The Autisnob

Post Reply New Topic

The belief that official diagnosis = absolutely sure of autism isn't entirely true in my experiences. I never even heard of Asperger's before being diagnosed, and the fact of diagnosis all by itself did not immediately convince me of its truth. Because of misdiagnoses in the past, I was actually quite skeptical. If I was mistakenly diagnosed with AD/HD in the past, isn't it possible that I was mistakenly diagnosed with Asperger's? That was my reasoning. Even when I became more receptive to the idea, there were still moments of doubt. I've read about AS/autism obsessively, and sometimes came across things which weren't me, or which were me to a much milder extent. I am surprised by people who are so sure of their self-diagnosis when I haven't always been sure of my official diagnosis, but I assume that most of these people have done their homework on the issue. A doctor's note doesn't guarantee 100% belief in the diagnosis, whether for oneself or sharing it with others. I agree that an official diagnosis can be very helpful, and God only knows where I'd be without one. But I don't want to impose this on other people who may or may not see a need for an official diagnosis.

I also think that informal accommodations can (and probably should) be made without a medically-sanctioned diagnosis. My mom is sure she's hearing-impaired in a mild way, but I don't think it's been officially confirmed. I'm not going to ask to see her doctor's note whenever she tells me not to get annoyed by the fact that I've had to repeat something three or four time. Yes, autism is more complicated than that, but basic respect for other human beings shouldn't require the medical establishment.

It doesn't describe me, I never felt that I was above NT people nor disliked them.

Me neither, it doesn't seem to apply in any way whatsoever. I am keenly aware of differences at times though and I would say that it makes me feel inferior sometimes if I do something wrong socially. It is confusing and upsetting.

I am good at writing things that I have bashed around in my head for years and years, it's a perseveration thing -- I'm hypergraphic and I tend to put that to use by trying to explain things in detail that I find hard to explain, and I do it over and over again over a period of years until I get it right. (It's sort of like starting at very low-resolution with lots of pieces missing and going to higher and higher resolution with more pieces filled in as I go.)

Problem is there's a huge timelag, and it's not reliably 'there' when I need it. Hit the right trigger and you get a whole pile of text, fail to trigger it and you get nothing, same if you get me off of one of my topics.

Not to diminish the fact that you can't do it very well though. Just that the Internet affords a bit of an illusion of more competence than exists, even though I have the competence some of the time in some areas.

This thread is a hurtful attack on Autistics by Autistics, and that should never, ever happen.

First, I'm going to post "Why Autistics should never hurt each other."
This seems pretty simple to me.
Hopefully that post should be a sticky.
I'll post that thread in this forum.
.... and that it's ok not to have 3,567 posts, and that you can still know all about your life without having 3,567 posts, so Autistics shouldn't have any 'superiority' among themselves, or be hurtful among or to each other ... ever, at all.

We've all been hurt far too much, and Autistics are not naturally hurtful; we pick that up from being so hurt by humans. We need to stop that cycle among ourselves ... because we can do that. Humans cannot and will not ever be able to stop hurting and harming and damaging and killing themselves and everything else. But we can refrain from doing that, easily - even if humans never can.

Then, I'll post a new thread, "Why Autistic is superior."
This will be real easy ... and obvious.
I'll post that thread in the "Autism Politics..." forum, just to be as 'objective and appropriate' about a highly-charged subject as possible, and attempt to reduce that charge by placing it in a more 'acceptable' forum ... although I would prefer to post it in this forum, where it really belongs.

Also, we all know when is meant by what we say - with the exception of taking things personally (which we have to learn not to do, because we can understand that we don't really want to hurt each other, even though humans seems to enjoy doing that), and with the exception of descriptive uncertainties, because most of us take things literally in some way or another, and descriptors can become confusing ... therefore, accurate and thoughtful description works best (although it unquestionably works best with humans too, because they are always misinterpreting each other, which is why they're always arguing and fighting and warring and killing each other). But there is never a need to engage in deliberate syntactical "misinterpretation" - like humans love to do - so that we can "win" (and "winning" often involves hurting the other person more than they hurt you) instead of being "right".

