Think Spectra. Talk Spectra. Believe Spectra. Seek Spectra.

Post Reply New Topic

If I see overgeneralizations that do not apply to me, then I will just post my experiences that deviate from the overgeneralizations. I think that overgeneralizations will always be made though.

It's actually more annoying to constantly read qualifiers like, "This is just about me, I'm not trying to generalize, I know that everyone with ASD is different". I prefer to just know that each person is talking about him or herself without the qualifiers.

That's understandable. I can't speak for anyone else but it's the NT's are evil, NT's are mind readers, any personal foible you care to name and is it something all aspies have that gets annoying sometimes. Absolutes are the problem. I don't blame you for trying to figure it all out. So am I.

I agree with this. From who else's experience could anyone possibly be talking? If someone is saying something, that's what they think. No need for qualifiers.

The difference is between "I am like this" and "Aspies are like this"

I spend a lot of effort on expressing exactly that sentiment in more tactful ways. One of these days I'm going to lose my temper and just come out with "STOP BEING WRONG GODDAMMIT!!"

(I think a lot of us on here are guilty of this, including me)

I have NT friends. They had to learn to socialize and made many mistakes. It wasn't just some magical ability they were born with.

As for talk of "NT's are inferior". Not my friends. They're wonderful, productive and caring people.

Remember spectrum and i can guarantee you that progress will follow.

TheSunAlsoRises

Brilliant! You are giving me confidence.

This has been my life since 1993. If you expand that to include BBSes as well, it goes back to 1989.

I've been wanting to make the point about generalizing what all autistic people are like from one's own experiences (I actually made such a point in a thread earlier to someone who did exactly that).

One thing I've noticed that probably doesn't help is that you make a point to object to every single thread in which people discuss traits that are possibly autistic, even when there's validated research that supports the possibility (for example - the handedness thread, or the thread I started about schizotypal traits) or you come into a thread that would otherwise have no interest to you and tell everyone they're wrong and should stop talking about whatever it is they're talking about (you did this in a thread about non-binary gender that wasn't even specifically about autistic people being transgender or non-binary gender).

I think, when you come across these threads, you'd probably find it a lot less stressful, to let them go. If you know it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Getting more angry and lashing out when someone presents research that contradicts your assumption that it must be wrong doesn't help either, such as you did in the thread about physical features associated with autism.

No one is asking these questions or discussing these topics to antagonize you, and no one can possibly be responsible for any anxiety you develop because of these threads. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that such things are correct and factual or incorrect and nonfactual. However, getting emotionally invested in the idea that it must be wrong even when it isn't is probably a waste of time and probably isn't going to help.

Anyway, really, you don't have to defend yourself from every single question. Most of them probably don't apply to you as it is, you know? And if it doesn't apply to you, you don't have to justify that it shouldn't apply to anyone else. Because, as the OP said, we're all different. It may be that it doesn't apply to anyone else, but that's a different issue.

I apologize if it sounds like I keep a checklist of which threads you get involved in - I don't. I just have a fairly good memory for discussions, even after the fibromyalgia got into it. I actually like most of your posts and respect you much. You definitely don't hesitate to speak your mind here, and I think that's a good thing.

Pastafari et al,

I've been thinking about this, lurking this post now and then. I'll admit that I think that generalizations and stereotypes can be very useful, but in a limited way. If they were not, we would not have terms like "Aspergers" to describe similar groups of people in the first place.

I once called Auties "Autistic Spectrometers" as an attempt at humor. It seems like there's three prominent subgroups on the spectrum, names for which popped into my head when I has having my morning cup of black. Maybe I'll quote my own brain so I can see it in the pretty white box:

.

I included the latter two categories, although I feel them to be almost completely unrepresented on WP, because they are the most polarized away from words (the medium we communicate with on WP.) Imagine trying to describe "doing math in smells" solely using words. My suspicion is that most of the "LFA" are Tactors, Olfactors, and monolithic Geometers.²

I am rather severely modal, personally. I can think in any of the Spectra, but only one at a time and cannot choose which one I use, or when I shift modes. I will have sudden difficulty talking if I shift modes from Rhetor into Tactor mid conversation, as when someone touches my arm.

A lot of the threads that go "Are all Aspies like X?" would actually make a lot of sense if they were categorized by Spectra, since a lot of the symptoms on the Spectrum seem to be "comorbid¹" with one of those categories. "Do all Geometers think in pictures?" would yield a much more informative conversation, as would "Do any Numerators ever think in pictures?"

-
¹ - For the record, I despise the word "comorbid" as a pejorative
² - I also hate the term "LFA," because tactile and olfactory intelligence are still intelligence, but are untested on "IQ" tests, insinuating that combining complex flavors or discerning subtle textures is not intelligent or cannot be learned.