Page 2 of 5 [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

PsycStudent
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 74
Location: Dublin

16 Feb 2012, 12:37 pm

You could say 'members of the non Aspie community' but that would be a bit long. NT may not be a perfect fit but AS isn't really either, one person with AS isn't going to be a carbon copy of another person. You could take the DSM idea and say NT-NOS, NeuroTypical-Not Otherwise Specified, saying they're NT because were don't realy have any other more proper title yet.


_________________
"Now these ones are small, but those out there are far away. Small, far away"


Ai_Ling
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,891

16 Feb 2012, 12:56 pm

Neurotypical was a term that likely a bunch of psychs that study autism coined to differentiate normal people from autistics. Its not an offensive term. It just seems that because so many autistics on here seem to hate normal people it has had an offensive connotation to it. But honestly any other term in which people would use to identify normal people(vast majority of the pop) would become offensive since many people on here seem to hate NTs. In fact if you look into the definition and background of the word "autistic" it has a more derogatory connotation to it. The way it came about was out of dislike for the behaviors which we exhibit.



CosTransform
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 161

16 Feb 2012, 2:34 pm

I found how to diagnose someone with neuro typical sickness :tongue:

http://web.archive.org/web/201007232358 ... g/dsn.html

Quote:
DSN-IV (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 'Normal' Disorders)
Disorders Usually First Evident in Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence
666.00 Neurotypic Disorder

The essential features constitute a severe form of Invasive Developmental Disorder, with onset in infancy or childhood.
Diagnostic criteria for 666.00 Neurotypic Disorder

At least eight of the following sixteen items are present, these to include at least two items from A, one from B, and one from C.

Note: Consider a criterion to be met only if the behavior is abnormal for the person's developmental level.

A. Qualitative impairment in independent social interaction as manifested by the following:

(The examples within parentheses are arranged so that those first mentioned are more likely to apply to younger or more handicapped, and the later ones, to older or less handicapped, persons with this disorder.)

(1) marked delusional sense of awareness of the existence or feelings of others (e.g., treats a person as if he or she were an extention of himself; behaves as if clairavoyant of another person's distress; apparently projects own concepts and needs onto others)

(2) extreme or abnormal seeking of comfort at times of distress (e.g., constantly comes for comfort even when ill, hurt, or tired; seeks comfort in a stereotyped way, e.g., cries, whines needs demands for attention whenever hurt)

(3) constant or mindless imitation (e.g., always wave bye-bye; copies mother's domestic activities; mechanical imitation of others' actions whenever perceived to be in context)

(4) constant or excessive social play (e.g., always actively participates in simple games; prefers group play activities; involves other children in play only as long as the other children are exactly like themselves with no differences "mirrored images")

(5) gross impairment in ability to make peer friendships (e.g., obsessive interest in making peer friendships with other Neurotypics; despite interest in making friends and afore mentioned delusion of clairavoyance, demonstrates lack of understanding for those who are different and an obsessive rigidity for social convention, for example, constantly seeks attention/positive reinforment while staring mocking or laughing at others while they stim and rock and remain mute)
B. Qualitative impairment in verbal and nonverbal communication, and in imaginative activity, as manifested by the following:

(The numbered items are arranged so that those first listed are more likely to apply to younger or more handicapped, and the later ones, to older or less handicapped, persons with this disorder.)

(1) blatent overuse of all modes of communication, such as communicative babbling, facial expression, gesture, mime, or spoken language

(2) markedly abnormal nonverbal communication, as in the use of eye-to- eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, or gestures to initiate or modulate social interaction (e.g., anticipates and enjoys being held, does not stiffens when held, constantly looks at the other person or smiles when making a social approach, compulsively greets parents or visitors,insists on invasively stares into the eyes of others in social situations)

(3) excessive imaginative irrelevant activity, such as playacting of adult roles, fantasy characters, or animals, lack of interest in computers or other logical fullfilling pastimes