Win = selfish and taking; personality and ego investment.
Right = truth = selfless and giving; no personality and no ego investment.

Let's not put unnecessary morality associations on important words and terms that are simply too common and ever-applicable and need to be used - doing that only messes up communication even worse than the multiple definitions and inumerable nuances words can have. If we morally designate such things as 'bad' words, then we just make communicating non-objective ... and a nightmare. We don't need to do that at all. Humans can't help it.
There's nothing wrong with being right; that's the only thing that actually is good. Simply; "right" = fact = truth = etc., and"win" = ... to win, which is at the expense of something else. Just words that are used to describe truth. No morality necessary, thank-you ...(please)

Being "right" does not mean "winning" for Autistics ... but it certainly can mean that for humans. Being right is one of the means that humas use to win - but Autistics do not need to do that.
That's what Autism is, and one the the very wonderful reasons why Autism is so beautiful.

Last edited by archetype on 17 Apr 2008, 3:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Oh come on, I mean, anbuend sure is right on this. And though I know I can't say it any similarly eloquent as her I'm just going to say something too.



I'm going to say: autistic people are human.

Aspies are human.

Auties are human.

Those without such a classy label are human.

And humans, they naturally have the full ability to hurt each other. And love each other. There is nothing that takes away that capability to hurt, delude, damage and destroy as long as you're fully human. (And not particularly psychologically disordered. I know compassion, identification with emotions actually can go kinda astray, but that's super rare and not an issue here. It also doesn't mean that one does not have it, they're just temporally incapable.)

NTs have the same capability as autistic people do. Their NT-ness doesn't make them extraordinarily cruel just as being autistic doesn't make anyone extraordinary kind.

Aspies can be everything they're said not to be. They can be:

nice, mean, helpful, bullying, logical, emotional, honest, manipulative or just neutral. Even anxious and non-anxious.

Someone wrote on these boards 'if you're not anxious you never had to face the cause os anxiety - humiliation, stress, fear...'

Now, that's not true. No generalisation on this one possible.

And if it's not true for anxiety - why should it be true for anything else?

Nobody walks through another's life.

The very reason for diversity on all levels is the reason why no ultimate general rules will apply.

And, also, as long as we cherish diversity in any form, such as neurodiversity, we can't disregard diversity on any other level for any goal either.

This is also true of my autism diagnosis. I actually spent a period of time after I went off my meds, trying to essentially pretend that none of my diagnoses at all were real (to counteract having tried to please shrinks in the past by living up to whatever they wanted me to in order to show I 'had insight' etc, since they told me they knew me better than I did), and the only stuff that 'stuck' were autistic things, PTSD, and some physical problems.



Same sort of deal here.



Agreed very much with all of this. Except I almost find that self-diagnosis requires more thought and evaluation than official diagnosis does. It requires doing a lot of research and figuring things out for oneself. I feel like the process I went through in trying to accept the whole 'autism' label was similar to the process of self-diagnosis, except that I was already officially diagnosed. So I tend to value self-diagnosis in some ways higher because it shows the person had to really think it through. Getting a doctor's diagnosis, at least in me, required no effort or even understanding of the diagnosis.



Agreed here, and I don't think they count as 'treatment' the way Daniel says they do. I find that viewpoint highly over-medicalized, and prefer the disability-rights viewpoint which is less medicalized and more about "Here's a barrier to participation for people who can't do Thing X, how do we remove it?"

That means it doesn't matter why the person can't do Thing X, or whether a doctor has declared them unable to do it, you just try not to exclude people who can't do it.



Exactly.

And I don't need to wave around my official diagnosis of CAPD for people to do the same for me, I just tell them I can't always understand what I hear and can they please repeat it.

