 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
anbuend
Oak-Type Autie
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 3302
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| LePetitPrince wrote: | | anbuend wrote: | | LePetitPrince wrote: | | Hmmmm in fact, I am agreeing with many Thomas A. McKean 's points : self-diagnosed shouldn't speak against cure , no one should , let every one decides if he/she wants a cure or not. |
Well, you were pointing to Joel Smith's blog, so it's not unreasonable for people to expect you thought his views somehow supported your own, which they don't.
If people speaking out against cure means people aren't able to choose, then should people be stopped from speaking out for cure too? Your viewpoint doesn't make sense. |
oops I just checked the link and I guess i pasted the wrong one , in fact I was reading both pages and mispasted this one instead of this one:http://www.thomasamckean.com/articles/speaking.htm
sorry for the invonvenience |
Okay thanks.
Also (because there's been a ton of misunderstanding) people should be aware that when we wrote the thing we did write against those views, it was meant as a challenge to the viewpoint Tom presented, and not at all because of who he was specifically. We'd have written the same thing if he was, say, Jim Sinclair. Several of us who wrote the response actually like a lot of his writing, but he's got it in his head that we hate him. So our views should not be taken as license to bash him or something.
_________________
"We may seem in the gutter from up there where you are but maybe you don't know we still see the same stars." -Donna Williams |
|
| Back to top |
|
LePetitPrince
Feminist activist O_o
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Age: 26
Posts: 3458
Location: Beirut , Lebanon
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | LePetitPrince wrote: | | Psychiatry is so subjective and so that's why it's so biased. |
And you in your infinite wisdom are perfectly objective in your online diagnoses?  |
I was diagnosed as HFA formally and locally but I constulted someone else online years later , since I saw other HFA Autistics who can be visually seen that they have all much more severe cases of autism than 'mine' and my doubts aroused about my dx since then .....
I don't feel it's fair that i should speak in the name of any of those auties, I seem very typical compared to them. Heck , even NT loners are much more like me than them. How the hell me and them have the same dx? that's not even possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
anna-banana
and yet it moves!
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
Age: 25
Posts: 1728
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JWRed wrote: | I will put this as simple as possible.
It is not normal human behavior to be introverted.
People with AS are lacking a fundamental human characteristic. Even animals in the wild form social groups and have a form of society.
Being social is a fundamental human characteristic.
You don't understand that. Not understanding something does not make it untrue.
End of discussion. |
very good point. it doesn't mean that all introverts are aspies though. but if you're naturally introverted (not as a result of something that happened to you and left a mark on your psyche) or naturally unable to do well socially however much you'd want to, it does mean that there's something deeply wrong with you.
| Danielismyname wrote: |
Daniel can't wait till the label "Asperger's" is struck down. |
Anna can't wait either.
_________________
I got some bad ideas in my head. (Taxi Driver) |
|
| Back to top |
|
JWRed
Deinonychus
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 327
Location: Malibu, California
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anna-banana wrote: | | JWRed wrote: | I will put this as simple as possible.
It is not normal human behavior to be introverted.
People with AS are lacking a fundamental human characteristic. Even animals in the wild form social groups and have a form of society.
Being social is a fundamental human characteristic.
You don't understand that. Not understanding something does not make it untrue.
End of discussion. |
it doesn't mean that all introverts are aspies though. but if you're naturally introverted (not as a result of something that happened to you and left a mark on your psyche) or naturally unable to do well socially however much you'd want to, it does mean that there's something deeply wrong with you.
|
Not all introverts are aspies. But if you are introverted and lack social skills to the degree that people with AS do, there is something deeply wrong with you.
Lacking a fundamental human characteristic says that something is deeply wrong with you. Something that needs to be fixed.
You just are unable or unwilling to realize this.
Don't beleive the horsesh*t that mental professionals feed you that you are just "different".
What? Do you expect a mental professional to tell you that you are a weirdo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
anbuend
Oak-Type Autie
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JWRed wrote: | | What? Do you expect a mental professional to tell you that you are a weirdo? |
Actually, yes. I have heard several mental health professionals describe people (sometimes me, sometimes others) as weird, eccentric, crazy, batshit, oddball, half a bubble off plumb, and a number of other colloquial versions of "weirdo" and "crazy".
A couple of things about your main point, though:
1. Why are you asserting that autistic people lack sociability altogether? We're supposed to (according to popular opinion anyway) lack certain typical forms of social skills, but not necessarily to lack any social desires. (People have at times attributed that to autistic people, but what they have really seen in most cases is simply a lack of typical social body language.)
