Disorder?

Post Reply New Topic

cas, your own Profile page - which you presumably filled out - shows Other autism spectrum disorder right next to diagnosis. That suggests at least tacit acceptance of the diagnosis to me. If you don't consider your diagnosed condition a disorder then it might be a good idea to change how it is listed. If you don't have a disorder, then how did you end up in a Psychiatrists office to be diagnosed? In my case I went voluntarily because I wanted my self diagnosis to be confirmed or not by a more objective source. It's not really my concern how you define yourself cas. That is made clear in the post of mine that you quote. But I seriously believe that this whole discussion of disorder/difference or whatever does not change the fact that people on the spectrum often have difficulties with sensory issues etc. that do not cause function problems with most of the rest of society. As far as I'm concerned we are arguing over whether or not we should use a euphemism to make a condition sound more warm and fuzzy than it is. So you can call the spectrum a difference and I will call it a disorder.

cas, how will calling a condition "different" as opposed to "disorder" mitigate any of the negative effects of the condition? The use of euphemisms by various advocacy groups and government agencies has become a running joke to many people in this country. I do not see how we people on the Autistic Spectrum benefit ourselves by impugning our credibility through the use of euphemisms. I see it as similar to saying "Stalin established a new promotion register" instead of saying "Stalin purged the officer Corps of his Army".

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this-- this is, in fact, a serious flaw in my argument, and bringing up homosexuality was to illustrate that I had made an error. I do believe that ASDs are disorders, and I do not believe that homosexuality is. As my argument applied equally to both, it was clearly invalid.

Glad to see anbuend on this thread, and dude, I'll be replying to you in a bit. You argue well, and I like to take my time.

I don't consider it a "disorder" in some definitions of the word but I am comfortable calling it an Autistic Spectrum disorder to explain it to people.

I am not arguing, or at least I am not trying to argue, if it is or is not disorder. Except with communication, there I am arguing. My argument at your post was that the reasons people had been giving were not sufficient for us to definitely say disorder. In fifty years, we might still not know, or the debate might be effectively solved in one way or the other. (With an example of homosexuality, which can still cause big life problems and distress but is no longer diagnosed and treated, at least in mainstream medicine.)

cas, I missed this part of what you had posted earlier. And it is consistent with your reply to my last post. In my specific case I am going with disorder because of my inability to respond in real time to nonverbal cues and some other things as well. I think a different approach in how you and I discuss this might be in order as I think we were coming at it from different angles. Apparently you may, in fact, be willing at some point in the future, to stipulate that Autism spectrum is a disorder, but with respect to the communication part of life it does not have to be? Please clarify this for me. And cas, I do appreciate the good manners you are using in this discussion. Among Aspies/Auties I have noted sometimes discussions get heated. I have done it myself. Please be sure that you consider the low to mid functioning Auties on our spectrum as you consider this.

Catalyst, one of your main arguments for calling it a disorder was that autism impedes our ability to reproduce. The problem with this argument is that there are billions of people in the world, and it is no longer necessary at all for every person to reproduce in order to continue the species. It would actually be unhealthy. This does not constitute a disorder, and some of us, such as myself choose not to reproduce. Should this be considered a mental disorder?

I voted for the third option.

Officially, autism is a disorder if viewed from the medical perspective. If disorder is a departure from the 'normal' then autism is a disorder. But the definition of what is normal or disordered is political. Oppressed groups have been denounced as disordered for fighting for their rights.

The line between normal and disordered behaviour is drawn by doctors/psychiatrists. Just about on the normal side is eccentricity, on the disordered side is Obsessive Compulsive Diosorder or Personality Disorder, for example.

Words, particulary politically loaded ones like disorder and disability, come trailing clouds of connotations and attitudes. Disorder and disability are regarded differently. A disorder is a departure from the accepted way of being, from the moral order. It has connotations of moral failing. A person can overcome their disorder if they try hard enough and/or they get the right medical treatment.

With disability there is usually no moral condemnation. Physically disabled or sensory impaired people are pitied, but it is not thought that they can become able-bodied or have normally functioning senses if they try hard enough.

As far as I know, there is no social model of disorder, as there is of disability, only a medical model. Having looked in the index of several books on disability politics/disability rights, I didn't find a single entry for disorder.

There are conditions, such as being HIV positive, which some people regard as a disorder and some as a disability.

I would guess that those autistics who identify as disabled are probably not likely to believe that they have a disorder.

velodog, I'm sorry for the delay in response. Also if I go on too much. This (communication) is something I feel strongly for.

