Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A few articles to read before posting (suggestion):

Savant Syndrome, associated with ASD.

Jake Barnett, victim of ASD, experienced and continues to experience abnormal increases in cognitive functioning throughout his lifetime.

Novel Imaging Technique Shows Gray Matter Increase in Brains of Autistic Children. Peered reviewed scholarly article.

There's an abstract for that article.

There's another abstract for that article.

Could Autism Be the Next Stage of Human Evolution?

Genius may be an abnormality.

As per the volatility necessary for survival in cro-magnum times, an autistic recently committed one of the most extreme acts of violence..suggesting autistics can shut off their empathy more extremely than normally possible. Even rodents with autism have displayed superior skills to non-autistic rodents in lab tests.

But that is an unnecessary addendum because modern times do not necessitate primal or animal-like behaviors and skills in modern society, so I will not link unless by request.

/ffs not even touching it

Originally posted by Oliver North
/ffs not even touching it

Why not? Weigh in. I'd read your post just for the sake of learning new stuff.

is autism an evolutionary adaptive mutation?

c'mon ddm, you know why this is nonsense without me talking about autism

EDIT: please note, Dolos thinks that a learning disability he has, which is so non-pervasive he is able to use the internet apparently unassisted and discuss philosophy while being involved in regular education, is akin to autism and he can use this "savant syndrome" to learn anything instantly, akin to a super power. Again, you shouldn't need me to pick this apart at every possible level.

Originally posted by Oliver North
is autism an evolutionary adaptive mutation?

c'mon ddm, you know why this is nonsense without me talking about autism

Not adaptive, random. And that's not the question, that's the matter of fact. The question is could it be beneficial?

the answer in no

EDIT: lol, seriously, like really, what subject do you want this to demonstrate your ignorance in, because I can think of at least 2-3.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: please note, Dolos thinks that a learning disability he has, which is so non-pervasive he is able to use the internet apparently unassisted and discuss philosophy while being involved in regular education, is akin to autism and he can use this "savant syndrome" to learn anything instantly, akin to a super power. Again, you shouldn't need me to pick this apart at every possible level.

Well that underlined portion is complete bologna.

You're ranting.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the answer in no

EDIT: lol, seriously, like really, what subject do you want this to demonstrate your ignorance in, because I can think of at least 2-3.

You don't think it has any elements within it that could be advantageous? If you removed the disadvantages?

Originally posted by Dolos
Well that underlined portion is complete bologna.

You're ranting.

lol, you don't think you are a savant?

Originally posted by Dolos
You don't think it has any elements within it that could be advantageous? If you removed the disadvantages?

lol, no, wtf... you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

If I don't, then enlighten me.

Why is that so terrible if I do? That's why we discuss ideas.

No reason to start in on me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
is autism an evolutionary adaptive mutation?

c'mon ddm, you know why this is nonsense without me talking about autism

EDIT: please note, Dolos thinks that a learning disability he has, which is so non-pervasive he is able to use the internet apparently unassisted and discuss philosophy while being involved in regular education, is akin to autism and he can use this "savant syndrome" to learn anything instantly, akin to a super power. Again, you shouldn't need me to pick this apart at every possible level.

I honestly thought you were saying you were not going to touch it for completely different reasons.

Edit: Also, we would need probably 40,000 more years to see if some forms of autism were a successful evolutionary adaptation. Is that what you were getting at, above?

Originally posted by Dolos
If I don't, then enlighten me.

Why is that so terrible if I do? That's why we discuss ideas.

No reason to start in on me.

because you have no idea what autism is and I don't want to get dragged into arguing your spirituality...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I honestly thought you were saying you were not going to touch it for completely different reasons.

lol, fair enough

you get what I'm saying right?

autism? adaptive? ......

I never admitted to having autism either. I admitted to having a learning impairment, which doesn't necessitate autism exclusively.

That's a speculation you're presenting as fact. Regardless of what the facts are, your opinions on this matter seem emotionally driven.

Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, fair enough

you get what I'm saying right?

autism? adaptive? ......

When did I use the word adaptive?

It's a chemical abnormality in the brain. That is a random thing, or it could be the result of something else, because it is a common disorder, very frequently diagnosed as opposed to when specialists lacked the knowledge they have today.

