Board index › General Discussion › Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation

Neurotypicals pathologised

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Angel_ryan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 745
Location: Ontario Canada

19 Dec 2011, 9:30 am

I personally think it's Society's values that are the obvious problem. Instead of trying to pathologize NTs Why not examine the negative values that our society is influenced by. There's a reason why there are a lot of people like that. I think it has to a lot to with education and, environment in most of those cases.



Niall
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 478
Location: Forth Estuary Area, Western Palearctic Archipelago, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way

19 Dec 2011, 10:25 am

Angel_ryan wrote:
I personally think it's Society's values that are the obvious problem. Instead of trying to pathologize NTs Why not examine the negative values that our society is influenced by. There's a reason why there are a lot of people like that. I think it has to a lot to with education and, environment in most of those cases.


Fair enough. I have no greater scientific support for my hypothesis than your notion.

That said, if you are correct, then why is the behaviour cluster so common in so many societies?

I do agree that social reform is necessary to change the fact that such behaviour is normative. Depending on whether the problem has an underlying social cause or an underlying pathological one, I think it's important to then address the problem, because only then might we see the nurturing society that will allow the rest of us to thrive, rather than live in fear of the ones willing to exploit and harm for their own ends.



MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

19 Dec 2011, 12:30 pm

I think we need to remember the source of the term "NT." "Neurotypical" was not originally coined to mean "Neurologically Typical." It was coined to refer to NON-Autistics. As such, it can refer to non-Autistic ADDers, non-Autistic depressives, non-Autistic people with MPD, non-Autistic sociopaths, non-Autistic [fill in the blank], and all non-Autistic Neuroligically Typical people.

If you take that into account, of course there will be pathologies associated with "NTism." "NT" incudes everyone NON-Autistic, with pathologies, as well as NON-Autistics with no pathologies.

Being "NT" does not preclude pathology.

Something to think about before you start panning NT's as a group for anything in particular.

All it really means is "Not Autistic."


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


SyphonFilter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 2,161
Location: The intersection of Inkopolis’ Plaza & Square where the Turf Wars lie.

19 Dec 2011, 12:45 pm

Some of those "symptoms" made me laugh. Is this meant to be funny? Anyway, there should have been only one symptom needed to fit the "diagnosis" of Neurotypical: Patient must NOT be diagnosed with an ASD.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,091

19 Dec 2011, 3:24 pm

MrXxx wrote:
I think we need to remember the source of the term "NT." "Neurotypical" was not originally coined to mean "Neurologically Typical." It was coined to refer to NON-Autistics. As such, it can refer to non-Autistic ADDers, non-Autistic depressives, non-Autistic people with MPD, non-Autistic sociopaths, non-Autistic [fill in the blank], and all non-Autistic Neuroligically Typical people.

If you take that into account, of course there will be pathologies associated with "NTism." "NT" incudes everyone NON-Autistic, with pathologies, as well as NON-Autistics with no pathologies.

Being "NT" does not preclude pathology.

Something to think about before you start panning NT's as a group for anything in particular.

All it really means is "Not Autistic."


Unfortunately, in effect, most people don't use it that way. And considering that autistic people tend to read things literally that weren't around when the term was first coined, the term has definitely evolved into the literal interpretation of neurologically typical; Wiki, defines it to specifically mean that now.

Since all autism is, is a diagnosis created by psychiatrists and psychologists, it seems like a more appropriate term would have been "NDA" (Not Diagnosed Autistic). Particulary appropriate, now that we know there is a broader phenotype of autism that extends out into up to thirty percent of the general population, per recent research.

There is no way to definitively determine if anyone in the general population is not autistic, regardless of what other pathologies appear to exist, other than sending them to a psychiatrist, so in real life Neurotypical is a useless term to describe anyone per the definition of neurotypical provided by Wiki.

Per the Wiki definition below the term means people whom are "NT" Neurotypical are not on the autism spectrum: specifically, neurotypical people have neurological development and states consistent with what most people would perceive as normal, particularly with respect to their ability to process linguistic information and social cues.

