The autistic community made me LESS autistic.

Post Reply New Topic

Considering that the topic is Aspie online socialization (on WP no less), the use of the words "fungus", "vigilant", and "spouting" is unusual.

Yes, people should question ideas. Aspie socializing seems to have an extremely favorable cost/benefit ratio.

I agree, and this is a personality thing that some people do more than others. In my Personality class, we learned about the Big-5 personality trait theory. What you describe matches the Openness trait; some people are more open to ideas and finding out about different interpretations of ideas, and some people are more conservative, preferring to stick within established structures and frameworks. These traits are only influenced by genetics or unique environmental experiences, and can be changed throughout life, but it is a slow process that takes years, if it does happen. It's not necessarily better to be more open rather than less open, because if you question everything too much, then it will be impossible to actually be decisive about anything. The way I see it, everything has a degree of "fuzziness" and science perhaps has the least degree of this fuzziness but it's still uncertain. So I think there needs to be a balance between inquisitiveness and acceptance of ideas.

It's important to be open to different groups of people, for sure, but I don't bother pursuing a relationship if the other party is not interested. I agree that all "NTs" are different and I have met some very cool NTs, all of them much older than me, with whom I keep in touch and work on things together. I only can talk to older NTs because they are more mature and are therefore a lot more thorough and insightful, with more experience/flexibility and less social filtering, which makes it possible to connect with them on a more equal level. It's more about finding a connection that does not demand unreasonably strenous effort for either party.

I enjoy dissecting diagnostic tools and criteria precisely because I am in the field as well as because I participate in a lot of programs, research, etc. where scales like the AQ tend to be administered. I was never sure whether it would be truthful to base my responses on my (past) interactions with my "age-appropriate" peers because that's not who I spend most of the time interacting with. As I am in contact with professionals, it would be useful to take this kind of insight back to them and perhaps help in the development of more accurate autism diagnostic scales.

You have selected three words I used and encapsulated them into a certain context which I presume serves a perceived function for you, but anyone can easily read what I wrote as it is very short and without too much effort see what I was actually saying..

You seem to be implying that I am suggesting that aspies should not socialize and/or this is not a good venue in which to do that, and also that I am suggesting that aspie socialization is not beneficial. None of this is what I am saying. Any kind of socialization for anyone, as long as it is not harmful to other people, is in some way beneficial, but when ideas are presented and start to be taken in by rote, it is extremely generative as a learning tool to look carefully at that. Of course because it is my opinion that is in some ways this or that is happening does not mean that it is true. People will need to look and see for themselves, if they are even interested in doing that.

In short you seem to be saying that I am telling people not to socialize here when actually I was just presenting some ideas about a different way to process data, some of which ideas may not be appealing to you; moreover, I am pretty sure that what I have written will not stop participants from using this forum in any way that pleases them and continuing to benefit from participating here according to their own definition of benefit, as long as they follow the forum guidelines.

I get what you are trying to say in you own way. However without the thorn, the rose is not as exquisite, and my personal aim by writing here is for everyone to be even happier and also smarter, including myself. Love, littlbee

Yes, the disgnostic system really was designed for children, where it's a lot easier to pick up some the traits, at least in a manner than be easily documented. It would be nice if some of that was updated.

Well, I would think that any self-assessment test is meant for adults.

I just took the RAADS-R and that's a better test because there is an option for something having applied to you only when you were younger than 16. I did score above threshold on this one, so this is probably a more valid test. However, I still had trouble with the ambiguity of some questions, namely the following:

I feel very comfortable with dating or being in social situations with others.

I am an understanding type of person.

I like having a conversation with several people for instance around a dinner table, at school or at work.

Meeting people is usually easy for me.

I would rather go out to eat in a restaurant by myself than with someone I know.

It can be very intimidating for me to talk to more than one person at a time.

I have never been interested in what most of the people I know consider interesting.

I am considered a loner by those who know me best.

How to make friends and socialize is a mystery to me.

I enjoy spending time eating and talking with my family and friends. With regards to this one, I only enjoy eating out and talking with my friends, not my family, so I wasn't sure how to even score this. I put only now.

I wouldn't obsess over these as much if the researchers/experimenters gave me more clear instructions as to how to answer questions like this. I guess it's okay as long as they give more weight to my in-person answers as opposed to these rigid self-assessment questionnaires.

My RAADS-R results: http://www.aspietests.org/raads/questio ... cale=en_GB

Edit: I am doing some research for something else and have just found the following with regards to AQ test score interpretation:
Interesting.

