Aspies are normal too!

Post Reply New Topic

It's a cynical commentary on how stupid people can be, and how being overly dense is the norm, while being intelligent and open-minded is abnormal.

Well I do have more Dyspraxia symptoms than AS symptoms. Do Dyspraxics count as NT or NL?

I'm not normal. And I'm fine with that.

Dyspraxia is a neurological condition so you're not NT.

Serial killers etc have a mental illness. Not exactly a completely different writing of the brain, although some may have.

Good I'm glad to hear that actually, because some Aspies on here have put that only AS and Autism are NL conditions. whilst all other disabilities are NT and it annoyed me when they put that. I believe (and know) that any condition in your brain is NL.

I've learnt a lot on this thread I created

Normal is a subjective and relative word and concept. In India people let cows s**t in their houses as a sign of good luck. I have absolutely no empathy for any person. Which is normal and which isn't? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer it.)

So if I was born NT, I would still naturally be a low confidence person?

I find that people get awfully hung up on the whole concept of 'normal'. It seems that people either:

a) encourage 'normal' as something to be strived towards. My family often tell me to "be normal", or "that is not normal", or "why can't you be normal?". If something or someone, for whatever reason, falls outside the parameters of 'normal', they are ostracised. "You are not normal" is an insult.

or

b) completely reject the idea of normal and define themselves in opposition to 'normal'. I've been told by friends that "normal is boring" and "there's no such thing as normal". That last one seems particularly disingenuous, because if you're living every day of yourself outside of the 'normal', you are painfully aware that there is a normal. Denying it exists denies what I go through every day of my life.

Why can't 'normal' and 'abnormal' be both value-neutral? One is as okay as the other. It's okay to be normal. It's okay to be abnormal. It isn't okay to be a rapist, but if you are a rapist then your problem cannot be simply summed up as "he is abnormal". "Abnormal" is not a fully adequate assessment of someone like a rapist/killer/dictator. I wish we could just say "I am normal" or "I am not normal" as simply neutral terms, without implying anything else.

I'm acedemically normal. Just not socially normal. Is that right?

I get confused about the "we" part. I'm not able-bodied, I'm not healthy, and I'm not able to reach the same goals in life as the next person. I'm also okay with all of that. Disability is part of human variation, it doesn't have to be a bad thing.



Saying that I'm not normal is not putting myself down. It's just a fact, I don't match the norm at all. (And I'm not able-bodied and not able to be an independent adult by normal standards.)

But another thing. You're not able to be an independent adult. Nobody is able to be an independent adult. It is just that some people have the privilege of being able to hang onto an illusion that they're independent. Who grows your food? Who made your clothes? Who created the language that you are using to type this? Who created computers to type it on? Who built the place you live in? Who gives you a job (if you have one)? Who creates and maintains the roads you travel on? And it goes on and on. Nobody is independent. Everyone is interdependent. This is a good thing, it is a strength of the human species, it is how we all survive. Losing track of the fact that we're not independent is not a positive thing.



Meeting goals is good and accomplishments are good. But being normal isn't inherently good. It just means you to some extent fit the norms of a society you happen to live in. Not everyone can fit those norms and not everyone should fit those norms. And this is positive that not everyone does.



Here is an important quote about these things, from Jim Sinclair's article "What Does Being Different Mean?" I don't agree with every single word of it, but I agree with the basic message:

Some autistic children internalize this message and accept "being normal" as their major goal in life. And it's been my observation that the more deeply invested an autistic person is in being normal, the more likely it is that he or she suffers from anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. It's a natural consequence of making one's top priority to become something other than oneself.

So what do I suggest? First of all, I think everyone needs to realize that being autistic is nothing to be sad or ashamed or embarrassed about. Stop grieving about it! Secondly, I think non-autistic people need to stop agonizing over issues of normalcy and differentness, and autistic people need to stop getting caught up in non-autistic people's hangups over these issues. Stop trying to deny or minimize the differences, and stop pretending the autism can be separated from the person. Autistic people are very different from non-autistic people, and those differences run all the way down to the core of personality and awareness.

And there's nothing wrong with that! It's our nature as autistic people to be different in those ways--it's the way we're supposed to be. Feeling sad about the mere fact of being different is a handicap that non-autistic people have. It's not our problem, and we need to stop allowing it to damage our self-concepts. Besides, even though non-autistic people may hate or fear or pity us for being different, I think they really need us to be just the way we are. We're the ones who notice that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

For the whole article, which contains some really important ideas, see here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200706080535 ... ferent.htm

I'm not that different from NTs.

One thing (out of a few) I do have in common with the NT mind is I mostly think and take things by opinion. I read people on the spectrum take things based on facts. And I've been told I am very illogical - that's probably why I've got so many arguments on this thread.

Possibly. But...

Okay, look at it this way. Suppose there were a bunch of people, and 99% of them were bright red. And 1% were bright blue. And the red ones thought the blue ones looked diseased and often didn't play with them as children, or hire them as adults, or agree to date them. There are a whole bunch of things that wouldn't be inherent to being blue but would show up disproportionately often in blue people.

