why do some people consider low functioning inferior ?

Page 4 of 18 [ 280 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 18  Next

Troy_Guther
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 263
Location: Deep in the Desert

09 Dec 2013, 12:04 am

wozeree wrote:
Troy_Guther wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Troy_Guther wrote:
Because low functioning is inferior.

based on what? your opinion? that's pretty lame.
Meanwhile NTs will say the same thing about you or me and then suddenly you will be outraged!

People previously labelled as "low functioning" can contribute to society if they are given a chance. You don;t need to be caught in the same shallow mindset of most NTs that disability = inferior...


I actually wouldn't be outraged, because they would be absolutely right. My difficulties keep me from doing things that more normal folk can do, and what I can do, I generally can't do as well. The same goes with any sort of physical disability. Not being able to use your legs gives you no special abilities that others don't have; Anything this hypothetical paralyzed man can do could just as easily been done by someone with perfectly functioning legs. But there are plenty of things that a healthy person can do that this paralyzed man cannot. I'm not sure how one could possibly consider these circumstances and conclude that being paralyzed is anything but inferior. And that means that a paralyzed man is, on the basis of his paralysis, worth less, if all else is equal.

However, I feel that I need to greatly emphasize that just because someone is worth less, it does not mean that they are worthless. All people should be treated with dignity, just as a function of being human. And anyone, no matter their circumstances, is capable of great things. This is true if we're talking about a healthy man and a paralyzed man, or an NT and and AS individual. But having AS, or being unable to use your legs are both clearly inferior to the alternative, and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.


Wow, your comment doesn't outrage me, but it does make me sad!

First off, I really think you should speak for yourself when you start throwing around words like inferior.

People are just different, not less than or more than or better than or worse then. I work with non-Aspies, my family is full of them. Successful, rich, tons of friends, married, kids - not one of them do I wish I could be. I don't go for that Aspie is superior stuff either. Just we are allowed to be different without carrying a yoke of self hatred or shame around with us everywhere we go.

So what if we can't read social cues - Jesus Christ I've heard this all my life, how shameful it is. F that!

Anyway, you think all those "NTs" are running around doing good stuff and solving poverty and all that? What's so great about them? Nobody is any better than us or superior to any of us.


I'm pretty sure that I did just speak for myself, but I'll go ahead and do it again. If there were another version of me, but with better social skills, he would be superior to me. I would be inferior to him. That's what those words mean. That hardly means that I have no value as I am. But it does mean that there are areas I could improve, and it would be better to attempt to do so, rather than hand-wave away my deficiencies as nothing more than a "difference". Liking rock music instead of country music is a difference. Being able to communicate effectively versus not being able to do so is not just a difference. It is a problem that should be addressed as much as is possible.

Not that NT's are all that great, mind you. I definitely don't have that high an opinion of them myself. I could go on for hours about all the things they do that bother me. But for every flaw an NT may have, an aspie is more than capable of matching it. And we get a bunch of other disadvantages on top of that. Sure, there are certain positive qualities than aspies tend to possess, but NT's can just as easily have these same qualities.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the labels myself; I'd rather address people on an individual basis. And my judgement says that not being able to read social cues is a problem, and a significant one at that. I literally cannot think of even one situation where not being able to do so is preferable to the alternative. And being able to understand social cues hardly dooms one to the life of a socialite; you could very easily understand the signals and just ignore them. I know that's what I tend to do.



wozeree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2013
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,344

09 Dec 2013, 12:22 am

But you have to assume reading social cues is a mandatory skill - otherwise, other skills can balance out that deficit. Lots of people can read social cues that are less skilled than other people in other ways. Well I'm not going to argue with you, if you feel inferior you do, but I wish you wouldn't! Too much corruption and cold hardheartedness out there to compete with my inability to read social cues to make me feel bad about that - (not that i don't get thrown or feel bad for a while sometimes). And that's not to say that means we can't work on it.



jenisautistic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,276

09 Dec 2013, 12:31 am

wozeree wrote:
Lots of people can read social cues that are less skilled than other people in other ways.
This is so true there are people with intellectual disabilities, Down syndrome, or physical disabilities that can socialize way better the we can . Even if nts don't want us to know that.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 192 of 200 Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 9 of 200 You are very likely an Aspie PDD assessment score= 172 (severe PDD)
Autism= Awesome, unique ,Special, talented, Intelligent, Smart and Mysterious


Troy_Guther
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 263
Location: Deep in the Desert

09 Dec 2013, 12:40 am

wozeree wrote:
But you have to assume reading social cues is a mandatory skill - otherwise, other skills can balance out that deficit. Lots of people can read social cues that are less skilled than other people in other ways. Well I'm not going to argue with you, if you feel inferior you do, but I wish you wouldn't! Too much corruption and cold hardheartedness out there to compete with my inability to read social cues to make me feel bad about that - (not that i don't get thrown or feel bad for a while sometimes). And that's not to say that means we can't work on it.


