Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Would you personally use the term "we" if speaking about ASD's?
Nope, my experience is mine 35%  35%  [ 6 ]
Yes 24%  24%  [ 4 ]
No 35%  35%  [ 6 ]
Yes, I speak for all when I speak of ASD's 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Makes no difference 6%  6%  [ 1 ]
If I was elected to, then yes 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 17

mjay
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2014
Age: 106
Gender: Female
Posts: 26

27 Nov 2014, 8:28 pm

So, some of the 90 000 registered forum members were discussing things and a major branch has grown from a particular topic. Here is a compartment to discuss the branch of utilising the term "we" when retelling one's experiences.
The original post originated as this text. Page 12 http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=270556&start=165 Entry #7 on the page

Quote:
On a related topic, there's this thing that some people do when they are writing about ASD's, that is, they use the word "we". Everything that they write, is under a self appointed position to speak for millions of people. How one person will collectively say that their experience is "me" is beyond my thinking. Point is, some just self appoint for no logical reason and if they decide that you do not "qualify" for an ASD, do your best to see their point but just keep a clear head about whether that info has any logic or whether it is just a cheap shot from a self appointed expert.
A note to any authors, please speak about your experiences, I value that. What I don't value is when you have an idea and apply it, as if it applies to everyone.


I don't want to point the author of the following text out as though I commend them, I just want to use this as a starting point.
Quote:
One problem with saying we in the autism community specifically is that there is a broad spectrum of communication and social abilities amongst autistic people. Some autistic people are good at communicating verbally, and some autistic people are not. Many high-functioning, verbal, intelligent people are not good at communicating verbally and find it almost impossible to gather, speak, or write their thoughts in real-time. In addition, some people who lack social cognition may not come across as convincing or believable as others who have greater social cognitive abilities. I am not talking about purposefully learned social skills, but fast, automatic behaviors that are processed by others' brains into XYZ that while ill-defined, may lead to a more favorable impression of the person communicating and greater trust of that person and what they are saying. Taken together, some autistic people are much more advantaged than others when it comes to communicating, and it is these people who will be listened to more by others, whether autistic or neurotypical or whatever. If they say we, when they mean themselves or others who agree that they are like them, then they are actually representing a larger group of people, some of whom are unable to communicate their thoughts, some of whom can't do it in real-time, some of whom can't do it in a socially conventional manner that can be readily accepted by others, etc. So in general, I believe that autistic people saying "we" is not a good thing, so I criticize the behavior, taking all of the above into consideration and not making a personal attack on anyone.


IMO, utilising the term "we" even though it may not mean it to encompass others, does. The text is ambiguous, but could easily be more accurate by defining it as a sole thought, ie me, mine, I as opposed to we, we're, us
Yes, a word is only a word.. until placed into a sentence, then it forms context and to read and comprehend accurately, terms need to be without ambiguity and to not be misleading. Given the environment here of communication difficulties, surely it would be a responsible and empathetic step, to examine how others will be told a story that is essentially a unique one. Why even take the personalisation out of it? Informing is one thing and telling our story may be therapeutic, but what happens when the text is not recognising that there are no two experiences alike.

I was also triggered at the time with the question of self diagnosis and are we to criticise to look at the area of self appointing. Some have picked up on this and really, why can/should a conversation/thought not be multi branched if it is still related to the topic somehow?! I received a question about my entry which then asked me about a beverage..but that's OK!
Some claiming posts do not relate to the topic heading directly, are forgiven for thinking this is so, however this is not an entirely off topic proposal. My abstract note seeks to explore the nature of self appointing which may be employed whilst self diagnosing - to varying degrees of course. I am suspicious within an area that may be known for it's inability to cognitively empathise[Baron Cohen].



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,745

27 Nov 2014, 9:00 pm

Us and we never works for the autism spectrum.

The only thing that is consistent is what is written in a book to describe reciprocal social communication challenges described as behavioral deficits only.

I did a somewhat exhausting study on this we and us phenomenon about a year ago and yes it still hold true with DSM5 criteria no matter how general the behavioral difficulties are delineated now in diagnostic text in the US.