Likewise I don't need my visual processing problems precisely diagnosed (they were diagnosed by the Irlen institute, but I don't fully view them as real diagnosticians, since they make a diagnosis to sell their products) to have whoever I'm with read things to me in environments that are chaotic enough that I can't read (or when I've been writing so long that my ability to read, including read my own writing, falls apart). Or to wear dark glasses if it helps cut out some of the crap I need to process.

Some people I know in the disability rights community -- including some autistic people -- find that in fact giving a medical diagnosis keeps the barriers in place more, because then you might have to argue "Yes I'm actually autistic even though this is not your stereotype of autism" and then argue for exactly how this abstract non-thing called "autism" affects you. Instead, they just say "I can't do this, so I need any of a range of other solutions to do the same as other people are doing here."

The medical viewpoint tends to make sure that doctors dictate many details of who we are and what does and does not block us from doing things.

My view of doctors is that they are good mostly for things like asthma, where there's a clear problem going on with the body that can be treated with a specific set of medications or something like that.

In addition to that, in the current and very medicalized system, they are good at writing down diagnoses to get certain services. Or, despite the fact that it violates the whole point of removing certain barriers, they can be good for asking for so-called "accommodations" (I don't like putting it that way because it makes it sound like a gift or something else that's just provided as a courtesy but doesn't have to be there).

But really I think in the end that part ought to be very different. There ought to be service systems that are considered and funded somehow separately from the medical field. Because, I'm sorry, but it doesn't really require medical training or even medical supervision, to make sure I eat or even to help me with hygiene-related stuff. And then barrier removal should be viewed as removing barriers that historically have kept certain sorts of people out of doing various things, rather than "special" things for "Those Special Disabled People" because they've got "special problems" and need "special treatment" etc.

Even much of the equipment that currently (because of insurance-related payment systems) is supervised by the medical establishment, is not really medical equipment in the usual sense. Like a wheelchair (which I use), is not much different than a bicycle or similar thing, it's just that some people need bicycles to go a certain long distance rather than walking it, and most people in wheelchairs need them for even a short distance and many won't be able to work a regular bicycle anyway. But mechanically, it's just another human-transportation device with wheels.

There would obviously still need to be a way of funding such things for people who couldn't afford them, but the entire way of choosing wheelchairs is done by many systems in a pretty paternalistic way that stems from the idea that medical people know your body better than you do even if you're living in it 24/7. So "Oh, you don't really need this seating" turns into pressure sores because you really did need the good seating, "You don't need normal-sized wheels" turns into a thing that's obnoxious to push because the wheels are too tiny, etc.

But... yeah, the problem with the medical view of things is it just tends to view you as a malfunctioning body, and that's not most people's actual experience of their body even when it is doing things that mostly seem like malfunctions. It also puts the fault for exclusion and disabling barriers and stuff inside the person's body even if (as is usually the case) the problem is partly or even wholly discrimination of some kind.

anbuend,

2. I mean autism as of now. It's objective now. Many professionals view the many individuals with autism, and their work is peer reviewed.
3. That's one area. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of cities have someone who knows more than the usual. I speak in majorities. I know each city here has one; I don't see it as too far of a stretch to transpose it over other countries that are similar.
4. Any statistics on individuals with undiagnosed ASDs being rejected for referrals?

When dealing with society, "most likely to happen" and "unlikely to happen" is an easy way for people with autism to make sense of the confusion. Since autism is a severe disorder, it's "most likely to happen" that individuals with such are adequately diagnosed. I know it's close to 100% for individuals with autistic disorder; I know that 50% of individuals with AS are missed when young nowadays. That's 75% for ASDs there (I don't know for PDD-NOS).

For those missed, that's just life.

O yes, thought crimes equal death!

I don't see where I implied such.

That is pretty cavalier!