Originally posted by Dolos
Regardless of what the facts are, your opinions on this matter seem emotionally driven.

I'm going to be awarded my masters in psych in the next couple of months, take that as you want

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm going to be awarded my masters in psych in the next couple of months, take that as you want

Well, at least your opinions of me.

How much have you studied autism? Specifically high-functioning Asperger's syndrome.

The empirical test cited in three of the articles I posted does make a strong case toward at least one learning advantage related to savantism, that and the existence of Jake Barnett.

Originally posted by Dolos
Well, at least your opinion

done!

Why would someone alter the text and subsequent point of another's post?

Originally posted by Oliver North
autism? adaptive? ......

There are just too many kinds and severities of autism for me to weigh in on the topic with any sort of certainty. Also...the whole future thing being necessary despite the "predictive qualities of science."


Is DSM V out yet?


Edit - Google searched. Not out till later this month. How is autism going to be "done up" in DSM V? Aren' "they" moving to a sliding scale and collapsing it all into one label of autism?


And, lol @ the self-diagnosed "I have aspergers" people. I'm pretty sure that label is going away.

Originally posted by dadudemon
severities of autism

Autism, yes, does exist on a spectrum. Trust me, anyone diagnosed with autism is of a significant "severity" that interacting on the internet would be difficult, to say the least.

this is some stupid trick dolos is trying to use to call himself a savant

Originally posted by Oliver North
Autism, yes, does exist on a spectrum. Trust me, anyone diagnosed with autism is of a significant "severity" that interacting on the internet would be difficult, to say the least.

this is some stupid trick dolos is trying to use to call himself a savant

A local article, back when I was a senior.

I may write coherently now, but in fifth grade I struggled to form real letters when writing, much less write something coherent. However, I had an excellent vocabulary at that time. Both my parents used big words, I was always curious what they meant, and so I'd ask. But I couldn't spell.

Yet in kindergarten my IQ was tested at 110, an average IQ score for my age group. What went wrong. I never believed in the IQ test.

I'm curious why you lost your cool.

I didn't think a few arguments would cause any sort of animosity to be directed at me.

Then again, all my ideas were scrutinized from day one by various members. Symmetric Chaos and Omega Vision to name names.

I recall SC telling me that I'm a smug, conceited preacher in a way. Using the word "Dogmatic".

I fail to see cause for such persecution.

I would be interested to hear about inimalist's view on high functioning autism. I was under the impression that some autistic people have a much easier time communicating via the Internet, for example.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was under the impression that some autistic people have a much easier time communicating via the Internet

Oh, you don't even know.

I don't have these kinds of conversations offline. And trust me, I've tried to have them, people eventually zone out when I get half way through my assertion. Thus walls of text, some have the desire and inclination to read online at least.

Originally posted by Dolos
Oh, you don't even know.

I don't have these kinds of conversations offline. And trust me, I've tried to have them, people eventually zone out when I get half way through my assertion. Thus walls of text, some have the desire and inclination to read online at least.

Is he correct in his assumption about you though? Do you feel like you are a savant? Is that why you posted this thread? Have you found that you having Asperger's has been advantageous, and if so, in what situations?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Have you found that you having Asperger's has been advantageous, and if so, in what situations?

I'm curious, here, as well.


Though I think SC would be a better person to ask as he appears to be higher functioning*.


*That seems a bit rude to say about people, imo. Sounds patronizing. PC Police need to help me.

Higher functioning just means less evolutionary advantage!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Higher functioning just means less evolutionary advantage!

You're obviously trying to make me feel even worse.

We had something, once...

Originally posted by Dolos
I'm curious why you lost your cool.

I didn't think a few arguments would cause any sort of animosity to be directed at me.

Then again, all my ideas were scrutinized from day one by various members. Symmetric Chaos and Omega Vision to name names.

I recall SC telling me that I'm a smug, conceited preacher in a way. Using the word "Dogmatic".

I fail to see cause for such persecution.
It's not persecution. If you come in here making unfounded claims with poor reasoning and generally act willfully ignorant you're going to be picked apart.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would be interested to hear about inimalist's view on high functioning autism.

ok

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was under the impression that some autistic people

"people with autism"

uhuh

Originally posted by Bardock42
have a much easier time communicating via the Internet, for example.