The Gillberg Criteria still used in Sweden for Asperger's Syndrome with Hyperlexic language delay until age 4 does still fit me per all checkpoints of diagnosis but this description is far away from some other forms of Autism, as any human challenge could be, other than the general specified behavioral problems of reciprocal social interaction still described as such in the US.

Over 50 percent of folks previously diagnosed in the US fit the symptoms of Non-Verbal Learning disorder, which can be much much different that the hyperlexic language delayed form of Gillberg Criteria Asperger's Syndrome more fully modeled after case studies of Hans Asperger's in the middle of the last Century.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg in causal related factors, of course.

You've met one person with Autism and yes, you've only met one person with Autism. There is no we or US OR EVEN them for that matter, truly as 10 to 15 percent of the general population is likely on a broader Autism Phenotype to some degree per that systemizing part of the AQ quiz. :)

http://katiemiaaghogday.blogspot.com/20 ... ho-is.html


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 27 Nov 2014, 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Nov 2014, 9:01 pm

Doctor Grandin does it extensively in her videos. She makes generalizations about "we" as in "we don't like loud noises", and "us" as in "those of us with poor manners need to have that corrected".



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,159
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Nov 2014, 9:26 pm

For me it really depends, if I am talking about something very common on the spectrum that isn't really unique to just me and my experience I might use the term 'we'...but I do not try to speak for everyone on the spectrum and am well aware if one has met one person on the spectrum they have met one person on the spectrum. But yeah sort of depends on the context how I will word it...also I think generlized comments obviously don't apply to every single invididual within the group being described, and not sure its meant to.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,745

27 Nov 2014, 9:36 pm

http://katiemiaaghogday.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-problem-of-determining-who-is.html

The link above for the study I did on the US vs Them Phenomenon was broke but here it is again for anyone who is interested. I guess the edit function only works for a few minutes now, as I could not find an edit function to correct it.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,745

27 Nov 2014, 10:28 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Doctor Grandin does it extensively in her videos. She makes generalizations about "we" as in "we don't like loud noises", and "us" as in "those of us with poor manners need to have that corrected".


Yes, and Temple Grandhin is a textbook example of how diverse a spectrum it is in causal factors as her Autism at least in part can be attributed to structural innate differences in the left hemisphere of her brain per the link below, where her right brain had to compensate for her left Brain functions that were associated with structural developmental problems in the left hemisphere of her brain.

At times with Asperger's syndrome and symptoms associated with non-verbal learning disorder there may also be associated lesions conversely in the right hemisphere of the brain where the left hemisphere attempts to compensate for lost functionality.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/april/2-exploring-temple-grandins-brain

It is also a well known physiological factor now in science that anyone with chronic social stress can eventually have sensory integration problems from the chronic destructive mechanism of stress hormones circulating in the body.

The cerebellum in part controls both sensory integration and emotional regulation. Physical intelligence is also directly related to both sensory integration and emotional regulation.

This in part explains the healing properties that science is just now beginning to understand per practices like TAI CHI that have been used for thousands of years for balance in both sensory integration and emotional regulation.

Move it or lose it does apply.

The factors associated with Autism are most definitely as myriad as a snowflake per person to person.

And movement therapy is one of the newest therapies to help folks on the spectrum with sensory integration and emotional regulation.

I dance everywhere I go in a TAI CHI like way and it is extremely effective for improving both sensory integration and emotional regulation as I now score nearly twice as good on the EQ test, and can rave dance in loud bars as opposed to before when a cricket sounded like a freight train and just the light from the TV show Dancing With the Stars was like fireworks in my eyes.

Chronic stress did it.

Some folks get it early from a variety of environmental stressors and some folks get it later like me, who lived a relatively easier younger life in a small town as compared to what some folks face in life these days, with highly reactive nervous systems and an intensely stimulating and stressful social environment.

Damage does ensue and it is the kind of damage that an MRI will not pick up at all but hell yes you can FEEL IT, HEAR IT AND SEE IT PER incredible discomfort and pain.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

28 Nov 2014, 8:51 am

I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. We've all used the term "we." (I apologize for my flippancy but it irks me when people try to control how others speak.) I get that hate speech is bad because it insights violence and division, but using "we?" At worst it's bad rhetoric. I've used the term and will do so again.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,906
Location: Queens, NYC

28 Nov 2014, 9:27 am

"We," in most cases, is used as an indication of identification with others--not as a way to "speak" for others.

