NTs or NAs?

Post Reply New Topic

Can't we just call people that don't have Asperger's "People without AS" and people with Asperger's "People wit AS"? Why make some fancy scientific word for normal, when you already have the word normal? People with no dx of any mental problem thingy (etc.) are normal, allegedly.

Because we're too lazy to type that much. Two letters are far more conducive to allow us to remain computer potatoes. Plus, all the more time to post!

Although NA is more accurate, in the true Aspie spirit, I remain rigid to change from NT.

In the true spirit of Aspie technicality, I realize that NT is inaccurate and am independent enough to therefore still resign to use NA.

i think i'd dispute that distinction, esp re ADHD (and poss re bipolar and schizophrenia as well)...

ADHD has more in common with autism/AS (and things like dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc) AFAIK, because evidence is that it's genetic (tho AFAIK no gene for any of these conditions has been specifically found, they fairly clearly do run in families with a genetic inheritance pattern) and "physical" (difference in brain structure), and because these conditions or traits of them commonly accompany one another and commonly accompany other conditions caused by brain damage, suggesting they are all linked to organic difference/dysfunction in the brain...

it seems that it just happens that some of these conditions (allegedly) can be treated with drugs (to a varying degree of "success") while some can't, just as the same can be true of different but vaguely related physical disabilities (and the drugs are prob treating *some* symptoms, rather than the actual organic causes)...

evidence also shows that the same may well be true of schizophrenia, as (tho it has been traditionally classified alongside depression etc as "mental illness" rather than "neurological disability") it also has genetic inheritance patterns and is accompanied by other physical (inborn) differences in the brain (and again can be co-morbid with other types of brain damage/dysfunction)...

(i've seen all the above in online newspaper/news agency articles, so may be able to find cites for u if u want them...)

whereas things like depression (and *poss* mania/bipolar, tho those *could* be in the same category as schizophrenia... not sure about those ones) are usually not inborn but reactive (either to acquired chemical imbalances, from drugs, diet, physical illnesses, etc, or to mentally destabilising life experiences - rejection, trauma, abuse, etc) and not accompanied by organic brain differences (apart from deficits in key chemicals)... but again with depression, sometimes it's successfully treatable with drugs but other times it isn't, but can be "cured" by talking type therapy or by improved life circumstances...

so i'd argue that being treatable by drugs as a distinction is in some ways irrelevant...

re the topic question, i tend to use "neurotypical" because not every non-AS person is neurotypical, and while "non-AS non-neurotypicals" (ADHDers, schizophrenics, Down's or other non-autistic intellectual impairments, transgender/gender dysphoria, probably other things i can't think of right now) might not have the *same* needs as HFA/AS people, i think there are enough parallels and common experiences for solidarity with those categories to be desirable rather than only with AS people and lumping others with non-mentally-disabled/neurotypical...

(i think TBH we (meaning AS/HFA) ought to see physically disabled people and "neurotypical" mental health system survivors as "allies" too, along with other (eg gender/sexuality defined) minority groups, but that's poss another debate...)

edit: that came out a lot longer than i thought, maybe i should have split it into 2 posts...

I guess the more apprioate term to use would be non autistics. Neurotypical is a term fairly used from the aspie community. Where as non autistics is a more broader term used from people in general.

Most of my friends are either non-applicable or non-transferrable? This arguement is silly.