If you could cure yourself of Asperger's, would you?

Post Reply New Topic

I voted yes. AS has mostly been an impediment to me, even in areas where it should have helped. It's given me a special interest in music, but it's also deprived me of the networking skills I need in order to achieve anything with that special interest.

Big Luke Skywalker type "NEVER!! !!'

no, the way my brain has always worked and developed is inherent to my self identity and although I have some problems I don't consider myself disabled.

I think if I were to become nt I wouldn't have a better life or less problems, and I find the romantic notion of being "cured" a problematic consideration.

of course I am only speaking for myself.

I don't need a cure for being myself, thank you very much.

Actually, seaweed, you aren't only speaking for yourself because I feel the same way. I think that Asperger's is a gift. One of my favourite quotations ever is 'I'm not disabled. I'm differently-abled'.

"Cure?" It is literally in the physical structure of my brain..

Society is not advanced or educated enough yet to realize that Autism/Asperger's is a completely normal variation of the typical brain structure. I do not believe it is even a disorder, just a deviation. You cannot "cure" this in the same way that you cannot "cure" race or sex. Most people simply cannot cope with the idea of such variation or difference, so neurodiversity has been conveniently labeled a "syndrome," or "disorder" for quite some time.

I find it interesting to consider that our human species killed off other human species (Neanderthals and such). I wonder how their slightly differing brain structure would make them behave differently from us (if they were still alive today). This is another example of a completely normal variation in brain structure in human species. Life would be much more interesting, especially if current day humans would have been tolerant/intelligent enough to live with other human species.

I say we are not disabled so much as heavily disadvantaged. That means a lot of our "impairments" are really an issue of bieng a small minority in a world not built for us. How much an autistic persons "impairments" are a result of real disabilities or the result of bieng forced to adapt will vary greatly.

Okay, I just did a double-take because I was rethinking this thread in general and the same basic idea above in particular and was clicking here just to bring it up! But in a slightly different context...What I was thinking was, besides the sensory issues, which obviously are contradictory to what would seem a "beneficial" mutation (but who knows...maybe oversensitivity does serve a purpose?), I was wondering about various stages in human evolution and how in so many ways they would seem to be steps backward and not forward or perhaps even deficits or intellectual and other delays at the time, actually ended up being a step forward, so to speak, at least in our view, and certainly increased technology through the ages (I know evolution doesn't technically "choose" but hopefully you get my general meaning).

Sort of like this: Let's take an example of the long infancy period in humans as compared to other primates. We have the longest infancy period, I believe 8 years, technically. (We don't think of a 3rd grader as an infant, this is just a classification.) Anyway, evolution doesn't always happen in some smooth long line as we picture it doing. Rather, just as you described, there are genetic variations and they can be immediate, appear drastic as compared to the accepted norm and possibly occur in only a few people in a given generation, then not at all in the next generation (of a small group or clan), then eventually appear again...etc. So at various points during human evolution as we understand it, the infancy period would have been longer in various children apparently randomly, i.e. they would "mature slower", and this would in fact have been considered a detriment, potentially even fatal; the longer an animal, including a human one, is immature, particularly neurologically but also in other ways, the longer s/he is vulnerable to accident or predators. Also, a longer infancy period means a longer total time that the young one must be cared for directly by adults.That's also a hindrance, technically, to society.

Yet let's say the average infant at one of our evolutionary stages or another in a given clangroup would have sexually and intellectually matured at age 8 or 9. What happened when someone randomly had a child who didn't sexually and intellectually mature until age 12? Or 13? Wouldn't that have seemed absolutely bizarre (assuming the particular group could at least approximate the passage of time, say for instance recalling The Year of the Big Forest Fire or what-have-you - or even just comparing the child to others born in the same general timeframe)? And wouldn't that child have been considered "slow"? (Example: what if, today, you had a daughter and she was 18 and still hadn't gotten her period? Wouldn't you be taking her to the doctor?) What about when the first infants who couldn't support their own heads immediately after birth were born? Wouldn't the clan have though there was something very wrong with them? How about when some infants were born with significantly less hair (this is going much farther back than the examples so far) and could have frozen? Or children who randomly didn't have toe/whole foot dexterity like its fellow primates and couldn't climb trees as easily? These would all have been considered not only odd as compared to the rest of the group, but could actually have had fatal results. They would have seemed a step BACK yet these among thousands of other changes over time are NOW considered "steps forward" as (so far - evolution is an ongoing thing) they have culminated in today's Homo Sapiens sapiens, who is remarkably intelligent, yet has a looooooooooong, very very very vulnerable infancy period, who is almost entirely helpless (can't cling on, can't see well, can't lift own head) at birth and ripe for the picking-off should a leopard appear out of nowhere, who could freeze to death in a matter of hours if we did not physically clothe them...who can not self-feed even in the most rudimentary way until they are 8-9 months old and further can't actively seek and procure their own food even if it's there in the kitchen for 18-24 months or so?

