Page 2 of 12 [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

Pompei
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 155
Location: Wisconsin

29 Aug 2012, 11:55 am

Neurotypical is fine and there is no need to change it. It means the most common extant neurological structure among humans. That is a perfect and accurate description.

I think normal is a word without clear meaning sorta like the word nice. Neurotypical sure beats common, ordinary, run-of-the-mill or garden variety too.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,470

30 Aug 2012, 3:27 am

It's a word that was originally invented to describe individuals that are not diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder.

I can't imagine using the word Autitypical because of the evidenced diversity of the spectrum. Those off the spectrum or on the spectrum have diverse neurology as evidenced by science, so I can't bring myself to use a word that literally suggests typical neurology where there is literally no typical neurology per current understanding of modern science. Neurotypical figuratively describes individuals whom are off the Autism Spectrum/non-autistic or is used pejoratively as a divisive term.

Some people on the spectrum and off the spectrum take offense at the word Aspie. Some people on the spectrum and off the spectrum take offense at the word Aspergerian. Some people on the spectrum and off the spectrum take offense at the word Autistic used for individuals with Aspergers syndrome. Some people on the spectrum and off the spectrum take offense at the word Autie. Some people on the spectrum and off the spectrum take offense at disability first language. Some people on the spectrum and off the spectrum take offense at person first language in reference to Autism Spectrum Disorders. Some people on the spectrum and off the spectrum take offense at the word Aspergers. People off the spectrum use many of these terms pejoratively as well, as one can find with a quick check of the urban dictionary.

I choose on the spectrum or off the spectrum as there is little to no potential for pejorative perception or use with either term, when one is talking in a discussion associated with the spectrum.

But, I accept whatever term anyone else wants to use, although I don't like pejorative uses of words in context with intention of communication, as they are usually used in this sense in a deconstructive manner to hurt others, as a defense for perceived hurt from someone else, and often taken as offensive by others whom had nothing to do with the hurt that so often motivates the pejorative use of the language.

As the DSM5 moves toward one term to describe Autism Spectrum Disorder, on the spectrum or off the spectrum, or speaking to others outside of the autism community with the phrase on the Autism Spectrum or off the Autism Spectrum, seems more appropriate to me, as it doesn't pigeon hole anyone into categories that technically per diagnostic classification will no longer exist, per DSM5 criteria. The term spectrum provides respect to all as it literally means diversity.

And in my opinion, the phrase on the spectrum or off the spectrum is much less likely to find it's way to the Urban dictionary pejoratively used against individuals on the spectrum, since it is inherently a broad descriptive term of identication rather than a specific identifier.

I guess one could call on the spectrum or off the spectrum, politically correct language, as it is the least likely language to offend any subgroup with a specific language preference in a discussion.

I think Robison's aim at using the term "Nypical" is relevant as it takes the focus away from typical neurology, that does not exist anywhere in reality among any two human beings, not even identical twins, as one identical twin may be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and another identical twin may not be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder.

But I think that the word "Nypical", if it became popular, would still find usage with some as a pejorative term, and eventually find it's way to a place in the urban dictionary, as while I think it is obvious that Robison does not intend pejorative use, if I saw the word completely out of context, I would guess that it belongs somewhere in the Urban dictionary, as my mind attempts to associate it with other words I have heard in the past similar to it to describe people in a not so kind manner.

So for those that would like to describe individuals that don't have an autism spectrum disorder, without using the term neurotypical, the solution to me seems instead of attempting to convince people to use another term, one can use an alternate phrase that can be understood literally like off the spectrum or non-autistic, that requires no definition, as long as the audience is familiar with Autism Spectrum Disorders.



Sidmor
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 107

01 Sep 2012, 10:51 am

Autism: Rational-Sensitive Neurotype (RSN)

Neurotypicality: Cultural-Social Neurotype (CSN)



Curiotical
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 577
Location: Scotland

03 Sep 2012, 6:16 pm

mmcool wrote:
the word nurotypical is getting old and it's meaning is not that right we need a new word for nurotypicals


Exactly what's "not right" about the meaning of the word? It is used to describe those who have developed in a neurologically typical manner. It seems entirely appropriate to me.


_________________
Always
Unique
Totally
Interesting
Sometimes
Mysterious


okie
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 63
Location: North Las Vegas, NV

03 Sep 2012, 8:15 pm

Non-spectrum. It's accurate, and couldn't possibly offend anybody.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 103,383
Location: Hanging out with my fellow Sweet Peas at Stalag 13

03 Sep 2012, 9:37 pm

Mainstreamers is a good term.


_________________
Schultz

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26&start=645


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,470

03 Sep 2012, 9:57 pm

Curiotical wrote:
mmcool wrote:
the word nurotypical is getting old and it's meaning is not that right we need a new word for nurotypicals


Exactly what's "not right" about the meaning of the word? It is used to describe those who have developed in a neurologically typical manner. It seems entirely appropriate to me.