I don't know the autism literature very well, but for people with different types of social phobias or anxieties, it is found to be beneficial. People who really suffer from it are known to benefit from things like MMOs where they get to socially interact in groups in the same way people do from real world interactions. I can only guess, but for a highly functional person with autism I'd assume there is a lot of anxiety associated with human interaction, not to mention people's prejudices. On the internet one's idiosyncrasies don't come out as prominently, and interaction is entirely voluntary.

Like I said, I don't know about autism specifically, but to the extent that people with the disorder experience anxiety when dealing with people, they would benefit from the internet.

Originally posted by Dolos
I may write coherently now, but in fifth grade I struggled to form real letters when writing, much less write something coherent. However, I had an excellent vocabulary at that time. Both my parents used big words, I was always curious what they meant, and so I'd ask. But I couldn't spell.

so like, some kind of character-apraxia? Was it that you couldn't remember what the letter looked like or that you had trouble executing the movement? I imagine the only diagnosis anyone would have given it was dyslexia, ya?

In grade 5 you are roughly 10. Children's language development varies dramatically across kids, but tends to all equal out at 10-11 years of age, so it might just be you were a little delayed in writing production.

I'm a terrible speller to this day, and my penmanship looks like a child's. This is unrelated to anything other than being a bit embarrassed when I have to fill in forms and applications.

Originally posted by Dolos
Yet in kindergarten my IQ was tested at 110, an average IQ score for my age group. What went wrong. I never believed in the IQ test.

with the exception of things like comprehension and fluency, language ability and IQ aren't related at all. (they are probably correlated, but they are different concepts entirely...)....

errr, ok, not entirely, but a dyslexia is not an intellectual disability, it is a language disability, and even then, you say yours was related to character production. If you had issues with verbal reasoning or grammatical syntax, that would probably impact your IQ score (though it wouldn't mean you were any less intelligent). The only issue for you might have been the time taken if you couldn't produce written answers, but I'd assume you weren't taking a formal written IQ exam in kindergarten.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Though I think SC would be a better person to ask as he appears to be higher functioning*.


*That seems a bit rude to say about people, imo. Sounds patronizing. PC Police need to help me.

"High functioning" is the term that some psychologist decided to use, although amusingly a google search suggests it means/meant "not (clinically) retarded," and I don't think its been challenged much. Being classified as Aspergers was something that mattered to me in elementary school, then I was very into autism culture in high-school as well, but since college I haven't really cared.

The thing is there's no obvious way to separate what should be counted as "result" of Aspergers from what isn't. I still do the "little professor" thing but personality theorists could construct that as a defense mechanism. There's an element of Aspie culture that prefers to do away with the medical model but not the classification and characterize Aspergers as a personality or a way of looking at the world.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok

Good

Originally posted by Oliver North
"people with autism"

uhuh

I believe a large, or at least vocal, amount of high-function autistic people prefer identity first terminology. The reasoning being that it is not a disability but an acceptable different identity (allistic being the opposite (compare a homosexual person or heterosexual person). They also often dislike the "people with autism" phrasing, disapproving of the implications that they need to be cured.


Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't know the autism literature very well, but for people with different types of social phobias or anxieties, it is found to be beneficial. People who really suffer from it are known to benefit from things like MMOs where they get to socially interact in groups in the same way people do from real world interactions. I can only guess, but for a highly functional person with autism I'd assume there is a lot of anxiety associated with human interaction, not to mention people's prejudices. On the internet one's idiosyncrasies don't come out as prominently, and interaction is entirely voluntary.

Like I said, I don't know about autism specifically, but to the extent that people with the disorder experience anxiety when dealing with people, they would benefit from the internet.

Do you think it is just due to secondary factors then (social anxiety for example) or that there could be something in Internet communication that lends itself to helping with problems autistic people have (for example an inability to read moods)?

Originally posted by Oliver North
is autism an evolutionary adaptive mutation?

c'mon ddm, you know why this is nonsense without me talking about autism

EDIT: please note, Dolos thinks that a learning disability he has, which is so non-pervasive he is able to use the internet apparently unassisted and discuss philosophy while being involved in regular education, is akin to autism and he can use this "savant syndrome" to learn anything instantly, akin to a super power. Again, you shouldn't need me to pick this apart at every possible level.

