Sense of Identity and autism

Post Reply New Topic

(Since identity is largely defined by your relationships to other people in society)

Someone online who's definitely neurotypical said that I seemed to lack an instinctive revulsion to being "fake" that apparently everyone has, who talks to them.

This makes absolutely no sense to me and I completely disagree with it. Identity explicitly doesn't change no matter who you're around, or whether you are with nobody. Identity cannot be defined by anything to do with others.

I have an incredibly strong sense of self, no ability to mimic others or pretend to be something other than myself (unless its in a game), and the reason my sense of identity is so strong is because it has nothing to do with relationships to other people. To me, if your identity is defined by other people, then its far weaker than if it is not. If your identity changes with who you're around then its not a strong sense of self. If its defined only in comparison to others then if they're not around then you supposedly don't have the identity. None of this makes any sense to me.

Identity is to me explicitly not defined by relationships to other people. I know myself well enough to know who I am without others mattering. Relationships with other people do not change at all who I am. I don't change who I am, or have the ability to do so, around others. I am incredibly bothered to the point of meltdown if someone messes with my sense of self, or someone accuses me of acting in ways that do not fit with my sense of self.

I cannot "fake" being someone else, do not understand why someone would want to, and do have an incredibly strong sense of identity that is explicitly not based on relationships with others.

I thought it was the nts that fake all the time and us that are honest and don't like to fake.

The study, funded in part by Autism Speaks, revealed a reduced brain signal in people with autism that might be related to their sense of self.

The researchers speculate that the decreased self responses reflect an impaired sense of self in autism, which could lead to difficulties in navigating social situations.

I have always lacked a sense of self and identity, until I discovered that I'm aspie, and now aspie is my identity. I think that what NTs perceive in us as fake is actually just us trying to fit in. We can't do it naturally so we have to pull something from somewhere that isn't really us, and I suppose the most perceptive NTs could see through that and interpret it as fake. But we're really just being aspie

Oh, you're right, it doesn't make much sense and that's because I was pretty careless in my use of language. I researched wikipedia and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-categorization_theory, which is a theory that separates the term "Identity" into two parts, your personal identity and a social identity and you're thinking of your personal identity while my post was thinking of the social identity.

Ah. I have absolutely no sense of social identity nor any idea why it exists. I am not defined by the groups I'm in. I'm not defined by how others think of me. Those are completely irrelevant to my sense of self. I can identify as being a member of a group, but that just happens to be true now and defines nothing about me in the long run (and has no more meaning than "these are the people who I spend any time with" thus by the social identity description on wikipedia doesn't qualify anyways because there's not real emotions or values associated with it, its just stating a fact).

To me, any amount of social identity is still inherently weaker than personal identity. Also, social identity does not seem like a positive thing. It seems like its associated with why I was convinced when I was young that a majority of people are just pretending to be someone they're not because being a part of a group is more important than being themselves (I'm trying give people the benefit of the doubt now because that was also associated with ToM issues). It's associated with people denying personal identity in exchange for something weaker than it.

Also, the concept of anyone else being in my sense of self makes absolutely no sense. A group isn't self. I am not an entire group of people with their own personalities, likes, and dislikes.

Yes, I have a "weak" sense of social identity (if any); to me social identity is a bad thing that makes no sense and is contradictory to it self.

Also, it feels like my lack of sense of social identity only strengthens my sense of personal identity.

Ah. I have absolutely no sense of social identity nor any idea why it exists. I am not defined by the groups I'm in. I'm not defined by how others think of me. Those are completely irrelevant to my sense of self. I can identify as being a member of a group, but that just happens to be true now and defines nothing about me in the long run (and has no more meaning than "these are the people who I spend any time with" thus by the social identity description on wikipedia doesn't qualify anyways because there's not real emotions or values associated with it, its just stating a fact).

To me, any amount of social identity is still inherently weaker than personal identity. Also, social identity does not seem like a positive thing. It seems like its associated with why I was convinced when I was young that a majority of people are just pretending to be someone they're not because being a part of a group is more important than being themselves (I'm trying give people the benefit of the doubt now because that was also associated with ToM issues). It's associated with people denying personal identity in exchange for something weaker than it.

Also, the concept of anyone else being in my sense of self makes absolutely no sense. A group isn't self. I am not an entire group of people with their own personalities, likes, and dislikes.

Yes, I have a "weak" sense of social identity (if any); to me social identity is a bad thing that makes no sense and is contradictory to it self.

Also, it feels like my lack of sense of social identity only strengthens my sense of personal identity.

For example, making good guesses about another person's intent is a key skill during a social interaction, and this ability likely draws from awareness of one's own intentions.

For example, making good guesses about another person's intent is a key skill during a social interaction, and this ability likely draws from awareness of one's own intentions.

