About the existence or inexistence of Asperger Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

"ideal" phenotype? An ideal phenotype would be any member of a species that has lived longed enough to produce offspring, and could include more than one neurological variation, if such a variation doesn't prevent one from reproducing
According to Theory of Evolution al a Darwin, a member of a species has to live long enough to reproduce or the genes do not make it to the offspring. Nowadays, because of advances in medical research, there are more variations than ever before. Medical research permits certian genes to be passed to offspring that wouldn't be 100 years ago.

No, I have read and reread and your posts and I see no links, no keywords, no clues. Maybe I've missed it but I'd be grateful for a reminder.

The next step is "what does a biological indicator of a character trait" actually imply? Oiunon has drawn a parallel between attitudes to homosexuality and AS. It is worthwhile considering that there may well be biological causes of homosexuality, but it does not mean we can view it as a disorder or disability any more. We used to be able to, even homosexuals often considered themselves 'faulty' and as recently as the 1960's submitted themselves to horrendous aversion therapy. Aversion therapy, which is truly the product of sick minds, is also used to 'treat' autistic disorders.

As time has gone by, we have learnt more about it and anybody who dares call homosexuality a 'dysfunction' will have the political correctness brigade hounding them. Yet not so long ago, if you said homosexuality *wasn't* a psychological aberration, you'd be in trouble with the great and good. Times change.

So a biological indicator of any character trait does not imply that trait is negative. The value judgement comes from those who choose to judge. My choosing not to judge, by not labelling ourselves as 'this' or 'that' we have an opportunity to lessen the suffering caused by becoming fixated on the label.

Based on your text as follows, you are a great deal less familiar than you appear to be asserting.

Actually, I do not believe that such a concept as "ideal phenotype" could ever exist as anything other than merely conceptual. I do not subscribe to any theory that includes such an absurd notion as there being some kind of "ideal phenotype", as you would know if you were as familiar with my views as you seem to be asserting.

Hunter gatherers do not live in villages, villages are an artifact of agriculture.

Anyone who thinks there is such a thing as an "ideal man" either reads too many Mills and Boon books or fails to understand evolution and its implications, or both these things.


Specialization among humans? Mmm, yes I am very familiar with the concept. It is more useful in the context of populations who produce surplus than it is in hunter gatherer societies.

The notion that non-autistics have insufficient diversity amongst them (and ability to specialize individually) is complete fantasy and utterly unsupported by the facts.


If it worked as well as you wish to fantasize, there would be many more of us; it is really that simple.

Wise people, seers, witches oracles usually coincide with organized religion, I know of no society in which they exist that is not characterized by religious beliefs that are organized in some respect (most often manifested in "ritual", but also in taboo, prescription, proscription, and very often associated with power/authority), and this includes hunter gatherer societies. There are many more people who "think differently" to others than there are autistic people.

Specialization is substantially less useful in the context of hunter gatherer subsistence than it is the context of a society that generates a surplus.

No, it is the highly verbal pedantic lecturing monologues that earned that description, (ironically those monologues are in the "little professor" concept, viewed as being merely rote regurgitation without any real comprehension....very far from what you seem to think the phrase was coined to describe).

If this were true there would be more of us; it really is that simple.


Unfortunately I have never asserted any such view, nor do I hold such a view. I can stress enough how mistaken you are if you actually believe that you are describing what I believe in this post when you refer to my 'theories' and/or "view".


That would blow just about everything you've stated, because the traits you claim would so useful for hunter gatherers, or little villages, are actually much more useful in large scale societies that have achieved surplus.

Nobody here is saying it's fake! And nobody is suggesting that it's used as an excuse for anything. I'm saying it's become a huge rag-bag of vaguely related character traits - that are very real - but have no coherent connection when you examine them.

That many of the traits are not actually detrimental to life at all. And that many of the traits would not be a problem in a less hyped up, loud, brash society. As someone said, maybe we are like the canaries they used to take down mines to detect gas. It's not that the canaries are 'over sensitive', just more aware of a toxic presence in the environment.

Thank you for that, pandd. I found it. Identity politics. At least that's what it looks like. ... ?

.

ManErg, about what you wrote earlier on impairment and functioning, I'm curious: Where would you personally choose to draw the line between impairment (i.e., what you define as autism) and non-impairment/personality variation? What criteria would need to be met to be defined as impaired or non-impaired under your system?

For instance: If someone with an AS diagnosis is in their thirties, has never functioned well enough to maintain long-term employment, drive, live independently, cook, and has no friends, do you think they should be re-diagnosed as autistic? Or would these be included in the group that has no label, (except maybe something like introversion)? I ask this because the above is a common occurrence in those diagnosed with AS.

Another question: Since many of those with HFA cannot be separated from those with AS to a significant degree in terms of adult outcome and functioning, then would you agree that they should also no longer be labelled autistic?



[Just for reference, the DSM-IV AS diagnosis currently specifies that this criterion must be met:

"... must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
It also mentions that the social impairments etc. "... are a source of considerable disability."

Therefore, those with this AS diagnosis have significant disability/impairment by definition (putting aside the issue of what the source of this is for now).]

Google "audio processing autism"
Google "visual acuity autism" .



A significant reason for this is because it is not an impairment if we do not view it as such. This is in stark contrast to AS which has the capacity to impair without anyone hearing a label for it, much less being aware that it is a medical label.


The problem with this parallel is if there is no social aversion to the concept "homosexuality", homosexuals do not experience any particular impairment or distress as a result of being homosexual. The same is simply not true of those who have AS.


