Calling it having an A-Type (or a S-Type) Mind?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, thinking of another way we can brand ourselves better.

Since it's pretty clear that Asperger's and Autism are both the way a mind is structured, a way it's 'wired', why not make that more clear, by calling it, as it is, not a disorder, but how our minds are? I think it's quite more accurate and gives us more respect that way.

So, how about either an "A-Type Mind" (for Asperger's or Autism) or a "S-Type Mind" (for Spectrum) versus a "N-Type Mind" for Neurotypical. I'd go straight for A-Type, but a lot of people weren't all that keen on it, last time around.

Thoughts?

I call it having an autistic mind.

Then have fun with the perception that you're developmentally disabled, have a low IQ and can't handle regular human interaction.

That is the perception of Autism right now, even if Einstein and Tesla would be categorized as that, if they were here today, with the new DSM elimination of Asperger's.

It's your prerogative. Enjoy.

We are developmentally disabled. I understand saying that it's not a "disorder," meaning that it's a difference and there's nothing wrong with this way of being. But, saying that it isn't a disability is is different, and does us a disservice. The way the the rest of the world is, having an autistic mind is disabling. It's like with any other disability... Take deafness for example. Someone can be perfectly content with being deaf, and there's nothing wrong with it. They can learn to function in their own ways. But the fact remains that the world is mostly set up for the majority who aren't deaf, so it is a disability because it causes a person to not be able to do things the way the majority can.

I would think that if someone was not disabled, they would be like me and only be "aspie-ish" or shadowy. Isn't having some degree of disability or impairment what separates those on the spectrum from those of us who have traits? If not, what is the difference? Those--btw--are serious questions because that is how I understand it and I don't want to be wrong.

Regarding the original question, it doesn't matter what you call it. The end result will always be the same. People tend to marginalize those who are different. Calling it something else does not change the difference.

As an Autistic person of non-genius intellect. Those perceptions are not entirely inaccurate. I can't handle normal social interaction, and I am technically developmentally disabled. I think this is an attempt to separate the "disabled" from the "non-disabled" Autistics.

Personally I feel the best way to beat the stereotypes is to embrace the autism label. I fully support the integration of Autism and Aspergers together in the DSM-5.

First, I have to say, I find your sarcasm here offensive, and not funny at all.

If other people have a stereotype about something, they ultimately have to be interested in not being a bigoted jerk to unlearn it. What we call ourselves really doesn't matter at all, because that will not change peoples' minds.

Ok, look, there are two things here:

1. I don't want to insult anyone here. I want us to be seen for our positives, not our negatives. Even if you aren't Einstein or Newton, I believe we all deserve to have a positive light first, before the negatives take hold. It takes generations of ridiculous amounts of work to undo a negative association with a word, and sometimes it can never be done.

2. So, I'm just talking about rebranding here. And things like that have been done and can be done. It's not about anything among us. It's about our interaction with the NT world. If they weren't how they are, I could care less. I think trying to make a positive opinion (which has never been done, btw) is a far more uphill battle than it is to rebrand it as part of the DSM restructure.

Believe me, I want this all for the best!

That isn't going to be solved by rebranding. We're going to have change society.



But "positive opinions, as you've put it, or "not being a bigoted jerk", like I put it, is a battle much, much worthwhile than rebranding.



Hell is paved with good intentions.

Actually, the use of that particular aphorism is misused and misunderstood by many.
The way you have used it suggests that JRR's intentions are all that is in play here, instead, action has already been taken by JRR to try to change the way people label us by giving an idea in a thread, which constitutes action. The real meaning of the aphorism doesn't really even apply here.
It's a form of the aphorism: hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works meaning that intention does nothing but leave something as is, and usually in a bad way, whereas good action leads to a better solution/path/etc.

This particular thread, having been started twice (by my count), definitely suggests action, not just intention. Whether the action will lead to good results, is another matter entirely.

I personally don't think anything will change how people perceive us because it's all on them, it has little to do with what we actually do, or say, or how we actually act, or what our capacity is for thought. It's just another thing that "normal" society will always see as different, and because of that perceived difference, they'll always think of that which comes to mind in the generalizing form, and that will always be the extreme cases because that's the only kind that the media has ever shown. And that in turn will only fuel their misconceptions further because they've accepted that as the only "real" form of the condition, so it's all one big cycle for them. A cycle that will not be broken because humanity is quick to judge, and slow to change, and that will always be the case until humans start evolving beyond petty disputes and war that has no real purpose. Give it a few thousand years, people might be willing to change then.

What negatives? The fact that I can't memorize faces? Can't stand wearing make-up or dress shoes? Can't hold a conversation? The way I collapse onto the floor and cry uncontrollably if I get stressed out? The "uniform" I wear, the same every day? The way I can't modulate my tone of voice so that I speak too loudly? The way I keep talking about my special interests and people can't get a word in edgewise? The way I didn't learn to take daily showers until I was twenty, keep my apartment clean until twenty-five, and still can't keep up with my bills? That I miscommunicate, say the wrong words, or just bluescreen and shut down completely? The way I'm about as good as a three-year-old at reading faces? The way I have no friends, will never marry, will never have children, and can't work? Is that what you're talking about when you say "negatives"?

