"Curing" Autism???

Post Reply New Topic

I'll admit I haven't read what researchers say. But I've read what actual people with Asperger's say. And that will certainly be news to those with Asperger's who can read facial expressions.

And the diagnositc criteria don't require an inability to read facial expressions.

Umm... no, it's not a total inability to read facial expressions, it's a lack of instinctual reading of facial expressions. NTs do it naturally without "learning" it in an intellectual sense the way we often do. An aspie learns to read people the way that an NT learns to play piano. For an NT learning to read people is instinctual, so they never really think about people's facial expressions. It's the instinct that's lacking, not a total lack of ability.

Probably fairly closely related to the fact that so many of us are severely uncomfortable with eye-contact, which is where much of the reading happens. If you're averse to receiving the information, then it's not going to be a natural progression for you to learn how to use information that you're avoiding due to the discomfort.

hmm....i just figured something out.

i have zero facial recognition and yet thought i could do eye contact. but i realize now that i'm just faking it... not looking at the person's face, i'm looking through it. i'm not focusing on their face at all. which is why i'm not getting the facial cues. i'm deliberately but unconsciously blocking that information by distorting my focus.

i do this because i want to give the impression of being socially comfortable when in fact i'm extremely uncomfortable. looking into a person's eyes gives you a view into their inner being [soul]. i'd run away screaming if i had to look into most people's souls. so instead i just look beyond their eyes. no wonder social situations make me dizzy. my eyes are unfocused a lot of the time. i'm sure my need to be deceptive is exhausting as well.

anyone else do this?

Thank you for clarifying. I still think you're wrong. Of course, I guess I can't use myself as an example because then you'll tell me I'm not a real aspie and I can't argue I am. But I think there are plenty of aspies who don't lack than instinct. Who, like me, when we do it, it's by instinct, not something learned. Maybe are impaired in some way, but not lacking. And maybe even those who aren't impaired in this area at all, but who's aspie differences lie elsewhere.

And, like I said, it's not required in the diagnostic criteria.

Just because people fit the Asperger's diagnosis doesn't make them all alike.

It's just a different way of thinking, any way of curing - including screening while in the womb - forms of autism are nothing less than NAZI. It was Hitler who wanted a perfect race right? (Yes, I am the one who said this in the screening thread).

It's even worse than that, though, because it's basically a different way of thinking, it seems like they are only trying to MAKE EVERYONE THINK THE SAME!

Umm... no, I'm going to tell you that you can't use yourself as an example that disproves the research because that's called an anecdote and science is not built on anecdotes. Science is built on statistical analysis, which requires a statistical sampling of dozens or hundreds of people at a time. Okay, so it may be different for YOU... but if 90% of the people with AS lack the instinct, then the science still stands. If even 70% lack the instinct, it still stands. The science isn't about the exceptions -- studying the exceptions is useless with regard to helping people. The science is about studying the averages.

I was thinking about this yesterday. I read about something that is supposed to help autism and I had been considering getting it before that. Once I read that I was like wow! Imagine if I didn't have all these hang ups and I could be friendly and talk to people and have a normal level of obsessive tendencies.

And the more I thought about it the more scared I got. I don't want to do those things! I don't like them. I'm afraid of change.

But, you aren't talking science, you are talking absolutes. And it takes only one counter example to disprove an absolute. If 10% of AS have something, then, no, you can't say people with AS lack it. At least not if you want to be accurate.

No I wasn't talking absolutes. I mentioned that there is a general consensus amongst researchers and YOU applied the addition of "this is absolute" in your interpretation, without bothering to go and read any of the research on the subject.

Actually, I realized I should have replied different.

You went from a blanket statement that people with Asperger's can't read facial expression to admiting that a significant number -- 10 to 30 percent -- can read facial expressions. Huge difference.

I think it's useless for me to have a discussion with someone who changes their description of their viewpoint so drastically without any change in viewpoint.

well said

You misinterpreted what I said. I never even said that "10-30 percent of people with AS can read facial expressions" as you say here. Go back and read it again, there are words in there like MANY and IF that qualify the statements I was making... which you seem to have refused to read.

ike and MR! You guys are getting caught in a aspie viscious circle. Sorry to butt in, but I would like get this thread on track.

I think ike is essentially correct from everything I have learned. ASD people lack a certain level of theory of mind, and I believe the more the lack, the more autistic one is. Aspergers aren't completely without understanding theory of mind, but are not as good as NT's.

Theory of mind is an inborn ability to place oneself into another's thoughts (i.e. understand where they are coming from). Eye contact and reading fascial expressions are linked to theory of mind --also, body language.

Aspies can read these things, but it's not inborn, and I think more intelligent aspies are even better because they can figure out the meanings of fascial expressions, et al, more quickly.

MR, the problem that is part of the puzzle for people with ASD, is that theory of mind is a sort of blind spot for us; that is, how can you think about or recognize something that never really occurs to you. I think it might fool us into thinking there is nothing we are missing, but instead we are just socially inept for some mysterious reason.

??????

The topic wasn't theory of mind.

Fair enough. Then I guess, to bring it full circle, I don't think lack of theory of mind can be cured without rewiring the brain. Though I have heard that it can be worked on to make improvements.

Honestly speaking, there is no,"Cure" for Autism and it's variants as, I wish the so-called persons whom, continue to perpetuate such myths would stop such nonsense.Yes, I realise there are people out there whom would very much so like to have something as such in their lives, mainly for their children whom are Autistic but, this does not represent all people in the spectrum nor parents of autistic people as well.. I hope I've not offended anyone for, that was not my intent with this reply only to dimplomatically show my own viewpoint that's all most sincerely stated..