I think we agree more than you think. Like you said, one can certainly possess other qualities that make the inability to read social cues seem less important. You can certainly lack the ability to read social cues and still be a far better person than someone who can. That was never in dispute. But if you were to compare two nearly identical people, whose only difference they had was that one could read social cues and the other couldn't; there would definitely be a distinction as to which one is better and which one is worse. And the one who could read social cues would be the better one. He simply has a skill that the other does not. And you'll have a tough sell to make if you want to convince anyone that being unskilled is equal to being skilled.



jenisautistic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,276

09 Dec 2013, 12:55 am

Troy_Guther wrote:
wozeree wrote:
But you have to assume reading social cues is a mandatory skill - otherwise, other skills can balance out that deficit. Lots of people can read social cues that are less skilled than other people in other ways. Well I'm not going to argue with you, if you feel inferior you do, but I wish you wouldn't! Too much corruption and cold hardheartedness out there to compete with my inability to read social cues to make me feel bad about that - (not that i don't get thrown or feel bad for a while sometimes). And that's not to say that means we can't work on it.


I think we agree more than you think. Like you said, one can certainly possess other qualities that make the inability to read social cues seem less important. You can certainly lack the ability to read social cues and still be a far better person than someone who can. That was never in dispute. But if you were to compare two nearly identical people, whose only difference they had was that one could read social cues and the other couldn't; there would definitely be a distinction as to which one is better and which one is worse. And the one who could read social cues would be the better one. He simply has a skill that the other does not. And you'll have a tough sell to make if you want to convince anyone that being unskilled is equal to being skilled.


I believe you are missing the point no two people will ever be exactly alike except for one distant aspect everyone nt, disabled, as, autistic have different strengths and weaknesses and assuming that would be the case is just making up a hypothetical scenario and is not realistic.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 192 of 200 Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 9 of 200 You are very likely an Aspie PDD assessment score= 172 (severe PDD)
Autism= Awesome, unique ,Special, talented, Intelligent, Smart and Mysterious


Troy_Guther
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 263
Location: Deep in the Desert

09 Dec 2013, 1:36 am

jenisautistic wrote:
Troy_Guther wrote:
wozeree wrote:
But you have to assume reading social cues is a mandatory skill - otherwise, other skills can balance out that deficit. Lots of people can read social cues that are less skilled than other people in other ways. Well I'm not going to argue with you, if you feel inferior you do, but I wish you wouldn't! Too much corruption and cold hardheartedness out there to compete with my inability to read social cues to make me feel bad about that - (not that i don't get thrown or feel bad for a while sometimes). And that's not to say that means we can't work on it.


I think we agree more than you think. Like you said, one can certainly possess other qualities that make the inability to read social cues seem less important. You can certainly lack the ability to read social cues and still be a far better person than someone who can. That was never in dispute. But if you were to compare two nearly identical people, whose only difference they had was that one could read social cues and the other couldn't; there would definitely be a distinction as to which one is better and which one is worse. And the one who could read social cues would be the better one. He simply has a skill that the other does not. And you'll have a tough sell to make if you want to convince anyone that being unskilled is equal to being skilled.


I believe you are missing the point no two people will ever be exactly alike except for one distant aspect everyone nt, disabled, as, autistic have different strengths and weaknesses and assuming that would be the case is just making up a hypothetical scenario and is not realistic.


Perhaps this kind of comparison doesn't quite work when comparing two different people. But I am convinced that it can be used when comparing how we are now to past versions of ourselves. For example, I've spent the last several years studying and practicing social skills, and they're much better because of that. As a person, I am superior to how I was as I was younger. My younger self is inferior in comparison to how I am now. My friends and family will attest to this fact, even if they wouldn't necessarily agree with the phrasing. And yet, a recognition of the flaws I used to have doesn't have to be a condemnation of who I was. Acknowledging these deficiencies was an essential step to addressing them. Pretending that these problems aren't actually problems, or that they don't matter didn't help me one bit.