So, if you're really an Aspie, it's totally possible that, had you been NT, you would be more confident. Sort of like how, back before the civil war, you wouldn't expect to find an educated black, and if they'd been white... well, you get where I'm going with this. The only reason I have to point this out is because, though American blacks have won their fight and are treated fairly, we aren't, so there are those who would suggest that what I'm saying means being an Aspie is bad.

So... I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not.

I don't get it though. I know we might have had this conversation earlier on in this topic, but if NTs have the same brain and are apparently all ''normal'', then what about the mental hospitals? Surely not all the mental hospitals in the world only hold people with disabilities and NTs on drugs.
I mean, my cousin is with a control freak - a man who beats young women up, gets them in debt, controls their whole lives, bawls when family knocks round, lies to people, the list goes on. And he even steals these young girls while they're still children, so that he could brainwash them and have sex with them while they're still young and pure. Is that normal? In fact, having a disability is part of normal diversity - whereas people like this control-freak paedophile are completely nuts. What goes on in their brains?
And who's heard of baby P? Probably only people in Britain have, because it's been popular news for a couple of years now. Whatever was going through their minds when they were enjoying torturing this helpless little 16 month old baby? They may be NTs, but are they normal? Definatey not. Everyone I know are discusted by them.
And these people who go around having sex with babies and children? It happens, and you hear so much of all this - and I can bet you any money you want that 9 out of 10 of these offenders are NT.

Neurotypical doesn't stand for ''normal perfect people'' (otherwise the abbrieviation would logically be NPP) - neurotypical means people who aren't diagnosed with a disability or need any diagnosis. But it still doesn't mean they don't do horrible weird things. Something wrong must be running through their brain to make them want to kill people or have sex with children or evilly control people's lives. Ohh, discusting! And the majority of people aren't like that, but you do get some.

So at least we're not wrongly abnormal. We are abnormal in a different way. But these people who do crazy things are evilly not normal. And it ain't always drugs to blame - people can do these evil things by their own liking.

Anyone ever heard a saying, ''takes all sorts to make a world''. It sure does.

NT doesn't mean utterly identical. It means your brain has all the normal anatomy, of approximately average size, with approximately average density, with cells that are present in approximately average numbers at approximately average levels of maturity for your age.

Being committed is not based on any particular diagnosis. It requires you to be a danger to yourself or others (or have a sadistic, lying shrink who should be in jail). As such, you can (to the best of my knowledge) be committed even if you're NT, even if you're not on drugs. Though not usually neurotypical after several years, schizophrenics often get committed, as do people with mood disorders. I heard about an epileptic getting committed (though I don't know if epileptics are quite NT).

Anyone under stress may exhibit pathological behavior. For instance, suicidal ideation (grounds for commitment) may be present in someone who has suffered a serious loss or is ostracized. If you have occasion to watch an NT get utterly and completely broken (I hope you never do), you'll see a whole bunch of pathological behavior.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the Stanford Prison Experiment, "evilly controlling people's lives" is not in any way unusual. It's quite typical. Killing people's not that rare, either, and is not the sole province of bad people. (Note: the last two sentences are links. They're worksafe, but depressing.)

In the Milgram Experiment, for example, typical people would have killed the learner. The experiment demonstrated that having strong morals is abnormal. (Having morals is normal, but morals that you live up to is rare.)

Being normal or typical means a whole bunch of things. Like being able to recognize faces instantly. Like having no spine. Like being uncomfortable with bad things. Like loving those closest to you. Like not regarding people who aren't like you as human.

Being atypical means that one or more of the things that characterize normal people is absent or modified in you. Maybe you can't recognize faces. Maybe you would respond to the Milgram experiment by freeing the learner and trying to kill Milgram. Maybe you like to inflict pain on other people for no other reason than that it's fun. Maybe you have no loved ones, but are kind to everyone. Maybe you can multiply eight-digit numbers in your head instantly. Maybe you'll never understand what a number is. Maybe you can run a mile in three minutes. Maybe you can't walk. Any of these makes you atypical.

I know loads of NTs who are immature. One of my work colleagues is NT, but he goes around slamming doors in temper like a school boy.

I'm not being racist, but most NT men are immature in some ways.

Some NTs don't even get off their arses and bother to go out and look for work.

Precisely. Don't go swinging to the other extreme, though. You're not worse, but you're also not any better. Just different. I hope you find a way to live with that, and to make the most out of your life; I hope you figure out how to use the skills you have to achieve the goals you want.

When there's no definition of "normal", why is anyone bothered...

As far as I can understand, "normal" means being a sheep that blindly follows the lives of random people who ended up on TV and thinks that someone who can kick a ball across a field is some kind of hero...

I'd much rather be "me"... I don't care if anyone thinks that's "not normal" - I also don't care if they think that I am "normal", though, in my head, as that puts me within the above "sheep" definition, I'd be a lot more likely to take offence!

Anywhoo - I just don't get why anyone feels the need to be labelled by someone else's superficial standards...