2. If you are claiming that autistic people lack a trait fundamental to humanity, how can you say that it is fundamental to humanity? If autistic people truly lack that trait, then it cannot be fundamental to humanity, because it is impossible for a creature to lack a trait fundamental to its own species, or it would be a separate species.
3. Humanity is described accurately as a social species in that we depend on each other to survive. It does not mean that every single one of us enjoys particular forms of social interaction. You are mixing up two different meanings of 'social'. One is 'sociability', the other is 'depending upon one another for survival'. If I need to have surgery, I am far more interested in the surgeon's ability to make the necessary repairs to my body, than I am in his or her sociability. If I use an invention, I do not care if the person who invented it was a social butterfly. If I use a public restroom, I don't care about the social habits of the janitor who cleaned it. Surgeons, inventors, janitors, and many other people, contribute to the survival of other human beings in ways that have nothing to do with how inclined they are to socialize.
I am not saying that in order to say that people's existence should be justified by their contributions, nor that all contributions are as tangible and easily quantified as these are. I am just showing that "sociability" is not what is meant when we're said to be a social species, and that there are many people who contribute to others' survival (the actual meaning implied by "social species") in ways that require no sociability of the "hi how are you?" sort.
This is similar to how the word "antisocial" when used technically, does not really mean "introverted," it means "commits acts that harm society as a whole and/or cause harm to other members of the species," such as murder, gratuitous theft, etc. A person can be quite friendly and social in the "sociability" sense, and be given to antisocial acts that severely harm other human beings. (Such people are, in fact, rarely autistic. Autistic people have as much conscience as anyone else, this has been studied.) So the inventor/surgeon/janitor who doesn't like hanging out with people is not antisocial (may in fact be quite the opposite) but also isn't sociable, and the charming, outgoing, and friendly mass murderer is highly sociable but antisocial.
Given a choice of which people were entrusted with my survival, I would choose an unsociable but non-antisocial person every time over a friendly and perfectly socially-skilled but antisocial person.
_________________
"We may seem in the gutter from up there where you are but maybe you don't know we still see the same stars." -Donna Williams |
|
| Back to top |
|
JWRed
Deinonychus
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 327
Location: Malibu, California
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anbuend wrote: |
Actually, yes. I have heard several mental health professionals describe people (sometimes me, sometimes others) as weird, eccentric, crazy, batshit, oddball, half a bubble off plumb, and a number of other colloquial versions of "weirdo" and "crazy".
|
Do you take her advice to heart and try and change or do you deny her analysis?
| anbuend wrote: |
A couple of things about your main point, though:
1. Why are you asserting that autistic people lack sociability altogether? We're supposed to (according to popular opinion anyway) lack certain typical forms of social skills, but not necessarily to lack any social desires. (People have at times attributed that to autistic people, but what they have really seen in most cases is simply a lack of typical social body language.)
|
Autistic people lack socialbility. That is what makes someone autistic. It is not only about lacking social skills. People with AS do not have nearly the desire or need to socialise that NTs do. It is severely lacking. This is what makes autistic people flawed.
Regardless, the ability to be social (or skills) is a fundamental human characteristic. Have you ever been around a 3-5 year old neurotypical child and saw how they interact with others? Their minds might not be developed like a 30 year old person with AS, but believe it or not, that baby has better social skills than the 30 year old. They respond to communication from others better than the 30 year old. Take the time to observe a young NT child and you will understand.
| anbuend wrote: |
2. If you are claiming that autistic people lack a trait fundamental to humanity, how can you say that it is fundamental to humanity? If autistic people truly lack that trait, then it cannot be fundamental to humanity, because it is impossible for a creature to lack a trait fundamental to its own species, or it would be a separate species.
|
It doesn't mean we are a separte species. We can still be human, but be severely flawed. Most people on this board believe there is nothing wrong with the way we are and that we are not flawed in any way. We are just "different". No we are not just different. Something is wrong with the way we think and act around other people.
| anbuend wrote: |
3. Humanity is described accurately as a social species in that we depend on each other to survive. It does not mean that every single one of us enjoys particular forms of social interaction. You are mixing up two different meanings of 'social'. One is 'sociability', the other is 'depending upon one another for survival'. If I need to have surgery, I am far more interested in the surgeon's ability to make the necessary repairs to my body, than I am in his or her sociability. If I use an invention, I do not care if the person who invented it was a social butterfly. If I use a public restroom, I don't care about the social habits of the janitor who cleaned it. Surgeons, inventors, janitors, and many other people, contribute to the survival of other human beings in ways that have nothing to do with how inclined they are to socialize.
|
If those people can't socialise or doesn't have social skills, something is wrong with them as well. Just because they can contribute to society doesn't mean nothing is wrong with them.