This has been my experience.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,745

28 Nov 2014, 1:01 pm

There is a mythology of an online Autism Community of similar people that truly only exists online.

And truly some of these folks try to speak for others who have this diagnosis per their own similarities that has little to no similarity with other folks on the spectrum.

It's a political issue not a pedantic one, per the topic here.

Of course people use we all the time just as a reference point, but many of these folks are using it as a capital WE like a frigging law or something.

I personally could care less whether they do it or not, as it is non-sensical to me, when they do not take the relatively short amount of time it takes to see just how diverse the spectrum is with a little research, per the kind that Autism Speaks does across the entire spectrum, not just an online club of folks with similar beefs about society, which are often oppressive, repressive and sadly misguided in my opinion.

But again, for me, do as thou wilt, to each his own, is the way I go in REAL life.

I got involved in this non-sensical argument for several years as a mindless activity to forget about real physical pain.

The pain is over and thank goodness that non-sense is over for me too, but it worked well as a circular argument for folks who refuse to budge out of their own blinders about life. Their illusion of pain, helped me to forget REAL PAIN, SO yeah, weird how things works out for the best even when it's for the worst....for some others still....overall...


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,159
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

28 Nov 2014, 1:33 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
"We," in most cases, is used as an indication of identification with others--not as a way to "speak" for others.

This has been my experience.

^this



Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,381
Location: Missouri

28 Nov 2014, 7:04 pm

I never say we when referring to just myself. Nor would I ever try to speak for the autistic community. There is a big diversity.

Anytime someone uses the word 'we' there usually comes along some person and points out 'well actually, not me.' (That person is usually me.)



Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

25 Feb 2015, 5:22 am

mjay wrote:
So, some of the 90 000 registered forum members were discussing things and a major branch has grown from a particular topic. Here is a compartment to discuss the branch of utilising the term "we" when retelling one's experiences.
The original post originated as this text. Page 12 http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=270556&start=165 Entry #7 on the page

Quote:
On a related topic, there's this thing that some people do when they are writing about ASD's, that is, they use the word "we". Everything that they write, is under a self appointed position to speak for millions of people. How one person will collectively say that their experience is "me" is beyond my thinking. Point is, some just self appoint for no logical reason and if they decide that you do not "qualify" for an ASD, do your best to see their point but just keep a clear head about whether that info has any logic or whether it is just a cheap shot from a self appointed expert.
A note to any authors, please speak about your experiences, I value that. What I don't value is when you have an idea and apply it, as if it applies to everyone.


I don't want to point the author of the following text out as though I commend them, I just want to use this as a starting point.
Quote:
One problem with saying we in the autism community specifically is that there is a broad spectrum of communication and social abilities amongst autistic people. Some autistic people are good at communicating verbally, and some autistic people are not. Many high-functioning, verbal, intelligent people are not good at communicating verbally and find it almost impossible to gather, speak, or write their thoughts in real-time. In addition, some people who lack social cognition may not come across as convincing or believable as others who have greater social cognitive abilities. I am not talking about purposefully learned social skills, but fast, automatic behaviors that are processed by others' brains into XYZ that while ill-defined, may lead to a more favorable impression of the person communicating and greater trust of that person and what they are saying. Taken together, some autistic people are much more advantaged than others when it comes to communicating, and it is these people who will be listened to more by others, whether autistic or neurotypical or whatever. If they say we, when they mean themselves or others who agree that they are like them, then they are actually representing a larger group of people, some of whom are unable to communicate their thoughts, some of whom can't do it in real-time, some of whom can't do it in a socially conventional manner that can be readily accepted by others, etc. So in general, I believe that autistic people saying "we" is not a good thing, so I criticize the behavior, taking all of the above into consideration and not making a personal attack on anyone.