KingdomOfRats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,833
Location: f'ton,manchester UK

09 Dec 2013, 5:50 am

cyberdad wrote:
Troy_Guther wrote:
Because low functioning is inferior.

based on what? your opinion? that's pretty lame.
Meanwhile NTs will say the same thing about you or me and then suddenly you will be outraged!

People previously labelled as "low functioning" can contribute to society if they are given a chance. You don;t need to be caught in the same shallow mindset of most NTs that disability = inferior...

those of us who are still low functioning to any level can contribute to society in all manner of ways.

used to live with two profoundly autistic adults who did voluntary work for a national trust park in cheshire, they also went to a mainstream college,they had a bigger work ethic than many NTs.


--
being low functioning we require twenty four hour support but we arent inferior for it-every human needs support in some way,anyone who thinks we arent of equal worth are delusional aspie or NT zealots who can only make themselves feel better by putting people with bigger problems down,its their problem not ours.



cavernio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,462

09 Dec 2013, 10:08 am

Basically just re-wording some ideas that have already been said in this thread.

Utility is the driving force behind the society I live in. I have had it hammered in to me that success is about getting things done, accomplishing, doing. And we're humans and we figured out long ago that working as a group accomplishes many things better than working individually. So when suddenly there's someone who doesn't work well with others or within the norms that society has, for whatever reason, their potential and/or actual utility to the world is seen as less.

There's nothing wrong with the above I don't think. Where the issue lies is that because we view utility as so crucial and so important, (indeed it causes inordinate amounts of stress for plenty of people), we then judge individuals by their utility. In fact, some people are so pressured to accomplish, to be useful, they can often have serious problems devoting time to other areas of life, like being a good spouse or parent. They feel that their own self-worth is defined by how much they accomplish, is it really surprising that this sort of person then also judges YOUR self-worth by how much you outwardly accomplish? I mean, it's great that some low-functioning autistics can still have a really strong work ethic and can still manage to contribute to society in notable, recognizable ways. But not all autistics do or can do. Not all NT's can or do either (well, depends on the definition of NT I suppose...)

Addressing the bullying on the bus scenario, it's all groupthink, ostracizing people who are different, and about not being able to understand the crucial difference between communication deficits and inability to think. But of course the ability to communicate in some way, shape or form is the only measure of intelligence we can ever have about someone besides ourselves.


_________________
Not autistic, I think
Prone to depression
Have celiac disease
Poor motivation


jenisautistic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,276

09 Dec 2013, 11:02 am

Troy_Guther wrote:
jenisautistic wrote:
Troy_Guther wrote:
wozeree wrote:
But you have to assume reading social cues is a mandatory skill - otherwise, other skills can balance out that deficit. Lots of people can read social cues that are less skilled than other people in other ways. Well I'm not going to argue with you, if you feel inferior you do, but I wish you wouldn't! Too much corruption and cold hardheartedness out there to compete with my inability to read social cues to make me feel bad about that - (not that i don't get thrown or feel bad for a while sometimes). And that's not to say that means we can't work on it.


I think we agree more than you think. Like you said, one can certainly possess other qualities that make the inability to read social cues seem less important. You can certainly lack the ability to read social cues and still be a far better person than someone who can. That was never in dispute. But if you were to compare two nearly identical people, whose only difference they had was that one could read social cues and the other couldn't; there would definitely be a distinction as to which one is better and which one is worse. And the one who could read social cues would be the better one. He simply has a skill that the other does not. And you'll have a tough sell to make if you want to convince anyone that being unskilled is equal to being skilled.


I believe you are missing the point no two people will ever be exactly alike except for one distant aspect everyone nt, disabled, as, autistic have different strengths and weaknesses and assuming that would be the case is just making up a hypothetical scenario and is not realistic.


