Calling it having an A-Type (or a S-Type) Mind?
23 Oct 2012, 1:00 am
Callista wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Callista wrote:
That's simply disability. And disability is neutral.
Disability is part of human life.
Disability is part of human life.
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.
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.
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.
_________________
Writer. Author.
23 Oct 2012, 1:36 am
No need to go inventing new terms. Teaching people what "autism" is really like for everyday autistics will do the trick just fine. Once the unfamiliarity goes away, so will the fear; once the majority is okay with it, they'll tell the still-bigoted minority to shut up and stop being dicks. That's pretty much the way it's happened with other minorities--first unfamiliarity and hatred, then understanding, finally acceptance, followed by a general rejection of the originally accepted beliefs. There will always be prejudice around; ask any member of a minority group. But as time goes on, it's less common and less accepted, and there's more social censure and more legal protection.
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
23 Oct 2012, 6:13 am
Callista wrote:
Quote:
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.
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.
Most people are too polite to call it a negative. They would simply not trust me with anything. And if I protest that I SHOULD be trusted, they would tell me its okay that I don't do said tasks because I should be comfortable the way I am. So they are in complete agreement with you. The only problem is that "the way I am" does NOT include disabilities they attribute to me. I am disabled in A, B and C, but they assume it also extends to X, Y and Z, which is simply not true. And that is a hallmark of judgement: an assumption that just because I am disabled in something I am disabled in everything. And no I don't want to hear anyone telling me "Its okay you can't do X, Y, Z since you should be comfortable the way you are" if, in fact, I CAN do X, Y and Z but they refuse to see it or give me a chance to prove myself. And as far as Einstein and Newton, no one says that you have to be on their level to be respected. These are just "extreme examples" to illustrate a point that one can have different abilities in different areas. If one person can be a genius at something despite disabiliy, then someone else can be normal at something despite disability.
As far as "neutral" thing goes, it is politically correct to say that being overweight is not bad its neutral. But if we take it to logical conclusion, then we should all stop exercizing and start eating a bunch of junk food. Or more generally, since we shouldn't be judged by anything else (be it career, relationships, etc) we should all give up on everything, since whatever direction we take in life is from one "neutral" side to another "neutral" side. So you see how ridiculous it gets? The point is that we all know things are not neutral. Saying its neutral is just a way to make someone feel better who is on a losing side. But here is another more productive way to make them feel better: yes their disability is negative but very specific negative, so it doesn't exclude some other positives.
23 Oct 2012, 6:47 am
Typical Person: "Hey, ret*d! Why don't you go live in a home somewhere with all the other handicapped people!"
Disabled Person: "Oh, I see your mistake. I'm not handicapped! I'm just differently abled."
Typical Person: "Oh! I didn't realize. My apologies. Please have a pleasant rest of your day."
This has never happened.
If someone can provide a single example of a group of people changing the name of the group to something yet to be broadly stigmatized with the result that they suddenly throw off all preconcieved notions without any further effort, I might entertain this suggestion of "rebranding." As it stands, the problem is not the word autism, it's the fact that people are misinformed. Most of them not willfully - they've just been given the wrong information. Using a different word would only force us to define it for people, thereby educating them, and we can do that without using a different word.
23 Oct 2012, 6:47 am
Jaden wrote:
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".
that refer to some of us (those with disabilities) as "complainers who think themselves as victims" and that we're "just not trying".
The other side of the coin is also bad. If part of my problem IS that I am "not trying" but people insist in attributing ALL of it to disability, then they would refuse to give me a chance to "try harder" even if such a chance could have been quite useful.
23 Oct 2012, 5:53 pm
Roman wrote:
Jaden wrote:
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".
that refer to some of us (those with disabilities) as "complainers who think themselves as victims" and that we're "just not trying".
The other side of the coin is also bad. If part of my problem IS that I am "not trying" but people insist in attributing ALL of it to disability, then they would refuse to give me a chance to "try harder" even if such a chance could have been quite useful.
idk, while I could see that happening if things were reversed, I think right now people see us as a group of "normal" people that fell behind socially and thus "don't try" to be social. I think that's why they see us badly, because they think we're lazy when the reality is that we don't have those abilities at all.