(4) marked abnormalities in the production of speech, including volume, pitch, stress, rate, rhythm, and intonation (e.g., gregarious grandious tone, overly emotional or syrupy melody, or overcontrolled pitch)

(5) marked abnormalities in the form or content of speech, including stereotyped and repetitive use of speech (e.g., immediate mindless or mechanical repetition of NT peers' latest 'in' or catch phrases) (e.g., "whatever" to mean "I am saying I disagree with you but I want you to be upset by my saying so in this way"); idiosyncratic use of words of phrases (e.g., "are you dissing me?" to mean "don't disrespect me"); or frequent irrelevant remarks (e.g., starts talking about the behavour of autistics at a table nearby during a meal at a restaurant)

(6) marked impairment in the ability to refrain from initiating a conversation or once initated to sustain a full thought during conversation with others, despite adequate speech (e.g., unable to stay ontopic/on thought due to the interjections from other Neurotypics)
C. Markedly restricted repertoire of activities and interests, as manifested by the following:

(1) inability or lack of understanding for or interest in stereotyped body movements, e.g., hand-flicking or -twisting, spinning, head-banging (except for during certain types of rock concerts), complex whole-body movements

(2) persistent lack of awareness or inability to perceive parts of objects (e.g., seeing 'a windmill' but failing to see the existance of the many beautiful finite parts which comprise the whole object, oblivion to feelings of texture of materials, spinning wheels of toy cars) or has an attachment to unusual objects (e.g., insists on driving around in a BMW, wearing Rolex watches, carrying a cellular phone or briefcase)

(3) marked oblivion to changes in aspects of environment, e.g., when a vase is moved from usual position

(4) unreasonable insistence in sameness in others in precise detail, e.g., insisting that exactly the same social behaviours always be followed when shopping

(5) markedly restricted range of interest and a preoccupation with one narrow interest, e.g., interested only in status quo climbing, impressing friends, or in pretending to be smarter or better than they are.
D. Onset during infancy or childhood.

Specify if childhood onset (after 36 months of age).

Author: Shelley from Kalamazoo

Return to the index page
Copyright � 1998 ISNT@autistics.org. Last updated December 5, 1998.



MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

16 Feb 2012, 7:24 pm

CosTransform wrote:
The point was to find a word that describe what is meant better. Not to deal with abuse or not.


I'm not sure you really got the point. The term already describes what it represents pretty accurately. The fact that people don't use it correctly won't be changed by changing the term. Pick another term, and those same people will abuse that term too, eventually.

Does that make more sense?

Let's look at the arguments you made in your OP:


CosTransform wrote:
But let's say that aspies would populate the world, then it would fall flat.


I disagree. If the Aspie/NT ratio were reversed, Aspies would then be neurotypical, and there would then be a new term for whatever Aspie's determine to call their disorder. The term neurotypical could still exist accurately describing exactly what it already describes now. The neurology of typical human beings. Just because, in your scenario, those NT's (who are Aspie in the real world) are in the majority, and therefore typical, and there wouldn't be a disorder called Asperger Syndrome, doesn't change the meaning of the term. It would just apply to a different neurology than it does now.


CosTransform wrote:
A term that concentrate what something is, rather than how common it is would be more to the point.


So what you really want to do is create a new term that describes what is now typical neurology. That's fine. You could do that, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that whatever that term is, can't also still be accurately referred to as neurotypical.

Still a rose by any name. The term isn't inaccurate, but it is often used inaccurately. It looked like part of the argument somewhere back there in the thread had to do with the term being abused by some people. All I was saying is that that abuse would just transfer to whatever new term is used to replace it. Nothing would really change.

No real change, to me, for something like this that would take a huge amount of effort to accomplish, seems kind of moot to me.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

16 Feb 2012, 7:46 pm

Ai_Ling wrote:
Neurotypical was a term that likely a bunch of psychs that study autism coined to differentiate normal people from autistics.