IMO, utilising the term "we" even though it may not mean it to encompass others, does. The text is ambiguous, but could easily be more accurate by defining it as a sole thought, ie me, mine, I as opposed to we, we're, us
Yes, a word is only a word.. until placed into a sentence, then it forms context and to read and comprehend accurately, terms need to be without ambiguity and to not be misleading. Given the environment here of communication difficulties, surely it would be a responsible and empathetic step, to examine how others will be told a story that is essentially a unique one. Why even take the personalisation out of it? Informing is one thing and telling our story may be therapeutic, but what happens when the text is not recognising that there are no two experiences alike.

I was also triggered at the time with the question of self diagnosis and are we to criticise to look at the area of self appointing. Some have picked up on this and really, why can/should a conversation/thought not be multi branched if it is still related to the topic somehow?! I received a question about my entry which then asked me about a beverage..but that's OK!
Some claiming posts do not relate to the topic heading directly, are forgiven for thinking this is so, however this is not an entirely off topic proposal. My abstract note seeks to explore the nature of self appointing which may be employed whilst self diagnosing - to varying degrees of course. I am suspicious within an area that may be known for it's inability to cognitively empathise[Baron Cohen].


I would like to take a moment to address this, as this is about my writing.

The OP is directly referring to my series "Care and Feeding of Your Aspie" and the thread that is about it. After dressing me down in the thread and being explained (in that thread) that the source material states on many occasions that I am working from my personal experiences, the experiences of those that I have surveyed and psychiatric professionals... and yet he continued to state, categorically, that I was speaking for everyone by my use of the word we, when in fact my ASD proofers suggested the use of the word.

That being said, this thread, without proper context seems to be a tacky and passive aggressive way to state "nuh, unh! The people here said ______"

Head on over to the original thread to see the discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=227314&p=6493885#p6493885


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

25 Feb 2015, 6:16 am

We, sometimes in solidarity.
We, sometimes regarding attributes.
I, mostly because I can speak more about my own experience.

AS may have a bunch of attributes, but people tend to stereotype.
- If someone is socially awkward, they must be an Aspie.
- If someone is socially confident, then they can't be an Aspie.

The trouble is, I've heard both of the above stereotypes, and more, from both NT's and Aspies.
So... I think 'we' should use "We" more to illuminate our diversity than our stereotypicals.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,700
Location: temperate zone

25 Feb 2015, 8:43 am

The subject of autism/aspergers comes up on the "General Austism Forum", and nowhere else even here on WP much. It rarely comes up anywhere else in my online life. It comes up in real life in the rare occasions that I go to our local support group meetings. Will try to go more often.

A couple times Ive paused at the keyboard to decide whether to use "we", or "they", when generalizing about folks diagnosed the same way I am (aspergers).

Maybe ONCE I went with "we". Usually I pretend to be an outsider and say "they". It just doesnt feel right to say "we" even if youre talking about something presumably universal to the group (like the definition of the group). I would say that "aspies learn to speak at the normal age, but HFA's have speech delays in infancy. But besides that there is not much difference between the two groups". I wouldnt say "we learn to speak at the normal age...".

The reason I avoid the plural first person?

Beats me. Its just a gut thing. Never really thought it out.
Was diagnosed late in life. So the label is like a new outfit. Am still not used to wearing it. So maybe thats it.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,906
Location: Queens, NYC

25 Feb 2015, 10:04 am

I identify with people with autism spectrums disorders--and I am a person on the Spectrum.

Definitely "We."



btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

28 Feb 2015, 12:04 am

I think I am the person who wrote the second quote in the op.
At first, I was not sure due to the lack of egg and berry words, but I think I recall writing it in a thread when people started talking about whether to use we.
I think it is best to avoid using we like temple grandin does.
I don't really consider identifying with a group of people a thing that makes intuitive sense to me, so it makes no sense to me to use we in that context either.
If others use we, I can't control that, but I can point out how their we statements don't apply to me, but a lot of autistic people can't do that or don't want to or aren't taken as seriously as others who have greater communication skills such as the people saying we or perhaps me pointing out how their we statements don't apply to me, so another reason to avoid saying we.
When talking about groups of autistic people, I usually say some autistic people, or if the thing applies to the large majority of autistic people as has been shown by multiple studies known to me, then I might say most autistic people, but that is much more rare than the some case, since autistic people are quite diverse.


_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!