Post is pure lolz

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe a large, or at least vocal, amount of high-function autistic people prefer identity first terminology. The reasoning being that it is not a disability but an acceptable different identity (allistic being the opposite (compare a homosexual person or heterosexual person).

weird...

from our side of things, it is important to highlight that the people you are dealing with are individuals in need of respect, rather than a condition to be researched.

Its like, a way of preventing researchers from looking at subjects as simply just data points (why we are supposed to call them participants instead of subjects, but I don't see the value in that one).

Originally posted by Bardock42
They also often dislike the "people with autism" phrasing, disapproving of the implications that they need to be cured.

there are activists for everything

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think it is just due to secondary factors then (social anxiety for example) or that there could be something in Internet communication that lends itself to helping with problems autistic people have (for example an inability to read moods)?

This gets really close to talking about what it actually is, in terms of cognitive systems, that makes autism what it is, and I don't have much to offer on that. I wrote a paper on early warning signs in terms of language and attention defects one might see in very young children (my bias is that I see autism as a very early issue with attention), but autism proper is much more about how these attentional deficits impact development, so once we are talking about a reasonably old individual, I know little more than a layman.

so like, is it that in an active conversation the individual can't process the emotional signals they are attending to, is it that, because of issues with development, their attentional system doesn't look for emotional signals in conversation, etc. I'm sure there are studies that look at it, but dividing out what would be a "secondary" factor from a primary one would be daunting and functionally irrelevant.

But ya, secondary or not, it may facilitate it, except internet communication isn't devoid of emotional cues, they are just of a different sort.

There is an Autistic man who took a single helicopter ride over new york and then painted it perfectly upon a wall an hour later. I mean the whole freaking city down to the last building.

Now I am the last person who wants to Agree with Dolos but I understand what he is asking at least!

If people who had no mental or health issues could develop memory and attention prowes as much as this guy has ,Despite being Autistic, we would be much better off as a society.

everyone realizes that people like Stephen Wiltshire are outliers in the most extreme ways? His experiences and behaviours differentiate him as much from other people with autism as much as it does the rest of the population.

Originally posted by Oliver North
from our side of things, it is important to highlight that the people you are dealing with are individuals in need of respect, rather than a condition to be researched.

Social theorist are always changing their minds and ultimately no one else cares enough to keep up. The bigger problem is that there is no one single answer, no matter how much social theorists insist that they have now suddenly figured it out. Group by group and person by person there will be differences in how people want to be referred to.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Its like, a way of preventing researchers from looking at subjects as simply just data points (why we are supposed to call them participants instead of subjects, but I don't see the value in that one).

Roediger is being fairly crochety here but I think you'll enjoy it.
http://journal.sjdm.org/roediger.html

"What group favored this change? Were college students writing in en masse saying 'Don't call us subjects any more; we participate!'"

Originally posted by Oliver North
there are activists for everything


This isn't a new one, though, it's the minority model of disability. Even racists wouldn't refer to "people with Africanness" because that's not how we think of the group. A lot of people, especially in the autism community, dislike the medical viewpoint and prefer to construct autism as a way of being rather than a disease in need of a cure. You can end up with people saying weird stuff due to this (one writer criticized Oliver Sacks individualizing his subjects) but the central point is not totally absurd.

The thing that people especially want to escape that they feel "person with trait" phrasing is the idea that suddenly everything about who they are is credited to the trait. This is a pretty common informal fallacy (cum hoc, ergo propter hoc?).

Temple Grandin is good with animals. Why? A good argument could be made that its related to autism.

Jane Goodall is good with animals. Why? She's not autistic.
Obviously, then, the ability to be good with animals can exist independent of autism.

Is it possible that when we see "autistic" and "good with animals" in describing Temple Grandin we made a jump in connecting them that we tried to justify later. Perhaps Temple Grandin is autistic and good with animals.

This implicit though process is what opposition to the "person with trait" wording is attacking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Social theorist are always changing their minds and ultimately no one else cares enough to keep up. The bigger problem is that there is no one single answer, no matter how much social theorists insist that they have now suddenly figured it out. Group by group and person by person there will be differences in how people want to be referred to.

