Are we that different?

Post Reply New Topic

This is a question I have been thinking about for awhile. Are we as Autistic people actually that different from Neurotypicals. In some ways I kind of think not.

It is often said by Neurotypicals that Aspies have irrational habits and thinking but don't Neurotypicals share that as well.

For instance when my Neurotypical parents complains about me wearing crocks how is that not strange. Their is no practical reason to be complaining and honestly why should others care. I like what I wear it is none of their business. Its not like I am walking naked I am in footwear and clothes like everyone else.

The same exists at dinner as well why do put all our energy into providing knives and forks when it is just as easy to eat with our hands?

In that same instance why do we then have to hold knives and forks in a particular way? It makes no sense, normal people are weird.

Why can't we dress in blankets during dinner, when it is cold wouldn't that just create a more comfortable experience?

Why can't the neurotypical mind in some people tell the difference between trying to debate someone and making a personal attack. Why is it that when Ben Affleck debates someone on Islam he interprets it as a personal insult and aims to shut the other person down instead of having a reasonable discussion. It just makes little sense. Is he misinterpreting social cues?

Why is it that Neurotypical people in countries such as Saudi Arabia have an irrational fear of homosexuality. Couldn't neurotypicals with all their understanding and insight into others be able to discern that it is wrong? Forget Aspies being unable to tolerate difference why can't neurotypicals do it.

Why do many neurotypicals sometimes recoil when they see homeless people. Shouldn't they due to their empathy be able to see what they are going through and feel for that. Why can't they in those instances give money or charity to them when they are sighted on the street?

Why do Neurotypicals sometimes vote for candidates despite having little thought put into it? Isn't that a flaw of the Neurotypical mind.

I am not saying that we as Aspies and Neurotypicals share the same problem. My thinking is why do we consider Asperger's to be an immense disability when Neurotypicals show many flaws themselves.

What do ya'll think?

There are many commonalities but also very significant differences. The trouble is that words alone often fail to clearly highlight the differences. A few examples:

1. Autists often insist on "sameness" and adherence to "routines"

Autistic routines are based on personal experience and individual coping mechanisms for sensory and social overload.
Typical people also insist on group conformance and adherence to cultural rituals.
Commonality: In both cases there is a desire to avoid surprises and to adhere to rigid patterns of behaviour.
Difference: The origin of rigid behavioural patterns is often intrinsic for autists, but it is nearly always extrinsic (defined by culture) for typical people.

2. Different interpretations of the meaning of "social" and "collaboration"

Autistic interpretation of "social" and "collaboration"
- Naive assumption: “social” refers to 
interaction to learn from each other
- Naive assumption: “social” refers to 
collaborating with others towards a shared goal
- May take decades to decode the typical meaning of “social”

Neurotypical interpretation of "social" (in “civilised” cultures, i.e. those that have developed cities, symbolic language, and money)
- [Unspoken] assumption: “social” refers to negotiating social status and power gradients
- [Unspoken] assumption: “social” refers to competing against each other using culturally defined rules
- Implication: typical “collaboration” refers to "adhering to culturally defined rules" and not to "jointly working towards a shared goal"
- May take decades to appreciate non-social interests

Both typical people and autists "collaborate", but don't have a shared understanding of what collaboration entails. In fact, many people and autism professionals claim that autists are "poor collaborators". I disagree.

3. Both autists and typical people have very pronounced "special interests"

It just happens that typical people all share at least one special interest – socialisation, but typical people are blind to the strength of this interest, as it seems "normal" and in no way "special".

4. Autists are "inflexible"

See (1.) above. But then autists easily change their beliefs when presented with relevant evidence, and otherwise never modify their beliefs. In contrast typical people have a significant ability to ignore evidence in order to maintain cultural beliefs.

Autists tend to be flexible in areas in why typical people tend to be rigid and the other way around.

In summary, when you read the words "sameness", "routines", "social", "collaboration", "special interests", "inflexibility", etc. autists and typical people differ in their interpretation of these words.

This is major communication challenge. Nothing is more natural than blaming autists for any misunderstandings, because autists are by definition challenged when it comes to communication.

Sounds interesting.

I would contend that all people share a common humanity, which includes certain universal traits. Beyond that there is differentiation within humanity.

Now I would contend that an important reason why Asperger's is treated as a disability and the Doxists (Neurotypicals) is due to the ordering of society. It is common that over the course of history dominant groups end up effectively shaping the order of a society to benefit them. As a larger and more directly social group, the Doxists have tended to be the dominate group in societies. This has tended to create system which benefit their talents and mitigate their flaws, as well as give favoritism toward their traits. When Asperger's traits differ from these, it can create disadvantages. When this is combined with the doxist mental tendency to prefer conformity, this can lead them to think of Asperger's traits as something bad and to ascribe the difficulties faced with Asperger's people in the social order to Asperger's itself, rather than to the interplay of it and the social order. When they hold dominance over social institutions, they can formalize this view of Asperger's within society.

There is a tendency among doxists to be inclined toward conformity in thinking and behavior, at some degree. This can seem like a natural way of thinking to them. When they are surrounded mainly by people who think similarly, it can lead them to think that this is how people in general are supposed to think (rather than something peculiar to a certain subgroup of humanity). If not presented with sufficient information and consideration to counter this, it can lead Doxists to misinterpret the differences in others thoughts and behaviors as something defective (rather than seeing it as another way of being human).

Though quite often, the differences between different groups of people can be exaggerated by overly focusing on differences and giving insufficient attention to similarities. Self-soothing techniques done by Doxists are often called habits, and self-soothing techniques by Autistics are often called stims; even though these are basically the same sort of thing. And the examples can go on for this.

As for that misinterpreting debates with personal attacks, I don't think that is necessarily a Doxist mental tendency. I would ascribe this a being a product of the current dominant philosophic trends in the culture. Modernist and post-modernist philosophy has tended to deny the existence on independent truth and has attacked the capacity of the human intellect understand the truth of matters, which at the same time putting forward relativism, subjectivism, and a tendency to describe things in terms of social construction. When people don't belief in independent truth and the capacity of reason, then it tends it removes the need for justification by reason, and gives the false belief that beliefs are justified by mere preference. When people think that beliefs are matters of preference and ideas are seen as being based in their thinkers, it can lead people to link ideas with the people who have them. Thus criticism of an idea is misinterpreted as an insult to the person having it.

Very interesting and thought-provoking analysis, yelekam.