Hello WP (warning: novel ahead)

Post Reply New Topic

Hello, seeing as I just joined I figured it would be worth introducing myself. I am now 23 and have been in-and-out of therapists' offices since I was in middle school, with anxiety, depression, and OCD being the main targeted issues. I was on two different medications, Celexa and Prozac, the first of which turned me into a zombie and seems to have prevented me from remembering much of anything about the year I was on it, and the second of which didn't seem to do much; I developed a disliking of medicine in general and had a deep feeling that it wasn't some chemical imbalance (or at least, any chemical imbalance wasn't the main issue) that was causing my over-all sadness, incapabilities with social interaction, and feeling of disconnectedness. I was picked on in school, but not as much as some people; I usually just blended in and could easily go whole days saying 20 or so words (just quick, general acknowledgements and "Hi"s). Everyone just assumed I was shy, and I just accepted that I was like shy people but that there weren't many shy people at my school.

I knew I was different, but at the same time I said to myself "Everyone probably thinks he/she is different, we're biased to feel we are special because we're the only person we really feel." I stayed in my room just about all of the time I wasn't eating or at school, learning how to make digital art, games, music, and web programming.

I am highly germaphobic (mysophobic - I'm not actually afraid of Germans, unless of course their language does indeed drive them to spit more than other languages, in which case I am only Germanophobic because I am mysophobic) - touching commonly used objects like door handles is a task for me; I rarely ever eat at restaurants because I despise having someone else cook my food, particularly when I cannot see the cook(s) nor monitor how they treat the containers and utensils that come into contact with the ingredients. I don't drink out of any containers that I didn't open and highly prefer to separate consumables; it isn't that I don't want to share, but because of any potential pathological consequences of sharing. I hate sittingn across the table from another person; not only does this put me in a constant face-to-face orientation, but when they inevitably laugh at something in conversation, I can only imagine their laugh-juices spraying out across my exposed and defenseless food. If someone asks to try something on my plate I usually say "Okay" and then tell them they can have the rest (or I just don't eat it anymore).

Needless to say I am horrified of what someone I could be interested in in the future might think of me when she/he realizes that I find kissing rather disgusting and I do not understand what either party gains from it (I have tried it before, twice - the first time out of curiosity, and the second time to confirm that I wasn't somehow missing something from the first time). I fully admit any benefit from it could very well be obscured by my feeling that mouths are face-holes full of germs, and that I have concluded that kissing is probably an evolutionary mechanism to distribute diseases within populations in order to advance the speed at which those populations can build up immunities (at the loss of any individuals who cannot).

I frequently consider the efficiency in my actions; how can I make something I do more efficient, how can I reduce the amount of waste I create, how can I drive in a way that uses less fuel or time my braking before a red light so that I have the best chance to reach it when it is green while producing the least amount of pollutant brake pad dust. Unlike most people, I'm not trying to hit green lights to save time, but to reserve energy and materials (which in fact often makes driving from point A to point B take more time, since I refuse unnecessarily fast acceleration or exceeding the speed limit). This is not just in regards to driving, but in about every facet of life; using a laptop despite never needing to move it because laptops use less energy (which I will be sure to properly recycle when the time comes), shaving with a DE razor instead of a disposable because it doesn't waste large amounts of non-biodegradable plastics (when considered over time) and because the razors have a fast rate of decomposition once in the environment due to their fragility.

My brother asks me when I'm going to get out in life, what my plans are, and I don't really know what to tell him (not that I ever talk to him much); I think he generally just feels that I am lazy. Then I start to feel like maybe he is right; maybe I've had so few jobs because I'm just not being a good contributor to society and not because of anxieties because I feel so inadequate. It's a very confusing subject for me and often leaves me with a sense of guilt or that I am doing something wrong - why don't I feel this drive to participate in society that motivates people to be able to function well in jobs?

