian is the correct way to address most people. "People with Asperger's" is not, and shows a lack of understanding, as people can misconstrue that as an NT person carrying around a disease or sickness.

No, that's just too simple.


What? autism is the name of the disorder....autism spectrum refers to anyone with autism or any other disorders considered to be autism spectrum like aspergers or PDD NOS for instance. A normal person with a couple traits that could be associated with autism is not the same as that person being on the autism spectrum....all mental disorders consist of normal human behaviors so normal people will have traits associated with various mental disorders some of the time...does not put them on the autism spectrum or any other disorder spectrum unless they have enough traits/symptoms for a diagnoses.

Also aspergian is not an official term of anything, its a silly term some people with aspergers use as an alternative way of saying it. I certainly don't want to be called that, Also how do you figure people would confuse the phrase 'people with aspergers' to mean 'disease carrying NT' I do not understand how you made that connection there.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding.


_________________
We won't go back.


androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

08 Dec 2014, 7:14 am

Moromillas wrote:
The default position is not "AS is a disorder", you have to prove that it IS a disorder,

So are you saying that autism is not a disorder, but rather a common condition which, to varying degrees, everyone has?
Not sure if this is the case or not. But if it is so, then where one stands on the spectrum would have to be what is considered, not whether or not one is autistic, as this would be meaningless.



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

08 Dec 2014, 12:52 pm

Moromillas wrote:
Jaden wrote:
That link is the scientific definition of an ASD,
Yet more to prove my point: <Links DSM criteria. Links wikipedia.>
not everyone would qualify for diagnosis under the criteria as specified by the DSM V,
If you want to challenge science fact, with yet more semantics
and even still refuses to accept facts outright (facts established by science I might add).
You have insulted my intelligence at least twice and that is what I was referring to. I could care less...
you have yet to produce any evidence to support your claim, whereas I have produced evidence 3 times now to prove that you're wrong.
I will never find common ground with someone who readily dismisses science in favor of personal opinion.

This reminds me of a quote:
Image
See, what you're actually doing, is blindly believing something, because its given you the impression that it's scientific. Not unlike the creationist museums, for example, where they look at the bible and view it as scientific. It's quite sad really, that you're not capable of questioning this, when being inquisitive and questioning what's around you, is actually one of the cornerstones of science. Worse still, it's as I feared, you consider the definition and the diagnostic criteria of the DSM, as evidence for the DSM, without realising how circular that is. It reminds me of the most common circular argument; "God is real, because the bible tells me so."

First, you talk about wanting a real discussion and debate. Ok, you can't have that while you're shifting so thoroughly. If you're not painfully aware, I'm talking about the part where you say I've made a claim about the DSM, this is false. You see, the burden of proof does not work that way. The default position is not "AS is a disorder", you have to prove that it IS a disorder, and that the DSM is factual. Here's a tip: You can't. What you have provided, is painfully weak, and to have someone on wrongplanet proudly announce that as evidence, along with "I know better, I've been here for years" is embarrassing. Also, I'm really hoping I don't have to explain to you, in detail, why it's not evidence of DSM fact. Citation needed.

Also I explained to you why talking about your arguments, criticising them, and saying why they're bad is not an insult. I didn't insult your intelligence, you wrote those things yourself, remember? How there is absolute green light, and don't forget blue, therefore it validates my argument, what did you expect when you wrote this.

Here's my explanation again:
Moromillas wrote:
So basically, in your eyes, anyone that is critical of your opinion, is insulting you. To point out the obvious, criticism of your ideas, does not equate to insults.

You said something that is simple-minded and slow, and refuse to accept facts outright -- It's not an insult to point all these things out. I've not insulted you at all, I question the very simple things that you've said.

I am deeply concerned by your behaviour here. This ad hominem tirade of yours, accusing me of insulting you, is based purely on insinuation, and innuendo. And no, your accusations do not validate your opinions.


