"The disorder isn't a problem"-- fixing our langua

Post Reply New Topic

Our lexicon is in a sad state. We cannot express what we mean in the way we should.

What happens if I want to describe us? We all have (it's not part of us) Autism Spectrum Disorders (they're bad things). If I want to describe myself I say I have (have again) Asperger's Syndrome-- the very name suggests an illness. A syndrome, named after some obscure NT scientist.

Or the "cure" question-- which you shouldn't be able to pose. Do you talk about curing your brown hair, or your accent, or your button nose?

And we're the lucky ones. Dyslexia, for example, seems to be associated with positive traits, but the very name indicates only their weakness, as if that were the most important thing about them. (And dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia...)

Those they don't want to diagnose get to be Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS. Sounds scary.

Let's fix that. Let's find ways to talk about ourselves that don't require saying we're broken for being who we are. Especially let's find ways of saying we're not broken without having our very language betray us.

And who better? We're known for our neologisms; it's even in the diagnostic criteria.

(Which statement I shouldn't be able to say.)

Actually Dr Asperger was probably an Aspie. Aspie is not derogatory, even though an AS sufferer may be seen to be. In the population, Aspie-ism is a minority, hence we are mutants. If most of us were Aspies there would be no label. And because our deficiencies are rare as a clumped whole in the majority that makes us appear to be mutants.

Another point to make is that those who seek treatment may be the ones very aware of their "condition" or suffering the most. They will of course stand out. Those Aspies who can cope with NT life well are less likely to seek treatment or diagnosis and may not even know they have AS. So the feedback is from those who stand out/suffer the most.

For example my brilliant great-uncle is seen as really weird but he can cope with life as he was a professor and made good money out of his patent. Having worked with engineers and academics he is less likely to experience the usual NT life. But no one says he is suffering.

Personally, I have no problem saying "I have Asperger's syndrome", given that a "syndrome" (etymologically speaking) is just a "running together". I have a collection of those traits or symptoms which together give me the overall characterisation described by Hans (roughly/historically speaking).

I am far more comfortable with just saying "I am autistic". I fit into the autistic spectrum. I feel that those traits which refine my diagnosis to Asperger's are far less important that those which I share with others on the spectrum.

I really don't like "I have autism", "I am a person with autism", "I have an ASD", or (the latest in political correctness) "I have an Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC)". To my mind, they all imply an optional, detachable impediment.

Finally, I'm fairly comfortable with "aspie", but it does worry me when it is used to fragment the spectrum, by making it somehow the opposite of "autie".

Iau, I like your signature. So true.

Exactly. It rubs me the wrong way when people use the "person with ___" construction. No. It doesn't work that way. I don't "have Aspeger's," I am an Aspie. Then again, I'm sure there are those in different groups who disagree, especially groups without an equivalent "Whatever Pride" movement.

I didn't know that about Hans Asperger. Funny how those things work. I don't understand the point you made; could you elaborate?

The Wikipedia article summarises the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#History


So far as what to call it goes, the OED gives a whole slew of variants... with or without the "'s" and with "disorder" instead of "syndrome". It does also give the plain "Asperger's" as a fifth variant.

I am self centered. My thought and perception, I exist, the Universe exists.

Between us there are a lot of hairless ground apes that think I have to care about their religion, politics, news, and the sex lives of people they do not know.

Their major concerns seem to be which batteries are the best deal for various devices they poke into their orifices. Having batteries that would be approved by people they will never meet seems important to them.

It upsets them that I do not value their opinions, do not trust them, anything they say, and avoid them if at all possible. Interacting with them I think they lie and manipulate, I have sales resistance.

Their view is I have a triad of impairments.

I am only concerned with myself, my thoughts, my reality,

I have no interest in their claimed reality,

if left alone I spend my time building machines that make me money.

A whole Profession, or Storefront Religion, has come up which demands that I put everyone else before self, and give them the money I make from machines. They claim that somehow, still undefined, I owe them my full attention, should strive to be like them, please them, and if I could still produce material goods, they should become the property of all hairless ground apes, because they have rights.

My view is The Universe is the one true reality that created me, and what I do pleases it.

Their view is hairless ground apes are more important than the Universe, my Self, or my Work.

I hold consistant values over time, they exist in the latest fad, make noise, and smell bad.

The Buddha said everything is within, Self Awareness is the only path to enlightenment.

So do I strive for a higher plane of existance, or do I discuss batteries with apes?

I think one of the reasons we try to find out more about our Aspie-ism is because we want to understand our identity. It's not pleasant being the only "mutant." Think of it this way: happy NT's don't visit the psychiatrist but sad ones are more likely to. The same goes for Aspies. This gives NT's the impression that AS is a great misfortune.

My great-uncle the professor/engineer was never said to be autistic, (just quiet and reserved) even though he is more Aspie than many WP users because of his position and genius. He had no trouble finding good jobs. He had no serious depression problems as he was respected by colleagues and has minimal emotional understanding. So he didn't exactly suffer.

Er, I hope I explained better?

Thank you, Villette, now I understand.

Inventor, I understand that thought process better than I understand many NT thought processes, although I wonder why you're explaining it to us, given that we're, as you put it, hairless ground apes. (Though I don't care about batteries.) I disagree, for two fundamental reasons. The first is that I believe in an objective reality, of which I am only a small part. The second is that I believe that God made everyone in his image; hence, in spite of how far they stray, in spite of the fact that they ignore it in favor of worrying about friendship (and batteries), there's something worthwhile in everyone. Once in a blue moon, they even show it.

That is quite a tangent, though.

Not a tangent at all, the hairless ground ape can not disappoint, but there will be pleasent surprises as sparks of devine fire show through.

They are part of the one reality, perhaps they have a role, it is just not mine.

I could be called a defective football player, I have a disabled sense of fashion, but these things which can be seen are never mentioned.

That I have a differance in thought and perception, something unseen, a high enough IQ to not be considered defective, yet many words are used to describe my differance, which can not be measured, seen, touched, tasted, are called a disorder by people of lesser IQ, less performance, less skill.

An example would be Autism, a catchall that covers those who sit and rock, never interact, and those who have high IQs, are social on their own terms, and perform exceptionally well in some fields.

I do think our role has to be self define, which takes living our lives, which then can be reported back.

It reminds me of a Gary Larson cartoon, scientists standing around a tank with a dolphin, the dolphin says, Parly vu francias? Habla espanole? And the scientist says, they are not intelligent, they just make gibberish sounds.

On Wrong Planet, I have yet to meet two people who were alike, yet most have something in common, that they do not share with the rest of the world.

The language of autism was developed by the non autistic.

I must admit I find it somewhat difficult to follow what you're saying, but if I understand correctly, then we're in agreement.

Indeed, no one else was put on Earth to serve the same purpose as you. Nor is there a single living soul who could replace me, or anyone here. The same goes for the NTs, though. It's hard to see someone hugely unlike you as different from someone else hugely unlike you in the same way, but NTs are as much a part of God's world as we are, and as such, they are each just as irreplaceable.

But I digress. Yes. The language of autism was created by NTs, but more than that it was created for NTs. It was created to describe what's wrong with us, to the outsider who needs an easy box to put us in. I respect that someone who studies us, knows us and respects us could speak of us accurately, could give us a workable language to use to describe ourselves, even if they were NT. But when they want to fit us into little boxes for their own use, that's when we have a problem.