It takes me a very long time to open up to people when I meet them face-to-face, often a month or more of seeing them on a daily basis (which of course you don't usually have with many people you meet), but once I grow comfortable with them I can be quite talkative and even loud at times - basically the exact opposite of how I am usually perceived. If a new person is introduced into a group I was previously comfortable with, however, I shut down rather quickly and I think it's probably fairly noticeable to those who know me, which is considerate of them because I hate when I realize that someone else realizes my awkwardness (often).

I took a break from therapists to go to technical school after high school, I didn't really feel that the therapists had gotten me to see things much differently, anyway. At the last one of that period I had taken the MMPI which is over 700 true-or-false questions, which essentially concluded "You're really depressed." But after finishing school (it was only a year long) I was back at home and things weren't getting better, so I decided to give therapy a try.

My new therapist has been much more understanding; that it feels she doesn't follow some kind of predetermined regimen from her education, but actually listens to and understands what I am saying. There is something more thoughtful about her that I clicked with the very first session, unlike all of my previous therapists. After about 5 sessions she brought to light that, although she wasn't hugely knowledgeable about it, from what she understood I fit the profile of Asperger's and that she knew of a place in the city that was dedicated to autism and AS that could probably have me do some testing to find out. This was the first time a therapist had ever brought Asperger's up to me; indeed it seemed that I had entered a routine of visiting therapists and having them tell me I had clinical depression, anxiety, and OCD and try to give me pills - so this whole AS concept was very new. I had heard about it before and knew it had something to do with autism, but I was never in a position to look into it as a possibility in regard to myself.

While reading up on Asperger's I saw that a common behavior for people with AS to either avoid eye contact or to consciously force yourself to keep eye contact because you don't want people to notice you're not looking at them, which I can certainly associate with. It's like there is a background process in my brain that's keeping track of how long I look into someone's eyes and how long I'm looking somewhere else, trying to balance it out in order to seem less awkward (but probably having the reverse effect). These normally-subconscious social mannerisms don't seem to come natural to me. Another note I instantly associated with was a lack in the ability to understand when someone is being sarcastic, or uses of figurative language that are not very apparently displayed as being figurative. I really can't get into books of fiction or poetry because of this; the abundance of metaphors and flowered wording that serves to keep them from becoming repetitive ends up confusing me (which then makes me feel kind of dumb). What I read is nearly entirely non-fiction, and I often find myself reading through long trails of Wikipedia articles for hours (ending up on an article that seems anything but related to where I started). These are just about always related to technology, biology, or other sciences.

One thing that I found I could not associate with, though, is clumsiness. I have never had difficulties with motors skills or any deficiencies in other senses (if anything I believe my hearing is much more sensitive, I bring earplugs with me to theatres because they are often too loud). When I was younger I played lots of video games, frequently drew comics, and eventually learned to ride the unicycle - things that require a fairly high degree of dexterity.

I also find that I often tend to downplay my understanding of something or to use more simplified language in an attempt to not be perceived as strange; I know it's a kind of futile attempt, but sometimes I think perhaps it helps to not have people wondering why I talk like some kind of computer scientist, or that I mean to offend them by relating their feelings to neural registers. Is this something that would be similar to what could be expected of someone with AS? I still feel an uncertainty of just what AS is exactly because the definition appears largely amorphous and riddled with exceptions, but this was a run-down of what I think might be applicable about myself on the topic. I have made a point to refrain from concluding whether or not I have AS until I am properly evaluated and diagnosed (being somewhat of a hypochondriac I've grown accustomed to learning to avoid self-diagnosis).

Thanks for your time (when I post I never start off thinking it will end up with so much text), I've enjoyed the articles I've poked around through on the front page and found the Autism Talk TV episodes I have watched very interesting - partly due to content and partly because I can see a similarity in mannerisms between myself and those on video (which you can't really 'get' through text). Part of me hopes that I do have AS so that I can finally have an answer as to why things seem so different to me; why it feels like I have to consciously change myself to act as 'normal' as I can (which of course feels unnatural), or why people sometimes read into things I say in ways that I did not say them, and then become offended by their misconceptions of my intent. But I try not to hold on to that hope as it may only serve to disappoint me if it turns out that I don't have AS and that my questions must still continue unanswered.

