Is everyone on the spectrum?

Post Reply New Topic

This question comes up a lot, and I think the key here is to be specific about the words we use and their definitions.

When people use the term 'Autism Spectrum', the idea is that there are a spectrum of traits associated with Autism. They range from social communication issues, sensory issues, visual-spatial issues, etc. Now, each of these traits also exists on a gradient. By gradient, it is meant that each trait can be intense or not intense. Someone with social communication issues can vary from missing extremely subtle queues only, to not understanding the fundamental basics.

The way I see it, everyone has an ability level across perhaps thousands of traits. People who are substantially weak across several of these traits associated with autism are what we refer to as 'autistic'. This, in my view, is best explained by variations in neural pathways, the number of neurons present in different parts of the brain, the physiology of the neurons themselves, and the chemical efficiency in which the neurons function.

I think that it can all be true that 'autism' refers to people who are especially weak in certain traits, that these traits exist on a full gradient which includes all people, and that autism is still a distinct thing and deserves its own understanding. If we take 100% as the peak person who has ever lived in terms of one of these traits, and 0 being the weakest person who has ever lived in terms of a trait, maybe the average ability is roughly a 50, and anyone below 20 is flagged as clearly being autistic. But surely there are 21s, 25s, even 30s who struggle.

I'm a little wary of the term "weak" in this, because ASD traits such as hyperfocus and perfectionism could validly be viewed as strengths, if you'll excuse my pedantic nit-picking. But overall I very much agree with what you're saying here. The boundary that gets drawn between those who supposedly have ASD and those who don't is largely artificial. The danger is that it can lead to a ridiculous situation where one person who scores just above the boundary gets the label ASD and another who scores just below it gets the label NT.

I also agree with the idea that denying the "continuum" view of ASD risks encouraging society to take an "us and them" position - I think it's harder for a group to feel bigoted against another group if they can see that there's a lot of overlap between them. Though I also think it allows some people to drag their feet on helping people with ASD, e.g. a doctor can refuse a referral for diagnosis on the strength of "everybody has the symptoms you're complaining of," or an employer, colleague or practically anybody can refuse to make allowances on the strength of the "we all have similar crosses to bear but most of us don't expect special treatment for it" defense. Nonetheless, I think "how much ASD does this person have?" is a wiser question than "is this person ASD or NT?"

I am weary of this question.

While I agree most people have one or more autistic traits thus there probably is an autistic traits spectrum.

I find it is mostly used to belittle autistic experiences as in everybody is a little bit autistic, everybody has problems, and we overcome them, now stop complaining and try harder.

^ This

Lol. You all just reminded me why I found it so irritating in the first place!

I live for pedantics, so don't worry! That is a valid point, and I should probably include that some parts of being autistic are having an abnormal strength in some traits as opposed to nuerotypicals as well. Maybe I should use the term 'capability', as it contains less normative baggage?

I also agree that there is a tendency to belittle people's problems, and the 'everyone is a little autistic' trope is certainly used in this way.

I guess, just to continue with the pedantics, I argue that we shouldn't shy away from a true statement because it can be twisted to a ridiculous point. It is tempting to stress the difference between autistic people and neruotypical people as a means to justify treatment and assistance. Yet I think it is better (in that it is more factually correct) to argue against the 'everybody has the symptoms you're complaining of' trope by pointing out that eventually there is a quantitative level of symptom manifestation which results in a qualitative difference in life experience.

My understanding is that the autism spectrum is the collection of features/symptoms that cluster together in autistic people, in the same way that the colors of the light spectrum cluster together to make a rainbow. Thus the term spectrum. A couple of colors don't make a rainbow, So a couple of autistic symptoms don't make you a "little autistic"

I guess the problem with "capability" might be that (for example) an Aspie would typically be more capable of diligent error-checking than a NT, but less capable of tuning into a particular person's talk at a social gathering where many people talk at the same time.

I think this "everybody has at least a smattering of ASD traits" question is an example of the difference between pure science and politics or competition. In a purely scientific context I would maintain that practically everybody would score at least a few points on ASD tests, and therefore can reasonably be seen as having at least a little bit of ASD, but in a political context it might depend on who I was talking to at the time. If I had all the time in the world to convince an open-minded benefits adjudicator that I should be paid some welfare money, I might concede that none of my impairments were qualitatively unique to the disability I claim to have, and then I would argue that quantitatively there was enough of a difference to make me need help, but in practice my opportunity to explain myself would be brief and the adjudicator wouldn't be open-minded, they would probably seize on what I'd initially said as evidence that I didn't need help, and cut me short, end the conversation, and send me a letter saying my claim had failed. I don't think everybody is interested in the objective truth all the time, I think they often make their observations selectively with the sole purpose of making it look as if some idea they have is correct, usually so that they can acquire or hang onto money, status or pride.

The problem is that nothing in Autism is exclusively Autistic. So yes, everyone at some point has experienced a version of what we experience. What makes someone Autistic or not Autistic is the degree and frequency of which we experience what we experience. That is what puts you on the Spectrum or not. To be on the Spectrum, you have to have significant regular, daily or almost daily actual impairment from these things. You must also have a collection of different symptoms that regularly impair you, not just one or two. And you must have them strongly enough and frequently enough to be considered clinically disabled. It's like everyone has headaches every now and then but only some people have debilitating and crippling migraines all the time. People who just have a headache when their kids are screaming are not disabled from them. People who have migraines that keep them completely nonfunctional for days at a time and who have them very frequently are disabled from them. So no, not everyone is on the Spectrum. If everyone were, there would be no Autism diagnosis.

Here is one of the best videos I have ever seen about this. Someone posted it on another thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWnyDvG7XEk

I still think that in name of science we need to get rid of trait perspective and focus on causality. Detecting causal links is the right way to treat problems. I'm on the blindness spectrum due to myopia hence I need lenses not freaking cataract surgery.

What does detecting casual links mean? I'm sorry if I missed that in a previous post. If you don't mind explaining it to me, I would like to understand what you mean.

Of all the stupid things NTs say about about autistic people, "Aren't we all just a little autistic?" ranks right up there with "You don't look autistic".

Why is he awkward?
Why he doe not eat that food?
Why he can not interact socially?

Well, if a person has all those traits it is not guaranteed to have the same behavioral reason as another person with same traits.

He almost choked on food and became neurotic. He can not properly see environment hence others faces therefore he is clumsy in peer interaction which also involves action and can not respond in similar manner to changes in environment. Is he further on autism spectrum?

I have no problem at all with those statements as such, it's where they're going with them that bothers me.

I think it is important to understand causality to help people and treat them when treatment is appropriate but it is still very important to be able to correctly diagnose Autism and to recognize it as a whole.

I agree with this. Someone said this to me recently and I responded "If everyone were "a little autistic" the world would look and operate very differently than it does now. She asked me what I meant and I told her that it would be a hell of a lot quieter, for starters. And dogs would be allowed everywhere lol