Diagnosis as "shot me paper" glued at the back

Post Reply New Topic

did you remember, at your school, something like a paper glued at the back of a kid, in wich it was writen something like: "shot me"? The purpose of the paper was, of course, to turn the kid a target.
Did the same happens if you are diagnosed with those usual letters specialists try to through over us? Don't we become turned into targets after being diagnosed?

I imagined a kind of "mind experiment", in which a normal NT kid is throun at a specialist who deliberately stigmatize him with those letters that nobody ,except aspie people, knows the exact meaning, but that everybody knows means the guy has head problems. Do you think nothing bad will happen to this kid? Wouldn't he be turned targeted after this diagnosis? Wouldn't he get further problems due to this strange situation? Could this diagnosis be good to him anyway? Could he feel happy with it?

Could this mind experiment be done??? justify your answer

No. It would be incredibly unethical, and would never be approved (research done involving human subjects must be pre-approved). Any specialist who would deliberately misdiagnosis someone in order to study whether the kid would be targeted should, and hopefully would, lose their license.

Wait, what do you mean by "mind experiment" though? Does that mean it would actually be carried out, or wouldn't? Of course you can always hypothesize such things in your own mind, and work though likely outcomes, but you ask if it "could be done."

I agree with you, but, why do you believe "it would be incredibly unethical"?

If you actually do it in real life: it's no longer a mind experiment (which you've already performed simply by imagining the scenario).

The mind is where this particular experiment that you discuss should be kept.

Before I knew about AS (understood that I wasn't alone, that is to say): I imagined there being a huge conspiracy on everyone's part to treat me as a non-person; if it had been so: it would have been an utterly monstrous thing to do to someone, for whatever reason that it was done.

The type of experiment discussed here would be no better.

I agree that the mind experiment described

and I believe that the main reason to this conclusion, is the fact that the experiment would probably be painfull, or, in many senses, bad for the kid, and thus must never been done. Although I believe that some of the same problems affect the real people, specially young people, that is submited to these diagnosis.
Thus I must ask you, why to do it?

When this thread was started it immediately reminded me of the movie, Eye of the Storm. That documentary is about schoolteacher, Jane Elliott, who conducted the now-famous "Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes" exercise on her 3rd grade class. She was responding to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and what she calls "sympathetic indifference" in her all white, Christian community.
In a nutshell, she conducted an experiment or exercise in which she divided up (segregated) the class by eye color and then "stated facts" to support that Blue-eyed people were smarter, better, etc. Then she "stated facts" that supported the idea that Brown-eyed people were less smart, less competent. It really did affect the children afterwards and their ideas about prejudice and diversity.
This was done the day after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was killed, in 1968 and she is now elderly and still conducting this exercise with adults all over the world.

The perception of AS is one of negative traits, but each trait has an opposite positive trait.

That's why I think it is important to talk about AS in a positive way.

The kid with the label hopefully will be better understood, and hopefully parents and teachers will see the futility of trying to turn him into something he is not.

In fact, what I did above were really questions, and I don't believe we are able to answer to that. I believe people that were diagnosed when young will really answer to the questions above, there is a good chance that they refute my implicit conjecture that diagnosis probably act as targeting people, although I believe there won't be an only answer.

Do this mean some of our perceptions are not good, meanwhile other are "excessively" good?

People who fit the Aspie profile sometimes make NTs incredibly uncomfortable. Sorry, but sometimes they're not just being mean when they avoid you, and it's not even always intentional. When we attempt to converse, we do it in a very dominant manner, demanding the floor to address whatever topic is on our minds. In an Aspie society, we'd probably conduct all conversation through formal procedure. Some of us say things that make them feel awkward, such as making an honest compliment on features they generally wouldn't deem attractive or appropriate to comment on. These behaviors may not be bothersome to other Aspies, but NTs find them grating.

Aspies tend to find themselves in a similar bind with NTs. We find them socially intimidating or flighty. They keep interrupting us in the midst of an incomplete thought, and end up feeling that they're not letting us say anything at all to them. They have strange, unreasonable hangups, and, masochistically, they refuse to let on to them. This, among several things, makes the NT difficult for the Aspie to get along with.

Both of these groups' behaviors and their reactions are perfectly normal and forgivable.

There is something we call people who make cruel jokes at the expense of others.

Sociopaths.

Sociopaths are truly sick in the head in a way that cannot be mitigated or excused, and Aspies and NTs should be unified in standing against such trash. The NTs are not at fault just because they are more able to defend themselves against these attacks.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. I thought "mind experiment" meant that someone just thought about it. I was just confused by the fact that he was asking if it "could be done." Of course one can imagine a hypothetical situation. I figured maybe he meant whether the mind experiment could be performed as a real experiment.

I'm talking about the NT public's perception, not our perception. Lots of NTs come here to learn about AS.

If you could make aspies cool, then the perception would change.

I think what she means is that each trait can be looked at in both a negative and a positive light. For instance, spending a lot of time on an obsession may mean that the kid doesn't spend as much time in social interaction, and so the obsession may be seen as socially isolating the kid. However, the kid will probably learn a lot of interesting things, or really perfect a skill.

Edit: Whoops! SeriousGirl, you must have posted while I was typing up my post. Oh well, I'll leave this up.

Definitely. Just think about the idiotic things that are considered cool now. Like getting incredibly drunk and puking every weekend (on college campuses at least). You could look at drinking as having a negative and a positive side as well. When people drink, they tend to bond with one another, and also their social inhibitions lower so they can have a good time. On the other hand, younger people often drink too much, end up puking. Not to mention that having lowered inhibitions can be dangerous. Drinking is considered cool however, so most who do it focus on the positive.
If it were cool to be an Aspie, instead of saying, "Man, Jimmy's such a geek. He spends all his time working on computers," they might say, "Man, Jimmy's so cool! He put together his first computer when he was seven years old. He's helping me build a custom set-up right now."

Well, actually, being a little on the geek side is considered pretty respectable nowadays. You just have to get down the mystique.

[quote="Griff"][/quote]
I agree with most you wrote, but I believe your conclusion is excessive strong, and most people will bully one another at some situation... but this is another story...

the points are: is it good for an adult to be diagnosis by a medical authority?
is it good for an kid or child to be diagnosis by a medical authority? won't this people be turned targets in consequence of diagnosis? Is medical diagnosis more reliable than our ones?