Take care and be well! I would apologize for writing so much, but really, if you didn't enjoy it or find it interesting it was your fault for forcing yourself to read.

Hello,

Welcome to the forums! I am a new member as well. I'm just going to quote some of the things you wrote, as I definitely can relate to some of them.

"I usually just blended in and could easily go whole days saying 20 or so words (just quick, general acknowledgements and "Hi"s). Everyone just assumed I was shy, and I just accepted that I was like shy people but that there weren't many shy people at my school."

That sounds about right! On the other hand, when I was around someone I was comfortable with, I would talk incessantly, much to their chagrin. I think that's known as selective mutism.

"I knew I was different..."

I've felt it my whole life.

The mysophobic thing, I don't think relates to AS, but everyone has their own quirks of course.

"My brother asks me when I'm going to get out in life, what my plans are, and I don't really know what to tell him (not that I ever talk to him much); I think he generally just feels that I am lazy. Then I start to feel like maybe he is right; maybe I've had so few jobs because I'm just not being a good contributor to society and not because of anxieties because I feel so inadequate. It's a very confusing subject for me and often leaves me with a sense of guilt or that I am doing something wrong - why don't I feel this drive to participate in society that motivates people to be able to function well in jobs?"

This is the biggest thing for me. I have severe deficits in executive functioning, so I find it almost impossible to set a goal, and then subsequently follow the steps necessary to achieve it. As a result, people are very frequently wondering when I'm going to "get out in life". It's starting to seem like the answer might be never.

"It takes me a very long time to open up to people when I meet them face-to-face, often a month or more of seeing them on a daily basis (which of course you don't usually have with many people you meet), but once I grow comfortable with them I can be quite talkative and even loud at times - basically the exact opposite of how I am usually perceived. If a new person is introduced into a group I was previously comfortable with, however, I shut down rather quickly and I think it's probably fairly noticeable to those who know me, which is considerate of them because I hate when I realize that someone else realizes my awkwardness (often). "

Ah, so here is the selective mutism. Yep, I can relate. I do find that with certain kinds of people I tend to warm up more quickly. But generally, it takes a while. The problem is that, who would want to see somebody for a month that hasn't yet warmed up to them?

"While reading up on Asperger's I saw that a common behavior for people with AS to either avoid eye contact or to consciously force yourself to keep eye contact because you don't want people to notice you're not looking at them, which I can certainly associate with."

I used to be unsure of when it was appropriate to gaze into somebody's eyes, but I find that this is something that I've largest overcome. I do notice that if I am really intensely talking about a topic of special interest that I am sometimes just staring off into space. But if I'm at all paying attention, I can certainly modulate my eye contact with other people. But this is a classic problem in autism.

"I really can't get into books of fiction or poetry because of this; the abundance of metaphors and flowered wording that serves to keep them from becoming repetitive ends up confusing me (which then makes me feel kind of dumb). What I read is nearly entirely non-fiction, and I often find myself reading through long trails of Wikipedia articles for hours (ending up on an article that seems anything but related to where I started). These are just about always related to technology, biology, or other sciences."

I used to hate most fiction (except for fantasy) when I was younger! Even now, I greatly prefer non-fiction to fiction, though at a certain point, quite suddenly, my vocabulary and verbal abilities exploded in my late teens and early twenties, and I suddenly liked fiction quite a bit more than I once did. Yet, non-fiction is clearly my preference. And I've also spent many wee hours of the night going from one Wikipedia page to the next. I often think that Wikipedia is the world's consolation prize to those with autism!