Sure, and it was more of a joke at Bardock in the first place. That being said, I think the criticism that researchers need to remember the humanity of their subjects is apt, especially given the way the mentally handicapped have been treated in the history of the science.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Roediger is being fairly crochety here but I think you'll enjoy it.
http://journal.sjdm.org/roediger.html

"What group favored this change? Were college students writing in en masse saying 'Don't call us subjects any more; we participate!'"

lol, that was awesome

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This isn't a new one, though, it's the minority model of disability. Even racists wouldn't refer to "people with Africanness" because that's not how we think of the group. A lot of people, especially in the autism community, dislike the medical viewpoint and prefer to construct autism as a way of being rather than a disease in need of a cure. You can end up with people saying weird stuff due to this (one writer criticized Oliver Sacks individualizing his subjects) but the central point is not totally absurd.

no, it isn't totally absurd at all, and there are very interesting questions about highly functional individuals with mental disabilities and the question of "at what point do we consider X behaviours a disability". My own opinion is that anyone functional enough to entertain such arguments about "medical models" and autism as an issue of identity politics is probably not autistic, or at least not so in a way that I would consider it equivalent to those who are unable to engage in such activities, so it is almost moot. I have, at times, crippling bouts of social anxiety. However, 99% of the time, I can interact with the world, so to take that from the point of "suffers anxiety" to "is a person with an anxiety disorder" is one I would think is unwarranted.

So, sure, whatever, "autism" is a way of being (though, so is everything). I still think it is silly for someone to take offense to the clinical study of something that causes pervasive issues for individuals and their families simply because, in their case, it isn't a major issue.

Its like, there are issues in Canada with alcohol on Native reserves. When someone makes the stupid comment about Native people wasting money on booze, the most common response is to have a Native person reply, "well, my home is alcohol free", as if that was the issue. As if that single person was what the conversation was ever about. No booze at your house? well, gee, issue settled, thanks!

It strikes me the same here. If one is cogent enough to be offended by some perception that clinicians are trying to normalize everyone and self identify with one's diagnosis, they aren't the person the medical/research community is really interested in. If you are living a fulfilling life where you have the opportunity to make your own decisions, great... that was never the issue in the first place though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The thing that people especially want to escape that they feel "person with trait" phrasing is the idea that suddenly everything about who they are is credited to the trait. This is a pretty common informal fallacy (cum hoc, ergo propter hoc?).

Temple Grandin is good with animals. Why? A good argument could be made that its related to autism.

Jane Goodall is good with animals. Why? She's not autistic.
Obviously, then, the ability to be good with animals can exist independent of autism.

Is it possible that when we see "autistic" and "good with animals" in describing Temple Grandin we made a jump in connecting them that we tried to justify later. Perhaps Temple Grandin is autistic and good with animals.

This implicit though process is what opposition to the "person with trait" wording is attacking.

That makes sense, but I think is getting away from what I was saying. This is really just saying, don't confuse correlation and causality. From what I've read, the scientific community is largely skeptical of this "savant" condition in the first place, or at least in terms of its broader implications to autism.

Society is a different story, but they do this type of thing all the time. Missattribution errors are common, and certainly exist for other categories like gender and race.

Originally posted by Oliver North
no, it isn't totally absurd at all, and there are very interesting questions about highly functional individuals with mental disabilities and the question of "at what point do we consider X behaviours a disability".

I suppose "clinically significant stress or anxiety" isn't very detailed. A broader question might be why we're only willing to classify things when they're a disability.

Originally posted by Oliver North
My own opinion is that anyone functional enough to entertain such arguments about "medical models" and autism as an issue of identity politics is probably not autistic, or at least not so in a way that I would consider it equivalent to those who are unable to engage in such activities, so it is almost moot.

Yeah, I've wondered off and on whether it make sense for me to identify as Aspergers anymore.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, sure, whatever, "autism" is a way of being (though, so is everything).

Ah, but that isn't how we think of mental illness. We think of it as something that impinges on one's proper state of being.

The "person with trait" phrasing is meant to do more than remind you that they're a person (you can do with with "trait people" phrasing) it is also meant to separate the person and the illness. This is why we talk about "people with cancer" or "people with schizophrenia" but not "people with black" or "people with male".

