Syndrome and/or diversity? How do you reconcile them?

Post Reply New Topic

I see so many Aspies claiming Asperger's is a difference, and talking about neurodiversity and the need to promote acceptance of different neurologies, yet those same people, when talking about themselves, they say "I have AS" - which means Asperger's Syndrome.

How do you reconcile the fact that you're only different, not better or worse, with the fact that you have [suffer from?] a syndrome?

Last edited by Greentea on 09 Sep 2009, 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Think of this: some of the planets on the sky were originally named after gods. We still use these names, but we no longer believe in these gods. So the reason I use Asperger's Syndrome is simply to be understood what I am talking about.

Since we DO asknowledge we are different (we just don't think this difference makes us "worse"), this difference should have a word for it in order to talk about it, much like table or chair have words to refer to them. We could have come up with another word, but then no one would understand us, so we use the word that is already in use.

To use the words that are "already in use", black people can refer to themselves as f*****g n****rs, inui as eskimos, homsexuals can say "I have a sexual perversion", etc.

If the word syndrome is a concern because of it's connotation as something disordered... I wonder, wouldn't it need another word than Asperger's then too? You know, like, I have/am "new-word"?

Because Asperger's is also usually defined as a disorder, it was so by Asperger himself as well as how it is currently defined in some official catalogues of criteria.

I am not sure I quite understand the question. AS is a difference, and differences such as neuro-diversity should not be reacted to with intolerance.

I do not think that having a missing limb or an inability to see, or a heart condition makes a person morally better or worse than some other person who is not so characterized, by virtue of such difference. I do not judge peoples’ moral worth on the basis of whether or not they are characterized by disability, health complaints or differences that impair them or their well-being. Is the Governor of California better than Stephen Hawking because Arnie does not need a wheelchair to get about easily? Not in my opinion.

Sora, I totally agree.

pandd, not everyone feels they're missing something like you do. I'm talking (mainly) to those who, like me, happen to believe (rightly or wrongly) that we have a different neurology, not a malfunction of the same neurology. This is not about morality but about neurology.

Nowhere in this thread have I stated or implied that I am missing something.


What precisely do “better” and “worse” mean when they are not moral evaluations or linguistic “short cuts” referring to some stated measurement?

AS is a condition described in the DSM IV. If someone is “different” (as indeed every single human being is), but do not have a condition that results in clinically significant impairment or distress, then they do not have AS. They might have traits quite similar to AS. They might be Broader Autistic Phenotype, without actually having any clinical condition, but they do not have AS.

AS is by its very definition a disability and an impairment. If you're not disabled and impaired in some way, but you only have traits that you consider positive then you have autistic traits, not AS, unless someone can say objectively that you are in fact impaired even though you don't experience it that way yourself.

However, I don't think there's a problem reconciling AS as being a disorder with the concept of neuro-diversity. Just because some things are difficult for me does not make me sub-standard, in fact, I don't think anyone should be considered less, regardless of their level of impairment. I've always understood "neuro-diversity" as acceptance of the differences between people, not as a claim that AS is not a problem for those affected by it.

But NT-s can also be regarded as "impaired". If in some other planet the majority were aspies, NT-s would have difficulty fitting in. Also, since aspies have some areas in which they are better than NT, one can re-phrase it as saying that NT is "worse" in these areas than aspie thus calling NT impaired.

In light of this, neither side is "impaired" rather they are different. Just like one person might be better in one thing and the other in something else. The reason the specific aspects in which aspies are worse are called "impairment" while the ones in which NT-s are worse are not called that, is simply that aspies happen to be a minority. So in light of this, it is the way majority judges the minority that puts them into "impaired" category.

Besides, social skills, strictly speaking, is NOT an ability to get something done. Rather, it is an ability to act in a way that earns approval from others. So, "lack of social skills" simply means that others judge you for your differences, and that is what trully disables you. In the past when women or blacks didn't have as much apportunity as white men, one can say that being a woman or a black impairs your social skills since it deprives you of an apportunity to get ppl to do what you want, thus making it a "disability". In case of asperger, same thing. What if some NT-s simply don't like if your movements look un-coordinated, so they don't want to talk to you, and then you are labeled as having "poor social skills".

APPLAUSE for Roman. No one could've explained it better, certainly not me.

If I believe in neurodiversity, then I am the Aspie type - it means there are different neurological types. Same as there are different blood types, and none of them is considered a syndrome.

I do, however, totally respect the viewpoint that AS is not a difference but a syndrome. I don't happen to agree with it at this stage of my understanding (for the reasons Roman explained) but I do respect it.

I guess I don't see the word Syndrome as implying impairment or disorder or dysfunction. To me a Syndrome is a group of characteristics that often occur together and imply an underlying common cause or course of action.

I think the research shows 2% of the population (at least in Sweden) having AS or AS type characteristics. Also, I think early intervention is effective, and a lot of people who would have had clinical impairments are now learning cognitive adaptations well enough to avoid most of the problems associated with AS.

For me, understanding some unifying concepts about my brain have allowed me to design cognitive adaptations more efficiently, and also allowed me to explain my limitations to others in ways they understand. It's a lot easier to explain that I'm aspie, and then provide my specific issues, than it is to try to explain how I'm a unique individual. There's nothing wrong with uniqueness, but most of my 'peculiarities' are normal aspie traits, not 'unique'. So AS provides a 'unified field theorem' for my brain.

Some day, we'll be able to identify the actual neurological patterns, and I think there will be a strong cluster of people who have limited bandwidth in the social/sensory area, combined with enhanced bandwidth in the 'things' area. And I think the general population will adjust to this the way they have adjusted to people who don't speak the same first language (at least where I live, where that's half the population).

There will be other concentrations of patterns, plus outliers, making up the neurodiversity spectrum.

And I want to point out that categorizations like gay/straight, male/female, black/white, etc. aren't really binary. They all have a 'spectrum'. and society is recognizing that and adjusting to it.

duke, well said! But how do you explain using the word syndrome only for AS and not for NT, when one is just different from the other?

This is how I see it, too. I feel that my 'impairments' are 'caused' by external forces. In my world, the one I've built for myself and thrive in, I'm not impaired. But when I'm in the 'real world,' even when I'm contributing via skills, knowledge, etc, the social/environmental demands of that world 'disable' me.

'NT' is a problem.. I have to explain that "just because you're NT doesn't mean you're not crazy", because by NT we mean 'not aspie'. It doesn't consider other aspects of neorodiversity, except maybe some closely allied things like OCD and ADD.

If I were to invent a term, it might be Neuro-Social. I guess I just did. NS for short. They have an especially well developed social processing center, but have difficulty applying cognitive controls on their emotions, often to the point of impairment.

duke, but why use the term syndrome for Aspies and not for NTs if it's just a difference, then?

Sorry, the 'Syndome' was implied. NSS.