introversion can be simmilar to aspergers

Post Reply New Topic

I was reading through this article and there were actually some simmilarites to autism. Yes most of us have crappy soial skills, but I think the desire to be alone, pursue interest, "hyperfocus" and have the occasionaly few friends seems very simmilar. Yes I know thre are very social aspie, but I am talking bout in general.

http://www.queenoflub.com/stuff/introvert.shtml

Last edited by matsuiny2004 on 03 Oct 2008, 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Forgot first "h" in the link.

Last edited by -JR on 03 Oct 2008, 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Here is the link: http://www.queenoflub.com/stuff/introvert.shtml .

Introversion has strong similarities to autism. Introverts are more comfortable in their own inner world and draw strength from it, as are most autistics. I am a very introverted autistic.

Great - now all we need is a list of differences between introverts and Aspies. Discomfort in their own bodies, stimming, strange tic-like movements? How would you tell the difference? It'd be a good question to ask a shrink who was testing for AS - how do they allow for intraversy?

In spite of being quite critical of mainstream society and heavily into my own head, I've always had a deep conviction that without other people, I'm nothing. Doesn't sound like somebody who gets their "energy" from themselves rather than others, does it? I love the "indweller" side of me but without outreach I'm not really living.

While I was growing up, Hans Eyesenck's personality tests were very popular. Nothing about AS in there. I scored as somewhat introverted and with low self-esteem, otherwise pretty normal. I railed against that result, and became obsessed with becoming an extravert, even though Eyesenck's books suggested these personality traits couldn't really be changed.

Introverted people can participate in normal reciprocal social interaction (two-way), whereas the person with Asperger's won't (one-sided, talking at people rather than with them, or not at all), and they'll lack the exhibition and appreciation of nonverbal cues (there's a whole heap of these). This isn't mentioning the repetitive behaviours (the interest and its factual knowledge, rituals and routines, obsessive thoughts, etcetera).

That's it above, and it's very easy to distinguish between the two.

many inroverts can talk about an interest they have for hours, rituals, routines and obsessive thoughts could acutally be a form of OCD. Either way My point is that there are simmilarites.

Many non-autistics who've been introverted for a long time will gradually lose social skills, allthough will not reach the same low-level as people with Asperger's. People with Asperger's will also learn to talk with people as they grow older.

Lorna Wing:

Daniel, it really seems like you may be including the broader autism phenotype in your description of introversion... Introversion does have a strong connection with autism because many of us are introverts; but the autistic traits are the ones that both introverted and extroverted autistics have, among which are obsessions, rituals, and one-sided monologuing speech.

the only part of social skills that is inherent is the ability to learn them, which autistic peole are capable of doing. How challenging it is can be another story. Introverts may not have the challenges, but that statement still applies to both autistics and introverts. Many introverts have commited social gaffes too. It is not just a concept left for autistics. I think many people on the specttrum are influenced by the outside world. Even opinions we have can be influenced by it, such as what is "good" or "bad". I am pretty sure you have been too.

Not at all. People with Autism can't learn to partake in reciprocal social interaction any more than the armless person can pick up things like everyone else. People with Autism can adapt in certain ways, but there's a limit to how far this can go, and it's still not "normal" reciprocal social interaction.

There's a world apart between Autism and introversion. Superficially, they may look similar, but they're not at all.

Neuroplasticity will not agree with this statement. There are many that can, there could be ones with comorbids, but other wise they should be able to.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... ekey=40362

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/rewiring-the-brain

The problem with Autism is that there's no ability to "repair", as the connections are severed. This is the current neurological view of Autism. It's like breaking your arm [which can heal] compared to severing it.

When they can physically join the severed connections together, this will create the ability to learn; like when they can attach one's arm back, and that it can have all of its functioning, rather than just stitching it back on.

people that have overcome their difficulties with dyslexia. Dyslexia is genetic.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/e ... rn_03.html

http://www.arrowsmithschool.org/

I don't know anything about dyslexia, and as far as I'm aware, it isn't a part of ASDs.

As I said, people with Autism can adapt to some extent, but the underlying condition can't be changed, no matter how much therapy one has; the current therapy now just teaches people to look at others, and respond in a set way--you can teach someone to put their hand in fire, and they'll do it with enough coercion.

Not to mention, that everyone can only learn so far as their cognitive ability allows; no one even knows the "true" cognitive ability of individuals with Autism. Hence, people with Autism are impaired in social and emotional development, and this delay will never catch up to how one's peers are, otherwise, they wouldn't have Autism then. People with Autism who're nonverbal at an early age, but develop speech, will always have problems with semantics and pragmatics, no matter how much therapy they have.

One can only work so far with what they have; building muscles compared to growing a new finger--Autism is the latter, and people can't grow a new finger (it may actually turn out that four fingers is the normal amount for someone with Autism, but I'll stop with the metaphors).

That's not true. Humans typically have inherent functionality during development such that they acquire information from their environment of a particular kind, without their volition. If you do not autonomously acquire the information without having been deprived of the stimulus, then you lack a social learning tool that is inherent in typically developing humans. Evidently, that learning tool provides the primary means by which the information is acquired and assimilated.


I do agree that we can be influenced by the outer 'social world'. However, I also suspect there is some truth to the lack of 'normal' interaction. It's not that I necessarily only ever talk at people, it's that I can only talk 'with' them by closely monitoring myself and referring back to a set of 'rules of thumb'. If I slip up in monitoring the interaction and 'checking back' with the 'rules of thumb' I do tend to slip into talking 'at' people. The notion that what I say should 'link up' to the other person's comments (even when I'm really not interested in their comment) is simple enough in theory, but in practice, it's easy to forget.

I also often find that even when I think I have been successful in 'self-monitoring' that I did worse than I realized (for instance when I see someone they'll tell me how last I went on and on about X and was basically having my own conversation while everyone talked about something else, when I've thought I showed heaps of control, was interactive and barely mentioned X.....), aside from being embarrassing, this leads me to speculate that I may not look as 'normal' as I often fancy myself.

An occasional social gaffe is not really in the same category...