At least that's how social theorists look at it. I don't think exact wording is quite that important. In the case of "person with trait," however, the wording is very deliberate.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I still think it is silly for someone to take offense to the clinical study of something that causes pervasive issues for individuals and their families simply because, in their case, it isn't a major issue.

Absolutely. Was that what Dolos was writing about? I haven't read the start of the thread.

Originally posted by Oliver North
From what I've read, the scientific community is largely skeptical of this "savant" condition in the first place, or at least in terms of its broader implications to autism.

I though savant abilities were pretty well established as a thing that really happens.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Have you found that you having Asperger's has been advantageous...?

Is that a "maybe"?

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
There is an Autistic man who took a single helicopter ride over new york and then painted it perfectly upon a wall an hour later. I mean the whole freaking city down to the last building.

Now I am the last person who wants to Agree with Dolos but I understand what he is asking at least!

If people who had no mental or health issues could develop memory and attention prowes as much as this guy has ,Despite being Autistic, we would be much better off as a society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is that a "maybe"?

No it's the other affirmative answer.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so like, some kind of character-apraxia? Was it that you couldn't remember what the letter looked like or that you had trouble executing the movement? I imagine the only diagnosis anyone would have given it was dyslexia, ya?

In grade 5 you are roughly 10. Children's language development varies dramatically across kids, but tends to all equal out at 10-11 years of age, so it might just be you were a little delayed in writing production.

I'm a terrible speller to this day, and my penmanship looks like a child's. This is unrelated to anything other than being a bit embarrassed when I have to fill in forms and applications.


No dyslexia to my knowledge, if I have it I actively tricked myself by learning to read and write in reverse of what I see, for so long I never noticed the problem.

No but seriously English went from my worst subject to being an unparalleled subject in my class. For a few years my English was peerless, then I lost interest and remained only a few grade levels above my class.




No, first it predicts me as average, then I practically get all f's later in life, trying to do the work mind you. Then all the sudden a switch flips and I get straight A's.

The IQ test really doesn't work for everyone.

Originally posted by Dolos
No, first predicts me as average, then I practically get all f's later in life, trying to do the work mind you. Then all the sudden a switch flips and I get straight A's.

if I profiled posts...

Originally posted by Oliver North
if I profiled posts...

I know a website where members do the paged 'fail quote' thing.

FYI, doesn't bother me, so I wouldn't bother.

lol, I'm just ****ing with you. I get what you are asking, but the fact is, the stuff you are describing is normal intellectual development, maybe with some language lag. IQ doesn't necessarily reflect grades if there are other issues, and in the end, it is arguable what IQ means anyways.

For instance, Micheal Jordan and Wayne Gretzky are almost inarguably the most "intelligent" athletes at their sports, many artists and musicians are not "intelligent" in the academic sense but show genius that can't be denied, however, we don't recognize that type of intelligence on IQ tests. so like, I wouldn't worry too much about IQ tests, unless you really want to join MENSA or something.

I am well aware of the fundamental flaw of the IQ test.

Look at it this way, asking for someone's IQ is sort of like asking for their bench. And just because you can bench press a lot of weight, doesn't mean you're fast or coordinated at soccer. Your IQ may be a strong indicator of intelligence in some cases, however most of the time it isn't because it doesn't give you but a specific series of "g", intelligence or skills at intelligence related tasks, mainly related to recognizing patterns.

However, I plan on retaking it one day, for scoring high. Because it is apart of intelligence, whether it gives you the whole picture or not, like me wanting to outshine others academically, regardless if it has to do with my future or not. I want to be smart for the sake of being smart. That's my thing, it's just something that's important to me.

Originally posted by Dolos
Look at it this way, asking for someone's IQ is sort of like asking for their bench. And just because you can bench press a lot of weight, doesn't mean you're fast or coordinated at soccer. Your IQ may be a strong indicator of intelligence in some cases, however most of the time it isn't because it doesn't give you but a specific series of "g", intelligence or skills at intelligence related tasks, mainly related to recognizing patterns.



ya, thats actually a really good analogy

and like soccer, being "smart" is a combination of things, imho, the biggest being the ability to recognize other people's expertise, so, in a way, not even something that an IQ test could look for anyways.

