Lovely little essay on neurotypical privilege

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, it's just an predisposition, it doesn't necessitate autism. The more of them you have the greater chance of having autism, but not greater severity. And so researchers have another 100 genes they are looking at to find association.
The whole thing is just expanding. It isn't very simple at all, in fact autism is probably spread throughout the human genome. A cure is fantastical and unrealistic.

That's exactly what I thought until I read that article, give it a chance, this actually uses it in a sensible way.

Yeah, that's why beginning with my intro psychology class, I was taught that distinction.


Thanks and I agree . I'm not sure how we would go about getting more of us in these positions though :/. I'm not sure if it would involve better resources (like improved interventions or therapies or schools) or something else altogether, but improvements could definitely be made in those areas, even for those who aren't interested in these types of careers.


That's true because genetics are complicated. Autism symptoms overlap with a lot of other disorders so it's possible that some of those genes are actually more associated with the known comorbid disorders instead of autism itself.

In reviewing this thread, which I began to generate discussion about the links between the neurodiversity, privilege, somehow the issue of separatism came up. I'm confused about the relevance this side issue - do you mean separatism within the ASD community being divided for or against a neurodiversity perspective, or separatism within the psychology/medical community developing from a schism between the two perspectives (the current vs neurodiverse) as the paradigm changes in time, or something else?

I think the OP was focusing on mental health professionals. However many on this thread are talking more broadly about autists versus NTs...

While it's possible for autistic communities to be established, separatism is a furfie and futile. It's a fantasy like the Douglas Adams book "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" where dolphins and mice actually secretly live in their own intelligent societies. Many of us live in a fantasy that we can create a entirely self sufficient autistic community.

Ok, now I see it. I began the thread to consider the merits of a paradigm change, which would actually promote inclusion, not separatism - which is a different topic altogether from NT vs ASD separatism, and I hope the thread doesn't go off on that tangent. Thanks for the clarification Cyberdad.

I still have no idea what 'paradigm change' actually means.

Why can't people just write in clear English?

They'll never find it because it doesn't exist. Even IF autism or A.S. turn out to have a basis in genetics, the notion that there is, or would be, a single gene for it is based upon a lack of understanding of how genes actually work. There is almost never a single gene for anything, a combination of factors, both environmental and hereditary, coming into play.

It is just marketing speak for big change that will advance something.

Back to one of the main points. The reason why scientific jargon is used is because it has a clear definition unlike the words he used that can change definition at will since they never had a strict scientific definition. Thus, you can redefine words to prove your point. For example, one can see this in recent cases such as the increase in college rape. However, if you look at their research they have just changed the definition of rape to get the results they want. Hence, why I believe we should purge all social science and psychology as it has become not science but a massive brain washing machine that is going against the pursuit of understanding which science is.

Last edited by Orangez on 07 Jan 2015, 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A paradigm is an over-arching, presuppositional philosophy or assumption that is accepted as given, and which forms the basis for subsequent speculation about the nature of that which logically follows from it. For example, scientism (as opposed to 'science') is the belief that only that which can be demonstrated to be true via the scientific method actually has any value to society, and from this assumption flows the belief that (for example) naturalism is true and the supernatural not only does not exist, but that the concept itself is meaningless. When a change in a paradigm occurs it is usually revolutionary, and overturns a lot of intellectual baggage that has thus far accumulated.

Orangez, you beat me to it by less than a minute.

Lovely definition Lintar, couldn't have put it better myself!

Conversely, what a paradigm is not, is a different perspective. A paradigm is overarching in its scope; a perspective is a point of view, such as this 2007 piece from Tony Attwood "positive diagnostic criteria" which he uses to make the point that the perception of something as being pathological is defined by the way it is negatively diagnosed:

(Alternative, Positive) Discovery criteria for Aspergers by Attwood and Gray


A. A qualitative advantage in social interaction, as manifested by a majority of the following:

1. peer relationships characterized by absolute loyalty and impeccable dependability
2. free of sexist, "age-ist", or culturalist biases; ability to regard others at "face value"
3. speaking one’s mind irrespective of social context or adherence to personal beliefs
4. ability to pursue personal theory or perspective despite conflicting evidence
5. seeking an audience or friends capable of: enthusiasm for unique interests and topics;
6. consideration of details; spending time discussing a topic that may not be of primary interest
7. listening without continual judgement or assumption
8. interested primarily in significant contributions to conversation; preferring to avoid ‘ritualistic small talk’ or socially trivial statements and superficial conversation.
9. seeking sincere, positive, genuine friends with an unassuming sense of humour

There is more to that article, though I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the overall point..

