If the majority of people had autism...

Post Reply New Topic

Hi,

I was just pondering on autism after discovering this forum, and a question I have previously thought came into my head, so I thought it might make an interesting discussion.

Do you think that if the majority of the worlds populace had autism, that people without it would be the ones counted as having a disorder?

Regards,

Eleventhirtytwo.

yeah...but then we would be the oppressors. how do we feel about that?

I don't think so. Considering that autism is pretty much defined as a lack of social skills, if the majority of people in the world were autistic, the ones who aren't autistic would probably be viewed as beings of exceptional sensitivity in the social/interactive department. They'd be, like, social geniuses. And probably all the more successful AND popular for it.

Ain't that a kick in the head? We never win!

Yeah, although there are Aspies and Auties out there that CAN socialize...

I know I can't.

If Auties were the bulk of the population, we would call them Neurotypicals.

Please note the neutrality of the word "neurotypical." It does not connote any sense of betterness or worseness, just a sense of more-common-ness. Contrast it with the word "Normal," which conveys a sense of correct-ness that Neurotypical does not. There is no qualitative connotation to the word "Neurotypical," which makes sense, as humans have made a world that is inherently insane.

True enough, but people would sooner or later attach a qualitative connotation to 'neurotypical' if it became common to refer to oneself as neurotypical (i.e. if autistics would call ourselves 'neurotypical' in a world where autism is the norm). As we would be the majority, the defining factor here is that we have a name to label the majority and a name to label the minority. It's beyond the semantics of the respective labels that are used; the simple existence of names to define ourselves and to distinguish ourselves from the 'other', is enough to create a self-awareness that anyone who identifies by the name of 'the other' is in the minority, and is therefore strange and by implication less equipped to function in a world where the majority is autistic.

I feel like there's a Science Fiction book in it's formative stages here.

good point...

Ah, but have you ever noticed how people with autism can be better at socialising with other autistics? For example, my group of friends for most of my second level education turned out to be about 80% autistic, yet we only realised this in about our last year.

Perhaps we don't find it hard to perceive emotions, but to perceive neurotypical emotional characteristics/standards as easily. Just as many neurotypicals can find it hard to understand people with autism...

A utopian technocracy? XD

whats that? i need to know big words like this to impress people.

Yeah but if it was ''normal'' for the majority of the general population to be Autistic then I don't think the word ''Autism'' would exist. We would just be the NTs and there would've probably been a label made for the ''non-Autistics'', like ''Socio Syndrome'' or something (just completely made that up). The world would be ran differently, the schools would be teaching at a different sort of level, and nobody would know any difference because this would be what the world has always been like, and so society would be just carrying on as normal, but just in a different way to what it is today.

It is no good saying that no Aspies would be able to run this world. Maybe not how it is now, but if AS had always been the common human then we would be able to run the world in a different way. I mean, apes don't talk but they lived on this planet a long time before humans. Well apes are related to us, but they still survived before humanity and today's society came along. Animals survive well in the jungle, so I think we would be able to become a steady society.

This questions is one of those ones what fill your mind with allsorts of imaginative thoughts of what it would be like. When I was first diagnosed at 8, I used to look at all the other kids and think, ''I wonder what it would be like if they were all like me and I was like one of them?'' It made me sit and think about it.

A trait of autism is that people can tend to have specific things which they are very interested in (hence why people sometimes complain I talk about the same subjects too often (like politics,lol)).

Now as stated by wikipedia, technocracy is "a form of government where technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields".

Technocracy is therefore rule by experts (very logical), in alternative to modern political systems where it's rule by marketing campaign and charisma (more emotively concentrated).

Technocracy is therefore a very specialist and logical form of government, or some might say, a very autistic way.

A utopia is "An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect." Often used when imagining extreme political systems, which could be seen as idealistic.

So a utopian technocracy in my usage is an idealistic way of governance by experts.

With political systems and dystopia being popular in sci-fi, I felt compelled to imagine what politics would be like if it where more autistic when Burnbridge brought up the concept of a sci-fi in the works XD

so a perfect autistic society. cool.

How about "invasive personality sharing disorder?" ;)

They would probably focus on the inability to form a special interest or think logically, as it would probably be the most crippling in an autistic society.