| anbuend wrote: |
I am not saying that in order to say that people's existence should be justified by their contributions, nor that all contributions are as tangible and easily quantified as these are.
|
Yes you are.
| anbuend wrote: |
This is similar to how the word "antisocial" when used technically, does not really mean "introverted," it means "commits acts that harm society as a whole and/or cause harm to other members of the species," such as murder, gratuitous theft, etc. A person can be quite friendly and social in the "sociability" sense, and be given to antisocial acts that severely harm other human beings. (Such people are, in fact, rarely autistic. Autistic people have as much conscience as anyone else, this has been studied.) So the inventor/surgeon/janitor who doesn't like hanging out with people is not antisocial (may in fact be quite the opposite) but also isn't sociable, and the charming, outgoing, and friendly mass murderer is highly sociable but antisocial.
. |
1> You are playing semantics.
2> Just because they have a conscience doesn't mean something isn't wrong with them.
| anbuend wrote: |
Given a choice of which people were entrusted with my survival, I would choose an unsociable but non-antisocial person every time over a friendly and perfectly socially-skilled but antisocial person. |
Irrelevant to my point.
Last edited by JWRed on Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:18 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
earthmonkey
Phoenix
Joined: Jun 06, 2005
Age: 18
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anbuend wrote: |
I have a friend who whenever he hears "classical autistic," insists on referring to himself as a "Baroque autistic" (and knowing him, it fits  ). |
That's clever. I always feel awkward with the term "classic autism" though I have used it, because I think of classic cars and start wanting to go into a monologue about cars.
_________________
"Public transportation is for jerks and lesbians." --Homer Simpson
"why is it bad for me to discuss why I need the lights off above my desk but it is ok for you to tell me you had a camera shoved up your a#$?" --an aspie coming out |
|
| Back to top |
|
pandd
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LePetitePrince, it seems to me that, you have a personal (rather than factual) preference about the issue at hand, and that preference constitutes your reason for arguing the conclusion you are positing.
Much of the reason I conclude this is the incoherent nature of your argumentation. It has all the hallmarks of post hoc rationalization, and none of the hallmarks of reasoning that lead one to a conclusion.
Your preferred conclusion appears to be that there is only a narrow range of manifestations/presentations that are actually autism, and all other 'cases' are instances of personality traits being misdiagnosed. The earlier group excludes, and the latter group includes most (if not all) persons with Asperger's Syndrome and/or 'very-High functioning autism'.
If you hope to convince people of this, perhaps it would help if you constructed an argument (substantiating or at least supporting your preferred conclusion), that is at least as convincing as the alternative contrary theory you are arguing against (in arguing your theory). Whether you wish to argue there is no such thing as AS and/or very high functioning HFA, or that personality is the cause of the behavior/trait/characteristic cluster that the AS diagnosis refers to, you have not constructed a single convincing argument for either.
It is difficult to conclude that you reached your position because of the reasons you give in trying to convince us, because they seem inadequate to producing such a result in the context of objective reasoning. What fits better with the incoherence, incompleteness, stretching, lack of substance and mud-slinging that constitutes your argument/reasoning on this issue, is that you have a particular conclusion that you want to be true, and any reasoning is secondary to, and employed only for the purpose of, supporting that conclusion.
Have you considered that the extent to which your preference for a particular conclusion may be generating a level of cognitive bias, in the absence of sufficient compensatory measures, is impairing your reasoning on this particular issue? If you have some good fact/logic cause to have arrived at the conclusion you posit, you've not communicated it in your posts.
Last edited by pandd on Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
earthmonkey
Phoenix
Joined: Jun 06, 2005
Age: 18
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JWRed wrote: |
Autistic people lack socialbility. That is what makes someone autistic. It is not only about lacking social skills. People with AS do not have nearly the desire or need to socialise that NTs do. It is severely lacking. This is what makes autistic people flawed.
|
Actually, I do have a lot of social desire, and enjoy socializing. I like to converse and engage socially, but I do wear out quickly, and due to language, speech, auditory, and sensory issues, end up usually being pretty quiet, and I don't give typical NT body language.
So while there is a subset of autistic people who lack social desire (perhaps this subset is quite significant, I don't know how large a subset it is), it's not everyone.