This is the way people, in general use the term in the autistic community, per thousands of examples from this website, to describe stereotypical neurology and behaviors, applied to the entire population, other than autistic individuals, that in reality don't exist.

Most people have no idea what normal is, in regard to processing linguistic information and social cues, some autistic people fake it well enough to get by, never noticed as anything other than a little shy or odd, descriptions which describe a good proportion of the population.

Beyond this, there is no normal, in regard to processing linguistic information and social cues among people diagnosed with autism. That may be an even bigger problem that seems evident from discussions on autism as well, the view that autistic people are similiar, when within that tiny group of 1 percent diagnosed some communicate very well and some don't communicate at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical#cite_ref-2

Quote:
Neurotypical (or NT) is a term that was coined in the autistic community as a label for people who are not on the autism spectrum:[1] specifically, neurotypical people have neurological development and states that are consistent with what most people would perceive as normal, particularly with respect to their ability to process linguistic information and social cues.


If whomever made up this word was looking for a term just to mean non-autistic, Not diagnosed autistic NDA, would have prevented a whole lot of confusion, because that is precisely what it means. And, because the only way to determine for sure, if someone is not autistic in real life, is for them to go in for a diagnoses.

There is another thread going on now where some are discussing whether or not Newt Gingrich has autism. I can't think of a better example of why the term neurotypical, is in effect, useless, in determining whom does or does not have autism in the general population.

The reality is "neurotypical" has evolved even further now, in effect, to slang, in many cases within the autistic community as a disparaging remark towards those whom are not autistic, almost like a type of revenge, in some cases, where people have been treated badly by others. Wiki's nice enough not to talk about this, but urban dictionaries do.

That would have not likely happened if an objective term like NDA focusing on diagnosis would have been used. People more likely would have focused on the actual people that treated them badly rather than referring to them as as the rest of humanity.

Too late now, it's a permanent part of culture.



MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

19 Dec 2011, 4:31 pm

aghogday wrote:
Unfortunately, in effect, most people don't use it that way. And considering that autistic people tend to read things literally that weren't around when the term was first coined, the term has definitely evolved into the literal interpretation of neurologically typical; Wiki, defines it to specifically mean that now.


As it probably should have. I don't think the intention was ever to include, say, people with Downs Syndrome as being neurologically typical.

Or anyone with any other disorder. I do think though, that "NT" is too often used (not necessarily purposefully), to mean neurologically typical, but in reference to many people who may not in fact BE typical, neurologically speaking.

In other words, I think in our own minds (I do it too), we are thinking of people who appear to us to be neurologically typical, and not obviously afflicted with anything neurologically atypical. The problem is there's a lot of people out there who appear typical, but aren't. (Can you say, "Asperger's Syndrome?")

Psychopaths can appear as typical as we do. So can many others with other, sometimes serious, disorders. I do think when we say "NT," then rant about whatever our chosen beef is for the day, a lot of what we're ranting about may not even be coming from typical neurologies.

What we're thinking of as "NT" may actually include some genuinely f****d up people.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,091

20 Dec 2011, 12:55 am

MrXxx wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Unfortunately, in effect, most people don't use it that way. And considering that autistic people tend to read things literally that weren't around when the term was first coined, the term has definitely evolved into the literal interpretation of neurologically typical; Wiki, defines it to specifically mean that now.


As it probably should have. I don't think the intention was ever to include, say, people with Downs Syndrome as being neurologically typical.

Or anyone with any other disorder. I do think though, that "NT" is too often used (not necessarily purposefully), to mean neurologically typical, but in reference to many people who may not in fact BE typical, neurologically speaking.

In other words, I think in our own minds (I do it too), we are thinking of people who appear to us to be neurologically typical, and not obviously afflicted with anything neurologically atypical. The problem is there's a lot of people out there who appear typical, but aren't. (Can you say, "Asperger's Syndrome?")

