The terms "low-functioning" or "high-function

Post Reply New Topic

I feel happy with these terms. I'm high-functioning, which means I can move out, drive a car, have a job, get married, have children, etc. I can live the average life of any healthy NT. Life does hold a lot of barriers for me, but the barriers are not impossible. They will just be bigger obstacles for me than most people, but with the right support I can take part in normal society and once I get started on new things, I find I don't need support after that. I just think I just lack confidence in most things, which I need boosting.

There is a big difference between me and my friend's 20-year-old brother, who is severely Autistic and is in a care home, needing 24-hour care.

The problem with the terms "high functioning" and "low functioning" is that they don't mean a lot in many cases. There are so many different definitions used for each, and they make so little prediction for what someone can or can't do that overall they cause more problems than good it seems like.

I'm viewed to be "high functioning" because I can speak. This means I'm treated like I necessarily can drive, because high functioning people on the spectrum can drive.

I'm viewed to be not "high functioning" because I have severe sensory issues. This means I'm treated as if I couldn't have an above average intellectual intelligence.

The terms "high functioning" and "low functioning" cause these stereotypes to exist even more than otherwise, it seems like.

It seems to me like a small proportion of people on the spectrum can be called "high functioning" or "low functioning" and have it mean something, while a majority of us will fall into each category in different ways and at different times.

The idea that "high functioning" is mild and "low functioning" is severe is even worse. My autism isn't mild, despite the fact that I'm very articulate about it - sure I'm more able than a lot of people in certain areas, that doesn't make it "mild".

Sure, "this person is more affected than this other person in every measurable way" might be a useful statement to make, but for a majority of us, we won't have a strict ordering between any two given people. Trying to force some of us into something dependent on a strict ordering won't help, and could quite possibly hurt quite a bit.

It hurts quite a bit when am told that I shouldn't be dealing with autistic traits because of the fact that am not only verbal but articulate.

They work for me I guess. I don't mind them, as what I take them to define is your current ability to get along with typical society (which I personally would not describe as being all that highly functional in its own right).

It's easy to make puns on (like the one I just made).

I've started describing my days as high-functioning, functioning, low-functioning, and non-functioning. I like the idea of a continuum, and of plasticity and mobility within it, and not necessarily unidirectional.

I'd like to see someone state that EVERYONE has times when they function more highly, and times when their functionality is, frankly, running low.

I like having the language of continuum to talk to caregivers in-- I can tell them that I am generally pretty high-functioning, I can tell them what raises and lowers my level of functioning, I can say things like, "Please don't ask me to go back on the damn risperidone; I spent nine months on it and those were the lowest-functioning months of my remembered life."

They understand that a lot better than, "That s**t makes her more autistic, not less."

I like the idea that the purpose of treatment is to improve a person's ability to function, period.

I don't like the fact that people tend to turn "high" and "low" into a value judgment, or that your functioning is assessed not on the basis of your happiness, satisfaction, health, or perception of well-being, but on how able you are to appear typical.