Pathology vs Nuerodiversity

Post Reply New Topic

Which framework do you think is more objectively accurate with regards to Autism Spectrum Disorder?

1. Autism Spectrum Disorder represents a disease. It is a particular abnormal condition that negatively affects the structure or function of part or all of an organism.

2. Autism Spectrum Disorder represents a certain section of the possible variations within the human condition. It should be treated more similarly to variation in things like height and skin tone as opposed to viewed as a dysfunction in an otherwise 'working properly' organism.

I prefer two (2). Everyone is different, more or less affected. But, that doesn't make them diseased. My greatest obstacle is social, but I'm confident that if taught how, I can learn to manage it better.

I have a little granddaughter who is profoundly affected, non - verbal. But she is very smart, was figuring things out and entertaining herself with complicated concepts before she was two. In some respects, she's smarter than her twin, who is not affected at all and accomplished all milestones on time. They are six year old fraternal twins.

I think it depends on the environment that autistic people have to operate in, particularly the social environment.

The less you cope with a NT world, the more people will consider your condition to be a disease, even if subconsciously.

The better you cope with an NT world, the more you will be considered a positive example of human diversity, especially if you make professional and/or academic contributions.

The answer is fluid depending on a variety of factors impacting the adaptability of individuals to particular environments.

I definitely lean toward #2. If I thought of myself as diseased I would be both very depressed and playing right into Autism $peaks’ playbook.

It is a combination of both. There are some autistic traits that will impair a person no matter how accommodating society is. Any trait that is "severe" enough will impair a person. If society were more understanding and accommodating autistic people, in general, would be doing a lot better.

Which framework do you think is more objectively accurate with regards to Autism Spectrum Disorder?

1. Autism Spectrum Disorder represents a disease. It is a particular abnormal condition that negatively affects the structure or function of part or all of an organism.

2. Autism Spectrum Disorder represents a certain section of the possible variations within the human condition. It should be treated more similarly to variation in things like height and skin tone as opposed to viewed as a dysfunction in an otherwise 'working properly' organism.

Number 1 sounds too similar to how the Nazis viewed the Jews or Mao viewed intellectuals. If the "organism" is society, the surgical removal of the "diseased portion" can sound rational. Many Christians believe this sort of draconian exclusion will be used in the future where those who refuse the "mark" will not be allowed to buy or sell.

Regardless of the means or basis for purging a group from society, it usually seems to begin with classification. It might seem advantageous to receive economic support and sympathy for being "disabled" or "disordered". However, history has many examples of disadvantage from being so grouped.

#2 sounds nice.

But #1 is probably a more accurate definition of how the world views Asperger's.

It would be very instructive to go back in history and see how autistic people functioned and were viewed 500 or 1000 years ago. My guess would be, generally better than now.

Two of my own biggest ptoblems are 1) sensory overload--noises, bright lights, very crowded spaces, many people talking at once, amplified announcements, and 2) information overload--people talking as I'm simultaneously getting messages from several internet-based instant messaging sevices, plus ringing phones, plus email, plus the expectation to be able to multitask and do work as all this is happening, plus dealing with the previously mentioned sensory overload.

Now imagine me living in a time with no electrically amplified sounds, no beeping buses and honking cars and revving motorcycles, no bright, flashing lights, no phones and Internet and TV and radio, and usually no expectation to focus on more than one task at a time. I think someone like me would function much more "normally." I might seem a bit eccentric in social terms, but I'd be a lot closer to the norm than I am in our world.

The point being, it's a difference--unfortunately a difference that's ill-suited to many aspects of modern life. Rather like a pale-skinned person having to work outdoors in the tropics. But we don't call pale skin a disorder just because it's less suited to certain environments.