I experience earnest difficulty upon confrontation with a question such as "How am I?" or "What is my 'self'?" But that article seems to be about something else:



I know I'm not exactly your typical autistic person but... that's either simplified or I'm an exception.

I have excellent insight in my intentions which is why I can temporarily display normal/good social skills and mask my non-verbal deficits, cultural and neurological differences. I just can't see how people delude (that's what it feels like to me) themselves into thinking they have a self. They're merely a collection of parts that without further insight may give way to the illusion of there existing a "thing" called "a self" but few people seem to be aware of that just as few people have good abilities

So, I can tell but I don't see how I could possibly have a "self" or what my "self" is... and I hate that. Maybe I'm just missing the "big picture". If put together to a "big picture", the details that make up that encompassing concept of "self" keep being single parts to me.


Back to that:



And likely that's an almost misguiding mention of the mechanics associated with abilities such as "self-awareness" and how being autistic requires some alterations of how the concept could be applied.

To get an idea of why an autistic person might respond differently in these tests, I think it's important to remember a couple of things:

Language development is to some degree dependant on social interaction, the ability to interact socially is again dependant on language abilities and both language development and behaviour are closely tied to neurology. Autism can effect all three (yeah, and more than that of course).

You know, that "chicken and egg" situation. So I'd be careful to pay attention to 1 manifestation/impairment and ignore all the others. Like, focussing mainly on trying to improve behavioural aspects of which mostly are socially orientated in a language delayed, socially impaired, neurologically different kid/adult won't lead nearly as good results as trying to improve all major areas of impairment at the same moment little by little.

This is where my weak point comes into play too. I may have good abilities of self-reflection but my neurological perception and further experiences of what's important (not meaning my opinions here) and what the world "looks" like (that perception and sensory integration stuff) to me is different from that of others + My language development has in turn been different (and that again probably influenced my neurological development quite a bit) been different so even today my expressive and receptive language can present as okay and kinda average but there are massive differences underneath as well as language impairments...

and that really impacts my ability of figuring other people out - including how I am expected to adjust my behaviour and how I am expected to

It also very directly impairs the ability of knowing one's intentions, emotions, motivations (which are considerable in abilities/behaviours such as inhibition of impulsivity, planning future goals, "good" decision making, monitoring one's behaviour... stuff like that).

Social performance is tied to the ability to do all that but to become aware of that and more so, of the effects one has on their environment and the environment's expectations on how much self-awareness/understanding/control as person must attain, it is (next to other factors) elaborate social interaction that is necessary to develop better self-awareness.

Dealing with a problem with a French party involved while having only basic knowledge of self-acquired (not naturally culturally conforming) French is going to be... difficult. I may not even notice a French person's problem or a French person's problem with what I do or how I think because I'm, well, disasterific at speaking and bad at understanding French.

So... to take this into a more real scenario. Take an autistic kid who's bad at social interaction, doesn't have friends and can't really cope with classmates or neighbouring children. Why's he bad socially?

One of the first questions to consider would be how much the autism impacts his social skills. Not to forget the musings of how much his autistic impairments, strengths and quirks and his overall level of development further impact the presentation of his "Bad social skills". And then that lave me wondering what numerous other things such as experiences, personal strengths and weaknesses, "personality" traits have further led to the result of what I perceive his social skill level to be.

And being an overly curious individual, I'd love to know how his atypical neurological reactions have been influences by what his life has been like so far because of the simple fact that the brain isn't shut away from the influence of all kinds of environmental factors.

Anyway, how would my little autistic friend know how much he has to pay attention to taking turns in a game, trying to figure out the other kid's intentions and how to judge and react to them wanting to play some else, getting bored, getting annoyed about having to listen to the architectural history of types of war ships?

There's nobody to play with usually with which he could experience these social expectations (and then try to improve upon having noticed the difficulties of playing a board game together). Sure, adults could teach him... but an adult can only try to imagine a bit of what kids are like and they can only play small parts the role of a kid only to a certain point. It's not the real thing and a bad substitute for learning social skills in a more "typical" everyday fashion.

More likely than not, it'll "help" in some ways to teach about social expectations other kids have. But because the teaching is different and involves a different environment (and adults, not kids), the content of what is taught is different too. A child being taught by an adult what other children are taught by children will yield a slightly different basis for child-to-child interaction and alter the future course of acquirement for more complex social skills.

At best, you get someone to act fairly normal on the outside but they're still different. So, because all kinds of environmental factors influence neurology (yes, I realise this is plainly out but I'm tired of continuing this post), I'd not think that a single neurological response in an autistic child or adult can be all too simply interpreted by comparing it to a single neurological response of children and adults that have a very different history of development.

I guess I just wanted to express my opinion on that the article really presents the issue a little simplified.

I'd not think that a single neurological response in an autistic child or adult can be all too simply interpreted by comparing it to a single neurological response of children and adults that have a very different history of development.