Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

What is an aspie?

Page 5 of 7 [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

24 Feb 2017, 2:48 pm

iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
You don't need to read the entirety of anything, basically you've just admitted to being lazy and obstinate.

I imagine you have to do citations all the time. I'm simply asking for a citation, any format, I don't mind. I know I don't have to read the entirety of anything, but at the moment it seems I'd have to since you're being (deliberately?) vague. Just give me a page number, that's not difficult to do and you'd have to do it anyway.


I gave you sources, you chose to ignore them. Citations make no different in an informal context as long as you know what is being preferred to. I don't need to give you a page number, there is an index for that. I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

I'm too busy at the moment to go through a book to find what section you're even talking about, maybe once I've got more time since you refuse to be anything but vague. Don't know what your problem is with citations.

Let's assume you're correct - am I severely autistic then? I found out in my assessment that I could have been diagnosed with childhood autism as a toddler, had my parents raised their concerns rather than assume I was just off the spectrum. That's early onset, that could have been diagnosed very early, so I'm severe according to you.

I also had no treatment, so am I completely f****d for life now? Very strange how someone with "severe" autism with no treatment managed to get through school without any help isn't it?

But s**t, I wasn't diagnosed until age 18, so is my autism super late onset and mild? Or am I severely autistic?

It's almost as though you're making stuff up and being vague because you can't back yourself up, because this really doesn't add up.


I don't know you, so I have no idea. All I know is apparently it onsetted at two for you, but you didn't get diagnosed until you were Two important things to note. First, women with autism get diagnosed much later than their male peers. Sometimes the onset is later because of different social situations for girls, but even then it just gets overlooked. Second, the age of onset and severity thing is a generalization, it doesn't apply to every single case. Your anecdote means NOTHING, it's the statistics which matter.

I'm not making stuff up, I just have a much larger knowledge base than you for this subject. Your conception of the entire topic is extremely naive, and because of such you are making ridiculous assumptions. I can't be bothered to point out every single flaw in your reasoning. If you can't be bothered to accumulate such a knowledge base on your own, than I can't be bothered to have this conversation with you. There is plenty of resources available for you.

Before 2, I've been autistic since birth.

All I'm asking for is one citation to prove you're not making stuff up. That won't even take a minute, why are you resisting?


You've already been given citations, you just chose to ignore them. And your view you were autistic from birth is based on your idea of what autism is, not the actual medical one, which was the whole point of this thread.

No, you've given essentially a bibliography - you haven't given enough information, such as page numbers. I'm confused as to why you think you've given me enough information when you've just given a book name and left it there - how am I supposed to check what you've said against an entire book?

Except it's not. It's a fact I was displaying autism symptoms before age 2. They've been more obvious since age 1, but I was atypical even as a baby - not screamingly autistic, but with the hindsight it explains it.


You don't seem to get how this works. You don't become an expert by reading a specific page, you have to get the big picture. Your problem isn't disputing a specific fact, but a fundamental failing to understand psychopathology in general. And if you just wanted their information on autism, they provide all the resources for you to look at just that, I'm not going to do that for you.

I'm not looking to become an expert or have a general knowledge of psychopathology, I'm looking to check your statement. To do that, I need a page number. Can you give me a page number?


And the fact you are trying to check a specific statement shows you don't get it. I didn't copy/paste a statement from somewhere, it's synthesis of a body of knowledge.

Explains why you're being so vague. How do you know you're not misunderstanding if it's not stated anywhere?


Because I'm taking a class and I'm doing very well in it.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

24 Feb 2017, 2:49 pm

SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
They would be a "possible aspie", or a "self dxd aspie".


But is a possible aspie an aspie, or is it something else? Are you saying they might be an aspie, it's just unknown (in which case it contradicts the definition you gave), or are they like in some sort of superimposition of states and they collapse into an aspie or not an aspie at diagnosis?


Are you talking about Quantum superposition - Schrödinger's cat?


Like Schrödinger, the point I'm making is that the very idea is ridiculous.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


SaveFerris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,762
Location: UK

24 Feb 2017, 3:20 pm

Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
They would be a "possible aspie", or a "self dxd aspie".


