Why do people think autism is bad?

Post Reply New Topic

Seriously, it's not like we can control it.
People take Cancer seriously and support people with cancer but so many people hate autism.
It's the same problem - It's extremely hard to cure cancer. But autism is the same way - You can't just 'turn it off'

Fear of the unknown. Thankfully for me, everyone I run into thinks autism is synonymous with being "very smart".

Well for starters, they think it's bad because it definitely has downsides--lack of social skills, sensory issues, stress. But as for the differences in cognition, they don't like it because it's different, and different can be dangerous to them if the difference clashes with their ideals.

People think any disorder, illness, is bad. They don't hate people with it, they hate the condition.

Because it's easier for them to scapegoat those with autism than trying to understand the differences.
It's "the person is the problem", not "the person has a problem" for them.
If they put the problem under the carpet, there's no more a problem.
But if they accept to understand the differences, they will see that their carpet is undulated.

people hate what they fear.

That's another wrong stereotype of autism.



I disagree. People think autism is bad because it does impede functioning. I'm not entirely sure what OP means by bad though.

---

'People' are cows standing around in a herd trying to figure out if something is dangerous while they chew their cuds. If they don't understand something, its bad... What a dull life!

I suggest you stop comparing autism to disease and start rejoicing in it. Its not a bed of roses, but it sure beats chewing a cud.

I love my autism and wouldn't cure it if I could.

Most people are wired in such a way that social "deficits" is beyond their understanding and seemingly the worst possible "flaw" one can have. In the public view preferring to be alone=wrong

Stimming, lack of eye contact, "odd" gait create fear in an age of terrorism and spree shootings.

Even the seemingly positive "savant" stereotype really is not. A lot of people dislike/resent smart people

All true for the majority of current mainstreamers. But we are legion.

You seem to be mixing several ideas together in a way that doesn't help to clarify any of them.

One idea is that a person is viewed as having responsibility for voluntary actions and behaviors but diminished responsibility for actions and behaviors they cannot control.

Another idea is that people hate autism. But people also hate cancer. Hating the disorder is not the same thing as hating people with the disorder. It's possible to take a nuanced view and like many aspects of a person that are probably shaped by autism while strongly disliking disabilities resulting from this neurology.

Another idea is that people take cancer seriously. People also take autism seriously.

You can't turn either off. That doesn't mean that people who are unemployed and without supportive relationships can't wish they could function better in the world. It's possible to love oneself and one's positive autistic traits while really hating the problems that come with the core deficits that define the disorder.

People have two cognitive tendencies that complicate thought and dialog about these issues:

1) Polarizing. People tend to think of all issues in terms of binary polarized systems: black/white, good/evil, right/wrong. Life is for the most part much more complicated, but people try and force things into these simplistic models and systems because they are used to doing that. They are slaves to serotonin and dopamine mediated reward systems that chunk actions and form habits. They will apply these patterns of thought and action regardless of how useful they are in any given situation, because that's what their neural pathways are biased toward.

2) Conflating. People have a tendency to inappropriately group ideas in order to simplify their mental models for complex situations. It is generally a more successful strategy to break things down to essentials as much as possible and then pay close attention to observed reality. When people conflate ideas and information and build models on the basis of that and then apply those models to real situations, they almost always handle those real situations badly.

In this issue you have the Autism speaks people who polarize everything, label all aspects of autism "evil," and end up advocating eugenics. You also get parents of autistic people claiming that other autistic people don't have real autism because they don't hate themselves.

Polarized thinking suggests the alternative is a pro-autism advocacy that denies any problem with autism and demands that we say massive unemployment, high rates of suicide and suicidal ideation and a host of other autism-related ills are wonderful gifts.

Both of these irrational extremes can be avoided if you just avoid the polarizing tendency. Clarity on these things is easier to achieve if you avoid conflating the issues. Anytime things seem like a huge tangle of ideas, there is probably a lot of conflation going on. A good strategy to counter that is to focus in on one aspect at a time.

Cliche as this sounds, but Story of My Life.
I think the reason is when the world or a small group goes in a certain direction, the higher-ups or the leader of the group expects everyone to follow. Smart people can tell if this new direction is a bad idea. If they have the will power to choose against the new direction, out-casting is inevitable. A person who knows the truth is a voice that falls on deaf ears. Let the lemmings plummet to their doom, I say. I can choose not to join them and they can't force me.

Yeah this is part of the issue. The idea of savants shouldn't be that they possess a higher level of intelligence that average nts should bow down too.

The positive role for savants should be for a broader intelligence definition, ironically the exact opposite of what savants represent.



Also I think the simplest reason is our positives, are by definition autistic, I.E. narrow passions. To share a personal passion that is by definition narrow and exclusive borders on the impossible.

Also it is the resentment that "pointy heads" living in "ivory towers" are making policy and creating rules that hurt people because of their lack of understating of the "real world".

I have a slightly different hypothesis.

Has anyone observed piranha during their feeding frenzy? Basically, they all take turns at tearing into another fish, even if the fish looks remarkably similar to a piranha. So that raises some questions. Why don't the piranha attack and eat each other? Why do they attack and eat other fish that look similar? Do other animals do this?

It may be that it's a survival mechanism. Attacking or killing the same species is not in the best interest of the species, and therefore not in your interest. And working as a group to ward off outside threats is beneficial to the species, or even use other species as a source of food for your own species. These pack behaviors can be observed in other animals, it's also entirely possible that's what's going on when AS people are segregated and marginalized. It's entirely possible that we're mistakenly seen as "the other" or an "outsider" and thus those pack instincts emerge.

Just a hypothesis.

the veneer of civilization is mighty thin.