Consensus is that it was coined within the Autism community, first by a private group of people, then popularized by the "isnt" web site. I can't find any evidence to refute that, and it makes sense, but I don't think there is any real proof. I don't think anyone knows for sure. Most sources at least credit the Autism community, but don't go into any further detail.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

16 Feb 2012, 8:08 pm

In the autism literature, I have seen the words "neurotypical", "typical", "typically-developing", and "normals" used to terminologue the control group. "Typically-developing" is the most common. "Healthy" is offensive to me, because I consider myself to be healthy too. I laughed when I read "normals" in one paper. I have never seen just "normal" used to describe the control group without some kind of qualifier like "what we think of as normal people" or the more pedantic sounding equivalent of that statement.



CosTransform
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 161

16 Feb 2012, 9:09 pm

MrXxx wrote:
So what you really want to do is create a new term that describes what is now typical neurology


That's all there is to it.



MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

17 Feb 2012, 7:09 pm

CosTransform wrote:
MrXxx wrote:
So what you really want to do is create a new term that describes what is now typical neurology


That's all there is to it.


Right. We already have one. Two actually, that have been merged into one. "Typical neurology." It's right there. Neurotypical.

What is the point of coming up with a new one? You haven't explained how or why "neurotypical" doesn't accurately describe typical neurology.

Why do we need a new term?

I'm not getting why we need to complicate something so simple.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


Nurylon
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 109

19 Feb 2012, 6:10 am

Not everyone who is not autistic is typical. What's interesting, is how come they don't use the term for non-bipolars, or non-schizophrenics, or non-borderlines, or non-depressives?



CosTransform
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 161

19 Feb 2012, 6:20 am

They still use the same body- and language communication symbols and means.



Invader
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: UK

20 Feb 2012, 6:49 pm

snapcap wrote:
NT is an awful term. Every time I hear it, I think of the person saying it in a mocking looking down tone like normal people are soooo typical, easy to predict, mundane, a thorn in "our" side.

There's not such thing as a NT, whoever came up with the term felt grieved by people they felt typified some psychological profile, that is filled with a bunch of arbitrary characteristics.


Using a term in a negative or even hostile way does not invalidate what is being said.

The typical human being IS extremely stupid, and IS caught up in completely illogical behavioural and cognitive patterns, some of which the OP has listed. Whether or not it is arrogant to say so does nothing to change the factual accuracy of it.

Being rude does not equate to being wrong, this kind of thinking (or lack thereof) is very NT. :roll:



strongria
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6

09 Mar 2012, 7:24 am

MrXxx wrote:
Ai_Ling wrote:
Neurotypical was a term that likely a bunch of psychs that study autism coined to differentiate normal people from autistics.


Consensus is that it was coined within the Autism community, first by a private group of people, then popularized by the "isnt" web site. I can't find any evidence to refute that, and it makes sense, but I don't think there is any real proof. I don't think anyone knows for sure. Most sources at least credit the Autism community, but don't go into any further detail.


Definitely coined by autistics. Somewhere in the early-mid 90s. People were using the terms NT and AC (short for "Autistics and Cousins") on the Autism Network International lists before I joined (1994ish) - the history is online on the Autreat website. Back then, "neurotypical" was regularly and explicitly explained as a less othering alternative to "normal". In the last few months, I've seen some autistics use "allistic" as an opposite to 'autistic'. The intent is for both "autistic" and "neurotypical" and/or "allistic" to be equally marked and value-neutral, in a way an "autistic" vs "normal" formulation can never be. It seems I can't post links as a newbie, so google "Semantics, Gender, and 'Cis'" by dglenn for an extremely useful discussion about non-othering and neutral language, and about new words coined when non-othering terms for a concept do not exist (like neurotypical, or cisgender).

The problem: 20 odd years after the term "neurotypical" was first coined, it's gained its own set of associations, and (depending on context) can be seen as far from value-neutral as a result.



strongria
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6

11 Mar 2012, 5:57 pm

Nurylon wrote:
Not everyone who is not autistic is typical. What's interesting, is how come they don't use the term for non-bipolars, or non-schizophrenics, or non-borderlines, or non-depressives?


