Are elements of autism random mutations that could result to beneficial evolution?

Originally posted by Oliver North
if not comparing autism with animals, can you explain what you meant by "animal haters"?

I'll do my best to clarify my remark.

The position of the animal is often seen as one we can abuse freely because it cannot argue to defend itself, it cannot contest laws, it cannot offer anything to bribe us. When you abuse or threat objects differently because they cannot complain, you're acting in an "animal clause" of sorts.

A brief and probably minor argument that I may have imagined among the things you said, is that people who can question whether or not the term autist is sensible aren't autistic enough to be considered autists anyways. So by definition no autist should be able to defend itself, and thus we can disregard the objections of those who deplore the term since it doesn't apply to them. It doesn't apply to anyone that can argue back, so we can use any term. This is a typical animal disregard.

Of course, I think that in the end you were arguing not about the terms themselves, but trying to stress the importance of how radical the autistic trait was. My observation wanted to strain how the argument I explained above was guilty of abusing the animal clause and justifying itself with a scientific difference.

Originally posted by Oliver North
no, Dolos thinks he is a savant. Not just any savant though, one who can change what they are a savant in just by wanting to, like being a savant at being a savant.

Have you ever heard of metacognition? What if I told you that my understanding allows me to be aware when I'm socially dysfunctional as well as when I'm having moments of greater than normal clarity and cognitive development in a certain thing, like Chess. It's pretty clear that I'm beating my opponents left and right. But being aware of why that's happening can lead to other things:

Jake Barnett's example could be erroneous, Jake Barnett’s development in mathematical savvy is unique.

But then, high-functioning autistics are as unique as anyone else. They don’t share common physical traits like down syndrome, and are not defined by the disorder; which isn’t the result of extra chromosomes or a lack of gray matter, but rather a chemical difference.

In extremely rare cases, depending on the individual, the chemical difference allows for faster development of cognitive skills that are beyond possible for someone without the disorder. Savant syndrome may require some differences in the brain’s neural pathways.

I believe I could be one such rare case, and given the nature of fluid intelligence I think the effects that result in savants can be made to work any way I want it to. Apropos, systematically taking my opponent’s Chess pieces.

I wouldn't know what areas I cannot become a savant in until I try, and in the case of social and anxiety related impairments, I have already excelled via improvements in my emotional quotient - more-so than the average bear, especially during certain points in my life that were more trying than others.

Originally posted by Bentley
A brief and probably minor argument that I may have imagined among the things you said, is that people who can question whether or not the term autist is sensible aren't autistic enough to be considered autists anyways. So by definition no autist should be able to defend itself, and thus we can disregard the objections of those who deplore the term since it doesn't apply to them.

The issue with this point of view is that if people are basing their objection on being part of a group then it is relevant to talk about if they really are. The experiences of a person who is diagnosably autistic but is able to function in society and the experiences of a person with autistic symptoms that are completely crippling are very different. When the first person says "This offends us." and tries to include the person with more severe symptoms in that group the argument is specious.

We shouldn't disregard anyone's opinions on the subject but it is also a mistake to give people undeserved priority.

Originally posted by Bentley
The position of the animal is often seen as one we can abuse freely because it cannot argue to defend itself, it cannot contest laws, it cannot offer anything to bribe us. When you abuse or threat objects differently because they cannot complain, you're acting in an "animal clause" of sorts.

except my point went in the opposite direction, I was excluding the group that could defend itself, and focusing on the group that couldn't because that is where the need for intervention exists.

Originally posted by Bentley
A brief and probably minor argument that I may have imagined among the things you said, is that people who can question whether or not the term autist is sensible aren't autistic enough to be considered autists anyways. So by definition no autist should be able to defend itself, and thus we can disregard the objections of those who deplore the term since it doesn't apply to them. It doesn't apply to anyone that can argue back, so we can use any term. This is a typical animal disregard.

but we aren't talking about them defending themselves, we are talking about them defining the broader condition of autism based on their own experiences, which are markedly different than those who are less functional.

If anything, it is the high functioning autist in this case that is preventing the low functioning ones from being defended, because they are saying, "if it isn't an issue for me, it isn't for them", and the low functioning individual can't express that it is a problem.