I've often told people that the only way for them to know what it's like to have my brain, is to actually have my brain, because any description wouldn't cover all aspects, regardless of how thoroughly I described it. I also think they we sometimes may misunderstand them for the same reason, they can't think like us, and we can't think like them. It's kind of a "Broca Divide", if you will, where both todays homo-sapiens and yester-millenias' neanderthals (however it's spelled lol) exist in the same society, neither being able to understand the other properly due to a lack of perspective from each side. Both capable in the same ways, just different because of how their brains work. Not a perfect example, and I appologize if that example offended either side, that was certainly not my intent.
_________________
Writer. Author.
23 Oct 2012, 7:57 pm
@ Tuttle and Callista:
ABSO-FRIGGEN-LUTELY!! !
I agree completely.
Furthermore, the idea that you can stem prejudice by re-naming something has been tried many times before. "Idiot/Imbecile/Moron" turned into "ret*d," and "ret*d" turned into "special needs," ect. Guess what: no matter what The-Powers-That-Be have tried to call it in order to put a "positive spin" on cognitive disabilities, society still managed to turn it into a slur.
Unless we change the way society views "disability" on the most basic level, then we can re-name autism, "Bubblegum Rocket Ship Funtime Brain," and we're still going to get crapped on.
Personally, I have Aspergers and I am disabled. I suppose I just don't view "disabled people" as broken, or creatures worthy of only scorn and/or pity. I have no wish to distance myself from other disabled people just because the morons who make up the bulk of Western society still have a yen for eugenics. My mother has MS, and I don't think of her as "lesser" for HER disability, and I don't think less of myself for MY disability.
Peace out.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
23 Oct 2012, 7:59 pm
Quote:
idk, while I could see that happening if things were reversed, I think right now people see us as a group of "normal" people that fell behind socially and thus "don't try" to be social. I think that's why they see us badly, because they think we're lazy when the reality is that we don't have those abilities at all.
But remember that autism is not just social. Even when it's Asperger's and you learned to speak around the same time your peers did, there are still more cognitive aspects to it. An autistic person in an empty room is still autistic. He still perceives the world in a different way from NTs, solves problems differently, and learns differently. He still has a skill set that tends to be much less uniform than an NT's is.
I suppose that sticks out to me more because my own experience stresses the non-social aspects of my autism more than the social aspects. Socializing is certainly the part of life where autism is most obvious, but I don't think it's fundamental to autism any more than little red spots are fundamental to a case of chicken pox.
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
24 Oct 2012, 6:12 am
Jaden wrote:
Roman wrote:
Jaden wrote:
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".
that refer to some of us (those with disabilities) as "complainers who think themselves as victims" and that we're "just not trying".
The other side of the coin is also bad. If part of my problem IS that I am "not trying" but people insist in attributing ALL of it to disability, then they would refuse to give me a chance to "try harder" even if such a chance could have been quite useful.
idk, while I could see that happening if things were reversed, I think right now people see us as a group of "normal" people that fell behind socially and thus "don't try" to be social. I think that's why they see us badly, because they think we're lazy when the reality is that we don't have those abilities at all.
Well I wish I could trade places with them. Most people view me as disabled rather than lazy and I hate it. Here is just one example. So a year and a half ago there was a conference that my professor invited me to. So I decided to stay there a couple of days longer. The conference organizers suggested a hotel for me to stay in. I didn't bother taking the map since I can always ask. Then when I was asking people for directions they didn't speak English very well (I work in India), so I became a bit irrate and started yelling at them. When this didn't help then I just said "here, call the conference organizers and ask them where is the hotel located". Now, when they called organizers they asked them why is someone disabled is allowed to go by themselves without escort and then conference organizers asked similar question to my professor. Now, I am not disabled in this respect: if I knew that asking to call conference organizers is THAT bad I would have found a way around it. Or perhaps they didn't like that I yelled? Well if I knew yelling was bad I won't be yelling either. So you see, my problem is not lack of skills but rather not knowing social expectations. If I am told exactly where the limits are I would operate within said limits just fine.