Re these tests, it is all quite subjective and iffy. I do not know quite what a person who takes these tests intends to gain from it though it might be a little interesting. The most interesting thing for me is I found the tests weren't very good, but besides there being some vague and nebulous questions that were difficult to answer, as has been pointed out, I did not know myself well enough to answer some of the questions accurately. That was interesting to realize..The thing regarding criteria before the age of sixteen seems better in terms of assessing, but what is a person assessing, exactly? Something that doesn't even exist? Seems problematic and leads to getting lost in a maze. Anyway, people already have a general idea of how they were. Time is short. The question for me is how to be--joyful, conscious, budding, learning, sharing, discovering integrated, and some approaches are move alive, whereas other approaches are much less likely to lead in that direction or even lead away from it.

Mathgirl, I hope you won't object if I respond to what I believe is your position.

The diagnostic critera and tests are aimed at younger patients, a) because that's where the funding's been aimed at for decades, b) the difficulty of putting together a useful same-age cohort for an adult diagnostic test, c) Social issues relating to Adult DX of ASDs.

I don't blame the medical profession for the fact that they have to work with limited data. That would be like me blaming a GP for not knowing how to perform open heart surgery. I would like if there is more attention paid to the concept that the current adult DX tools are not yielding anywhere near the number of expected positive results, when compared to those under the age of majority.

What kind of scientific research do you think can be conducted on this matter? I think the issue would be the potential complexity of a purely adulthood scale, which is why the diagnostic process tends to be focused on childhood developmental history. And if the AQ scale is not designed for adults, it should be clearly stated in all instances of it that its accuracy for adults is not guaranteed, I think.

Such a disclaimer would be acceptable to my point of view, since it both acknowledges that adults can be Aspies, and that the existing critera are subjective.

In the long run, I'd like more research and diagnostic critera for different neurological processing and communication styles.

Fair enough. I wonder how much categorization is possible in terms of autism subtypes. I think they already found multiple causation/distinct genetic variants that contribute to particular types of neurological configurations, which are all categorized as autism at this point. Even though you can't diagnose autism from just a brain scan, I think that diagnosticians can use multiple forms of testing and bring them into a whole in order to diagnose accurately, but it's not always financially feasible, I guess. It seems like there is a lot of research out there, but it is not applied sufficiently enough in practice. They also found that the neurological profile of adults with ASD are different from those of children with ASD.

If by "positive" you mean confirming adults are autistic, then maybe they just grew out of some aspects by learning to adapt, or communicating with others like themselves, as she implies, or other possibilities---maybe as people grow older they become better liars in terms of denial or maybe the test is too subjective, or maybe people just don't know themselves..or have an emotional response to the test..I do agree the testing process is in some ways skewed, just as an IQ test doesn't take into consideration certain sociological factors in minority populations that could affect the score

So why should she object if you respond to her position? Her responses indicate to me she is on here for inquiry, not to cling to whatever position It is by honest exchange of ideas that learning occurs..I do understand that a position can be a source of comfort, much like a security blanket, and make needed at some point in time until a person is ready to cast it off. I am not saying this is true in your case, but I see it with many here regarding their diagnosis, and I have to watch for this kind of simplistic thinking in myself, of course and sometimes miss seeing it. I am not saying there is not some value in diagnosing an adult as an aspie, but imo the value is somewhat limited.

Re: objection, it's basic courtesy to state that you're responding to what you think is the position, particularly in this case where I was'nt pointing to any given line in MathGirl's text.

Yes, I am refering to "positive" in the sense that a diagnostic tool yields a "positive" result if the subject meets the critera.

Among other things, the (unexpectedly) low number of ASDs diagnosed in adult population is often used to defend the lack of services offered to adult populations. For that reason alone, there is a public good attached to more accurate adult diagnostic critera.

Your point about services makes sense, though is not personally my focus.

Re objection, you missed the point I was making, which is that no one should object to anyone responding to an idea. I guess I can see where you're coming from, but it is a very very big stretch for me to do so.. I have participated in online discussions such as this for many years, and I never saw the line of etiquette you seem to be mentioning. It is not necessary to respond to a particular line, nor is it rude to respond to a whole post. It is all contextual. Just depends.