Psychopaths can appear as typical as we do. So can many others with other, sometimes serious, disorders. I do think when we say "NT," then rant about whatever our chosen beef is for the day, a lot of what we're ranting about may not even be coming from typical neurologies.

What we're thinking of as "NT" may actually include some genuinely f**** up people.


I think the point on Aspergers is key. I know with my Sister, the professional that diagnosed her, took 8 weeks, before making a final decision that she had Aspergers. The people that work with my sister have no idea, they think she is the best worker, and nicest person at the workplace.

For all practical intents and purposes she is considered the normal one in her workplace, from the perspective of predictability, the one folks can always rely upon.

I know of two others diagnosed that are working in highly responsible positions one in a job paying over 100K in a hospital and another individual in charge of a recreation program. Both highly respected in their professional abilities.

I'm sure that most of the co-workers can sense they are different, however the proficiency in their work is what people notice the most.

Those co-workers don't have a clue of their silent struggles in life; that is something that can be hid pretty well, particularly if someone has adapted most of their life without a diagnosis.

The individual that worked in the hospital had sensory issues, and had to get help with the ADA, because of surgeons playing loud music during surgery. It took a neuro-psychiatrist to come in, to explain and convince other individuals, including surgeons, that she had a neurological issue, where she could not tolerate music, like most others.

Of course in surgery, ear plugs aren't an option. This is in a major hospital, none of her peers had any idea that people with Aspergers had sensory issues; no one had a clue she had aspergers.

The stereotype for any kind of autism in the general public, is completely different from the realities of these individuals.

However, that doesn't make their silent struggles any easier.

There is no telling how many people exist in society like this, for the most part, neither they or others having an idea that they have any form of Autism.

I'm afraid the autistic community, is perpetuating the stereotype that all autism can be identified in the general public as atypical neurology, by using the term neurotypical, when in reality at least some on the spectrum come across as the ones with excellent neurology, from the perspective of others.

Observable neurological flags exist in Epilepsy, Parkinsons, the autism portrayed in the media, and other well known neurological disorders, but differences in social behavior, is part of the introverted norm that has always existed in society, as well as part of the attributed norm for highly intelligent individuals.

I could do a video portraying all three individuals at work with the Aspergers diagnosis, and what people would come away with thinking, is, wow I wish there were more workers like that at my workplace.

In fact, I can remember at one point in time someone wanting to hire me at my sister's workplace just because I was related to her, and had the same reputation at my workplace.

The key though, is most of the struggles are silent, at times no one has a clue of what the individual with Aspergers struggles with in the workplace, because some don't express much emotion.

It makes awareness of this type of Autism almost impossible to portray. From a practical standpoint it is already within the established norm, and in some cases seen as highly valuable by others, far from a significant observable impairment.

How can any organization ever portray these silent struggles, for better public awarenss? I don't think that all autistic people fully understand their own internal struggles, that they live with.

This internet site, I think, is the closest thing there is to that reality of autism.

It's not something that can be easily portrayed in a video of everyday life, or even put into words.

And, from my perspective, truly ironic that some actually diagnosed with Aspergers, are considered as a standard of quality to attain, so far away from their internal struggles in life, and anything overtly associated with atypical neurology.



MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

20 Dec 2011, 12:21 pm

@ aghogday: I'm not sure if we're on the same page now, or off on a tangent. I get the sense that you're making a comparison between us seeing NT's in generalities, and others seeing us in generalities, but I'm not sure.

If that's what you're getting at, I'm in complete agreement. It does work both ways. I don't think either is really very helpful.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


Angel_ryan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 745
Location: Ontario Canada

20 Dec 2011, 1:48 pm

SyphonFilter wrote:
Some of those "symptoms" made me laugh. Is this meant to be funny? Anyway, there should have been only one symptom needed to fit the "diagnosis" of Neurotypical: Patient must NOT be diagnosed with an ASD.