The word neurotypical, coined by those in the autism community, is used as a metaphor to describe those whom are not diagnosed on the autism spectrum, or as some refer to as "non-autistic", which describes something that concretely exists in reality.

But, there is no scientifically defined typical neurological development, as the science of neurology is limited, and cannot even consistently medically measure a definitive neurological difference in people diagnosed on the spectrum. The word neurotypical, since it was first coined has evolved to define typical developing neurology, that does not exist in reality, per the current understanding of science.

A finding of no remarkable differences in a brain scan, does not exclude one from a diagnosis on the spectrum, nor does it exclude the potential of neurological differences that medical science does not yet have the ability to measure.

What is scientifically understood is the brain is plastic in it's ability to change in accordance to the environment that it is exposed to through the process of what is called neuroplasticity, over the course of a lifetime. Only a limited number of the neurological structural differences that occur through the process of neuroplasticity, have been observed, however the development of each brain is still influenced differently depending on the environment that the brain is exposed to, as well in the course of a lifetime in one individual.

The findings of no diagnosis in one identical twin and a diagnosis of a spectrum disorder in another identical twin provides evidence of just how influential environment is in developing neurology.

And for the most part the term neurotypical is meaningless among those in the general public, and usually only effectively used to describe any human characteristic, in the autism community. So if one is trying to describe typical neurological development in using the term, it is effectively scientifically meaningless, and if one is using the word to describe individuals whom are off the autism spectrum, it is meaningful in the autism community, for those that have been exposed to the word.

Finally, if one does a search on the word neurotypical one finds the majority of hits, based on pejorative usage to describe people without an autism spectrum diagnosis, supporting an us vs. them ideology, which is not very constructive considering than many people on the spectrum do require support from people off the spectrum, for basic subsistence needs for survival.

I support the right of people to use the term, per personal preference, but it is an easy alternative to use literal terms that have been brought up in this thread that are highly unlikely to offend anyone that everyone on the spectrum or off the spectrum can easily understand with phrases like non-autistic, or off the autism spectrum. As well as off the spectrum or non-spectrum, if one is in a context of discussion where it is understood that the spectrum is in reference to Autism and not some other potential condition.



Danimal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 276
Location: West Central Indiana

04 Sep 2012, 10:23 pm

I always call them "the others".



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,470

05 Sep 2012, 4:10 am

Danimal wrote:
I always call them "the others".


Not much chance of offense with that general term. In real life, people on the spectrum are often the others as well, passing by in the store, on sidewalks, and even in the employment arena, where diagnoses are not usually worn as tags on one's shirt.



Nonperson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,272

06 Sep 2012, 4:50 pm

I have no problem with calling them "normal", but then, I don't see not being normal as something negative. The fact that they hate being called "neurotypical", though, makes me like it even more. Apparently it's terrible to have a label that doesn't imply you are superior? Well, my heart bleeds for them! :lol:



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,470

06 Sep 2012, 8:54 pm

Nonperson wrote:
I have no problem with calling them "normal", but then, I don't see not being normal as something negative. The fact that they hate being called "neurotypical", though, makes me like it even more. Apparently it's terrible to have a label that doesn't imply you are superior? Well, my heart bleeds for them! :lol:


I've never heard of anyone off the spectrum complain about the word neurotypical. And, the term is really not understood outside of the autism community, as it's only effective meaning is "non-autistic". People that are not on the spectrum are well aware of the variation among individuals in neurology that exist in the general population with diagnosed spectrum disorders are only a small part of the overall variation.

Most people that that get upset about the word neurotypical are in the autism community when it is used as in a pejorative sense against 99% of the population, which makes no logical sense, as the broader autism phenotype moves out into up to 15 percent of the population and people have been evidenced as having at least one criteria met for a diagnosis, out into up to 30% of the population.

We live in a society where many people's intention is to shine in the crowd, the only normal that was ever actually identified in the past, were on shows like Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best; complete fantasies, as normal does not exist anywhere in reality where human beings are part of the equation.

And an autism diagnosis is a human construct of behavioral impairments categorized and observed by psychologists/psychiatric professionals. It only defines a few behavioral impairments out of thousands of human features associated with the behavior of human beings.

The diagnosis really doesn't define or describe people in detail, as it only provides a list of behavioral impairments that change over time listed in a copyrighted psychological manual that generates a great deal of revenue in sales for the American Psychiatric Association. There is no individual on the spectrum that is a typical person with typical neurology, or off the spectrum, as they are unique when one explores them deeper than behavioral impairments listed in a psychiatric manual.

What ever word or phrase that is used can have no meaning that is effective other than with or without a diagnosis from that manual, or others manuals similar to it, as that is the only objective way to define what autism spectrum disorders are or are not.