But is a possible aspie an aspie, or is it something else? Are you saying they might be an aspie, it's just unknown (in which case it contradicts the definition you gave), or are they like in some sort of superimposition of states and they collapse into an aspie or not an aspie at diagnosis?


Are you talking about Quantum superposition - Schrödinger's cat?


Like Schrödinger, the point I'm making is that the very idea is ridiculous.


I'm not sure what your getting at , it's like being born with faulty genes , if I dont get the gene test till I'm 45 proving their fault , did I not have faulty genes up until that point. :?:


_________________
R Tape loading error, 0:1

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard


iliketrees
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,155
Location: Earth

24 Feb 2017, 4:00 pm

Ganondox wrote:
Because I'm taking a class and I'm doing very well in it.

:roll: Taking a class and doing well in it doesn't exclude you from misunderstanding. You can't explain exactly why you've reached a conclusion - do you even know for yourself which particular bits of information lead you to believe this? You should be able to explain your reasoning. Taking a class gives you a larger knowledge base, but knowledge isn't a higher order thinking skill.

And this is without mentioning that, since the current understanding of autism is different from the past understanding, some very qualified people misunderstood.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

24 Feb 2017, 6:33 pm

iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Because I'm taking a class and I'm doing very well in it.

:roll: Taking a class and doing well in it doesn't exclude you from misunderstanding. You can't explain exactly why you've reached a conclusion - do you even know for yourself which particular bits of information lead you to believe this? You should be able to explain your reasoning. Taking a class gives you a larger knowledge base, but knowledge isn't a higher order thinking skill.

And this is without mentioning that, since the current understanding of autism is different from the past understanding, some very qualified people misunderstood.


From where I stand it's EXTREMELY obvious I know what I'm talking about and you don't (you don't know what you don't know), and you just extremely annoying because you've got an idea in your head about what autism is (and completely failed to understand the actual point of this thread) and are obnoxiously skeptical to anything that contradicts it and then nitpick over every insignificant detail. My higher thinking skills are very good and so is my reading comprehension, now please STFU.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Last edited by Ganondox on 24 Feb 2017, 6:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

24 Feb 2017, 6:33 pm

SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
They would be a "possible aspie", or a "self dxd aspie".


But is a possible aspie an aspie, or is it something else? Are you saying they might be an aspie, it's just unknown (in which case it contradicts the definition you gave), or are they like in some sort of superimposition of states and they collapse into an aspie or not an aspie at diagnosis?


Are you talking about Quantum superposition - Schrödinger's cat?


Like Schrödinger, the point I'm making is that the very idea is ridiculous.


I'm not sure what your getting at , it's like being born with faulty genes , if I dont get the gene test till I'm 45 proving their fault , did I not have faulty genes up until that point. :?:


You need to look back at what I was saying in context, where the person claimed an aspie is strictly someone diagnosed with aspergers.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


iliketrees
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,155
Location: Earth

25 Feb 2017, 2:09 am

Ganondox wrote:
From where I stand it's EXTREMELY obvious I know what I'm talking about and you don't

My point exactly - you need to step back and think critically about what you think you know. Of course it'll look like that from where you stand, it's human nature to do this.



SaveFerris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,762
Location: UK

25 Feb 2017, 8:03 am

Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
They would be a "possible aspie", or a "self dxd aspie".


But is a possible aspie an aspie, or is it something else? Are you saying they might be an aspie, it's just unknown (in which case it contradicts the definition you gave), or are they like in some sort of superimposition of states and they collapse into an aspie or not an aspie at diagnosis?


Are you talking about Quantum superposition - Schrödinger's cat?


Like Schrödinger, the point I'm making is that the very idea is ridiculous.


I'm not sure what your getting at , it's like being born with faulty genes , if I dont get the gene test till I'm 45 proving their fault , did I not have faulty genes up until that point. :?:


You need to look back at what I was saying in context, where the person claimed an aspie is strictly someone diagnosed with aspergers.


I just checked to see if what I was saying is in context - and it is.

I agreed with their Dx i.e. officially dx

If you are not officially Dx then your not an officially Dx Aspie.