Talking to you is like talking to a damn wall, you're like one of those people that still believes the world is flat despite the proof that it's round.
I'm done here, because this is not a discussion, this is you ignoring scientific fact and trying to say that it's not proven when in reality it is, and then trying to say that I've said something that I haven't.
Get your head out of your ass. The fact is, you won't accept any explanation or opinion other than your own (which is one that has no basis whatsoever), and this 'conversation' is going nowhere because you ignore established facts and definitions. There is nothing scientific about that. What's even worse is, you just compared real science and established fact to creationist museums, which are nothing alike in any way.
Furthermore, you talk about the burden of proof, but you have yet to prove anything that you've said to any degree at all, and frankly, you can't because it's not based on any fact whatsoever.
I don't claim to be right because I've "been here for years" as you put it, I claim to be right because I've actually studied the subject, and I am personally on the spectrum, I see the difference every d*mn day, so you can't tell me that everyone's on the spectrum, because that's biggest load of sh*t i've ever heard.
What's more is, you completely ignore the fact that if everyone were really on the spectrum, that forums like these wouldn't exist because we'd all be on the same boat, there'd be no basis for scientific comparison between individuals' brains and how they operate.
Unlike you, I have actually given the proof of my position, and whether you accept it or not is irrelevant because it is accepted by the scientific community as established fact on the subject matter.
These are not new ideas, these are not things that have only been known for a few years, these are things that have allowed diagnosis for decades (as in, more than one).
So far, the only thing you've spouted out is a bunch of crap, followed by the willful ignorance of established fact on the subject matter, under the basis of challenging said established fact because to you, that's scientific. Well, no, scientific would be taking in all data in addition to coming up with new conclusions based on that there may be inconsistencies in said data, but you haven't done that, you flat out refuse the data. And ignoring data is certainly not a scientific step, regardless of your position on the subject matter, you have to take all data into account, because if you don't, you'll just embarrass yourself. If you really want to prove your position, take real data on the subject after getting a degree in psychology (because frankly, at this point i won't take anything you say seriously unless you're certified in the field, and neither would anyone else), and then present it to a scientific board somewhere for analysis.
I'm convinced you're either the most ignorant person alive, or simply a troll that wants to start an argument just to piss people off. Either way, this 'conversation' is over.


_________________
Writer. Author.


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

08 Dec 2014, 2:39 pm

cant we at least be half way cordial.if I didn't know better I would have thought this was a forum for three year olds first learning to express themselves apropriatley


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,214
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

08 Dec 2014, 2:40 pm

Yeah, we should keep this discussion cordial. . .


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Dec 2014, 2:51 pm

androbot01 wrote:
Moromillas wrote:
The default position is not "AS is a disorder", you have to prove that it IS a disorder,

So are you saying that autism is not a disorder, but rather a common condition which, to varying degrees, everyone has?
Not sure if this is the case or not. But if it is so, then where one stands on the spectrum would have to be what is considered, not whether or not one is autistic, as this would be meaningless.


This is true, if its not a disorder and we're all on the autism spectrum the terms autistic and neurotypical would be useless.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Dec 2014, 2:53 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
cant we at least be half way cordial.if I didn't know better I would have thought this was a forum for three year olds first learning to express themselves apropriatley


Are you ignoring all the more civil comments? I see a couple people getting into it a little...everyone else seems to be being perfectly civil though...perhaps focus on the more civil discussion instead of argument. Not disagreeing people should be civil though.


_________________
We won't go back.


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

08 Dec 2014, 4:59 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
cant we at least be half way cordial.if I didn't know better I would have thought this was a forum for three year olds first learning to express themselves apropriatley


Why don't you tell us where the civility is in insulting people in order to get them from having a disagreement?
Better yet, why don't you tell us how that doesn't make the situation worse?

I'm literally about to leave this site permanently because of crap like this, I'm sick and tired of talking about something, then being insulted by someone who disagrees with me, and then being jumped on by everyone else and their cousin for defending my position and calling someone out on their crap.

I didn't start that argument, but I sure as h*ll have ended it, if you guys can't see that by my last post then you should probably re-read it.


