Aspergers is not only a social handicap, right?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, so the social issues are only a symptom.


I really do not think we need to have sensory issues per se if we just express enough anger. The sensory issues arise from not expressing enough anger. The problem is that we all of our lives have learned that expressing that form of "Alpha-anger" is wrong, because it is not socially acceptable. It is only socially acceptable to express "Beta-anger" (unless you are actually the leader of the group you are in). The net result of that is that we have started to not express anger at all, inevitably leading to sensory processing issues.

All this boils down to the basic problem for aspies: being unable to be dominant and submissive. The aspie brain is wired for dealing with life on their own (i.e. expressing non-compromising "Alpha-anger" without the possibility of being submissive).

I find that a "What's best for me" attitude equals expressing non-compromising "Alpha-anger" (the not socially accepted type of anger).

On the other hand I find that a "What's best for the group" attitude equals expressing compromising "Beta-anger" (the socailly acceptable type of anger).

This is important knowledge for me, because it might make the difference between success and failure in life.

How do you figure that?

I know I cannot generalize from own experiences, but I feel quite confident about this at this point. It is of course only a personal theory.

I can clearly feel this on my own body/mind. Expressing anger equals being in charge. As soon as I am enough in charge of my own actions/body, I do not feel sensory issues. If I, on the other hand, do not take charge of my own actions/body sensory issues start to appear.

The problem in social situations is that you are not allowed to be in charge of your own actions/body, unless you are the leader. You are supposed to follow orders from those person which the group you are a part of consider better leaders.

So people with AS ("should") according to my theory only experience sensory issues if they do not take charge of their own body and actions. This is still true in a group setting, but the other in the group might not accept that you take charge. This is where the social issues arise.

You can only avoid sensory issues and still be accepted by others in social situations if you think socially, that is think in "what's best for the group"-terms.

The whole point of the diagnostic label is to demarcate those who have disabling traits that impede functioning, with a history of markedly severe developmental issues. Diagnosing people who are just a bit awkward and a little obsessive is labelling those who aren't autistic as autistic.

There is no mild Asperger's, considering that Asperger's is perceived as the "milder" end of the autistic spectrum, anything milder is neurotypical with slight autistic traits. And there is already a perfectly good label for people like that - BAP.

Broadening the definition of autism to the point that it is extended to people who have nothing pathologically distinct about them, and labelling them as autistic does a disservice to people on the autistic spectrum.

---

I'll take issue with your premise that anger = being in charge. People who are angry and aggressive often think they are in charge by virtue of the fear they cause in others. But this is empty power. Those who feel intimidated will behave subversively.

I think that you are suggesting that anger allows for the freedom to feel comfortable, but anger and power have to be maintained and using these tools opens up new burdens that will also make it hard for you to feel comfortable.


This is only true in prison, the military and elementary school. If you are not in charge now, you wont be even if you are the leader. You will be you no matter what role you take on.

I agree.

I realize that the term "anger" might not be the right one to use. More like "will-power" or the like. I did not think of it as a negative feeling, more as a productive, motivated feeling.

It seems to me the way prejudice happens is people label a particular group as other than they are and less than the norm, less than desirable. So this kind of thinking doesn't seem healthy or helpful to me.

It is as the late Lorna Wing said a "triad of impairments". Unfortunately social "deficits" in autism is what most of the neurotypical world cares about if they care about it at all. So most of the treatments are attempts to "fix" social "deficits" . This means the treatments are at best partially effective, at worst hurtful because approximately 2/3 of the root issues are being ignored.

I went through 55 years of my life thinking my problems fitting into to the world were mostly social. In truth it is a combination of the triad interacting with each other plus being a small minority. Shyness and introversion seem to be the obvious cause of lack of eye contact. But a lot of people think it's sensory overload masking as social "deficit". Of course repeated failure to meet social expectations because of Executive Functioning deficits and sensory overload can cause shyness that was not innate.

Good description, I agree with this. This certainly describes my own issues very neatly and succinctly.

I agree that social "deficits" are what is most noticeable. Though, there are other complex, unstructured situations (apart from social interactions) that also cause difficulties (for me). Ultimately, the core (for me at least) seems to be tied to faulty information processing. Which isn?t something that will be ?fixed? anytime soon.

Let's start from this that AS started to lose its meaning for me already a long time ago. When 11 years ago I read about AS on some Polish site, I initially thought: "no, in spite of the similarities between me and the person described on there, it just can't be me" - the boy seemed so severely affected. I seemed to myself and still do a much milder version... until now I read the description of myself I once posted on here - if I read about such a person before I knew much of AS, I'd think the author of it was a very severe case if compared to most folks who post their "Am I an aspie?" questions on aspie boards. It just is like that now that most people who want to know if they are aspies, are just stiff introverts with SI issues, that's all. In my opinion it is like this - here let me quote what I once read on another AS board - "AS is quite a servere developmental disorder affecting every aspect of life but for what is called intelligence". The end of the quotation. In my opinion it is like that: if you are just asocial and smart plus weirdness plus bad sport skills that's just that: being a smart introvert bad at sport at school - every schoolkid knows this type; a nerdy wimp, that's all. AS is something more than just being a stiff and smart dude with bad social skills. I, for example, deal with such things like: sensory integration issues, problems with organising and planning, nervous tics and some more. Those are affecting my life. But my social problems are the most important factor that makes me stand out: someone once compared it to a foreigner who learnt another language but still, there is that strange accent that remains. I thought that it's a very boring metaphore but now I can clearly see how much truth it contains. Really. I can't fully relate to other people, I just can't share their feelings, in the same way I can't fully understand the subtleties of English which isn't, as you can guess by looking at my location from my profile, my native tongue.

It's generally a pervasive disorder that negatively affects how the person processes the environment around them, which makes it hard to impossible to fit into the "normal" world.

Social deficits is just one of those errors in processing.

Correct one. I'm always against using Asperger's as a reason to glorify oneself, when people deem themselves as smarter just because of their Asperger's. At the same time it's not a social handicap by default. A lot of people with AS haven't really struggled in society and yet they do have it.

The problem is that NT behaviour is the standard of this society, thefore people with severe AS are sometimes seen as socially handicapped.

You can't generalize Aspies the same way you can't generalize NTs or humans as a whole. There are people with AS who have little to no problems or anxiety in social situations, but many other things still makes them an Aspie. There are NTs who are anxious, clumsy, or otherwise don't fit in with society and yet they don't have any clearly defined disorders.

Every human is a puzzle and it's never simple. You can't summarize a person with one or two labels.
The term Aspie exists because there is indeed a mysterious link that sets certain people apart, but they're still individuals among each other.

Exactly!

Not unlike the case of the deaf community I believe.

How very true! I have worked in Special Education for a large part of my life, and I have always maintained that 'labels? primarily serve funding purposes and may at best provide some guidance regarding support.
like the misty water droplets colouring a rainbow over a waterfall . . .