"One thing that I found I could not associate with, though, is clumsiness. I have never had difficulties with motors skills or any deficiencies in other senses (if anything I believe my hearing is much more sensitive, I bring earplugs with me to theatres because they are often too loud). When I was younger I played lots of video games, frequently drew comics, and eventually learned to ride the unicycle - things that require a fairly high degree of dexterity."

I, on the other hand, was quite clumsy. I absolutely despised sports, but I did play tons of video games, and I was always one of the fastest typists when I was in high school. Go figure.

"I also find that I often tend to downplay my understanding of something or to use more simplified language in an attempt to not be perceived as strange; I know it's a kind of futile attempt, but sometimes I think perhaps it helps to not have people wondering why I talk like some kind of computer scientist, or that I mean to offend them by relating their feelings to neural registers."

That is probably a good idea, as most people would likely find your special interests to be nauseatingly boring.

"I still feel an uncertainty of just what AS is exactly because the definition appears largely amorphous and riddled with exceptions, but this was a run-down of what I think might be applicable about myself on the topic."

What you have written leaves me with little doubt that you do have AS. But I'll concur with what you've said about the diagnostic criteria being rather vague. I think what the DSM attempts to do is provide a yardstick against which patients can be compared. Inevitably, what that is is going to be a stereotyped person with AS. But what AS means to you, and how it impacts your life, is going to be something entirely different. After all AS isn't merely social awkwardness, or intense interests. It's actually a completely different way of relating to the world, involving variations in sensory integration and information processing, that will vary from person to person. It is these differences in how our "neural registers", as you put it, are hardwired that account for the entire constellation of symptoms. So, as it turns out, the "way we are" is something entirely contingent on what happens in our brains. This is something that is not easy to explain to other people who are embedded in a conventional understanding of the world, but it should be satisfying to you. You are the way you are not because you are "lazy" for some mysterious reason (why would you be, anyway?), but because of the interaction of your brain hardware with the environment. That is the way things are, and for everyone, whether or not other people choose to acknowledge it. That is how I see things, anyway.

Thank you for your time, platocrat; it's nice to see that, even if this does not turn out to be a case of AS, perhaps my therapist has still lead me in a useful direction - it definitely seems like a stronger direction than treatment plans that have seemed so irrelevant with my more 'conventional' therapists, who made me feel like I was just one step toward a paycheck.

"This is the biggest thing for me. I have severe deficits in executive functioning, so I find it almost impossible to set a goal, and then subsequently follow the steps necessary to achieve it. As a result, people are very frequently wondering when I'm going to "get out in life". It's starting to seem like the answer might be never."

I, too, get that "maybe it will always be this way, maybe I'll never be able to live in the 'real world'" idea, but I think we must both acknowledge that it is only a case of "never" if we give up that it could happen. We should be able to acknowledge how powerful our minds are, even if it turns out that they are not wired 'normally', and to recognize that the brain's strength lies in its ability to adapt. Perhaps we are just approaching the way to change incorrectly; that's precisely why I decided to start seeing a therapist again even though my opinion on them wasn't so great at the time - sometimes it can be infinitely useful to have an outside perspective when we have inadvertently (and transparently) trapped ourselves within our own box of thoughts. However, the real use in it can only really come when you have the right outside person, I am finding. But of course, this is just what I have found is working better for me, and I am the only person I can truly speak for - but perhaps it's another point you could also relate to.

I apologize if I came across as a pessimist, as this wasn't my intention. I'll elaborate on what I was getting at.

I certainly don't mean to imply that any Aspie (including myself) isn't capable of living an independent existence. But just as it is the case that what we're capable of doing is contingent on the brain states that we're capable of having, the brain states that we're capable of having are contingent on our genetic endowment and the environmental stimulus that we've faced, including the conditions in the womb, and everything that has happened since then. Certainly, the plasticity of the brain is a lot greater than it is often given credit for. But the key thing, I think, is that it is environmental conditions that allow those changes to happen, and not some amorphous "willpower" as so many would have it.

