how would you explain HFA or LFA to a neurotypical?

Post Reply New Topic

or to me for that matter. can't seem to put the distinction in words accurately though i get the distinction. also why do you think this distinction is relevant or irrelevant, important or unimportant?

I guess HFA is more likely to have times where they slip past everyone's radar and appear NT? That's a pretty skimpy explination but NTs aren't usually looking for more than the bare minimum of data or accuracy.

(slap me but it's a lesson I'm slowly learning to be true in most situations)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the difference between HFA and LFA self explanatory? HFA = high functioning; LFA = low functioning.

A person with HFA can function in everyday life with mild socialization problems.
A person with LFA often has difficulty in many aspects of life, in addition to an inability to socialize effectively.

That's just my understanding of it though. I could be wrong.

I advise not trying to explain at all, because HFA and LFA don't really have meanings beyond the stereotypes. It's like trying to explain the difference between a nurse and a doctor by saying, "Nurses are girls and doctors are boys." (According to my three year old sister, true. She's learned more about medicine since then, of course!) One: It's a stereotype that doesn't apply to reality. Two: There's more to it than the superficial appearance. And three: The two categories overlap.

If you want to explain that autistic people are sometimes non-verbal and sometimes chatterboxes, then say that. If you want to say that some live on their own and others need 24/7 assistance, say that. And don't forget the middle, where speech is difficult but not impossible and you only need help sometimes--nor that people differ from skill to skill and time to time.

Just say autism can come in a lot of flavors, all the way from barely-noticeable to obvious-to-passerby, and that makes more sense than mucking around with functioning labels.

Play a video of classic autism on YouTube and tell him or her to compare it to myself.

i was kinda hoping to explain what the distinction was and then explain why it wasnt so accurate a way to describe things. most NTs dont want that much detail but i have been asked about the spectrum before and needed a way to explain it succinctly yet comprehensively. i guess callista gets closest to that.

Nooooooo don't do that. I'm NT and I would get horribly confused if somebody explained something to me and then explained that the explanation they just gave was wrong. If it's wrong. why not tell me the correct thing in the first place?

I advise Callista's way. It's wordy, but it also makes sense.

The key word is "functioning". I function quite well. But I also have a 99th percentile IQ so I have been able to construct a large number of compensatory mechanisms. But I expend a great deal of energy executing these mechanisms and it leaves very little room for "living in my own space" for lack of a good description. Functional levels are often assumed to be equivalent with severity levels. While there is definitely a correlation, this is a simplistic view. My social INTUITION is SEVERELY affected. I at times am fully blind to the social environment and communication that is happening around me. I'm just able to figure things out on the fly well enough that I get by.

So to answer your question. Low functioning, in general, is a person that needs a great deal of assistance in daily living. High functioning is a person that, in general, is able to get by with little to no assistance.