There is some is some hilarity in that. I do have to wonder though just how many people that do have ASDs are actually diagnosed? There are a lot of older people who fit the DX but didn't get it because it wasn't well known in their time. I think when we throw the word NT around we have to be little more careful how we use it. Not all NTs are alike just as we aren't. There is a similar thread on this called A question for all the NT posters. http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4243072 ... t=#4243072
In that thread Phonic meantioned something alone the lines of what MrXxx said both of which I agree with.
Phonic wrote:
It bothers me when I am told I am an NT because I don't have an ASD while at the same time I suffer from a myriad of other problems that would certainly count me being quite unusual

MrXxx wrote:
As it probably should have. I don't think the intention was ever to include, say, people with Downs Syndrome as being neurologically typical.

Or anyone with any other disorder. I do think though, that "NT" is too often used (not necessarily purposefully), to mean neurologically typical, but in reference to many people who may not in fact BE typical, neurologically speaking.

In other words, I think in our own minds (I do it too), we are thinking of people who appear to us to be neurologically typical, and not obviously afflicted with anything neurologically atypical. The problem is there's a lot of people out there who appear typical, but aren't. (Can you say, "Asperger's Syndrome?")

Psychopaths can appear as typical as we do. So can many others with other, sometimes serious, disorders. I do think when we say "NT," then rant about whatever our chosen beef is for the day, a lot of what we're ranting about may not even be coming from typical neurologies.

What we're thinking of as "NT" may actually include some genuinely f**** up people.


In A question for all the NT posters TheygoMew posted this which also got me thinking. If we aren't necessarily going to know what type of problems everyone else has how do we really know who's Normal and who's not? It almost invalidates the term NT because people are way too different, if you add culture into the mix just what is Normal? Maybe the NTs in our lives we complain about have a neurological issue we don't even know about. The people I call NTs are the highest functioning people I know, I call them that because I don't think they have a major problem going on, but then again how do I know.

TheygoMew wrote:
Okay next time instead of NT since it is offensive

Replace NT with

People who don't fit the criteria for....


Acute stress disorder
Adjustment disorder
Adolescent antisocial behavior
Adult antisocial behavior
Adverse effects of medication-not otherwise specified
Age-related cognitive decline
Agoraphobia
Alcohol-related disorder
Alzheimer's
Amnestic disorder
Amphetamine (or amphetamine-like)-related disorder



Anorexia nervosa
Antisocial personality disorder
Anxiety disorder
Anxiolytic-related disorder
Asperger syndrome
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Atypical autism
Autistic disorder
Autophagia
Avoidant personality disorder


Bereavement
Bibliomania
Binge eating disorder
Bipolar disorder
Body dysmorphic disorder



Borderline intellectual functioning
Borderline personality disorder
Breathing-related sleep disorder
Brief psychotic disorder
Bulimia nervosa



Caffeine-related disorder
Cannabis-related disorder
Catatonic disorder
Catatonic Schizophrenia
Childhood antisocial behavior
Childhood Disintegrative Disorder
Chronic motor or vocal tic disorder



Circadian rhythm sleep disorder
Clinical Depression
Cocaine-related disorder
Cognitive disorder
Communication disorder
Conduct disorder
Conversion disorder


Depersonalization Disorder
Derealization Disorder

Eating disorder not otherwise specified
Echolalia
Echopraxia



Encopresis
Enuresis (not due to a general medical condition)
Exhibitionism
Expressive language disorder



Factitious disorder
Fregoli delusion


Ganser syndrome
Gender identity disorder



Generalized anxiety disorder
General adaptation syndrome



Hallucinogen-related disorder
Histrionic personality disorder
Huntington's disease



Hypomanic episode
Hypochondria Disorder



Impulse control disorder
Impulse-control disorder not elsewhere classified
Inhalant-related disorder



Insomnia due to a general medical condition
Intermittent explosive disorder



Joubert syndrome



Kleptomania



Learning disorders



Major depressive disorder
Major depressive episode
Male erectile disorder
Malingering
Manic episode
Mathematics disorder
Medication-related disorder
Megalomania
Melancholia