_________________
"Public transportation is for jerks and lesbians." --Homer Simpson
"why is it bad for me to discuss why I need the lights off above my desk but it is ok for you to tell me you had a camera shoved up your a#$?" --an aspie coming out |
|
| Back to top |
|
undefineable
Snowy Owl
Joined: May 14, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JWRed wrote: | | Autistic people lack socialbility. That is what makes someone autistic. It is not only about lacking social skills. People with AS do not have nearly the desire or need to socialise that NTs do. It is severely lacking. This is what makes autistic people flawed. |
Are you actually thinking of Schizoid Personality Disorder? As an 'aspie' without SPD, I have always had a lot of desire and need to socialise. It's the feeling for naturally mixing in with others that didn't come.
| JWRed wrote: | | Most people on this board believe there is nothing wrong with the way we are and that we are not flawed in any way. We are just "different". No we are not just different. Something is wrong with the way we think and act around other people. |
This is true from a functional point of view; as when a car engine has parts that won't work. However, it would also be wrong to spend the rest of your life fuming over it, because the result of that would most likely be underachievement in every aspect of life. I should know  .
| JWRed wrote: | | Just because they can contribute to society doesn't mean nothing is wrong with them. |
I'm not sure I agree. Asking for anything over and above a fair contribution to society from your own or anyone else's life seems excessive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
demoluca
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 17, 2007
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see why ANYONE on the spectrum should have to defend their disorder as 'just autistic enough'.
_________________
.•´¸.•*¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.•´ .•´ ¸¸.•¨¯`•. |
|
| Back to top |
|
BelindatheNobody
Sea Gull
Joined: Mar 24, 2008
Age: 18
Posts: 205
Location: Westfield
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, LePetitPrince, maybe you should look into PDD-NOS.
It may be where you fit, since you feel you are "not autistic enough" to be HFA, but can not be labeled with asperger's (because of your speech delay.)
Just a thought.
_________________
Put me to sleep evil angel,
Open your wings evil angel.
Self reflections:
Nobody. Slytherin. Aspie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Callista
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 1663
Location: Central USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sooo... what do you do with disabled Aspies? There's plenty of us out there.
You seem to be desperately clinging to the idea that disability is bad and wrong and horrible and must be cured, to the point that you insist on dividing the Spectrum arbitrarily, assigning the label to one half but not the other, and then insisting that the two halves are fundamentally different. But the line is just that--arbitrary. AS can be a disability. People skip from disabled to non-disabled depending on how old they are, where they are, their stress levels, and how people treat them. The line between disabled and non-disabled just can't be neatly placed across the spectrum.
If you drop the idea that disability is inherently bad, then your entire house of cards falls flat.
If disability isn't inherently bad, then that means you don't have to try to single out who's disabled and who isn't; you don't have to put an arbitrary line between them. You just have to treat both sides as humans with basic rights--including the right not to have their personalities, however off the norm, forcibly altered. In fact, you can begin to drop the bad connotation from the word "abnormal" altogether. Abnormal is just something that doesn't happen as often as something else. If it happens to be a very low skill or an unusual, disabling neurological trait, then that's still neutral.
You just can't put "that's abnormal" at the top of the list when you look at a person. Or even "that's disabling". Human rights always come first.
_________________
Female. Engineering student. Gamer. Christian. Asexual. Information Addict. Deal with it!
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
BelindatheNobody
Sea Gull
Joined: Mar 24, 2008
Age: 18
Posts: 205
Location: Westfield
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^Thank you, Callista. I agree.
| Callista wrote: | | Sooo... what do you do with disabled Aspies? There's plenty of us out there. |
Yes, yes, yes, ten times yes!
_________________
Put me to sleep evil angel,
Open your wings evil angel.
Self reflections:
Nobody. Slytherin. Aspie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mixtli
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Oct 01, 2008
Age: 36
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm new to this, but I don't think the concept of the 'spectrum' is about the personal experience of the individuals in the spectrum. I think it is a neurological similarity between Autistics and likewise a difference with NTs that defines the spectrum. It makes sense to me that those with the more extreme (for a lack of a better word) neurological difference would have much more dramatic experiences than those with the much milder differences.
I think I understand the tendancy to be negative about Autism, and thinking of it as a disorder. It's natural to think that way when navigating a world primarily dominated by NTs, and experiencing difficulties your entire life; especially if you are still having difficulty finding a nitch.
If a young woman is told she is fat all the time, she would think something is seriously wrong with her (even if she isn't really fat). Besides, don't forget that perspective is everything, and a girl who is considered chubby, or even fat, in one culture, would be welcomed with flowers in others. In the wrong culture she may become bolemic, anarexic, depressive, or what have you
The problem with the spectrum is that there is no nation of Autistics and AS's so it can be even more difficult for us to keep perspective. I'm really hoping though that wrong planet keeps moving in that direction and continues to validate all of us.
Not that its not difficult, but I believe autism and AS people really awsome, and that we have tons to offer; and believe me, it is not just pep talk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