Actually, they sometimes do. Or more to the point, some people with mental health diagnoses identify as neurodiverse/neuro-atypical etc. It's the reason the term "allistic" was coined last year, as a more specific direct opposite to "autistic" ("allos" prefix = others vs "autos" = self). ie you can be allistic but not neurotypical.

Don't know where people with eg non-verbal learning disability etc are supposed to fit into that formulation tho - "autistic cousins", those on the edges of the spectrum, or with diagnoses overlapping it. Self-identification, I guess. Or "it's complicated"?



munch15a
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 153

17 Mar 2012, 12:04 am

I like it we have to have a name for the” normal” people and nero typical is better then “normal“ we are not Nero typical. The word nero typical I do not think is pegoitive towards us if you had a above average intelligence would u be offended if I called people who aren’t you intlectiwily typical

i think its best way and also in increases the sense of solidarity I already had for those who are not NT but are neither on the spectrum like those with bi polar and such

I have no problem with it and definitely don’t want to get caught into that trap where every 4 weeks I have to re learn the English lagiwige because all the words I know have become offensive

I refered to a kid I know who cant walk as disabled the other day someone got angry at me apparently sometime in the last year or so that become a bigoted word lets not do that for us



Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

17 Mar 2012, 9:55 am

To us we're normal and they aren't. Never forget that!! !



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,340

17 Mar 2012, 5:03 pm

The term as a whole outside of the internet sites that use the term in discussion, is basically meaningless.

In the real world, anyone that has been around more than a few people, understands intuitively that typical neurologies, if such a thing exists would be the rarity not the norm.

It's not much different than language used in an urban dictionary to describe white people as "crackers". Or the more offensive terms that one can find to stereotype a huge group of people in society.

Autistic people have a neurocognitive difference that scientists understand to create impairments in social communication and repetitive restrictive behaviors and interests. That's a couple of problems of atypical neurocognitive function; there are hundreds of other problems, some milder, and some more profoundly disabling.

A better way of identifying people that don't have autism would have been to use a more specific term related to those without significant impairments in social communication.

There are quite a few other disorders that include social communication difficulties as well, but at least it would be clearer in communication outside of the community as a clue to the difference among autistic people and those that don't have the disorder, if that was really part of the intention of the creation of the descriptive term.

The term neurotypical does not provide much of a clue. The actual neurological differences in autism, are not even understood well by scientists.

The term Neurotypical provides insight into the socio-communication problem of autism, in that those in the autism community created the term and that the term doesn't provide a description of much of anything that is understood well by a common audience.

It's a good conversation piece, per the reality of the many threads that have been designed here, to try to figure out what the heck it means.

The best of all solutions to provide effective communication would have been the one, already in place, that can be used by all of the individuals that have the 100's of other disorders that have been associated with neurology.

Non-_________ . Non-Epileptic, Non-Autistic, Non-Schizophrenic, etc.

Non-Autistic is really the most efficient method of communicating a simple clear effective communicative message, that fortunately everyone is still free to use in place of NT or Neurotypical in any conversation on autism.

NT has become a divise term like "Cracker", or the many disparaging terms that people have used to describe people with autistic traits, like nerds and geeks.

In reality for the most part NT is used as a term to bully/disparage a huge group of individuals in society whom are perceived as different, by those whom use the term.

I choose not to use it whenever possible because it has gained that meaning over time. When I do use it, because of the many observations of the use of the disparaging use of the term, it gives me the feeling of sinking to the level of those that have directed hundreds of disparaging terms toward others whom have differences.

Non-Autistic gets the clear message across, that will be even clearer, when the DSMV comes out.

There is not an effective way to use the term Non-autistic inside or outside of the Autistic community to disparage anyone. The beauty of the term. An excellent alternative for those whom refuse to use a term that is now commonly used to disparage others with differences.