I have no doubt that many would vehemently object to what I write here, especially in North America, as we seem so wedded to the idea of a "self caused self". I simply can't accept the idea of a causa sui. Ultimately, every thing we have ever thought or done is traceable back to events that happened previously, so there is no point in time in which we could have created ourselves. This means, at least to me, that free will in the ultimate sense is bunk.

This isn't to say that we can't change. But I think it is especially important for the person with Aspergers, who is certainly subject to cognitive limitations, that they understand that they need the right conditions to flourish. It needs to be logic and evidence that guides us to a brighter tomorrow, and not the sort of magical thinking that says, "There is nothing different about you other than laziness."

I think that this would be true in every instance, and not just for people with Aspergers. If there is something not quite right in your life, you need to examine why that is the case, and not blame yourself for what you couldn't have done otherwise.

Yes, I believe the whole "you are whatever you want to be" idea is often overplayed and ignorant of the fact that we are bound to a set of hardware that we did not get to choose, which itself was the direct influence of things even further beyond our extent of control, but I do think that the internal state of someone can be the driving force behind a change; that their mind can reach a point where it is fed up with itself and enters a mode to encourage more expansive thought to solve the issues it's facing. While this might be simply seen as a 'change of thought' and not necessarily a full transformation of sorts, if we accept that all of our thoughts are bound to physical processes, we must also accept that it does have a physical impact on our brain's structure, and that potential impact could be seen in various different degrees depending on the individual.

So I guess my 'brain plasticity' point doesn't reach into the realm of the metaphysical, like as you alluded to it seems many people believe; where we can just magically spawn changes beyond our limitations and fix all of our issues, but I do think that we can actively push those limitations for a long-term restructuring and better utilizing the tools that we have. Similar to learning any new skill, I think if we can really target our weak areas we can eventually learn to use them better, or to find ways of circumventing them to our benefit. I think under the vast majority of circumstances one, irrelevant of whatever conditions he/she has, does need to be in a proper environment to encourage this self-change, but I still also believe there are instances where it's the mind's environment that can reach a point of intolerance with itself to force its own change. I suppose it's the difference between a change to the brain via a direct environmental condition versus a change in the brain via a change in thought caused by the perception of one's environment, which enters the shapeless subjective world of individual interpretation that is much more easily changed by our conscious efforts.

If we consider this right here - the Internet - and the role in can play in evoking change in someone just through some text on a message board, that's building on language as it is internally understood; words inherently mean nothing, but it is our internal concepts of words that are creating the meaning to us. The stimulus was created by someone typing the words out, but the end effect is fully our internal state analyzing internal meaning, in contrast to a direct physical impact that would play out the same for all of us regardless of what we thought about. Maybe that's kind of close to what I mean, or maybe I just flew off on a tangent that was only partly relevant to what I meant (that happens to me a lot).

I think both of our points have implications beyond what we fully understand, as they are dependent on truths that we don't fully have yet (who knows when we will really understand all of the intricacies of the brain?), but from my own experiences I think there is a significance in differentiating between direct environmental impact on brain chemistry/structure and the impact of a thought (the 'internal environment') on its own structure. Whether I can call that free will is beyond me, at least for now. I have my limitations but I must always consider that a given problem may just need some experimentation with different angles of 'think attack' - and it could turn out that what I thought was a limitation was really just approaching something from the wrong angle through thought; though of course it could actually be a 'hardware limitation'. There is so much abstraction in the brain/consciousness that it may be very difficult to distinguish these two ideas; is my difficulty a limitation of my hardware or do I just need to consider something I'm not considering yet, where my hardware is actually capable of reaching the goal it wants but I'm just not using it correctly at a certain point in time, but could learn to via thought experimentation? I am certainly not saying that AS is 'just a state of mind', though.