I know there are people here who don't need an official diagnosis so are self diagnosed and choose to call themselves self Dx Aspies - are they Aspies ? , who knows only an official Dx can say for sure , does it matter ? If it works for them then no.

I still don't know what point your trying to get over or prove.


_________________
R Tape loading error, 0:1

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

27 Feb 2017, 3:08 pm

iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
From where I stand it's EXTREMELY obvious I know what I'm talking about and you don't

My point exactly - you need to step back and think critically about what you think you know. Of course it'll look like that from where you stand, it's human nature to do this.


You don't know what you're talking about because you don't know what you don't know. You think the problem is just my bias, but I know that I know things that you don't.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Last edited by Ganondox on 27 Feb 2017, 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

27 Feb 2017, 3:11 pm

SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
They would be a "possible aspie", or a "self dxd aspie".


But is a possible aspie an aspie, or is it something else? Are you saying they might be an aspie, it's just unknown (in which case it contradicts the definition you gave), or are they like in some sort of superimposition of states and they collapse into an aspie or not an aspie at diagnosis?


Are you talking about Quantum superposition - Schrödinger's cat?


Like Schrödinger, the point I'm making is that the very idea is ridiculous.


I'm not sure what your getting at , it's like being born with faulty genes , if I dont get the gene test till I'm 45 proving their fault , did I not have faulty genes up until that point. :?:


You need to look back at what I was saying in context, where the person claimed an aspie is strictly someone diagnosed with aspergers.


I just checked to see if what I was saying is in context - and it is.

I agreed with their Dx i.e. officially dx

If you are not officially Dx then your not an officially Dx Aspie.

I know there are people here who don't need an official diagnosis so are self diagnosed and choose to call themselves self Dx Aspies - are they Aspies ? , who knows only an official Dx can say for sure , does it matter ? If it works for them then no.

I still don't know what point your trying to get over or prove.


"If you are not officially Dx then your not an officially Dx Aspie. " That is a tautology that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm talking about what aspie ACTUALLY means based on how people use it, not what it's defined as, and am trying to get people to apply critical thinking skills so they can understand the problems with equating aspie with diagnosis.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


SaveFerris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,762
Location: UK

27 Feb 2017, 3:35 pm

Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
They would be a "possible aspie", or a "self dxd aspie".


But is a possible aspie an aspie, or is it something else? Are you saying they might be an aspie, it's just unknown (in which case it contradicts the definition you gave), or are they like in some sort of superimposition of states and they collapse into an aspie or not an aspie at diagnosis?


Are you talking about Quantum superposition - Schrödinger's cat?


Like Schrödinger, the point I'm making is that the very idea is ridiculous.


I'm not sure what your getting at , it's like being born with faulty genes , if I dont get the gene test till I'm 45 proving their fault , did I not have faulty genes up until that point. :?:


You need to look back at what I was saying in context, where the person claimed an aspie is strictly someone diagnosed with aspergers.


I just checked to see if what I was saying is in context - and it is.

I agreed with their Dx i.e. officially dx

If you are not officially Dx then your not an officially Dx Aspie.

I know there are people here who don't need an official diagnosis so are self diagnosed and choose to call themselves self Dx Aspies - are they Aspies ? , who knows only an official Dx can say for sure , does it matter ? If it works for them then no.

I still don't know what point your trying to get over or prove.


"If you are not officially Dx then your not an officially Dx Aspie. " That is a tautology that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm talking about what aspie ACTUALLY means based on how people use it, not what it's defined as, and am trying to get people to apply critical thinking skills so they can understand the problems with equating aspie with diagnosis.


Oh I see , I get it now. Your not actually interested in anyone's opinion , your only interested in changing opinion. I know of no other way of using the word Aspie unless it refers to someone with Aspergers. If the word Aspie has evolved and transcended to a different meaning - I dont know it :roll:


_________________
R Tape loading error, 0:1

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

27 Feb 2017, 6:24 pm

SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
They would be a "possible aspie", or a "self dxd aspie".