I acquired the ability to pass as NT. I am able socialize in an acceptable way, sometimes people even compliment me on my skills and maturity.
What is different about Aspies is that, fundamentally, these skills have to be acquired on purpose. And usually, socializing with boring/immature NTs is a major pain in the ass.
So my answer is yes, being able to connect with autistics just like myself is a positive thing (for me). You guys gave pretty decent advice and often pointed me in the right way. The feeling of actually belonging is positive.

And again...that's just my personal opinion.

Thanks. Yes, positive can mean different things to different people.

One thing I find counter-productive is the aspie--nt dichotomy. It is possible that somewhere:-) a so- called aspie may see some other so-called aspies the way you and some others look at nt's It seems like that could be a good working distinction, but actually it probably is not. If there is a generative learning environment you would be surprised the way people override distinctions to participate and also what happens when there is love.

To math girl--ove that name!-- I get the sense from the title of this thread that you are implying a developmental component which is my interest and why I responded to this thread, The problem of categorization is very interesting. If (some) people try to fit and group together things that don't quite fit, then there must be a perceived function, but often it is not practical.

Let's say I am a high functioning autistic (though no longer literally high:-) and am having trouble in the workplace. I am self-centered (NOT saying all aspies are this and/or anything else), cannot get along with people, hold grudges, am passive aggressive, filled with anxiety, do not have good communication skills, mainly in the area I am not able to assert my rights and so ultimately when I try to do so go overboard, and many things else. Also I am working with a bunch of so-called nt's who are very nasty and ugly, with all kinds of psychological disorders and are bonding together by being against me ( though it is all very exaggerated in my mind because I tend to look at it this way) who mainly seem to get along, except with me, and to top it off, the economic conditions are kind of dire.. All of this actually happened---to me! Yes, it would seem to serve me well to be able to get a special dispensation in the workplace because my brain is so 'unique,' ha ha, but I do question if it would actually serve society or even myself that well in the long run. Now I am painting this picture with a broad brush in the sense that everything cannot be fit in and categorized in this way. I am not here to predominate with my personal point of view, but for inquiry. Maybe my view will change.

Re different kinds of brains, I believe there are, and genetics can play into all kinds of social disorders. Does it feel good to be around people with brains kind of like ones own? A resounding Yes! I am drawn to all kinds of people with very unusual brains, and am (for a while) happy as a clam shooting the bull with some schizophrenic who is just passing by my business, passing through. These folks will often stop ranting and start talking 'normal' to me right away (until it gets too boring for them)...). Also the dumbest and most boring so called nt can be interesting and special to me, I mean cats are more interesting but dogs can be cute, too. When a person feels love that can wipe out a lot of arbitrary distinctions.

Imo having a very unique brain and identifying and getting stuck with being "autistic" or whatever else are too different things. The brain is flexible and alive. Psychological factors play into the development of a person with such a brain, and when people tend to push this so obvious developmental factor under the rug, to me that is tragic as then an entire group of people who are so gifted and potentially ave so much to give to humanity become so much less smart. To be really smart, if that is oneself, can be scary. I know a lot of us are quite smart, but how smart are we really? How smart can we be and how good will that feel? Also, just to be oneself is very scary, but it is smart to be oneself.

Some of these are vague and confusing to me. I might not know how to answer.

I would rather go out to eat in a restaurant by myself than with someone I know.

Presumably yes means introverted and no means extroverted? What if there are different reason why you would say no? If I said no they might think I'm social but I might be saying no because I might want another person with me so they can pay and order for me if I don't want to talk, plus going by myself means walking or taking the bus and going with someone else means I might get a ride there. Someone else might love people but hating chewing noises or have been burned too many times by going out to eat with people and getting stuck paying the full bill.

I have never been interested in what most of the people I know consider interesting.

That assumes that you know a lot of people, know what they think is interesting, and makes the assumption that what they think is interesting is good and normal. What if I grew up in a family of heroin addicts that loved doing dog fighting? Is it then bad that I'm not interested in heroin and dog fighting? The answer to that seem like it could be meaningless without more info. If I try to think of "what most people I know consider to be interesting" I can't even think of anything as they all have their own unique interests.

I am considered a loner by those who know me best.

That question assumes that you have people that know you well and both have accurate perceptions of you and share them with you. I tend to be pretty oblivious to what people think of me. I did once have a teacher in school write "SHE IS A LONER" in larger capital letters and underlined it multiple time to emphasize it in a report about me. I'm not sure if that was really accurate back then. If I was it might not have been by choice. That was in sixth grade at the peak of my being bullied.