In the case of a comparatively long infancy period as I mentioned above, this actually ultimately proved a benefit to our overall intellect rather than a deficit. The reason: the longer an animal is directly in contact with adults, the more time it has to absorb intricacies of those adults collectively: i.e. their experiences and knowledge. By contrast, an animal that must "grow up fast" is AWAY from the adults and their collective history and it must rely more on base instinct and physical survival ability. Because a human's greatest asset is typically his/her brain (our hearing and sense of smell aren't great, we don't have a warm coat, we can't climb as well as other primates and so on...it's our brain that's our asset), what would have seemed perhaps a disability or at least an oddity in the beginning, actually may have pushed us forward intellectually over time.

Also, the longer the infancy and juvenile periods, the later the animal begins reproducing, which means more years to think about itself (rather than caring for another and/or being considered "adult" and having to assume life-supporting responsibilities not only for itself but for its clan/tribe/group, at least in social animals, and believe it or not, we are social, LOL, even we on the spectrum are far, far more social in its literal definition than a technically "antisocial" animal). Actually, it means, the longer time it has to think, period. Without adult responsibilities, a youth can think, daydream, be creative, come up with new ideas...new technologies.

This is already way too long so I'll leave it at that...it's just an interesting thought...what if hypersensitivities DO serve us...what if an "autistic" way of thinking is simply more targeted and pinpointed and a step forward...we can't know yet and for the time being the general population sees it all as a deficit and additionally, a resources drain (money, care) yet nearly every evolutionary so-termed "step up" in our genetic past has seemed to also be increasing resource and time drains...so...just...hmmm.

Last edited by NowhereWoman on 24 Sep 2015, 12:08 pm, edited 4 times in total.

My two Aspie friends used to argue about whether autism and Asperger's were the next stage of human evolution. I remained neutral [and wisely so, as there was no way I was taking sides].

I don't think I would, I'm pretty happy as I am.

I'd be curious as to how much would change though.

Right, I'm not saying I absolutely believe this, just that it's one possibility among many. I hope it isn't a hot topic, I don't intend it that way and I'm not emotionally invested in the idea or anything, so if there ends up being no validity to the idea it's all good; it's just the sort of thing I do typically think about - it ties in so well with my evolution obsession. (I am fascinated with this particular science, not just in humans but in animals, and even the evolution of the earth itself, geologically).

Nor would I use such a theory to prove ASD people are "superior" in some way; evolution doesn't work like that - it's more about random mutations, some of which will work during a particular time and in a particular environment, some of which won't just then, but will later...etc., for all living things, not just humans. So I hope my post didn't come off that way! There isn't really anything to say increasing intellect is an *overall* "superior" thing from a survival perspective, there are some who would say we're painting ourselves into a corner by "losing" physical survival characteristics in favor of intellect, which means we rely on technology...All valid theories IMO and interesting, so who knows.

No. The way my brain works is the only thing I have going for me. I don't know if this is the price I pay for the gift of creativity but I would rather endure the bad things that come with this than risk losing the good parts.

Me too. And I think there may too many things that would change. I suppose, I wouldn't be able to cope with the new situation. What would happen with my intelligence? Could I still play a musical instrument, like I can now?

NTs are also intelligent. Their IQs can't be below 70 otherwise they wouldn't be NT. Same IQ range as Asperger's - 70+, assuming IQs are the measure of intelligence. NTs also play instruments. So that part wouldn't change.

You can't be sure whether an ability in something would be the same if the brain wasn't autistic. It would be interesting if it were possible, to make a brain autistic and make a brain nt to see what changed. I'd be curious to know whether my ridiculously good memory would be the same if I was nt or whether it would be not quite so good, or if I would be able to play an instrument well.

I see them as separate from the autism. If they were part of it then every autistic person would have good memory and ability to play instruments and no NTs would. But as that's not the case I see those are part of you as a person, rather than part of your autism.

But a lot of people here have the complete opposite opinion that autism is a personality. So I guess it's subjective. And until there's concrete science behind this there's no way of knowing.