When you posted this, Kicker, I took it as meant in good faith, and even though that seems to have been misplaced, I told you that I would continue to think about this, which I think is more prudent than a single instantaneous reply (which you seemed to demand) to such an important issue.

I am still going to pretend that you were asking in good faith, and continue to provide bits of what I think the answer ultimately might be, because the question itself is an important one. So in addition to the posts I have already made on this.. in a nutshell, the current system would have to cease its total and exclusive reliance on a deductive approach to "knowing about autism". The point in saying that,from my perspective anyway, is that
under a deductive approach (the status quo) autism is a list of symptoms or behaviours or observations that can be measured, labelled, "proved" etc...these are observations only; they don't reveal the intrinsic nature or truth of autism nor autistic existence, and a new paradigm would value a much wider truth than mere measurement. The autistic people in experiments would not be treated like objects to be measured, diagnosed pathologised, excluded and treated. They would be regarded as the possessors of unique inner knowledge about what it is to experience being autistic in the world, in our particular cultures, not in the laboratory. They would be partners in research, not objects that researchers would measure according to a pathology model.

We here are (mostly) people on the spectrum: we live layered, personal lives that are built around meaning - as all human lives are. But where - in the current paradigm - is there recognition of that, that we are humans first, autists second? Where, in the current paradigm, is the recognition that observation of a bunch of behaviours tells neither us nor the world anything meaningful about the lives we live, how we think, feel, interpret and experience a world that pathologises us? A new paradigm, that was built on neurodiversity, would recognise that human meaning is not only important, but central; that requires an inductive approach to research, to "treatment" - the new paradigm would cast autists as informed partners/contributors to research, not as passive objects to be studied as freaks. The same change is needed for therapeutic approaches - partnership, not treatment designed for a different population with different characteristics (NT therapies).

A new truly inclusive paradigm would have to include not only what it means to autists to be autists in today's world, but also the relationships between the autists, and the normocentric and scientific populations. The current paradigm is narrow and cramped; a new paradigm would be wide, with space for all the meanings that have been ignored, pushed aside, lost, labelled as unimportant, unscientific, irrelevant. They are not irrelevant to me; are they irrelevant to any of us? Not if we are part of the human race... the new paradigm would have to accept the fullness of autistic humanity and embrace it as a valid part of the whole human race. Do you think the current paradigm does that?? I don't.

Your objection to a paradigm change that would accommodate neurodiversity Kicker seems to be based on financial grounds - "training would cost too much". Humanising dehumanising systems does not come cheap, though I think it would be fiscally neutral overall in that it would save many lives, reduce mental illness due to dehumanising treatment, and with acceptance as full human beings with a right to full participation in employment et al, autists would generate economic benefits that would more than pay for the paradigm change required. I'd really like to hear your response, so long as its a reasoned and not another merely snide one.

Guys, I'll have to get back to you later on this. This stomach bug is kicking my arse again. (At least the vomiting is over, but the diarrhoea, churning guts and sickly nausea aren't... :-/)

This is not meant to be a "rant," or to be something which is posted for the sake of mere iconoclasm.

What I write is reflective of strong visceral feelings on my part.

Nope....I don't believe all this explicitly espouses Autistic Separatism.

But I have a strong feeling that this might be the result.

Yes, we must always evolve.

But how are we going to educate people on autism if the "common man" is left out? I know what a "paradigm shift" is--but most people won't. Frankly, people will be put off by an "intellectual" approach to things. There is the tendency to believe that people who speak in academic-ese are "withholding something."

All right...let's have the conferences, discussions, etc. amongst the Academics, intellectuals, think-tank members.

But let's, also, allow more than a "trickle" to come down to the "masses." Otherwise, not much will be accomplished.

Please remember: most bosses who will potentially employ autistic people are "regular" people," who don't always to go to academic symposia, or sit in think tanks.

There must be education in CONJUNCTION with the overall approach--not ONLY employing the overall approach.

Otherwise, all this will stay in the Ivory Tower. Like many good-intentioned ideas.