Mental retardation
Mixed episode
Mixed receptive-expressive language disorder
Mood disorder
Mood episode
Motor skills disorder
Munchausen's syndrome
Munchausen's syndrome by proxy
Multi-Personality Disorder (better known as Dissociative Identity Disorder)



Narcissistic personality disorder
Narcolepsy
Neglect of child



Neuroleptic-related disorder
Nicotine-related disorder
Nightmare disorder



Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD)
Occupational problem



Oneirophrenia
Opioid-related disorder
Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)



Pain disorder
Panic disorder
Paranoid personality disorder
Parasomnia
Parent-child relational problem
Partner relational problem
Pathological gambling
Perfectionism
Personality change due to a general medical condition
Personality disorder
Pervasive developmental disorder (PDD)
Phase of life problem
Phencyclidine (or phencyclidine-like)-related disorder



Phonological disorder
Physical abuse
Pica
Polysubstance-related disorder
Post-traumatic embitterment disorder (PTED)
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Premature ejaculation
Primary hypersomnia
Primary insomnia
Psychological factor affecting medical condition
Psychotic disorder
Pyromania


Reactive Attachment Disorder of infancy or early childhood
Reading disorder
Relational disorder



Residual schizophrenia
Rett's disorder
Rumination syndrome



Schizoaffective disorder
Schizoid personality disorder
Schizophrenia
Schizophreniform disorder
Schizotypal personality disorder
Sedative-, hypnotic-, or anxiolytic-related disorder
Selective mutism
Separation anxiety disorder
Severe mental retardation
Shared psychotic disorder



Sleep disorder
Sleep terror disorder
Sleepwalking disorder
Somatization disorder
Somatoform disorder
Stereotypic movement disorder
Stuttering
Substance-related disorder

Tardive dyskinesia
Tic disorder
Tourette's syndrome



Transient tic disorder
Trichotillomania



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,959

20 Dec 2011, 8:22 pm

Angel_ryan wrote:
I personally think it's Society's values that are the obvious problem. Instead of trying to pathologize NTs Why not examine the negative values that our society is influenced by. There's a reason why there are a lot of people like that. I think it has to a lot to with education and, environment in most of those cases.


What if it isn't values that are the problem but the real problem is society does not follow it's own values anymore even though they promote them?



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,091

20 Dec 2011, 10:30 pm

MrXxx wrote:
@ aghogday: I'm not sure if we're on the same page now, or off on a tangent. I get the sense that you're making a comparison between us seeing NT's in generalities, and others seeing us in generalities, but I'm not sure.

If that's what you're getting at, I'm in complete agreement. It does work both ways. I don't think either is really very helpful.


Yes, that it is the point I am trying to make.

A person cannot definitively determine that another person is not autistic by observation alone. Ari Nee'man is a good example of that, many refused to believe he was autistic, and argued against his presidential appointment, because of the level of the perceived functioning from observing his behavior.

In effect, the term neurotypical, has little practical value as defined by Wiki.

Neurotypical can be evidenced as easily as supernatural phenomenon, by behavioral observation alone.

And the same applies to autism, one cannot prove someone has atypical neurology by behavioral observance alone. All that can be determined in regard to autism, is a diagnosis by a qualified professional.

So, until there is a physical test developed and provided to show neurology that confirms a diagnosis of autism, as there currently is for epilepsy, it's just a diagnosis on a group of observable behaviors that psychiatrists/psychologists came up with.

Also, one that they continue to refine and change, through changing perspectives, and at least in one case, an editorial mistake in the DSMIV from 1994.