What has negative got to do with it? If you think disability is morally negative, that is your subjective valuation. ASDs are impairing deviations from species typical functioning, aka disabilities. Any moral evaluation you make (good/bad, negative/positive) is entirely you own opinion and proves nothing about the reality of ASDs or their dysfunctional nature.

Indeed.

You are not choosing to not judge. You are judging then attempting to wish yourself out of the judgment by claiming the trait (disability/dysfunction) you judge as negative does not apply to your own condition. Ironically, the whole exercise appears to focus entirely on a label fixation.

pandd, your replies to my post are merely conclusory and not really responsive. Thanks for your list of replies, but I don't have the time to go through and explain why each isn't really responsive.

No. It's not them, either

It's beetles! By a long stretch. Or ants. So does that mean anything other than beetles and ants has no right so survive? I think evolution is driven by variety.

Pandd, I'm sorry that I always seem to be disagreeing with you on this thread. I do appreciate your thoughtful comments and they have made me think, which has to be good! Earlier you mentioned evolution and it has cropped up again. It occurs to me, based on recent web browsing, that scientists don't really *know* much about evolution at all. There is just so much controversy and debate about it, so many loose ends and unlikely sounding justifications. There are hypothesis that keep getting updated and I got the impression the only thing they agree on is that God didn't create it

Anyway, I think evolution doesn't know the answer yet, doesn't know which is the 'fittest', sometimes creatures become specialists of a niche, sometimes they become specialists at adaptation (us). Variety is very, very important so that something can survive whatever nasties happen in the environment. I wonder if that is our role? More generally, if that isn't why there isn't so much variety within the human species. We all have a place, a role to play and variety is the spice of life, after all.

If we all aim to become nothing other than identically normal, then one small change in the environment would wipe the lot of us out in one go. To have some who live away from crowds is advantageous to the species as a whole. Or we could all become identical, develope hive mind and become human ants.

You take irony to new and previously undreamed of heights.

I disagree that those with AS suffer intrinsically from/are impaired by having it. I think that someone with AS in a society which is sympathetic to their needs would not "suffer" at all from their AS. In what way do you think people with AS would suffer impairment wherever they were born/whatever society they were born into?

.

Good point. It is precisely part of our species' "fitness" that there is diversity/difference.

I'm beginning to see where the Neurodiversity movement is coming from. It avoids identity politics, sticks to "diversity" of biology, behaviour, etc, without the campaign becoming bogged down in identity-label loyalties/allegiances and schisms/rifts. Save/enable everything we can!
.

Last edited by ouinon on 19 Mar 2009, 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes it is. The context is an intra-species comparison, and has nothing whatsoever to do with non-humans or any comparison to non-humans.

Completely irrelevant since an intra-species comparison rather than an inter-species comparison was being made.


I'm not. I have enjoyed conversing with you.


We know a lot about evolution, but that is not the same as saying we know most of what there is to know.

That impression is not correct. Evolution does not deal with the reality or role of any deity directly. None of which stops people from arguing whatever they like about God, but they are incorrect if they claim evolution proves that no God had any creative role in the current state of existence.

The "fittest" is more a "sound bite" simplification intended to aid the conveyance of an idea. It is not a good and accurate description of evolutionary specifics.


Obviously not to date.

I do not know that we all have a role to play; I am unclear as to what that means. However, if you are extant and corporal then you are occupying a place.

One small change in the environment could do that anyway.

You realize that aiming to become nothing other than identically normal is both irrelevant to whether or not ASDs are real and impairing, and further is not a particularly coherent concept when applied to human beings (for us being identical is simply not "normal" at all)?


False dilemma. There are other possibilities between the two you describe. Even if true rather than false, it would not prove anything about whether or not ASDs are real or impairing.

Fair question. But why ask me instead of the people who devote their life to thinking up the criteria to label others? I'm the one whos saying a lot of us would do better to cast off these artificial socially constructed labels

If that person got diagnosed as autistic would it change them? Would they be able to get friends? Would they get medicine that somebody with AS doesn't get? Whatever the label, the essential person is just that.

What about a person who has never played a musical instrument, doesn't do sport, can't dance, is colour blind and allergic to nuts. Would it help at all if I label him as say "Quadrophonic Asphasia Syndrome"?



Surely when the presenting symptoms are the same, then you may as well get rid of HFA and just have AS? This has been suggested by many people as trying to tell the difference between the two seems to be a bit like seeing the Emperors new clothes.



All depends on that word 'considerable'.

As I have a DSM-IV diagnosis, I'm now racking my brains trying to think of the "considerable disability" I must have been judged to be suffering. I guess not having many friends could count as a disability, although I'd say it's sad, or unfortunate, rather than disabling.

How about this for an attempt at describing the difference between a socially constructed disability and a real disability: If the world was filled with geeks and introverts who loved peace and quiet , I'd have lots of friends and would not have any social problems. Whereas if the world was filled with blind people, it wouldn't help any of them to see. They'd still be blind.

Just to add that "Your Mileage May Vary". There is a huge variety in AS symptoms and who dares say that someone with a different set "hasn't really got it". If anybody wants to place faith that the medical industry has a clear definition and can identify this syndrome with 100% accuracy, thats fine with me. Just don't expect me to join you in your faith. Perhaps identifying with a group is what this is all about anyway?

Because human societies are shaped by human species typical traits, human societies are not environments that we can be unimpaired in relative to non-autistic humans.


Diversity amongst humans has increased over the last 100 years, not decreased.

If society is shaped by "typical traits" then societies should always be anti-pathetical to homosexuals/homosexual behaviour too.


Yes, I just found that out and edited/corrected my post.

.