duncvis wrote:
Pro-aspie yes Gwynfryn, anti-everyone-else, no. Bear in mind please the site policy before making personal comments on other members again,...
No problem with your comment in general dunc, and I take your point that WP was always an open site (and made no claim to be a "refuge for Aspergians" for example) but am I the only one who's noticed that "Aspie" sites are currently chock full with people who, when you look at their overall input, are clearly intent on preventing the very thing that Alex suggested, namely that we should have a concrete definition of what we understand by "Aspie", and a way of identifying those who fit. When I see any threads which threaten to get constructive in this vein, being drowned in verbiage, misinformation, and deliberate changes of subject, then I smell a rat! When I notice it's the same hard-core of spoilers who use the same (fairly) subtle (at least until they become obvious) excuses, time and time again, then the stink get's nauseous (and I, understandably I hope, sometimes get angry; it's all very well trying to be "fair", but do we really need to be fair to people who's clear intent is inimical to our interests? Forgive me if I suggest that that is suicidally stupid!).
Bear in mind that it's over just twelve months since I joined my first Aspie site, hoping to find enlightenment, and found little but disinformation and confusion. I've tried hard in that time to do research on the fundamentals, as have a few others, and we've posted our findings on the various boards in the hope we'd assist understanding, and promote useful debates to improve that understanding, but are we any further foward? It seems to me it's actually more confusing than ever, with more garbage, like that idiotic "Meyers" list (hey Ma, it says "Aspies" have four limbs, one head, one nose... and so have I; so I must be an Aspie right?) to sucker those who just want to "belong", and a determined effort by some "Aspie" site administrations to actually give preferential treatment to those they know to be fakes (take a look at AI's new pro-troll rules for an example) by making it an offence for others to actually challenge their status (Oh sure, it's painted as a way of making it a nice friendly site, where everyone can be free of any nasty questions; but ask yourself, why would real Aspies need such protection? Aspergia managed without such detailed rules, and was largely self moderated, at least until it was flooded with hordes of trendies, many of whom were there with the intention of enforcing it's closure).
It's just as bad on the web; just google "Hans Asperger" and you'll get a ream of "expert" sites, most finding no distinction between Asperger's and Kanner's writings, and of those that do, some get it the wrong way round! I've found few who've understood that Lorna Wings "Asperger's Syndrome" (on which the DSM seems loosely based) is not a translation of Asperger's writings, but rather a reinterpretation, based on a later (mis)understanding of what "autism" means. I even saw one site which suggested that a symptom of AS was a poor tollerence for traffic noise, or standing in line...think about it; do you know many people who actually enjoy traffic noise or queuing?
Do you see what's happening here? Someone is making a determined effort to dilute and distort what it's all about, partly, I suspect, so we can't ever get any legislation in place to give us equal employment prospects (which needs a concrete designation) at least in the short term, and, with current developments in genetic research, a long term desire to eliminate us completely. Sounds fantastic maybe, but consider how job ads now concentrate almost exclusively on "team work" and "excellent(sic) inter-personal skills", even for functions which are almost exclusively head work (which Aspies, at least by one definition, excel at). Consider how even science text books now tell us the age of the lone scientist or inventor is over (which is about as valid as that claim from a previous governor of the US patents office, of a century or more ago, who stated "all that can be invented, has been invented"! It's bollocks; I've invented dozens of items, all of which were trashed by the deliberate efforts of one or more of my managers).
Anyway, enough of that (this was supposed to be flying visit) if we'd been left to develop our own ideas, without determined interference, then wouldn't we have a clearer picture? One of the techniques to prevent this, which may seem plausible is in what dunc said;
Quote:
...and for the record I agree completely with vetivert's caveat regarding anything we devise as a substitute for a diagnostic test/assessment, as such a thing is bound to be subjective.