It's controversial enough to determine who should or should not have an autism spectrum diagnosis, without suggesting that an ASD diagnosis is definitive evidence of atypical neurology. Science hasn't caught up yet, to determine this for Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Sorry, I do get caught up in semantics, but to use a stereotype if I may, it seems like pedantics could have studied the issue closer, and come up with a less confusing term.



nat4200
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: BANNED

20 Dec 2011, 11:21 pm

Redacted



Last edited by nat4200 on 19 Apr 2012, 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

21 Dec 2011, 1:27 am

I have such a hard time putting this into words economically. I think everybody's getting what I meant anyway, but I like a challenge so here goes:

NT: Originally coined by Autistics to refer to non Autistics, but really intended to mean "Neurologically Typical." (Never truly meant to refer to people with other disorders.)

NT (in practice): Often used as a generalized reference by Autistics to refer to anyone who appears to them to be "Neurologically Typical."

NT (problems with practice): Because it is used often as a generalization by Autistics, and is often used to refer to "NT behaviors" that are sometimes or often, not, in fact, "Neurologically Typical" behaviors, non-Autistics may sometimes assume that to Autistics, "NT" actually refers to ALL non Autistics.

Confusing, no? 8O


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,091

21 Dec 2011, 1:34 am

nat4200 wrote:
Niall wrote:
This may have been discussed before but, if so, I can't find it.

I've been thinking more and more recently that many neuroypicals are just as pathological as many covered by the DSM. With that in mind, I thought I'd put together the following to define the pathological neurotypical. This is not to say that all neurotypicals are pathological but, as a gedanken experiment I thought I'd see what a pathological neurotypical might look like.

Sadly, I've encountered a lot of humans who fit the following description.

The patient must exhibit at least six of the following:

1) Marked dishonesty. This may express as an excessive concern for social reputation. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/17302

2) Marked interest in trivial pursuits (drinking, sports, soap operas, shopping etc)

3) Impaired higher executive function. The patient has an IQ of under 115.

4) Impaired concentration (the patient's concentration will be limited to no more than 20 minutes, or however long it takes to find the next TV channel)

5) Impaired theory of mind. The patient may consider only the intentions of their actions, and not the consequences. Pathology is indicated where the consequences are solipsistic, resulting in the patient regarding as acceptable, or simply not considering, adverse consequences for those more vulnerable than they are (including nonhuman animals). (NB: this is also characteristic of sociopathic disorders: those scoring highly on this scale, such as bankers, welfare administrators, politicians and those employed by immigration services organisations, should be tested separately by an expert clinician.)

6) Limited focus (the patient will be interested in many different subjects, and unable to focus on one to the exclusion of others).

7) Low sensitivity to all stimuli. The patient will not respond to any heightened stimuli.

8) Shows marked distress when isolated. The patient requires to be in a group or work in a team and will be unable to take pleasure in their own company for over 24 hours.

9) The basis of humour is trivialised, and may be limited to commentary on the misfortunes of others (schadenfreude). If the patient has ever watched more than 10 minutes of a Hollywood “comedy” and enjoyed it, this may be taken by the clinician to indicate pathology.

10) The patient depends heavily on nonverbal communication, and may fail to develop adequate written language skills.

The patient may also exhibit an inefficient flat-footed gait.

AND

The patient does not exhibit traits required for a diagnosis of another disorder.

Any thoughts?

(edited to take out the unwanted smiley created by the numeral 8 followed by a close parenthesis)


Loved it, it is very funny, you've obviously put alot of work into this!! :lmao:

The troll in me wants this to be extended and sent for "peer review" :tongue:

@MrXxx & aghogday: I took the term to mean "neurologically typical" (it seemed unreasonable to me that it would mean non-autistic), and thus not just non-autistic but referring to typical neurological "wiring"/function (eg. non-autistic with aquired brain injury would be not an "NT" but someone with PTSD still could be). Regardless of the original intention a fair few seem to be using the term this way now (and this use is argued on the "talk" page of the Wikipedia article previously linked), do you think it is possible that the understood meaning may have changed as the term has become popular?


Anyone know whether scientists say "neurologically typical" when studying brain scans (fMRI)? Or is there another term they use to compare results?


