I've been thinking about that lately (What is autism?) because of some recent interactions with so-labeled psychologists (well, ok, the one over-generalizing egotistical ass I've had the opportunity to see ). Seeing as no-one that I know of uses their entire brain, and cannot engage it (as a whole) at will, are we humans not ALL 'autistic'? Not in the classic definition of course, but if one part of the brain is not being used and another develops/is more active to compensate for that, THAT"S what's defining the characteristics and actions of the person. And we're all like that, the difference between people would seem to lie in which part(s) of the brain that are not being engaged and the part(s) which compensate for that. I wonder, on average, if 'aspies' (given brain scans) would not prove to use more of their brains than 'NTs', and therefore 'NTs' would evidently be the more 'autistic'. I'd be willing to bet that's correct in respect to the population of already diagnosed 'aspies' vs. 'proven' 'NTs'. But on a whole, I believe if we could prove it, no group, however defined or separated would be anymore 'autistic' than any other. Bottom line, no two people are exactly alike, and we all need to help each other in the areas where we do not function well, instead of separating ourselves and generalizing others so much that some people need a 'diagnosis' of their personal neurology to cope in life, as if they need an excuse and some proof that they are who they are. I hope all that made sense the way i wrote it...