I believe that Autism Is 100% Genetic!

Post Reply New Topic

By the way, I'm sorry I got frustrated. It's just something about your posts -- not about my lack of understanding of genetics, but about your pattern of language use -- seems to utterly confuse me.

And after sending my brain spinning in circles several times last night trying to figure out what you're saying, I got more irritated than I should have.

But I do want to explain where I'm coming from a bit, because I don't want you to think it's personal or about your job or something.

If it is possible for you to do so (and I understand that it might not be), keep in mind that when I read posts, I am responding to the words that are in them, and I am trying very hard to decipher the concepts attached to them, and hold those in my mind in some manner long enough to figure out what's going on. None of these are easy tasks for me.

I have difficulties with receptive language and much of symbolic thought in general that are masked by my ability to come out with superficially "correct" writing. Even at best my receptive vocabulary is about 80% of my expressive, and even that is not "on" all the time. They say autistic people often take things literally, and that is certainly true of me, but I also have trouble even getting to the point of understanding the literal meaning of the words. It goes far beyond even a vocabulary problem, and into a language comprehension in general problem, where to even do the kind of thinking required, requires effort.

None of this is to say that I can't reason or come up with actual understanding of things. I am told I do that quite well. But the route I take to it is not the usual, and reading a book or even a library on genetics will not make me function at an expert level on the subject.

So anyway, when I read your posts, I am not thinking about your profession or about attempts to question your professional knowledge. I can't think much about that if I am going to try to understand and respond to the words and concepts. I am starting to get the idea you might be sensitive about people seeming to question your professional credentials. I don't know if it helps or not to know that I can't think in those terms most of the time.

This reminds me of how my mother used to stand across the room but behind me while I was on the computer. I would get upset, and she would remind me that she's so near-sighted even with glasses that she can't read the screen from where she is. Well, similarly, you seem to be offended about something I am doing to your professional credentials (you mention this over, and over, and over again), but I am the cognitive equivalent of too near-sighted to even be perceiving the things you think I am not only perceiving but attacking. I don't know if that helps at all, to know that this is just not where I am coming from.

I also want to point out that due to autistic traits I tend to either over-explain things or under-explain them. At one point you seem to not like the fact that I explain something you think is too obvious to need to be said. I also leave out things that people would need to know. This is because I can't predict what people know and do not know already. It is not because I intend to be condescending or insult anyone's intelligence or knowledge. (I also know I don't always notice this about other people and occasionally take offense myself when someone does the exact same thing I just said. But that is not a good thing for me to do, it just happens sometimes out of misunderstanding.)

I almost suspect that you have something similar going on, because there are many things you did not say in your posts, but that you later expect me to understand. Once explained even partially, they make sense, but with no explanation, you just seemed to have an expectation that other people know what you know, and then get irritated when people did not know, and in fact only knew the words you said. (And in my case, at least, struggled to even understand many of those.)

In some cases, we actually seemed to agree once you explained, but I disagreed with your original statements because in their literal factual sense (with no extra data) they were not completely accurate (and you later gave enough details that they became more accurate, but I had no way of knowing that context until you gave it).

Expecting a person in a forum to read up on genetics in order to take part in a casual conversation on the topic is not realistic. There are hundreds of topics in these forums, and autistic people have hundreds of different special interests. To expect us all to know each other's special interests at the same depth, in order to have conversations on them, does not work in any practical sense. I don't have the kind of reading comprehension it takes to learn and retain that kind of knowledge rapidly from a book at all, let alone rapidly enough to have this discussion. It happens (comprehension of that sort) but when it happens is not under my control.

Some of us will always know more than others about certain topics. That does not mean those with normal levels of knowledge on them, ought not to discuss them.

If you want people with normal levels of knowledge to understand a topic, it is good, if you are able to do so, to explain at least the basics, rather than treating the person as if they are doing something wrong, or questioning your credentials, by talking about it at the level they know it at.

I know more than most people do about the variation in autistic people's personal and lived experiences.

I may get impatient when people say over and over things I know not to be true, by making improper generalizations. For instance, "Autistic people think in pictures," to pick an example that never seems to die. Or when people talk about "sensory issues" in terms of what I consider a ridiculously oversimplified model usually put forth by "sensory integration" people.

But when they do that, it's not about me. It's not about them questioning my knowledge and my depth of study into the matter. To them, I'm just another person on a forum, sending out words about my ideas, at most. Possibly I'm not even in the picture to them, just the words are. Certainly they are not forming in their heads a picture of how much study I have put into the matter, and then intending to contest that fact. They're just responding to what they know and what I know.

And if I want them to take my viewpoint seriously, I have to actually give explanations. I am not always capable of that. And I do get sensitive sometimes to things I shouldn't (not usually about people questioning the amount of study I've put in, but about other things), but, I shouldn't, it's not usually about me personally. (And when it does become that way, the conversation usually becomes rapidly too complex for me to handle.) But I can't really expect people to evaluate what I'm talking about unless I give information to them about what I'm talking about.