And don't worry about sounding pessimistic, it was just the one statement of "It's starting to seem like the answer might be never." that I was referring to, and more about the feeling it invoked in me because it's something I think about, myself, and rarely ends in a positive thought - often a sense of despair and hopelessness.

I think what you're touching upon is the fact that the brain/mind is not a monolithic, unified entity, but is instead comprised of many disparate, but interconnected, centers of functioning. So, even if we accept that we are fundamentally determined beings, such that we can't simply will ourselves to be something apart from what we have generally been caused to be, it is still the case that one part of the brain/mind can in fact function as the cause of another part's changed mental trajectory. If we doubt the efficacy of our mind's ability to change itself, we only need to consider some of the refined meditative techniques developed by Eastern traditions to cultivate certain tendencies in the mind. Given the profound changes that can even be detected as changed brain states by the instrumentation of modern science, I think it is safe to say that we can change, even by pure thought, under the right circumstances.

But it is those "right circumstances" that are key here. Because even the very desire to change, and the means by which we choose to go about it, are caused by something. That something could be, as you say, an intolerance for current conditions that creates a strong enough motivation for change. I think that this is a likely mechanism behind people's drive to change themselves. But isn't it the case, that in autism, that this is one of the very aspects of mental functioning that is impaired? If this is true, then one can not expect that the normal mechanisms of change will lead to desired outcomes.

If I am permitted to delve more deeply into a philosophical examination of the mind, my inclination is to reject a dualistic conception of the mind, given that I have never seen any evidence of mind existing as a separate, distinct substance apart from matter that can be measured as a force of nature. That being said, I am also skeptical of purely materialistic conceptions, since these seem to desire the reduction of all mental states into purely physical phenomena, and yet it occurs to me that the observation of brain facts by scientific instrumentation is not the the same thing as the personal experience of subjective mental states. Even as we try to understand how the brain determines our behavior, we can't fully reduce mental facts to brain facts.

My basic (and continually evolving) philosophy of mind at the present moment is that the traditional conceptions of the mind get it all wrong. It is often asked, how does the brain influence the mind, or how does the mind influence the brain? But to me, the two things are so inextricably bound to one another that the question is rendered incoherent. The basic relationship of mind to body is one of simultaneity, such that one cannot precede or cause the other. I am agnostic on the question of whether the mind exists as something separate from the brain or if they are in fact the same thing. But as I said, I believe this question is largely rendered incoherent when you understand the reality of simultaneity. I certainly think that, at least as a matter of convention, that it makes sense to place the two realms in separate categories, as long as we understand that this doesn't reflect any fundamental truth in an ultimate sense. But consider, that whenever we think, the activity in our brains has already changed, and when we take a medication, which causes a chemical change in our brains, we have no doubt that our mind has also changed.

I would also like to note that I have never denied the capability of making choices. We make choices every day, it's just that they were all caused by something. Perhaps something that you read on this forum will allow you to make some sort of connection, which will ultimately lead to overcoming your problems. Or it could be that there is a foundational limitation in our minds, preventing us from ever changing too significantly. I wish I had an answer to that, but the future is not an accessible realm to us until it has already reached its fulfillment.

I think we are definitely on the same page, then; you better expressed how I felt when you say that the brain could be categorized separately but should not be viewed as a traditional duality between brain/body and mind. I don't buy into the concept of a soul (though would be more than willing to if given some form of empirical evidence), so I do believe that fundamentally we are physically-bound, but that the root physics involved is built upon with so many interfering layers that the path from physical stimulus to a conscious thought, and the countless neural interactions that occur in thought before conclusions are reached, may become nearly irreversibly obfuscated; so much so that it may be more practical to treat them, if only in concept, separately at times; particularly when the stimulus for a thought was another thought and the external spark that started it all becomes increasingly less relevant to the later area of focus. This seems like a mirroring of how I previously mentioned my long Wikipedia adventures, where the first article bears nearly no significance to the article I end up at, but of course the reason the journey ended up where it did was because they are connected to each other in some way.