_________________
Writer. Author.


B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

08 Dec 2014, 5:15 pm

There has been a bit of ganging up and bullying and steamrolling on WP lately. Maybe people are hyper-stressed by the new format or something. I don't know why, though I have thought of leaving too. There is a spectrum for empathy, that I am sure of after two years here.. a bell curve maybe and the almost none tail seem to be more dominant lately.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Dec 2014, 6:12 pm

Arguments are going to happen. I don't think people should leave the Site because they have arguments.

Most people on not on here to argue--they're here to receive support. There are those who love arguments. Why validate those people by leaving the Site?

Lately, I've been "attacked" through being ignored (perhaps I'm being paranoid, though).

Truthfully, I believe most people are on here to identify with people who are like them in many ways--not to argue (except, maybe, about philosophical things).

Opinions are like buttholes--everybody has them.

I get hurt when somebody attacks me--but my response is to attack back, but more gently, more virtuously than how I was attacked. I've been tempted to "leave" the Site, too.

I've been attacked many times; my response is to repel the attack, then seek out the "real reason" for the attack.
I'm not going to let just any ole schmuck force me to leave the Site. This is a good Site. And it has many components for many people. If one is philosophically-oriented---bang! If one is oriented toward art and literature--bang! If one is oriented toward autism--double bang!

Again, what's the use of leaving? You'll only be validating the person/people who is attacking you.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Dec 2014, 6:54 pm

I hope this thread is not "stopping" in some way. I think this thread has the potential to be a good one. It's not a lost cause like some of those which occurred during the "Gender Wars" Era (last summer). The attacks and the responses are not so vociferous this time.

In my opinion, there's a Spectrum to Humanity--and there's an Autism Spectrum, too (within the Human Spectrum).

In my opinion, it's difficult to delineate when "NT-ness" ends and autism begins. But it's not difficult to discern that there is an autism spectrum.



Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

08 Dec 2014, 9:41 pm

Jaden wrote:
Talking to you is like talking to a damn wall, you're like one of those people that still believes the world is flat despite the proof that it's round.

There's actually a really good experiment that pretty much everyone can do on the cheap, to measure the size of the earth. It was first done by Eratosthenes a very long time ago. It involves measuring the length of the shadow of a stick, in different places, and doing some tricky mathematics with all the measurements.



Jaden wrote:
I'm done here, because this is not a discussion, this is you ignoring scientific fact
and this 'conversation' is going nowhere because you ignore established facts and definitions. There is nothing scientific about that.
What's even worse is, you just compared real science and established fact to creationist museums, which are nothing alike in any way.
it is accepted by the scientific community as established fact on the subject matter.
followed by the willful ignorance of established fact on the subject matter,

Citation needed.

What you've wrote, is exactly the sort of thing someone would say while defending a creationist museum, that everyone else is just ignoring what they think is science fact, and the "real science".

It's actually remarkably similar to a debate I had with a curbie. Only he kept repeating over and over again "A total of 156 children have recovered! And have an ATEC score of 10 or below!" like a broken record, no matter how, and how many times I would explain to him why that's not evidence. He also, in a similar fashion, thought that the squiggles in enema diarrhea, is the Autism being removed from the child's body, and he too is thoroughly convinced that it is the "real science", and that I was just a pseudoskeptic, imagine that.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take consensus and groupThink on board as the "real science", quite the opposite, I actually consider calling it science an affront. This is from an organisation that for the longest time listed homosexuality as a mental illness in the DSM, and only recently seem to be classifying every human emotion as a disorder. Then you see all these very public spats come out, between previous chairmen and current president, on TV, and even specialists like Tony Attwood and Simon Baron-Cohen are criticising them. When the hell does that happen within the scientific community? I should trust the methodology of the APA, because, why?



Jaden wrote:
Get your head out of your ass. The fact is, you won't accept any explanation or opinion
These are not new ideas, these are not things that have only been known for a few years,

That's correct. I won't accept opinions or ideas as scientific evidence.