Originally posted by Dolos
However, I plan on retaking it one day, for scoring high. Because it is apart of intelligence, whether it gives you the whole picture or not, like me wanting to outshine others academically, regardless if it has to do with my future or not. I want to be smart for the sake of being smart. That's my thing, it's just something that's important to me.

well, look man, truth be told, you are on an internet forum, in your spare time, considering issues of philosophy, politics, religion, etc. People may not agree with you always, but they certainly want to engage with you.

Compared to the average person who has almost no interest in this type of thing, you are empirically, objectively, smart. Whether it is other people or yourself that you are trying to prove that to, case closed.

Also, academics are overrated, unless you want funding in graduate school, then it is literally the only thing ever.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"High functioning" is the term that some psychologist decided to use, although amusingly a google search suggests it means/meant "not (clinically) retarded," and I don't think its been challenged much. Being classified as Aspergers was something that mattered to me in elementary school, then I was very into autism culture in high-school as well, but since college I haven't really cared.

The thing is there's no obvious way to separate what should be counted as "result" of Aspergers from what isn't. I still do the "little professor" thing but personality theorists could construct that as a defense mechanism. There's an element of Aspie culture that prefers to do away with the medical model but not the classification and characterize Aspergers as a personality or a way of looking at the world.

I used "higher functioning" as a comparative: Dolos.

Regardless, I appreciate you responding.

So why do you think I seem inherently low-functioning compared to SM?

Originally posted by Oliver North
My own opinion is that anyone functional enough to entertain such arguments about "medical models" and autism as an issue of identity politics is probably not autistic

Typical "if they can't complain then I was talking about those" pseudo-scientific idiocy, I don't even see how any arbitrary attitude such as that one can be accepted by a reasonable and critically aware human being.

You animal haters uhuh

Originally posted by Bentley
Typical "if they can't complain then I was talking about those" pseudo-scientific idiocy, I don't even see how any arbitrary attitude such as that one can be accepted by a reasonable and critically aware human being.

I'm sorry, are you accusing me of being "pseudo-scientific" for drawing a distinction in how the medical community should treat people with profound cognitive impairments versus those that are otherwise completely functional?

There certainly may be some grey zone as to where the line between "functional" and "non-functional" lies, but considering we are talking about a condition with a range of severity from what would generally be unnoticeable idiosyncrasies to complete detachment from the social and physical world, that point is moot when, specifically, I was talking about the extremes in the line you quoted.

Originally posted by Bentley
You animal haters uhuh

did you just equate autism with being non-human?

Originally posted by Oliver North
did you just equate autism with being non-human?


Did you just imply humans aren't animals?

Originally posted by Bentley
Did you just imply humans aren't animals?

not at all

the implication was that people with autism are human...

Originally posted by Bentley
Did you just imply humans aren't animals?

Did you just run off with your tail between your legs?

Originally posted by Oliver North
not at all


Well, it certainly seemed as if you did, even if you were jesting. I don't see how you get me stating "autistic people aren't human" without putting some uneeded distinction between humans and animals. Autistic people are animals. Did I miss anything? Maybe we weren't speaking in the same terms.

ANYWAYS, my dib wasn't at all about the distinction of social functionality, it was about the use of the term as you presented it and the reasoning behind it to justify it, because it sounds as a term prone to hyper-humanisation which tends to be an issue with many social "sciences". You're not pseudo-scientific -I don't even know how that applies to animals like us-, but you were employing a term that I can picture as pseudo-scientific. It seems we're having troubles with the terminology, which is an absurd kind of trouble to have in any discussion, so I apologize. Either way, being pseudo-scientific it's not an insult, the violent tone I used was just to put emphas is in my joke, sorry if I offended you.

@Symmetric Chaos: Darling, what are you even saying? My criticism is about animality and there he goes inmediately to state animals are non-human, how is THAT not in topic?

Sorry this took a while to respond to, I've been busy and wanted to give it a good reply.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I suppose "clinically significant stress or anxiety" isn't very detailed. A broader question might be why we're only willing to classify things when they're a disability.

that is a fair question. I think there are a couple of reasons, the most prominent being that clinical psychology is an applied science rather than a mainly research or theory driven one. People get into the field with the desire to work with people with handicaps to help them, and to facilitate this try to identify clusters of symptoms as different disorders. It would be similar to why we have conditions and diseases associated with harmful bacteria in our bodies, but not with the our gut flora.