I'm also sort of unclear about what the low functioning autist is defending themselves from? treatment?

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm also sort of unclear about what the low functioning autist is defending themselves from? treatment?

Labeling.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm also sort of unclear about what the low functioning autist is defending themselves from? treatment?

From the use of terms that simply focus in negative parts of a whole condition because its crippling, precisely. Symetrical Chaos pointed out a similar thing to that effect: "why we're only willing to classify things when they're a disability."

Originally posted by Oliver North
If anything, it is the high functioning autist in this case that is preventing the low functioning ones from being defended, because they are saying, "if it isn't an issue for me, it isn't for them", and the low functioning individual can't express that it is a problem.

The discussion is about the terms, changing terms is not strictly a way of discontinuing a treatment or disregarding a disability, medical treatment shouldn't change. I suppose there are some twisted people who would like to stop the medical treatment entirely but that is pretty irrational.

This individuals who are able to function in society are trying to put themselves into the shoes of people who they cannot understand. Maybe they are misguided by seeing a link between them and the other autistic people that is so thin it cannot be justified. I'm not really validating their autority to address the subject, I'm saying that when dealing with elements you cannot communicate with, to put yourself in their place is the only polite thing you can do. Will it help to understand and better their situation? Likely it won't, because you cannot really put yourself in there to begin with, but it means something to you. Language is meaningful to us, not to those that can't understand it, we are the part justifying different terms and different approaches to build them. It is not by their legitimacy but by their method that the "high functioning autists" validate a change on how we describe an object that it's, for the most part, a medical term.

But I'm not into building any particular preference about treatment or how medical business should be carried, I'm mostly pointing out that the terminology issue, even if misguided, points towards an actual semantic issue that it's often misconstructed in some social sciences -here it might not be the case, but post-colonialism points towards a very biased historical use of certain terms-.

Originally posted by Bentley
From the use of terms that simply focus in negative parts of a whole condition because its crippling, precisely. Symetrical Chaos pointed out a similar thing to that effect: "why we're only willing to classify things when they're a disability."

The discussion is about the terms, changing terms is not strictly a way of discontinuing a treatment or disregarding a disability, medical treatment shouldn't change. I suppose there are some twisted people who would like to stop the medical treatment entirely but that is pretty irrational.

This individuals who are able to function in society are trying to put themselves into the shoes of people who they cannot understand. Maybe they are misguided by seeing a link between them and the other autistic people that is so thin it cannot be justified. I'm not really validating their autority to address the subject, I'm saying that when dealing with elements you cannot communicate with, to put yourself in their place is the only polite thing you can do. Will it help to understand and better their situation? Likely it won't, because you cannot really put yourself in there to begin with, but it means something to you. Language is meaningful to us, not to those that can't understand it, we are the part justifying different terms and different approaches to build them. It is not by their legitimacy but by their method that the "high functioning autists" validate a change on how we describe an object that it's, for the most part, a medical term.

But I'm not into building any particular preference about treatment or how medical business should be carried, I'm mostly pointing out that the terminology issue, even if misguided, points towards an actual semantic issue that it's often misconstructed in some social sciences -here it might not be the case, but post-colonialism points towards a very biased historical use of certain terms-.

I think the main difference between where we are coming from isn't so much semantic as it is functional. There are different reasons that people might use the label "autistic". In broader society, sure, I actually see where you are coming from, but in terms of how I and most people I know (given, I'm in cognitive psych and not clinical) use the label "autistic", it is almost the opposite of what you are describing.

Either way, I see what you are saying.

Originally posted by Oliver North
in terms of how I and most people I know (given, I'm in cognitive psych and not clinical) use the label "autistic", it is almost the opposite of what you are describing.

That is not only possible but also likely, language has the annoying habitude of making a word become it's exact opposite with use 😄

I was born without toes. This has actually made me a better swimmer, so I'm assuming I'm an example of the next stage of evolution. Amirite?

It makes you a super hero!

Autism might be misunderstood. The only savants that have asperger's syndrome, the 'high functioning' ones, might simply be adjusted to handle a wacked out sensory processing disorder.

A typical person's very method of thinking is, in fact, influenced by sensory processes in the brain.