OddDuckNash99 wrote:
If the person has an official diagnosis, even if they're able to function in the world today, no, I wouldn't consider them neurotypical. For example, I struggle through daily life a lot of times because of my AS, but I'm able to function well enough to "pass for normal." However, I have definite problems that need psychiatric treatment, and I am not neurotypical. But there are lots of people out there (generally older individuals) who most likely would fit an Asperger's diagnosis but can function so well that they've never needed to get a diagnosis or receive psychiatric help. So, to me, these individuals are really like an extreme example of the BAP and, as far as daily life goes, they are like neurotypicals in my view. They obviously don't think anything's wrong with them, or else they would have needed help sometime in their life. The thing that is often forgotten about diagnoses in today's age of needing to label everything is the very important part of the DSM that says symptoms need to give significant impairment in functioning. It's similar to lots of people who may have obsessive-compulsive traits but aren't crippled by them like people who have true OCD.
I think there are many people out there that would probably easily meet the diagnosis of Aspergers, but don't have any idea of what it is. However, the people that fall somewhere in the middle range of introversion to extroversion, clearly notice they are unusual.
And then there are some people that are wildly extroverted, could easily be diagnosed as bi-polar, feel they function well, and are noticed as unusual by the majority of people.
Studies show introverts are more sensitive to the effects of dopamine than extroverts, and then there are somewhere in the middle. There is a neurological difference here, but not one that necessarily requires treatment, or prevents someone from functioning in life.
I think that is what the latest research suggests, that there is one large behavioral continuum affected by many factors.
Neurotypical by definition suggests typical neurology. By that definition the neurology that underlies the guy that would probably be diagnosed with Aspergers, functions well, and the guy with Aspergers that doesn't function well may be similar, but they may employee different coping mechanisms to deal with those neurological differences that work or may not work to function in life.
As discussed before, we don't have much research that allows us to understand just exactly what the neurological differences are in Aspergers, but I think it is safe to say that dopamine sensitivity may play a role as it does in introversion.
I think the ability to function or the inability to function, as you state is the most important factor. And, the most important factor in survival. I like the idea of dropping the term neurotypical, because it can give people the idea that autistic people are hugely outnumbered by Neurotypical people.
I like the general term of Neurodiversity applied to humans as an all inclusive term, with some that adapt to life and some that need assistance with adapting to life. The psychological labels are necessary to treat and accommodate those that have problems in functioning in life.
All of our psychological ideas of normality come from preconceived notions flavored by our experience. It is part of our nature to categorize everything, but I think humans are too complex to narrow it down to Neurotypical vs. Autistic; research of late seems to support this idea.
24 Jun 2011, 4:17 pm