But is a possible aspie an aspie, or is it something else? Are you saying they might be an aspie, it's just unknown (in which case it contradicts the definition you gave), or are they like in some sort of superimposition of states and they collapse into an aspie or not an aspie at diagnosis?


Are you talking about Quantum superposition - Schrödinger's cat?


Like Schrödinger, the point I'm making is that the very idea is ridiculous.


I'm not sure what your getting at , it's like being born with faulty genes , if I dont get the gene test till I'm 45 proving their fault , did I not have faulty genes up until that point. :?:


You need to look back at what I was saying in context, where the person claimed an aspie is strictly someone diagnosed with aspergers.


I just checked to see if what I was saying is in context - and it is.

I agreed with their Dx i.e. officially dx

If you are not officially Dx then your not an officially Dx Aspie.

I know there are people here who don't need an official diagnosis so are self diagnosed and choose to call themselves self Dx Aspies - are they Aspies ? , who knows only an official Dx can say for sure , does it matter ? If it works for them then no.

I still don't know what point your trying to get over or prove.


"If you are not officially Dx then your not an officially Dx Aspie. " That is a tautology that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm talking about what aspie ACTUALLY means based on how people use it, not what it's defined as, and am trying to get people to apply critical thinking skills so they can understand the problems with equating aspie with diagnosis.


Oh I see , I get it now. Your not actually interested in anyone's opinion , your only interested in changing opinion. I know of no other way of using the word Aspie unless it refers to someone with Aspergers. If the word Aspie has evolved and transcended to a different meaning - I dont know it :roll:


No, I'm only interested in SOUND opinions. I'm interested in your opinion, but I will challenge it if you can't back it up. Now, did you actually bother to read the initial post?


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


SaveFerris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,762
Location: UK

27 Feb 2017, 7:46 pm

Ganondox wrote:

No, I'm only interested in SOUND opinions. I'm interested in your opinion, but I will challenge it if you can't back it up. Now, did you actually bother to read the initial post?


Yes I read your initial post and likened it to reading a physchology textbook yawn! I gleaned from it what your actual question was and I think I answered it. I'll repost it just in case you missed it

Quote:
I know of no other way of using the word Aspie unless it refers to someone with Aspergers. If the word Aspie has evolved and transcended to a different meaning - I dont know it :roll:


You can tell me I'm wrong or my opinion is outdated but it is what is

It's actually a moot point point anyway as I haven't been Dx .


_________________
R Tape loading error, 0:1

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard


iliketrees
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,155
Location: Earth

28 Feb 2017, 1:41 am

Ganondox wrote:
iliketrees wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
From where I stand it's EXTREMELY obvious I know what I'm talking about and you don't

My point exactly - you need to step back and think critically about what you think you know. Of course it'll look like that from where you stand, it's human nature to do this.


You don't know what you're talking about because you don't know what you don't know. You think the problem is just my bias, but I know that I know things that you don't.

No, I think your problem is you think something but you don't know exactly why.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,606
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

28 Feb 2017, 2:07 am

nurseangela wrote:
I'm confused. Aspergers is said to be a social disorder, yet with some if the symptoms some were telling me about in another thread - those were neurological disorders. A person with symptoms of anxiety, depression, problems with light and sound - that is all neurological. Something tells me it is both. It seems the neurological problems would have nothing to do with the social problems.


Neurological problems can lead to social problems because social development in children is due to how the brain develops.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

28 Feb 2017, 5:31 pm

SaveFerris wrote:
Ganondox wrote:

No, I'm only interested in SOUND opinions. I'm interested in your opinion, but I will challenge it if you can't back it up. Now, did you actually bother to read the initial post?


Yes I read your initial post and likened it to reading a physchology textbook yawn! I gleaned from it what your actual question was and I think I answered it. I'll repost it just in case you missed it

Quote:
I know of no other way of using the word Aspie unless it refers to someone with Aspergers. If the word Aspie has evolved and transcended to a different meaning - I dont know it :roll:


You can tell me I'm wrong or my opinion is outdated but it is what is

It's actually a moot point point anyway as I haven't been Dx .


I suggest you read the post again because you clearly didn't understand it very well as I answered your questions in it.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html