Nonperson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,272

07 Sep 2012, 3:29 pm

aghogday wrote:
I've never heard of anyone off the spectrum complain about the word neurotypical.

I have heard several.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,957
Location: The Berkshires

07 Sep 2012, 3:41 pm

Nonperson wrote:
aghogday wrote:
I've never heard of anyone off the spectrum complain about the word neurotypical.

I have heard several.
i have never heard of neurotypicals even knowing the term neurotypical


_________________
Idiotic savantism forever


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,470

07 Sep 2012, 6:25 pm

Nonperson wrote:
aghogday wrote:
I've never heard of anyone off the spectrum complain about the word neurotypical.

I have heard several.


In real life, off the internet?

Most people where I live, don't even know what the word Aspergers means. Most all of them have heard of the word Autism, but many can't provide a detailed definition of what it is. Neurotypical is off the radar, except for those that spend time in internet autism online communities, as that is the only place the word exists, to any significant measurable degree.

Moreover, most people can't tell you much about who is running for office in their local or state government. For the most part if they aren't directly associated with the issue, it's not part of their world, as many people don't even read the newspaper anymore, beyond what is headlined on their homepage on the internet, most often associated with popular culture.

The word neurotypical is not even in real dictionaries, other than the urban dictionary, as it is a made up word, coined in small online autism communities on the internet. It does exist on the dictionaryreference.com site but is only defined as a word associated with people on the spectrum, per the definition below, as again it only exists in online autism communities, where the word was made up, and in a few spectrum associated research papers, and isolated media publications :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neurotypical

Quote:
neurotypical
Part of Speech: n
Definition: pertaining to autistic persons whose neurological development and function is within the normal range; also called neurologically typical


So for those that actually might overhear someone using the word in a pejorative manner making fun of people that are neurotypical, in real life, if they look the word up on the only real internet dictionary on the internet where one can find the word, they are going to think the person was making fun of people on the spectrum, by using the term neurotypical.

Neurotypical has been defined like this on the dictionary.reference.com site for over a year now, and no one has even taken the effort to complain to get the definition corrected. Apparently the people on the spectrum that have seen this online dictionary definition of the word don't care that much about the word either, or it seems like they would be offended and take action to get a correction on the word that is defined incorrectly in an internet dictionary.



SpectrumWarrior
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 87

10 Sep 2012, 3:25 pm

zxy8 wrote:
I just call people normal. I will never use the other word, as it just seems like an attempt from aspy people to categorize normal people into the disability spectrum, therefore, trying to say that no one is normal and everyone is disabled in some way. The fact is, aspy people are not normal. While everyone is different, there is a clear line as to what is normal and what is not.


For many, many, centuries, slavery was "normal". It's a relative term that describes the most frequently reoccurring trait of the object or entity in question. A normal person today will be different from a normal person a hundred years from now. Psychological evolution happens much faster than biological.

I know this is off topic, but here goes my explanation. Overcoming social adversity is part of evolutionary succession. Look at the neanderthal. Individually superior to sapiens in many ways except when it comes to survivability of the species. Faster reproduction, easier birthing with smaller craniums and half the caloric intake of neanderthal ensures their genes would carry on easier and multiply faster. Unable to overcome the adversity of the sociological dynamic of reproductive advantage, sapiens out reproduced the neanderthal and assimilated them via interbreeding. The neanderthal could not overcome this despite their intelligence. Now, however, that reproductive capability and tribal leadership obedience is leading the entire species to extinction should the evolutionary catalyst not present itself, sooner rather than later. That catalyst could be the confirmation that an abundance of neanderthal genes is the source of ASD and the associated inherent "gifts" followed by the confirmation of evolution and the dissolution of religion and its suppression of intellectual enlightenment. Evolution doesn't care how long it takes for an organism to get to the next stage, it will get there when it gets there or it won't at all. In fact it's quite likely that many biblical figures themselves were on the spectrum when you cut out the divinity propaganda.

As for new terminology to describe them and us, I've got a couple that I find quite fitting.

Neurotypites for them and Spectrumites for us. I like the tribal suffixes, a throwback to days of old when civilization was in its infancy. Main because we are the new tribe, their genetic, evolutionary successor. Let's face it, they will drive their species to extinction, it was only a matter of time before something happened. We just so happen to have the misfortune of experiencing the process subjectively. That is to say, evolutionary succession can be a painful process if you're an organism with the neuronic density capable of subjective awareness via conscious thought. Nowhere does it state in the principals of evolution that it would be subjectively enjoyable.

I know my conclusions might be considered controversial and conclusive evidence is lacking in the vital link between us and neanderthal genes, but I cannot discern any other theory that stands up to Occam's Razor and not only agrees with current understanding in the field, but offers logical explanations based on scientific theory for things not yet confirmed by research.