Yes, I don't feel competent to say on disorder, but I think it's important that people are treated and named fairly. (I also would not call anyone "not autistic/AS" if it explains things for them, even if I thought definitely other than disorder and the name says disorder. I think it's clear that there are differences to call for a label whether or not it is disorder.) People of all kinds are sometimes very hasty in deciding that things are as they are, when there are many factors that are not easily (or possible to be) examined alone. I want to err on the side of good treatment in all ways (dignity, humanity, help) no matter if there's a diagnosis to make, and don't want the perception of disorder or not disorder to lead to intolerance. But communication specifically I feel is much more likely to be viewed as disordered and wrong if you are viewed as disordered, all else being equal.

For one example, I find it especially distressing here or at home if I say something badly, because I feel it will undermine my argument about communication. But at work, it's less troubling to say something wrong because people just think that I'm strange and very shy. It's also misunderstanding, but it's less likely to lead to my ideas being dismissed straightaway if badly said! There are, happily, people who don't take some mistakes to mean bad communicator when they know the communicator is autistic or otherwise labeled; but some hear that diagnosis and think "Well, there's the reason for all our troubles, which I had previously thought to be mutual!"

Personally I have had a lot of trouble talking with other people in my life, or with other people thinking that I'm stupid because they don't understand what I say or think I don't understand what they say. The general assumption (mine also) at first was that it was all my fault because I'm a slow thinker and often at a loss for words - but I later had words with people who not only understood what I meant then but thought that it was creative or incisive. So it seemed more that the audience wasn't right, sometimes, and not just that I was unable to process and think deeply about information or to make my inside thoughts coherent for others. (It could be argued that the ability to choose and judge audience is critical to communication, and I agree that it's part of it, but also think because I have been so misjudged that it's easy for anyone to misjudge others. For me, I don't want to offend by underestimation or ignore because of it.) That's not always the problem, definitely, but it is part of it.

I understand how you could consider it an objective disorder to be unable to respond adequately in real time - it can be very painful. But if you can come up with a more reasoned, more nuanced response after much thought than the quick thinker could or would try to make, which allows interested others to understand your intentions better, there's also a way in which you are a better communicator. (I don't claim that this is always or even often the case for me, but definitely for some it is!) And it seems very restrictive to me to consider only one kind of communication to be the standard for what is normal and what is disordered communication.

I also think it's not very helpful to label "communicative disorder" without a lot of thought because it can lead other people not to try to understand you, especially if your speech is at all unusual. And secondly if people are interested to try, then they still won't know how your communication difficulties present just by that label, because there is a wide and sometimes mutually exclusive set of problems that can be thought of as such. Many of which directly overlap with the problems of people who are not considered to have a communicative disorder.

And one thing that I have noticed is that perception of disorder in one area will lead a behavior in another area to be labeled disorder even if otherwise it wouldn't; and that lends weight of evidence to a third attribute being disordered, which adds up to this theory experts have which they claim must then apply. I know that's how it's done, X + Y + Z = disorder when either X or Y or Z alone (even excessively) is normal variation, but I don't think that immediately validates either the disorder idea or the theory that springs from evidence (some of which evidence might not be appropriately included in the disorder, even if it is "disorder"). I'm not dismissing it, but I think we shouldn't immediately accept as fact everything listed under the disorder just because it is listed there or even because it is true for me or you specifically.

They can be right about the disorder, or the difference, without being right about the specifics; as when previously it was thought that gay men could be reliably discovered through tests for excessive femininity. There is a group that can be called gay, but they are not everything they are claimed to be (even by experts or gay people), and they are not all alike because they are gay, and men are not all gay when they are like people in the group.

Hi cas,
In arguments and discussions of logic I generally do very well. Real time dealing with making my point with opponents is not the problem I was referring to. Basically I have a handicap with body language, and therefore suck at picking up women. That is a real handicap in life. Hence my use of the term disorder. And in an interaction where a woman is trying to get my attention nonverbally, then coming back with a reasoned argument to an emotional situation, at a later time, may not be workable because not responding to an unspoken offer to know someone better Right Then may very well be viewed as a rejection! Another area that I refer to is is making the small talk with foreman type people in a work situation is a bother to people on the spectrum, putting them at a disadvantage when lay off time comes around. At this point in my career it is well enough known that I can bend conduit better than most, and nail the fine points of a schematic, so that the last part is less of a problem for me. But that took a lot of hard work to accomplish, without being in the Union, if I had to start with a fresh slate, it would be the same old suck situation.


I also think that you're doing okay making your point, but that we are basing our logical conclusions on different major and minor premises for our respective arguments. And , at this point I still go with the conclusion that the spectrum is, objectively, a source of problems when it comes to us dealing with those who don't know what Autism is about and, frequently, with those who do.