Perhaps this kind of comparison doesn't quite work when comparing two different people. But I am convinced that it can be used when comparing how we are now to past versions of ourselves. For example, I've spent the last several years studying and practicing social skills, and they're much better because of that. As a person, I am superior to how I was as I was younger. My younger self is inferior in comparison to how I am now. My friends and family will attest to this fact, even if they wouldn't necessarily agree with the phrasing. And yet, a recognition of the flaws I used to have doesn't have to be a condemnation of who I was. Acknowledging these deficiencies was an essential step to addressing them. Pretending that these problems aren't actually problems, or that they don't matter didn't help me one bit.


but as i mentioned before imo this type of thinking is not completely accurate. As we age we become wiser,however you are not always superior then your younger self. For example I may be more aware about social skills but now I need to wear glasses when I was younger I had perfect vision.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 192 of 200 Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 9 of 200 You are very likely an Aspie PDD assessment score= 172 (severe PDD)
Autism= Awesome, unique ,Special, talented, Intelligent, Smart and Mysterious


littlebee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,338

09 Dec 2013, 12:51 pm

starkid wrote:
I think there may be a misunderstanding in this thread...some people are answering based on the idea of inferior as "worse at something in particular" and some are answering based on inferior in the sense of "overall worth as a human being."

Smart comment. Thanks.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,060
Location: temperate zone

09 Dec 2013, 4:42 pm

The thread is rather ambiguous as to what the original poster means-mainly because the title, and actual original post, are saying two slightly different things.

The title asks "why do some people consider low functioning inferior?" which is a tautalogy. Its like asking "why do some people consider bachelor's to be single?". "Low functioning" by definition means "inferior in functioning".

But inferior in functioning isnt the same as being inferior as a person.

In contrast to the title- in the post she is asking why do some people, even some on the autism spectrum, stigmatize low functioning autists and distance themselves from them? Which is a fair question. Just because they function less well than you doesnt mean you have to distance yourself from them.



autisticyoungadult
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 229

09 Dec 2013, 7:40 pm

People who are on the higher end of the autism spectrum mostly want to distance themselves from the stereotypical low-functioning autistic individual. There is ignorance in the general public surrounding autism, the image that popped up in most neurotypical minds of the autistic population is the toe-touching, hand-flipping, non-verbal mentally handicappdd adult who have an obession in one area. Unfortunately, we've seen some harsh critism from even regarding a spies people on the lower end of the autism spectrum. I've argued before on this forum to have more lower-functioning auties particplating on Wrong Planet in order to erase the stigma that low-functioning indiviauals can't be intellent or they have to feelings.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,208

10 Dec 2013, 7:00 pm

KingdomOfRats wrote:
those of us who are still low functioning to any level can contribute to society in all manner of ways.
used to live with two profoundly autistic adults who did voluntary work for a national trust park in cheshire, they also went to a mainstream college,they had a bigger work ethic than many NTs..


Yes, there's a misconception borne out of lack of consideration. There some major IT companies willing to recruit autistic adults with computer skills. With time a larger % of so called lower functioning people will be absorbed into IT related roles.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,208

10 Dec 2013, 7:06 pm

autisticyoungadult wrote:
People who are on the higher end of the autism spectrum mostly want to distance themselves from the stereotypical low-functioning autistic individual. There is ignorance in the general public surrounding autism, the image that popped up in most neurotypical minds of the autistic population is the toe-touching, hand-flipping, non-verbal mentally handicappdd adult who have an obession in one area. Unfortunately, we've seen some harsh critism from even regarding a spies people on the lower end of the autism spectrum. I've argued before on this forum to have more lower-functioning auties particplating on Wrong Planet in order to erase the stigma that low-functioning indiviauals can't be intellent or they have to feelings.


Since contributing to WP I've noticed many Aspies do claim to have solidarity with their fellow Auties lower down on the DSM spectrum. I can't comment on how real is that solidarity? do they actually spend time with Auties? do they make friends with Auties?

The honest reality for LFA people is that there's probably little difference in engaging an Aspie or NTs. If anything NTs are going to feel less self-conscious than an Aspie as they won't have the hangup over the disability tag or drawing attention to their own social shortcomings/deficits.



TheygoMew
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,102

10 Dec 2013, 7:49 pm

Troy_Guther wrote:
Because low functioning is inferior. They simply function in an inferior way; that's why it's called low functioning. You can go ahead and say that saying this is ableist or cruel or just plain mean. But let's be real, if you had to choose between being a high functioning aspie or a low functioning autistic, which would you pick? No lying now.



Everyone is inferior in the end when they are withering away on their death beds.



jenisautistic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,276

10 Dec 2013, 9:05 pm

What I believe Is that if we're going to stand up against originations like autism speaks we have to stick together and love each other high functioning or low functioning aspie or autistic.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 192 of 200 Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 9 of 200 You are very likely an Aspie PDD assessment score= 172 (severe PDD)
Autism= Awesome, unique ,Special, talented, Intelligent, Smart and Mysterious