What I think Autism is--Do you agree?

Post Reply New Topic

I think Autism is like having your social eye being blinded.

You cannot see things in the "Social Context". I think almost everything else is a secondary effect of having a blind social eye.

Most people behave, say things, speak, and interact with what they see socially, and in social context. That is why Autistics take things literally. They cannot see the tid bits of unspoken words in the context the speaker expects the autistic person to see.

We are better able to learn and study materials and science because we are not blinded by the expected limitations, social limitations, and a greater portion of brain is dedicated to seeing something else that other don't see and recognize.

The only thing I cannot account for is our poor fine motor skills and poor working memory.

What do you think, does being Autistic mean you have a "blinded social eye"?

Best,

Idaho Aspie

It's even more annoying when people see hidden messages in what you say when those messages were neither implied nor intended.

Autism is brain damage. Well, that's the current clinical picture. Damage to the brain will account for all of it, including motor difficulties; not everyone has motor difficulties, which is why autism is an umbrella term that defines the end stage of a disease process that's marked with social, communication and obsessive deficits, whether the cause is genetic, infectious, chemical and/or whatnot.

Mindblindedness is the term people use.

I was thinking about this the other day. It's as though the portion of my mind that is supposed to 'read' social situations either doesn't exist or has never worked properly. I think I can play along, but I don't know if I'll ever be able to 'read' situations properly.

Well, if to declare a single direct difference, based on what I have learned and some scientific understanding, **I** think it is basically a modified amygdala! SIMPLE, and it explains pretty much EVERYTHING!

Fewer connections means that it must be a coarser resolution. That means that all your SENSES will be DIFFERENT. That will also affect your COORDINATION, and FEELINGS. That can upset your motivation and mutual PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL EVENTS. The need to use fewer BRAIN AREAS means they can be REALLOCATED. If used REALLY early, that could conceivably increase brain density. With all that, it is possible the brain could be starved for information and seek out new sources, which would create INTERESTS.

But, WHO KNOWS?!?!? This IS the chicken and the egg, and scientific understanding could be all wet!

I object (theoretically speaking). I think it comes from having too many connections. Our brains are just configured differently; so we see situations differently than others. We see too many things at once, which is why we're forced to focus on the details, as to not go crazy from the uber stimuli bombarding our poor senses.

What we need is better reception.

Maybe the next wave of human evolution will be adjustable antennae.

When some people don't say what they want to say directly (afraid?) others may be looking for clues. Obviously there will be misinterpretations along the way.

You would think that it is more, but science claims FEWER. Then again, science ALSO claims they are smaller. Maybe it is fewer bundles, but more connections, if you know what I mean.

They CLAIM that some things in females are so superior to males, and I don't see it in general society, and certainly not in myself(taking both as a group). Maybe this is the same sort of thing.

As for the antennae? What would we do with them? Even ANDORANS don't seem to really do anything with them.

I believe most, if not all, symptoms of autism can be pinned upon our brains subconsciously looking for patterns and sequences. Anything that fits into a pattern or sequence we can focus on, and very well - we also can't switch this aspect of ourselves off very well. Human interaction is by its nature not sequential or predictable, and so when we try to process it from that point of view, we fail - we're also likely to be distracted by patterns on the walls, lighting, clothes, something else which is predictable and fits into the way our brains are preprogrammed to perceive the world.
I think just about everything can be explained starting from that point. It's simply a hypothesis, though, and a completely untested one.

But when people infer others' intentions I would argue that they are perceiving a pattern that we simply do not see as clearly. They see a pattern in the way that they would feel in a particular situation, and the particular behaviors of someone that they are observing. So I tend to agree with the original poster. Mindblindness to me is similar to someone who is colorblind or tone-deaf. Imagine if you were tone deaf and you lived in a society that based all of its interactions on singing songs. I wonder if they have many tone deaf people in cultures where the language is tonal. ..?

However another contributing factor might be that my response to a particular situation is nothing like the average person, so the pattern is not as apparent to me. I can only infer it by studying other more typical people closely.