The other big issue I see is more societal than anything. Modern society is very hesitant to point out individuals as being better or more capable than others (at least within social institutions, the business world might be called meritocratic, at least in comparison). One of the last places where this type of thing was actually allowed was in sports and athletics. People are labeled, ranked, ordered and excluded based specifically on their abilities being greater than those of the general population. However, a good deal of effort is being put into eliminating this, and stories of children's sports leagues no longer keeping score or having championships are not hard to find. When I was a day camp counselor, we were instructed not to play games with the kids where individuals could win or lose, or where skill determined outcome. I'm not trying to make an anti-PC rant (though I do believe failure is a major part of a child's development ), just pointing to a social trend that works against us labeling those who perform above average as having specific "conditions" or "labels".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, I've wondered off and on whether it make sense for me to identify as Aspergers anymore.

Interesting. I'm sure it has come up before, but until this thread I can't say it's anything I'd associate with you (and why would I?).

Does the condition play a major role in your day-to-day life? would a distinction between having "issues with X" versus "X disorder" be a more adequate way of describing it? (my actual knowledge of Aspergers is even less than autism, so I'm not sure if that question even makes sense)...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah, but that isn't how we think of mental illness. We think of it as something that impinges on one's proper state of being.

The "person with trait" phrasing is meant to do more than remind you that they're a person (you can do with with "trait people" phrasing) it is also meant to separate the person and the illness. This is why we talk about "people with cancer" or "people with schizophrenia" but not "people with black" or "people with male".

At least that's how social theorists look at it. I don't think exact wording is quite that important. In the case of "person with trait," however, the wording is very deliberate.

but you can talk about "people with African lineage" or "people with genes associated with a certain race" (actually, that point may be a better criticism of the subjective categorization of race and gender in most psychological studies).

I do get what you are saying, though. In terms of identity, their experiences as an autistic person are what they feel defines them as an individual, or at least, they identify with it in that way. And as a person, I would never want to take that away from them.

From the medical/psychological community, however, we are much less interested in how a person identifies themselves than with how we ethically identify them. Looking at people as data points has lead medical and psychological experiments to abuse the most vulnerable people in society in the past (Tuskegee immediately springs to mind) and, from a research and treatment standpoint, it is very important for that distinction to exist. We don't want to identify the person with the disease because that mindset produces the potential for dramatic ethical violations.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Absolutely. Was that what Dolos was writing about? I haven't read the start of the thread.

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I though savant abilities were pretty well established as a thing that really happens.

oh, sure, and I'm not trying to say there isn't some association. Its like what you were saying with the comparison between Grandin and Goodall you made before. The absolute link might not be there, and it may in fact be that we are attributing the "savant" like behaviour in an improper way.

The prevalence of very specific types of savant behaviours in autism (numbers, patterns, spatial things) does suggest there is some link, but it is something worth being skeptical about for exactly the reasons you described.

Originally posted by Bentley
Well, it certainly seemed as if you did, even if you were jesting. I don't see how you get me stating "autistic people aren't human" without putting some uneeded distinction between humans and animals. Autistic people are animals. Did I miss anything? Maybe we weren't speaking in the same terms.

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

Originally posted by Bentley
ANYWAYS, my dib wasn't at all about the distinction of social functionality, it was about the use of the term as you presented it and the reasoning behind it to justify it, because it sounds as a term prone to hyper-humanisation which tends to be an issue with many social "sciences".

social functioning is hardly an ambiguous term, and it shouldn't be expected that one demonstrates the operational definition of every concept brought up on a layman forum. Maybe ask "what empirical data do you use to make that distinction?", rather than saying it isn't a scientific distinction.

using measures of one's social abilities to assess their social functioning actually requires no justification because it is tautological.

Originally posted by Bentley
but you were employing a term that I can picture as pseudo-scientific.

you don't feel one's comparative ability to interact with other people can be quantified?

any scientific concept can be made "pseudo-scientific", the OP of this thread contains several such incidences.

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 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.