Because those aren't negatives.

That's simply disability. And disability is neutral.

Disability is part of human life. It is nothing to be ashamed of. It is something that happens to everyone, if they live long enough. It's part of my normal life, and I see no reason to be ashamed of it, nor to justify my existence with the argument that I have this skill or that talent.

I don't care how autistic you are. I don't care if you're nonverbal and have to have people put on your shirt and feed you your breakfast. It still isn't something to be ashamed of, still isn't something that makes you worth any less than Einstein or Newton or anybody we consider skilled and smart. You're every bit as worthy of respect.

It's a huge mistake to try to give autism a "better reputation" along the lines of "these people are actually pretty smart", because then you've made the implicit statement that if you're not as smart, then you're not as good.

Instead of trying to disassociate ourselves with disability, let's challenge some of those automatic assumptions people make about disability--the way it's supposed to be tragic and frightening; that it's supposed to prevent you from ever having any talents or living a satisfying life; that it's supposed to mean inferiority. In reality, that's all a bunch of crap that we've tacked on to the idea of disability, and it's about time we dumped it and looked at disability as something that just is--with no implications for the value of the disabled human being.

That may be true, but it's still looked down on as a bad thing by society. I've heard comments
that refer to some of us (those with disabilities) as "complainers who think themselves as victims" and
that we're "just not trying".

So, while general disability may be neutral, the perceptions and preconceptions of certain disabilities cause people to look down on us.

Callista, would you not rather be known to be "amazing" (forget smart for the moment) about the interests you love, first, than the negatives you are talking about?

Aren't your interests really what you're more about, anyway?

And, can't those interests contribute to other people, sharing those interests, as well?

I know a lot of us are hurt here, but there ARE many great things about us.

That's what I'm getting at, here.

Last edited by JRR on 23 Oct 2012, 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, they do. But does that mean they're right? They weren't right when they said black people were meant to be slaves, women were emotional and dumb, children could be abandoned at will, and gays were insane and immoral.

Sure, you can go along with it and say that disability is tragic and people with disabilities are pitiful victims. But why? What would you have to gain in becoming the little lap-dog yes-man of the bigots who say you're inferior and so is everybody else with a disability? Even if you weren't disabled, it would still mean having to reject the intrinsic value of a rather large segment of the human population, and I have a feeling most people's consciences would let them know about it once they realized what they'd been doing.

If society looks down on us, then society is wrong, just as they have been with many other minority groups they've felt themselves superior to. And you might be surprised--when it comes to individuals, many of them are quite willing to see you as an equal once they realize that you're just as human as they are.

So lets work on changing that instead of having people pretend that they don't have a disorder.

As for the OP's suggestion. No. Because I do have a disorder. I do have a disability. Autism is how my mind is, is a disorder, and is disabling.

And as Callista says. I'm no lesser than someone who can drive because my autism makes it not possible. I'm no lesser than someone who can cook without following a recipe exactly 100% and only some of the time. I'm no lesser than someone who can wear dressy clothes and look professional. Or any of those any challenges I face.

I'm disabled, and that's me. And I'm open about that. And I teach people. It's not about advocating to me, its about teaching. It's about teaching that not being able to do things that people expect doesn't make me less. It's about sharing my life. It's about sharing my abilities. It's about disability as a whole.

It's about saying no, disability is just part of me and let that be okay, and at the same time as letting that be okay, give me that help I need, because I need it and let it be okay that I need it. And needing that help is not wrong of me. It's right of me for admitting that I need that help.

No, using the word autism, using the word autistic, that's what I'll do. Even though my diagnosis is Asperger's I'll use the more generic one, I'm autistic. I'm disabled, and I can do a lot despite my disability, despite the fact that there's a whole lot that I can't do, and despite the fact that I'll never be capable of everything that an abled person can.

Autism is a disorder. And I am disabled. And denying my disability will hurt me far more than someone judging me as "developmentally disabled" will, because well, I am. I am developmentally disabled. I'm just also gifted.

So lets go and change people's view of autism. And their view of disability as a whole. It's simple enough, just living our lives can make a difference. Just living our live successfully, openly, and saying yes, I am an autistic person. Yes, I am disabled, and yes, I can do this. And no, being disabled does not make me less than you, it just means that sometimes I need help.

And well, successful means different things for different people.

I didn't say they were right, nor that I agree with them in any way. My only goal is to address why they think that way. I've heard everything I stated directed at me as well, and most of my encounters have been met mainly with hostility and accusation by "normal" society, so I completely agree with what you're saying in that they need to change. But I don't see how we can do that by changing the terms that we use to describe ourselves. They have to want to change before anything else, and that's not likely to happen, sadly.