I must refrain from making any assumptions specifically regarding AS because I don't feel confident enough in my understanding of it (since it is still a relatively new idea for me, though it does increasingly seem relevant to my own mind), so I don't want to come to any conclusion as to what limitations may exist in an AS mind as compared to neurotypical; perhaps also a big influence in why I would like to know just what side of the field my own brain is playing on, so that I can understand which point of reference I am viewing things from. But this playing field seems to have more than two sides, and I may be neither neurotypical nor a case of AS.

Though just like neurotypical brain chemistry, it seems like science is still infantile in understanding the autism spectrum as well, as it is of course a matter of understanding how a mind operates to understand what is happening when it is not operating normally. So perhaps, to be truly scientific, it is best to come to no real conclusions at all, but simply more things to think about, more possibilities to consider, until we concretely find the answers we want (or don't want).

Perhaps the brain is just a paradox machine - separate from itself but one in the same, creating chaos from uniform physical laws. I may find fault with and feel out of place in the world, but if there is a creator out there I would at least thank it for giving me so many things to think about.

I think we are coming to these questions in a similar manner. At least where it involves our conceptual understanding of the external world, I require empirical data, and any model which is conceived to explain anything about it should be based on inferences from these data. I agree about the number of neural interactions involved in consciousness being "countless", and this to me implies a change in how we must view the world. We are naturally inclined to process the phenomenal experiences given to us by our senses by filtering out extraneous information and mentally imbuing the phenomena with any number of discrete categories. These categories are then held to be essentially real entities that actually exist in the world. In a conventional sense, this is quite a useful way of perceiving every day reality, but I think that it is an impoverished way of seeing the world that ultimately limits what we can understand.

I tend to see all phenomena as being entangled and interdigitated with all other phenomena, and in ways that will sometimes defy common sense. Consider for a moment the implications of relativity, where our intuitive notions of space, time, and gravity as separate and distinct entities have been exploded and we are now left grappling with a reality very different from what we commonly experience. Or consider quantum entanglement, where particles that are not in direct contact with one another are nonetheless bound up in surprising ways. The fact that these realities have been confirmed experimentally again and again suggests to me that there needs to be a revision in how we view the world. And the solution that I see is the abandonment of essentialism for a more open way of seeing the world, one in which all perceived phenomena are held to be contingent upon innumerable other forces.

The mere suggestion of this would be a source of considerable discomfort to many, I suspect, as it is clear that many if not most people are in need of a higher degree of cognitive closure than this allows for. But science at its best considers its theories to be provisional explanations and not absolute truths. But even if absolute "truth" is inaccessible to us, I still believe that some ways of seeing things are more justifiable than others. When I'm thinking of anything, I favor explanations that are as inclusive as possible of all phenomena pertinent to the question. The most parsimonious explanation that accounts for everything that I see is the one that I favor. If something can't be accounted for, we should rightfully tread carefully when speaking of it.

It does seem like autism research is still at an early point in its development, and it is mostly NTs who can't actually conceive of what it is like to be autistic who are conducting the research. It wasn't even until 1994 that the AS category was created. I think that it will be ultimately found that almost everyone has some of the genes that are responsible for what we today call autism, and that these genes are in fact necessary for human existence, whether or not people with full blown autism are generally functional. My suspicion is that the genes are favored because they create adaptive advantages in most of the individuals inheriting them, but in certain combinations, or in certain environments, lead to a cognitive style that is too inwardly focused to be adaptive. Still, the fact that these genes are necessary will hopefully prevent the NTs from attempting to extirpate the NDs. In any case, as you say, we should be open minded to all possibilities since there is still much to learn.

What you say about life makes me think of Satre and his observation that hell is other people, which may be true some of the time, but what a universe we inhabit! It seems to only arouse ever greater wonderment in me as the years go by.

Welkome to WrongPlanet.

The WP Kink