The essence of Autism!

Post Reply New Topic

I think that what you deem to be the "essence" of autism is a matter of perspective. For most people who do not have autism, the social issues are the most significant and what defines autism to them. Dr. Barkley is an NT, speaking to people who for the the most part at least, do not have autism. People with autism may feel that some other issue is more significant, depending on what most affects them, whether it is sensory, communication, processing, or some other issue. Autistic people who primarily have issues with social skills and connecting to others will find this to be the most significant. Most literature and websites will first define autism as a social disorder. Most of these are written by NT's, but not all. Most medical professionals are also NT. So I think it depends on who's defining autism, and for what audience.

Dr. Barkley's field of study is actually ADHD and I think (I may be wrong) his intention was to highlight a clear difference in the effects of ADHD and Autism.

I also agree with previous comments that one of the root causes of Autism is the difference in the way in which we process information but I think, in my case at least, this does not go far enough in explaining my experience of Autism!

- I do process information analytically, logically etc (and I am very sensitive to noise and to some extent light)
- But more importantly in relation to my experience with Autism is the relative VALUE that I seem to place on factual information compared to social 'information'
- I'm not sure that differences in processing information fully explains my difficulty in relating to/being interested in others
- I know people who process very logically, who are clearly very comfortable and competent with social communication and who take great pleasure in their social interactions.

I have both ADHD and Autism and my clinical Psychologist often mentions to me the blurring of these two conditions.

In that respect, the distinction and contrast between what Dr. Barkley calls 'perseveration' and 'failure to relate to others as special objects' was very helpful to me (clearly not to everyone) and certainly explains and contrasts the main effects of ADHD on my behavior.

Although Dr Barkley is NT, he has spoken openly of the fact that he has clear ADHD traits.

His twin brother had ADHD and committed suicide and Dr. Barkley has stated that family members of those with ADHD are often themselves subclinically ADHD.

Is the defining moment more theory of mind for non-autistics?

It becomes obvious that most here are on the introvert spectrum. In general, introverts think while away from social contact, and extroverts think because it or during it. I'm discharged ( tired) from the effort, while my wife is energized by it, and wants more of it. This part is neurologically based -- dopamine vs acetylcholine -- aka, emotion centered vs cerebral based.

I'm an information hound.

The theory of mind I have is entirely passive in nature -- I don't go out and hunt for people to communicate to. In fact "introverts" dont' beat the pavement or knock doors down to get face to face, and socialize -- it is just there as a neutral event.

In essence is the defining difference in knowing another "better" via theory of mind.....a passively based event, and one simply is able to posses a more thorough social knowledge here?

Is that the pivotal point?

Thoughts?

Ah, here we go again.

I was discussing this video on another site with someone who has ADHD and we both took issue with the idea that we lack control. I find the idea that I don't have control of my behavior demeaning.

For instance: if rocking back and forth and avoiding eye contact helps me to focus and engage in a conversation fully, then my awareness of that and using those skills demonstrates behavioral control.

On the other hand, most of my issues with neurotypical people tend to involve them pushing social and personal boundaries to try to force me into situations which I find uncomfortable, even against my stated wishes, which would seem to suggest a lack of behavioral control on their part.

Behavioral control means, ideally, that we engage with the world in the way that is most effective for us. If we are aware of our own "best practices," aware of our own strengths and limitations, and use that information to our best advantage, does that not demonstrate admirable control over our behavior?

As natural introverts, we tend to not impose our behavior norm on others. I can't recall ever insisting someone flap their hands when they talk to me. We accept that other people's behavior is different from ours, and we adapt to that to what degree we can. Behavior control seems to occupy a great deal of our thought and energy.

The idea that we can't control our behavior comes from the fact that we can get upset and meltdown in situations we find particularly stressful. Yet, a neurotypical who picks up a negative social cue and feels the need to cry and be hugged isn't pegged as someone who cannot control their behavior. The truth of the matter is, both AS and NT people can lose control of their behavior, but the esoterica behind why each group loses control is incomprehensible to the other group.

I see it as a processing issue. I don't process information about people in the same way NTs do. I don't privilege the idea of "social" things like non-autistic people do (often to the point of pushing social deficits/theory of mind/"not able to relate to people as special" as central to autism). If NT processing defaults to placing people into a meaningfully special category, and autistic processing does not, I don't see why one needs to go beyond processing to explain this.



Actually, his twin brother was in a fatal automobile accident. The irony of that was that it happened while Barkley was doing a study correlating ADHD with automobile accidents.

They (NT people) must get more out of social interaction than we do, in all ways. I guess if we saw the same information coming out of a social interaction as an NT does, then it would be more interesting and we would seek it out in the way we seek out more accessable (for us) information.

You mentioned dopamine too, thats a powerful reward even if they aren't actually finding it interesting.

I don't know if they have better theory of mind (I know thats a criteria, but its too simplified) but they definately don't have to make an effort to get that social knowledge, and with more practice they know more again.

I find small talk with aquaintances stressful, difficult, tiring and unrewarding, (but I can do it now). Sometimes I might seek company, but mainly only so I don't totally lose touch with people.
One reason I prefer my own company is that nothing goes wrong, no surprises to knock me sideways.
Maybe if I had a better understanding of the information being transferred (possibly by having better theory of mind) I wouldn't find it all so unpredictable.

This is the type of processing difference that is measured in studies showing that autistics don't do the automatic and mandatory social processing of NTs. For eggsample, in a non-social object-based task in which faces are used as distractors, NTs continue to process this irrelevant stimuli, but autistics do not. For us, social processing is not automatic and mandatory, but can still be done through conscious application of social knowledge learned through observation and participation. It seems like the researchers think that if you don't do social processing the NT way, like thinking about what triangles think automatically and mandatorily, then you can't do any at all, like think about what persons think at all.

Singing my song!