Jaden wrote:
Furthermore, you talk about the burden of proof, but you have yet to prove anything that you've said to any degree at all,
Unlike you, I have actually given the proof of my position, and whether you accept it or not is irrelevant
So far, the only thing you've spouted out is a bunch of crap,
If you really want to prove your position, take real data on the subject after getting a degree in psychology (because frankly, at this point i won't take anything you say seriously unless you're certified in the field, and neither would anyone else), and then present it to a scientific board somewhere for analysis.

I thought I explained the burden of proof quite well. I do not have a claim, you do. The default position, is that people are not in disorder. That's not a claim or an argument, that's the default position. Saying, "Where is your proof Moro?" is nonsense, because proof of what? Quite simply when you want me to disprove your claim, that is what is known as shifting.

Here's my explanation from before:
Moromillas wrote:
If you're not painfully aware, I'm talking about the part where you say I've made a claim about the DSM, this is false. You see, the burden of proof does not work that way. The default position is not "AS is a disorder", you have to prove that it IS a disorder, and that the DSM is factual.




Jaden wrote:
And ignoring data is certainly not a scientific step, regardless of your position on the subject matter, you have to take all data into account, because if you don't, you'll just embarrass yourself.

No, this is NOT what you do. There's this thing called GIGO, which means, garbage in, garbage out. Basically, if you take "all the data" as it were into account, you'll almost certainly get some strange results, because "GIGO," garbage in, garbage out. Now I know straight away, you're going to think this means picking and choosing the results you want. But no, it's about getting accurate results, by using data that is relevant. The data can also be faulty, incomplete, or imprecise. I'm going to have to politely ask you to stop talking about science now.



Jaden wrote:
I'm convinced you're either the most ignorant person alive, or simply a troll that wants to start an argument just to piss people off. Either way, this 'conversation' is over.

Ad hominem.



Jaden wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
cant we at least be half way cordial.if I didn't know better I would have thought this was a forum for three year old's first learning to express themselves appropriately


Why don't you tell us where the civility is in insulting people in order to get them from having a disagreement?
Better yet, why don't you tell us how that doesn't make the situation worse?

I'm literally about to leave this site permanently because of crap like this, I'm sick and tired of talking about something, then being insulted by someone who disagrees with me, and then being jumped on by everyone else and their cousin for defending my position and calling someone out on their crap.

I didn't start that argument, but I sure as h*ll have ended it, if you guys can't see that by my last post then you should probably re-read it.

VS is NOT insulting you, he's actually being very moderate, and very neutral here. No he's not insulting you, he's talking about the perceived behaviour within the entirety of the forums.

Light's blade, calm down. No one is insulting you, or out to get you, or going to jump you with their cousin or some such nonsense.

Here -- My explanation again:
Moromillas wrote:
So basically, in your eyes, anyone that is critical of your opinion, is insulting you. To point out the obvious, criticism of your ideas, does not equate to insults.

You said something that is simple-minded and slow, and refuse to accept facts outright -- It's not an insult to point all these things out. I've not insulted you at all, I question the very simple things that you've said.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Dec 2014, 9:59 pm

I think I've created a monster LOL

I hope you guys are bosom buddies outside of WP. Then you punch a clock and the arguments start. Then you argue for eight hours. Then you punch the clock again. Then you have a beer afterwards.

Ever see the cartoon with the sheepdog and the wolf? Warner Brothers circa 1962.

The sheepdog and the wolf are buddies, just as was described above. They battle over sheep for eight hours, then have a beer after "work."



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

09 Dec 2014, 2:13 am

Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
No, that would defeat the purpose of having an autism spectrum...the whole point is most people do not have autism, and do not have the struggles autism comes with...I hate these 'aren't we all autistic' articles and what not but I guess I will look at it.


Totally agree, I can't stand when people say that phrase, all they're doing by taking that stance is minimalizing our struggles, and using themselves as an example of how we 'can do better if we try'. It's a stance that is taken by egotists and ignorant fools who couldn't understand the spectrum if it slapped them in the face. To top it off, it's offensive when people say that, because it makes us sound like a bunch of complainers who are lazy and want what they like to call a 'free ride' through life (which is yet another ignorant view, but that's another discussion).