As for your statistics? You have to be diagnosed in order to ADEQUATELY be counted in such a statistic! You are arguing against yourself. It is the old idea of proving a negative. HOW can you prove how many DON'T have autism over all!?!? And people with AS, whether you think so or not, tend to have fewer problems, and compensate, so the NATURE of the problem is such that it is less likely to be diagnosed.

If one woman had low estrogen, and another had the flu, WHO is more likely to get diagnosed? The one with the flu, since it causes obvious problems. The one with low estrogen might not even go to the doctor unless she REALLY wanted a child, and could go. So what percentage of women have low estrogen? WHO KNOWS!?!?!? How many aren't diagnosed? WHO KNOWS?

You fundamentally misunderstand statistics. A sufficiently large representative sample of the population can be studied to determine the general prevalence of a disorder in the whole population with an acceptable margin of error. Respondants would be asked questionnaires or interviewed clinically.

Daniel,

You've emphatically said over and over on this and other threads that people shouldn't consider or even think that they have AS or other Autism Spectrum profiles if they aren't professionally diagnosed. That is the Thought Police and none of us does a service to the cause of finding compassion and understanding by making such exclusive pronouncements.

I might be wrong, but I think that you just want everyone to believe the same standards and play by the same rule book, but those with whom you communicate on WP live on different continents, and in different countries with different standards for diagnosing AS and ASDs. At this point in time those diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome in England or United States might not receive the same diagnosis on Continental Europe or other locals. Even if all professionals agree with the language of the standards (which it doesn't appear that they do, and the standards are in the process of being revised), there is still a great deal of diversity in interpreting and applying the standards between diagnosticians, medical associations, major hospitals, and national health organizations.

I agree with ambuend and other posters - even in a "developed" country like the United States, professionals who have experience with diagnosing ASDs can be difficult or impossible to find, depending on the location - and other countries can have even fewer "qualified professionals."

So, with this diversity of interpreting the standards and uneven availability of those who are qualified diagnose, is it practical for us non-professionals to be exclusive in who we say is "on the spectrum?" Probably not. That is one of the reasons that so many here encourage diversity and acceptance because these two things can lead to greater understanding than exclusivity does.

Z

Last edited by Zonder on 17 Apr 2008, 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is faulty logic. There is an extremely high level of spectrum DX's in the Silicon Valley here in CA. The entire regional area - an epicenter for math and technology - is saturated with autistic folk.

Even outside of that example, there will never be an accurate representation of how many in any given population have AS or autism. It is much like the CDC with regards to adverse reactions to vaccinations. Not all are reported, only the major cases (of which there are few) because they stand out like sore thumbs.

I'm surprised you didn't bring out the colored ball explanation! YOU KNOW, the one that says that, given a set of 10 balls of different colors, you can ascertain how many balls of a given color might be in even a set of 15 balls of which the 10 is a subset!

I understand ****THAT****, and you are "right" there, but THAT is not my point. MY point is that you are WRONG because you can not use that sample of 10 unless you know the colors of those ten.

Suppose you are the last person on the planet, have NO filters, NO electricity, and are COLORBLIND!?!? You HAVE to test the sample to determine, and it has to be an ADEQUATE sample! Suppose the 10 is NOT a subset, and from a bag of yellow marbles, and the 15 are from a combination set?

The autisnobs present within our very community have not unmasked themselves, but it is only fair to give them one last warning: Show yourselves, or have your true identity revealed! The community will be very forgiving if you pledge your loyalty and abandon your autisnobbery.

The NeuroDiversity of autisnobs is questionable. By claiming superiority over NTs, they prove Neuro-Intolerant. It is appropriate, if they do not renounce their poisonous ideology, to ostracize them from the greater autistic and Asperger's community. I call for the creation of a separate diagnosis in the DSM-V of Autisnob's Disorder to reinforce their ostracism.

For any autisnobs who confess, you may quote this oath to swear your loyalty:

Yanno, I was going to say you have some serious issues but I think that would be stating the obvious considering the forum. So good luck with that.

Last edited by Jaded on 17 Apr 2008, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.