Cultural Aspergers Hypothesis

Post Reply New Topic

oh! I thought you meant the first one I listed. I don't have any argument against that one. I agree with that. Not sure why you thought I didn't.

Because you stated that if someone was autistic in our society they would be autistic no matter what, and if they weren't it would be a misdiagnosis.

4 and 5 are really the assumptions that are the most tangental and have the least to do with the body of the hypothesis. Anyway, here the assumption is referring to people with higher IQ that don't have extra issues.

Okay. I guess I'm missing the connection you're seeing there. I don't disagree whatsoever with your first premise.

You are right though, in your interpretation of what I said later. I do feel that relocating from one society to another doesn't change whether or not we're Autistic. A person doesn't become something different than he/she is just by changing who the people are around him/her. They are still who they are and were before.

So, yeah, if someone is not Autistic, they're not Autistic, or if they are, they are. Society changes don't affect that.

Autistics may do better in one society than another, but they're still autistic.

It sounds like you're suggesting that what we're called might change. I don't disagree with that, but that's just a change in label. You are still who and what you are.

I agree that if someone could be accurately considered autistic in one society they should be considered autistic in all. Ultimately autism does involve quite a few deficits, not necessarily restricted to social problems. In places like silicon valley where 'autistic personalities' are more common, there's also a greater frequency of autism diagnosis (possibly due to genetics), we're not autistic because we don't fit into society, we're autistic because we show a pattern of problems that fits the archetypal autistic personality.

I'm not convinced that a higher IQ would lead to higher functioning either, although I imagine they are related. To compensate for problems requires the individual to first identify the problems, necessitating both a degree of self awareness and the social aptitude to know what constitutes appropriate behaviour. Lack of self awareness can be quite common in autistic individuals, irrespective of IQ, similarly so are problems identifying the rules of social conduct.

From a subjective viewpoint, I still had social issues fitting in with my computer science degree class (which I presume is more likely to contain 'autistic personalities' than most other NT subsets), that others in my year didn't seem to show. In this scenario it wasn't that I was considered weird or unusual, it's just that I have genuine problems 'connecting' with people (whatever the hell that means), irrespective of social background.

No, I'm not suggesting someone can change from autistic to nonautistic by changing societies that they live in, I'm saying that someone could turn out autistic if they were raised in one society instead of another in a developmental process like feral kids vs. normal kids. That's the basis of assumption 2.

Okay. I guess that I don't agree with then, as I don't believe Autism is a result of environment. I believe we're born with it. That we can adapt, and that adaptation may be made easier in some societies than others, but we'd still be Autistic regardless.

That's a premise that I know is debated, but I've become firm enough in my views on that I'm not much into debating that point anymore.

What is this "reality" that you mention? Is reality not subjectively constructed by the participants?

Reality is what it is, independent of how anyone defines it. It's not a human construct. Constructs are dependent on perspectives. Reality is not. It just is.

By autistic I mean it being severe enough to be a disorder, I think most of the components are present from birth.

So in a culture were autistic traits were considered normal you have to be more extreme to be diagnosed as autistic. And somehow having a high IQ masks having autism so the fewer people getting diagnosed with autism in such a culture would have lower iQs.

Thats what you're saying.

Having a high IQ doesnt necessarily make life easier nor make it easier to compensate nor mask autism.

I dont know of any cultures that are more autistic than others.

Surprisingly hostile responses, so I'll reply myself as the ideas are not that strange or unsupported.

Absolutely. If this was not so, we would have no "autism epidemic". What we would expect if ASDs were solely genetic is a decline in ASD as discrimination increases. This is exactly what we see as well, as it appears that young people have lower neurodiversity scores. IOW, all the recent increase in diagnostic is due to environmental factors, primarily a less accepting culture. Even if the diagnostic criteria has shifted in order to diagnose more, this is still true as there is a demand for more diagnoses as conditions become worse.



Not so sure about that. I don't even think that extent of different neurology is that much correlated to severity of ASD. Instead, severity of ASD is primarily related to either genetic vulnerabilities (the LFA group) or a bad environment (the HF group).



I think this is true. If a majority had autistic neurologies, nobody would be diagnosed with AS. However, diagnostic ratio is most dependent on which traits are valued, neurodiverse or neurotypical. As long as neurotypicals value the splinter skills of neurodiverse people they will be accepted (and not diagnosed), but as the global society has "evolved" to only need a few global groups with autistic splinter-skills, those are no longer valued in the local society. Instead, social competence is what is valued, and this leads to more diagnosis of AS.



On average yes, but not always. It is certain traits that are important in order to work around problems. Self-awareness is very important.



I don't understand that argument.



Not so. The problems of being AS might differ between cultures, but the neurodiversity traits will not.



True.

Not sure if I agree with all of the assumptions, but I definitely agree with the final conclusion.

Aspies are often discriminated against by NT's and NT's are responsible for a lot of autistic suffering due to lack of empathy on both sides.

On the other hand sometimes Aspies discriminate against each other, but this is usually only the case when there are complex misunderstandings involved. I think Aspies get along for the most part in the end, as long as we discount confounding multiple diagnoses.

Stop getting all metaphysical on us. It's too early in the morning here.

Self defeatist attitude. Don't spread it please, they can be quite contangious.

The world can be changed, it is ever changing. We can make a difference.

“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.”
~Seneca

I'm really tired of people assuming that the social parts and not "getting along" with NTs is the only part of an ASD.

Even if the majority had various levels of autistic traits, that wouldn't make me able to do things that I can't, even if many people on here think that their primary issue is discrimination.