All of which is difficult, and I know may be difficult or impossible for you, for all I know. We're autistic, things happen, especially when it comes to social situations. But another thing about autistic people is that many of us don't accept "I know because I'm an expert" or "I just know, period," as enough explanation, and need the actual facts before we can evaluate them for ourselves. (But then autistic people can have trouble explaining what we know, too. Life is complicated.)

Also, there is another thing to take into account, which is that sometimes laypeople know things experts in a field do not. Because even experts can forget a particular fact, or not have read a particular paper, and so on.

Anyway, I would appreciate if you knew (now that I've told you) that when I am reading your posts, I am struggling just to evaluate the words, I cannot question your profession in the process of doing that. I got unnecessarily peeved about the way the conversation was going last night, and I'm sorry about that. I was frustrated at myself for being unable to keep up.

And I wanted you to know how I read your posts, so that maybe it became clear this isn't about some sort of social dominance thing and I'm not questioning your expertise in your own field (I don't even fully know what your field is, but judging from your irritated replies it had something to do with genetics). I'm just saying the words and ideas I know in response to the words on the screen. I am aware there are people on the other side of the screen, but most of them I do not know well, many of them I can't even tell apart (I don't always look at names/avs easily when reading posts), and I have a hard time tracking each person's expertise in their area of interest, although over time I sometimes learn that.

You might say that if I can't understand what I read that well, I shouldn't comment. But if that were true, that'd basically mean I can't comment on anything on the board, or anywhere else. So I stick with the knowledge I've got, and the level of comprehension I've got, and muddle through. Sure I might be ignorant about some things, and say things that people already know, and fail to say things that people need to know, but surely here of all places a person should be able to feel like they can do that without being accused of assorted social maneuvering we're not even capable of thinking about at the same time as thinking about everything else.

It is interesting that you are writing a book, but unlikely that I will get a good deal of meaning out of it when I read it. You say that studies are there to find, this presumes a level of competence at finding them that I don't have, as well as a knowledge of what in particular is wrong with the ones that seem to show otherwise. You have that knowledge so it would be better if you provide the cites, I have no means of finding them otherwise. Since you're the one asserting the things, especially. (But I also understand if you're just not able to do than.)

I hope this has not been too long-winded (see my post on the Tolkien thread), I just wanted to be sure there was enough detail in the explanation. Because I know there are some autistic people who would know exactly what I talk about in the above, and others who are baffled by it. I hope I have not continued to either state too much of the obvious to you or fail to state some necessary piece of information. And I should not have gotten as miffed as I did over this.

Anbuend, from reading Member Six's previous posts, it becomes clear that his profession is "School Pupil".

ambuend, you seem to be famous for twisting other people's words in order to assert your own agenda.

Anbuend, thank you for clarifying.
Yes, I do tend to leave massive gaps... I always expect everyone to know what I know.
People around me refer to me as the absent-minded professor, for that and other reasons.
But, it does irritate me when ordinary, uninvolved people, who refererence third party information, think of it as daily commuters on an active raceway. I don't mean that in offence; it's my perception. But, I do realize this is a forum, and arguments are to be presented on both all sides. As for why I don't provide reference to websites or other peoples' works, largely a professional issue. I've always regarded third-party information as borrowed, and to use it as a weakness. For me; it's a convenience if needed, and a starting
point when new evidence is presented, but otherwise, I don't touch it. It would be easy for me to give a Wikipedia link, but I neither know nor trust the character and abilities of the authors and references within. Basically, a guide, not a rule.

I am sorry for the aggresion, but I am being honest here. But, I am glad you are able to respond and explain, rather than resort to insults as some have done. Perhaps you should know; I have little in the way of emotions, science is all I have. I also know, even if this seems harsh, not everybodies opinions count, and people, regardless of what they want, can only be either wrong or right. I know that is not the correct way to behave in a forum, but it is my nature. Even still, thank you for responding calmly.

Ishmael, I honestly don't think you understand that much. It's dangerous to draw broad conclusions with seemingly little or no fact and then stamp it with your student status as "a geneticist". It doesn't impress me at all. You have your opinion and others have theirs. That's about all it really amounts to.

MemberSix, last warning; rack off.
How do I know you aren't a meat worker? Shop assistant? Bush administration advisor? No offence to shop assistants and meat workers.

all i know is i've been asperger's from a VERY early age, i always used to overreact to things and saw it as the end of the world when someone said no...i still do, i got rejected the other month and had to mentally destroy the girl (bad xanny! *slap*) and i've always flapped my hands, i'm pretty sure this AS thing has been with me since year dot.x

Ishmael, talk about insults! Get a grip.

I'm still 100% sure it is genetic it just would make a whole load of sense...nearly everyone in my family has traits of autism, even my "blood" brother has a mild form of asperges. And i was hearing from my mum about my grandma having these traits. So thts why I think its 100% genetic...

The waters of autism are too muddy these days for anyone to really understand or know anything. It has become a catch-basin for all sorts of problems and this is extremely unfortunate for those who do have the condition.