From what I've seen, most often that isn't the intent, rather the intent is to be comforting by saying "you aren't different."


I'm with others on this, we all know that we actually are different, and people telling us that we aren't is just another phrase that minimalizes our struggles. Whether that's the intent or not, that is the result.
The fact will always remain, we are different, it's generally obvious to others and sometimes even us, and if we weren't different, there wouldn't be any reason to have groups like this in the first place. Afterall, there aren't any support groups for having a normal brain, is there? And why is that? Simple; because it's normal, there's nothing hindering about it.


Basically what B19 said. Remember, just because NTs fail to empathize doesn't mean they are out to get us or whatnot. We don't need to demonize them.


Funny, I don't remember demonizing anyone, nor did I claim they were 'out to get us', I've simply outlined that they're wrong in their assumptions, and that those assumptions are off-putting.


"It's a stance that is taken by egotists and ignorant fools who couldn't understand the spectrum if it slapped them in the face."


If you call that 'demonizing' them, then you obviously can't tell the difference between 'demonizing' someone, and calling them out and exposing their ignorance.
Fact: There is a spectrum, because people display a number of attributes that fall outside the specified normality, not just one attribute, but multiple. People that say that everyone is on the spectrum based on one or two traits that doesn't even qualify them for diagnosis on the Autism Spectrum, is obviously ignorant of not only why the spectrum exists in the first place, but also ignorant of the obvious difference between us and everyone else, and they are fooling themselves if they think a few similarities qualify them to be on that spectrum. People on the spectrum have real neurological differences that cause probably 90% (or more) of the problems that we have, and they are so far beyond just the tiny bit that people off of the spectrum deal with that it's not even funny.
The Autism Spectrum is not a fan club, it's a diagnosis, and it's a tool to allow people to understand to what degree that someone has Autism. Do people exhibit a symptom here and there? Sure, but does that qualify them for a diagnosis (and in extension, to be put on the spectrum) of an Autistic Spectrum Disorder? Absolutely not. So again, people who believe that a tiny similarity automatically puts someone on the spectrum is obviously ignorant of real fact and they are fooling themselves into continuing to believe such nonsense.


"If you call that 'demonizing' them, then you obviously can't tell the difference between 'demonizing' someone, and calling them out and exposing their ignorance." You aren't calling anyone out except yourself for your own lack of understanding. 1

I think you fail to understand what the concept of a spectrum is2. The reason autism is classified as a spectrum is not to separate from NT, that exists with any diagnosis, but to acknowledge that it smoothly blends into the general population and there is no hard line between on spectrum and off spectrum. It's like the green light spectrum, when does it stop being green and start being blue? Most visible light has some green light in it, even it's not on the green spectrum persay. Arbitrary it can be argued to be on spectrum as well because it's just an extension of the same continuum, there is no dividing line.3


1. I understand this topic very well, you're not understanding what I'm saying, by any stretch of the imagination.

2. I understand what a spectrum is quite well, it seems to be you who doesn't understand what a spectrum is; The Autistic Spectrum is a spectrum that was designed to allow diagnosticians to diagnose the degree of autism spectrum disorders in a patient, nothing more, nothing less.

3. Yes, there is a dividing line; Autistic Spectrum Disorders. If someone doesn't qualify for a diagnosis under the Autistic Spectrum, then they are not on the spectrum of those disorders, it's that simple, how can you not understand that?

Let's say for a moment that you were correct (not saying you are, just making a valid point). Would you then also classify everyone as the following, because of these similarities?
Schizophrenic : Because we hear our own voice in our head.
Physical Abuser : Because everyone gets angry.
OCD : Because they prefer a clean house over a messy one.