I'm not sure how anyone could read the word neuro-typical to mean something other than neurologically typical, unless they were specifically told it didn't mean that. And I'm not sure how anyone who devised the word didn't intend it to imply that non-autistic individuals were indeed neurotypical.

Otherwise another term could have been used without neuro or typical to indicate non-autistic that reflected non-autistic, instead of a phrase that implies something that in reality is not clearly defined.

Unfortunately the phrase has devolved into slang for urban usage, both to ridicule autistic individuals using it and for autistic individuals to ridicule those whom are not considered autistic.

It's become a tool to divide the rest of the world from autistics which, with current knowledge, that a broader autism phenotype exists well into the general population, is almost non-sensical.

It would make more sense now I think to use a term to promote the idea that there are people with autistic traits that exist well into the population, for unity, and acknowledge the word neurotypical as an antiquated ideology.

Neurodiverse is a pretty good term I think that should be inclusive of all human beings; it appears to reflect current research on the neurology of human beings.



Neurologically typical is not used as a medical term to describe neurology.

Unremarkable is used as a comment that were there are no unusual findings in an fMRI.

There are no definitive indicators for autism on a brain scan for diagnosis. People with unremarkable brain scans have autism as well as people that don't. And of course many people without autism have fMRI's with unusual findings.

The search goes on through research to determine what the actual difference in the neurology of autism is.

Not enough is understood about the brain to rule out differences in neurology for anyone. Neuroplasticity is understood to change the way the brain works, so the environment itself, may play a role in changes in the brain and neurology, beyond genetics. Science hasn't developed a reliable way to measure neuroplasticity through neurological tests either.

There is research going on at Harvard to test the hypothesis that our modern culture is changing the way that many people's brains work through neuroplasticity. It is already commonly understood that people perceive the world differently as a result of differences in language and culture throughout the world.

There is actually one longitudinal study that shows that the levels of affective empathy among young adults in the general population, in the US, have decreased dramatically in the last few decades, with various cultural hypotheses on why this may be happening.

It is a reasonable suggestion that this phenomenon may be influencing symptoms of those genetically predisposed for autism as well as the rest of the population.

While it has not been conclusively proven that the actual rates of autism disorder are rising, it's not too surprising that studies from developed countries show the rate of autistic traits in close to 30 percent of the general population.

The more that is understood about the brain as time goes on, more is realized on just how much diversity there is in the experience of each individual's, unique perception of their universe.

There are many cases of unremarkable findings on fMRI's, but I think there are too many new findings in the area of cognitive science for anyone to clearly define what typical neurology is for a human being, if it even exists.



nat4200
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: BANNED

21 Dec 2011, 2:41 am

Redacted



Last edited by nat4200 on 19 Apr 2012, 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,091

21 Dec 2011, 2:58 am

MrXxx wrote:
I have such a hard time putting this into words economically. I think everybody's getting what I meant anyway, but I like a challenge so here goes:

NT: Originally coined by Autistics to refer to non Autistics, but really intended to mean "Neurologically Typical." (Never truly meant to refer to people with other disorders.)

NT (in practice): Often used as a generalized reference by Autistics to refer to anyone who appears to them to be "Neurologically Typical."

NT (problems with practice): Because it is used often as a generalization by Autistics, and is often used to refer to "NT behaviors" that are sometimes or often, not, in fact, "Neurologically Typical" behaviors, non-Autistics may sometimes assume that to Autistics, "NT" actually refers to ALL non Autistics.

Confusing, no? 8O


I think your first paragraph is true, but it's seems ironic, because that is one of the main stereotypes that has been used against the people termed as "NT"s, that what they say does not match what they truly really mean. Not as deceit but through the use of metaphor that is difficult for some autistics to understand.

You capture the confusion that the term has created, well.

The Wiki definition seems to capture that confusion as well: It's this but: specifically it's not this, it's that.

It would really be confusing if Wiki went one step further and added a third part that:

It's this, but: specifically it's not this it's that, except in potentially hundreds even thousands of other cases where it may or may not be this or that.