Jaden wrote:
I've often told people that the only way for them to know what it's like to have my brain, is to actually have my brain, because any description wouldn't cover all aspects, regardless of how thoroughly I described it. I also think they we sometimes may misunderstand them for the same reason, they can't think like us, and we can't think like them. It's kind of a "Broca Divide", if you will, where both todays homo-sapiens and yester-millenias' neanderthals (however it's spelled lol) exist in the same society, neither being able to understand the other properly due to a lack of perspective from each side. Both capable in the same ways, just different because of how their brains work. Not a perfect example, and I appologize if that example offended either side, that was certainly not my intent.
What I have to tell people is something of an opposite. They ASSUME my mind can only operate a certain way. I want to tell them "yes my mind is flexible, a lot more than you think; just tell me whatever heck you expect me to do, and I will do that!" but they don't believe me.
24 Oct 2012, 6:18 am
Callista wrote:
Quote:
idk, while I could see that happening if things were reversed, I think right now people see us as a group of "normal" people that fell behind socially and thus "don't try" to be social. I think that's why they see us badly, because they think we're lazy when the reality is that we don't have those abilities at all.
But remember that autism is not just social. Even when it's Asperger's and you learned to speak around the same time your peers did, there are still more cognitive aspects to it. An autistic person in an empty room is still autistic. He still perceives the world in a different way from NTs, solves problems differently, and learns differently. He still has a skill set that tends to be much less uniform than an NT's is.I suppose that sticks out to me more because my own experience stresses the non-social aspects of my autism more than the social aspects. Socializing is certainly the part of life where autism is most obvious, but I don't think it's fundamental to autism any more than little red spots are fundamental to a case of chicken pox.
Even though its true that my mind might think in different ways than most people's, I can still go from point A to point B just as well as they can. The only time I have an obstacle of going from A to B is when other people stay in a way and not trust me with something. So yes it is purely social.
24 Oct 2012, 12:47 pm
Quote:
Even though its true that my mind might think in different ways than most people's, I can still go from point A to point B just as well as they can. The only time I have an obstacle of going from A to B is when other people stay in a way and not trust me with something. So yes it is purely social.
If that's true for you, then yes, your case is purely social; but remember it's not like that for most of us. Even if nobody else is present, I have problems stopping and starting things, knowing what "good enough" means versus "perfect", filtering auditory information, dealing with sensory overload in every sense but taste, regulating my sleep/wake cycle, and dealing with new situations. Not only does my mind go from A to B differently from other people--I may not even be aware that the A-to-B journey is useful; or I may not be aware that I'm supposed to be trying to get to B; or I may have had my attention grabbed by something entirely different and be making my way from Y to Z instead. Or I may have taken B as self-evident and be confused by A. Autism involves a fundamentally different cognitive style. I'd be willing to bet that in even those "purely social" cases, it's just a matter of the autism being most obvious and observable in social situations.
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
24 Oct 2012, 1:50 pm
btbnnyr wrote:
I can go from point A to point B just fine by using the map. I would never ask for directions. Too social.
Okay, that made me laugh. That's autism right there in a nutshell! Especially for girls, who aren't supposed to be able to use maps very well at all. 
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
24 Oct 2012, 5:28 pm
CyclopsSummers wrote:
Taking it a bit to the side, here, I have a question for you JRR:
What other mind-types are there beyond 'A type', 'S type', and 'N type', according to you?
What other mind-types are there beyond 'A type', 'S type', and 'N type', according to you?
I'd just go with an A-Type (S-Type is the same thing in such a scenario) or N-Type. That's it. Two of them, in terms of the context of what's being discussed.
Obviously, the mind is complex with many varieties, but we're talking a large aspect of the structure.
But, given the response, it doesn't seem to be well-received, so I might as well scrap it.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Gay Rights Activists Calling For More International Pressure |
06 Apr 2024, 7:46 pm |
|
Question about fear about calling 911 for mental health
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
06 Apr 2024, 7:09 pm |