Actually, dunc, that is not even plausible! Quite apart from the DSM's unscientific method, which I presume you are reffering too? (one cannot possibly define anything by lumping together any six of twelve symptoms; this is the technical equivalent of knocking round pegs into square holes, and vice-versa, simultaneously!) the basis is a misunderstanding of Asperger's intent. Think about this; before the DSM (which is not the only such diagnosis; the UK system is quite different, and based on a direct translation of what Asperger actually wrote, and even that fails to some extent as it's been interpreted, by and large, by NTs) an Aspie was generally understood to be a socially impaired (now that is subjective) but technically profficient, so why then, when discussions develop on things like religious beliefs (and politics...attitudes in general) we find a far greater degree of correlation between us "self-diagnosed" than among DSM Aspies? Why is it deemed of lesser worth than a fairly random and arbitrary assessment applied by clinicians who for the most part are NT? Why do those of us who spend our lives at odds with most of society, for the most part not understanding why (at least until we hear about previously intangible concepts like body-language, the lack of which, in his subjects, was central to Aspergers observations) are considered somehow less cosher, because we lack the more obvious symptoms which the DSM concentrates on (noticed how so many authorities keep quoting the origin of the word autism, but overlook the fact that dyspraxia, stimming, sensory issues and other aspects of the DSM diagnosis have no obvious bearing on the word?)? Right there we have evidence of a deliberate downgrading of AS, and anyone who assumes the DSM version is a gold standard, isn't thinking clearly on this!
It's the DSM which is subjective! If it had been designed to undermine the notion that autism is an essential and valuable part of the human genotype, then it could hardly have been designed better!
That autism, according to it's original meaning, is of fundamental importance, would be clear to any reader of science history, if they were familiar with that understanding, as most of those who gave us the great breakthroughs in science and technology show clear signs of autism (but few signs of the DSM version of AS, though there is a partial overlap). This observation, of course, is fraught with problems, and I for one have little wish to take away the "Aspie" label from those who consider it valuable (the truly autistic have little use for labels) and so we may need a graded understanding of what "Aspie" means, or maybe even two entirely seperate designations? One thing is clear; "Aspie" at present is too nebulous a term to be practically useful, and this very fact is being used against us!
So back to the proposition: an Aspie quiz? Well sure, why not if it's scientifically sound; but I've been pursuing something more involved. I'd like to set up a research site, run by Aspies (yes dunc, by my subjective definition, but it wouldn't exclude anyone who seeks understanding...) which, as a condition of membership, involved an interactive real time on-line diagnosis (designed by Aspies for Aspies; let's not be dictated to by people who don't begin to understand the benefits of autism?) based on sound procedural rules, which, through use of an iterative database programme, would improve the understanding of what we are really about. If it worked out, we'd be in a position to really campaign for our rights, and to dictate to the "experts" that their NT bias is not the ultimate key...
Can it be done? Yes, I'm sure of it (this is what I've been researching in recent months, in case anyone's been wondering at my quasi-absence) or at least, I'm sure of the underlying theory; what I can't do is the computer stuff, the database, the interaction...So how about it you computer wizzes? Think about how it could be set up, and taken to fruition; if I just concentrate on the theoretic basis, it's going to involve months of work (and I do have other things to consider, like earning a crust) and if I have to master the programming, then it may not be done in my life time. Are there enough of you out there who understand what I'm aiming for?
And as for a quiz alex? Well why not! I don't see why a cut down version couldn't be developed as a "taster"; all that's required is some good will from Aspies, and a willingness to resist the ill-will that currently drives debates on so many sites.
Nearly forgot to mention; I'll be backing the above claims with solid research, hopefully in a few weeks. I'm currently trying to track down some loose ends, which are proving elusive from my lonely demesne; I'd dearly love to hear from willing collaberators who have access to a good college library, or who are paid-up members of the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, or it's ilk?
Lastly, congratulations to duncvis on his elevation, and to TAFKASH; whicked!
18 Feb 2005, 11:13 pm