Sort of. It's less exacting than what we do, and that's why it works. I think that social interactions are filled with "fuzzy" patterns, and inferring from one experience approximating another one what's going on. We're too precise. When we look for patterns, we look for hard lines, exact matches, and because human interaction always has different subtleties we fail. I think the distraction of other patterns inputting also plays a major factor (for instance, halfway through writing this, I was distracted by tracing the texture on the wall here and completely lost my train of thought - the same thing happens sometimes when I'm talking to someone).

I agree about our focus on patterns. It is something that I am particularly good at.
And I am often distracted by them as well.

This is probably true, but it also seems impossible for me to say how fuzzy the patterns are, just as it would be difficult for a colorblind individual to say how well defined a red and green pattern might be.
It may seem very fuzzy only because the ability to discriminate between the various shades is not very precise.

A double mindblind study. First we have to percieve what we are defined as not seeing, and explain it to someone with different wiring, a whole other way of seeing, then they explain us to some one else who comes and talks to us. When we do not respond correctly we are blamed.

I prefer WP.

I agree, it is because everything bombards us and we have to block everything and then invent filters to only let through what we can deal with, usually not very successful. We are overstimulated from too many connections.

I think that when we were little and our brain was supposed to be editing those connections, we had prolly already learned to shut down everything and thus we tricked out brains into thinking that the connections were severed, when, in fact, they were really just temporarily closed for impassage (like a snow road in the mountains). Our brain came to the connection, saw the crudely written closed sign, thought there was some screw up at the closed sign factory, went on, and just never made it back to check on that connection again!

Well, the current research points to mirror neurons in the brain that are not "turned on" - this is different that danielismyname's excessively negative spin that autism is "brain damage." The neurons are there, and by all account they are healthy - they just aren't active.

Mirror neurons are how the human brain learns social behavior intuitively by mirroring the behaviors of others. What I suspect will be shown in later research is that in an autistic brain, because these neurons are inactive, the brain reroutes itself in its development to compensate for that, and in some cases, like in AS, hyperdevelop in specific parts of the brain (that is to say, an autistic brain does not necessarily have fewer "connections" but likely has a different assortment of connections that interact differently). The human brain is marvelous at that, although at times its attempts to self-correct don't go so smoothly. Patterns of rerouting and hyperdevelopment likely would vary from individual to individual, and this would account for why there's a "spectrum" of autism and why certain comorbid conditions, like EFD and NVLD, are common among autistics.

The good news is that somewhere down the line, they are likely to develop forms of therapy to help activate these mirror neurons. And for those who would freak out at the slightest hint of a "cure" for autism - this would not be a cure for autism itself, but only therapy for the inactive mirror neurons. Chances are, for most autistics, by the time they are dx'd their brain has already begun its own way of compensating, and so you'd still have an unique, neurologically atypical brain - it's just you'd have active mirror neurons too.

And even if we don't see a therapy like this in our life time, we can take assurance that because autism IS NOT "brain damage" - and even if it was - the human brain is not static organ. It is in a constant state of change, and it tries to develop and adapt in ways that best suit the work it needs to do. That means, going out in the world, getting life experience, learning soical skills and coping skills will still stimulate our brains to develop and adapt. Call it "social blindness" or "mindblindness" if you wish, but just remember, your brain isn't the same today as it was 10 years ago and it's won't be the same 10 years from now. Who knows, maybe 10 year from now, it's not "social blindness" that you're most challenged by. In 10 years, it could be something else, something new that you're brain's currently adapting to, and that "social blindness" is a thing of the past. Hey. I'm 36, so I can talk - I'm definitely not teh same autistic I was when I was 24, or when I was 13, or when I was 7. I am very hesistant to broadly define autism in any static way beyond "atypical neurology" because the human brain is too unpredictable and too amazing.

Interesting concept, i dont think im completely blind i think its more like having really fuzzy vision and i need an aid (glass's) to help make things clear im not permanantly like this.