The list could go on and on and on and never actually reach any real resolution, but then we'd be back to "everyone is the same" and if that were really true, there would be no diagnosis, and in extension, no basis for comparing either side to the other, and since that wouldn't exist, we wouldn't be on this site because we'd already have all the support we'd need from the rest of society. But that's not the case.
So, I say again, there's a huge difference between being on the spectrum and not being on the spectrum, it doesn't matter how fine that line may get in the more milder forms, it still ends somewhere. If it didn't, there would be no diagnosis. The fact that there is a diagnosis proves that I'm right.
No matter how badly you want to believe that everyone is somewhat like us and that we can be accepted on that basis, it's just not so. That's reality.

Quote:
It's like the green light spectrum, when does it stop being green and start being blue? Most visible light has some green light in it, even it's not on the green spectrum persay.

You do realize how ridiculous you sound here, right? If you really want to use light as an example, fine, I'll even use your green-blue example:
Light has three primary colors, all of which are their own color, none of which are placed into each other without some other color to connect the dots. Green, in it's absolute form, is fully green, there is no other color within it, as is blue. Yes, there is a spectrum between the two, but there is still the absolute values, they're either green, or blue. There is a dividing line between them. So not only is your analogy flawed, it also proves my point.


1. I understand what you're saying now (misunderstood exactly what meant specifically by saying the spectrum exists because by focusing too much on the term spectrum and the discussion), I just disagree with your reasoning. I disagree that autism spectrum necessarily must be seen as a distinct subspectrum of humanity as whole rather than seen as general method of characterization. I'll explain why in the next point. Also, it's pretty clear you don't understand what I'm saying either.

2. Okay fine, maybe I treated spectrums as spaces when I should have treated them as sets. I was wrong with the reason for classifying autism as spectrum, but that's not because I don't understand the general concept of spectrum. Your comment shows no understanding of the concept of a spectrum though. Anyway, while it's correct that spectrum implies a range of functioning and is used as measuring such, the actual reasoning for the classifying autism as a spectrum is to connect disorders which where once thought of as separate, but regardless, it's not true the idea of the autistic spectrum was created to separate the autistic from the neurotypical, that idea existed regardless of it being classified as spectrum or not, more things where just added to the scope of autism by classifying it as a spectrum disorder rather than just autistic disorder. The idea with everyone being on the spectrum is the same components which can be used to place autistic people can be extended to the population as a whole, it's just using the same classification, but removing the boundary line from the population as a spectrum is already formed between the autistic and neurotypical through the broader autism phenotype. The idea assumes the autistic spectrum is a space rather than a set. In terms of linear algebra, the autistic spectrum would be a specific inner product space whose set of points is all of humanity, rather than a subset, but non-subspace of humanity, and it's orthogonal basis are autistic traits. It's what traits you decide to measure people upon which makes it the specific spectrum, not what's being covered. Sorry, that's the best way I can explain the concept.

3. That isn't a dividing line, that's a subset. The dividing line would be people who is they are any more autistic they would be considered autistic, and any less autistic they would be considered NT. There is no such line.

"Let's say for a moment that you were correct (not saying you are, just making a valid point). Would you then also classify everyone as the following, because of these similarities?" This makes it vary obvious you did not understand what I was saying because that's not my assumption. Here's what the actual assumption is:
a. you're aren't schizophrenic, you're on the schizophrenic spectrum because everyone has delusions of differing severity, and if they are severe enough they become classified as psychotic, which is a component of schizophrenia.
b. everyone has abusive tendencies so everyone exists on an abusive spectrum, some are more abusive than others
c. that has absolutely nothing to do with OCD, anyway, everyone exists on an OCD spectrum because everyone has anxious thoughts to different degrees of prevalence and everyone has methods of coping with anxiety, but not everyone has OCD.


"There is a dividing line between them. So not only is your analogy flawed, it also proves my point." No, there isn't a dividing line, it's obvious you don't understand what I mean by dividing line. Eg. is Cyan green or blue? Make a choice. Take the color half way between cyan and the chosen color and ask the question again with the new color. Repeat ad infinitum. There is no concrete point where it stops being green and starts being blue, there is no dividing line between them.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html