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
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.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on May 8th, 2013 at 03:55 AM
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.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on May 8th, 2013 at 04:13 AM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
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.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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?
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.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Good
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.
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)?
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).
there are activists for everything
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.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on May 8th, 2013 at 05:17 PM
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.
"What group favored this change? Were college students writing in en masse saying 'Don't call us subjects any more; we participate!'"
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
lol, that was awesome
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I've wondered off and on whether it make sense for me to identify as Aspergers anymore.
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.
Absolutely. Was that what Dolos was writing about? I haven't read the start of the thread.
I though savant abilities were pretty well established as a thing that really happens.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
KMC Community Forums
May 8th, 2013 03:34 AM
there are activists for everything
