anbuend wrote:
pandd wrote:
The point of social reciprocity is that one responds with the right thing at the right time. Being socially gregarious yet failing to do the socially expected things at socially expected times, is not demonstrating social reciprocity. Rather, it is demonstrating that despite an evident desire to be socially reciprocal, one is still not able to demonstrate social reciprocity.
I agree that's the definition of social reciprocity used in the diagnostics, and that a person shouldn't be excluded from them based on not having that kind of reciprocity.
However, it's open for debate whether that's truly the only valid definition of reciprocity, outside of the world of autism criteria
I find that confusing. The diagnostic criteria does not assert any particular definition of reciprocity. It refers to impairments and deficits/lacks/developmental absences. It is typical for humans to be able to engage in conversation according to the culturally contextual rules of give and take that apply to the particular conversation. An inability to do so demonstrates a deficit in social reciprocity for a human. That does not entail that there are not other forms of social reciprocity, or to what extent a particular person engages in reciprocity of other kinds.
Quote:
(where many, many words are used in ways that are far more specific than most people mean them in, and sometimes different from the way even other parts of psychology use them -- often because when autistic people are found to have whatever trait, they do not take the criterion away, they just claim the trait has a whole new definition crafted specifically to attempt to exclude autistic people from having it).
I think this arises from two broad problems. Firstly comprehension/knowledge, secondly framing. Knowledge about autistic spectrum disorders is far from perfect, and entirely framed as per each persons perspective, in presentation, dissemination and reception.
21 Sep 2008, 9:35 pm
