Maybe this can offer some hope for others with more profound issues, but if you’ve found a way to function in society I’m not sure this will be very attractive outside a “let me try and see what it feels like” scenario.
Maybe this can offer some hope for others with more profound issues, but if you’ve found a way to function in society I’m not sure this will be very attractive outside a “let me try and see what it feels like” scenario.
By the time I got to college I learned to use the drugs as a switch I could flip when I needed the focused version of me.
Not that ADHD and ASD can be compared, but I wonder if maybe ASD treatments could offer that option. Ie. Not to "fix" you but to give you a tool to be wielded under your own control.
My understanding is that ASD and ADHD are often found together. I don't have enough familiarity with either to know where one begins and the other starts.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, as the parent of a child just diagnosed with both conditions it's useful!
It all depends on the severity of the ASD though as to how constant it is.
I do almost feel a diagnosis of both is redundant though.
However, one crucial difference is that the ADHD type of 'hyperfocus' is often in practice not as useful as it seems/feels, whereas the ASD kind of obsessive focus can be very productive and useful.
My personal experience, comparing myself to friends who have (severe) ADHD, is that a crucial difference is that I find it easier to see the bigger picture, assuming I'm not stressed (which is difficult to achieve), and can sort of channel my 'hyperfocus' in the right direction. These friends often struggle with this, and can easily spend hours or days doing something that in hindsight wasn't the right thing.
(interestingly, I feel that this 'problem' also has the upside in that they are often more artistic than I am, perhaps because a lot of what they do is not limited by a clear 'goal')
For me at least, the core component of my ASD is the complicated link between sensory input and my emotional state. The focus and attention problems are more that I have to really concentrate to understand the meaning of everything going on around me, and that gets exhausting. I get fatigued of being “on”, so my attention lapses.
Perhaps this autism treating drug is like an anti-Ritalin: give up the intense focus, and in exchange get charisma and sociability.
Basically I selected to have it any time I had a major project to do or studying to do. It was absolutely glorious because I could go to classes, struggle through those a bit, get home, be social and have friends, then at about 9pm have some concerta and work on a project until 5am.
And maybe some of this sounds unhealthy but gosh did it ever work. I was a D student in high school and I managed to actually get into college, get two degrees, some significant awards, and a dream job after graduation. Without the opportunity to take Concerta when I wanted to, I all but guarantee I never would have gone to college.
That said, I remember someone who's younger brother was severely autistic. He'd shit himself as a means of communication, he was barely able to talk - he'd never be able to integrate in any meaningful way. His parents lives were spent 24/7 caring for this kid. They loved him but it destroyed their family. If a drug could bring someone like that to the level they can be mildly autistic and function and provide a far higher quality of life to those and those who would otherwise have to support them, why not at least make it an option?
As long as we're just fixing impairments, not trying to "fix" people.
Some behaviors associated with autism are really results of having less social influence acting on one's self (due to both slower learning and isolation). Would we consider them a fundamental part of the person, or just evidence of areas that the person still can grow in?
What are the benefits?
The idea that people on the spectrum are more likely to be savants is a myth (the opposite, that savants are more likely to be on the spectrum less so, from what I understand), but the person you responded to made no such claim.
There are obvious examples of Autism that are absolutely objectively terrible for the person experiencing it, this is not about those cases but about the "less severe cases" where an autistic child can go to a normal school and lead a generally normal life. If that is the case, I think the line between what you call a disease and mere personality traits is actually not very clear. Instinctively I would be very careful to describe someone's personality as a disease just because it is different from other peoples behaviour.
The problem with my thinking on the other hand is probably that the definition of the word autism itself might be unclear when considering these edge cases.
This isn't supported by the research, which shows that autistic people struggle with social communication even if you give them intense courses about how to be better at social communication.
What you're suggesting is dangerously close to the "refrigerator mother" hypothesis, and that caused harm to many people.
We are able to be successful exactly because we have learned to expertly regulate our public and private behaviors to be acceptable to the audience. We’re really deliberate about the soft skills stuff because it doesn’t come naturally. We do that because we can’t read your body language or facial expressions at all, so we have to be as completely inoffensive and congenial as possible.
Many of us have learned how to delegate effectively because there are certain kinds of work we simply cannot do.
We tend to be much better with written communication because it’s easier to compose your thoughts in a text editor than on the fly. As a result we are often seen as excellent communicators in the digital age!
We’re really good at making lists of things (I should probably stop that)
We also tend to talk at length of topics of very little interest to anyone else (ok, I’ll stop now.)
What I’m saying is that a lot of tendencies that are totally attributable to people on the high-functioning side of ASD can be generally beneficial to certain kinds of work. I’m sure you’ve seen these traits in people you know. So I’m not sure it’s always something that’s always detrimental.
Sure, I know a zillion people superficially but I can’t handle more than one or two friends at a time. And I’m ok with that; it’s not debilitating and I enjoy my time alone. I just don’t think it’s something to fix.
Edit: also not implying that all people on the spectrum are this way at all; just that I do see a lot of us in various management functions where Machiavellian politics is in play. Your image is everything and you have no friends, which someone with ASD and this personality profile will feel right at home with.
For that matter, so were his closest friends.
The Deaf community have been handling a similar issue for a while — see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant#Criticism_and...
This also touches on the community that forms for people with a particular disorder or disability (e.g. the deaf community, the blind community being two that come to mind the most easily with their own culture).
I think this is the key point. Some of us are high-functioning and have found ways to operate in normal society, but many people are effectively crippled by their autism.
High-functioning autism has many beneficial side effects, and I would be loath to give them up. (For example, even just the fact that you see things differently to the people around can be really useful).
I think that's exactly the value. Once you've tried it out, you'll be able to make an informed choice. I certainly wouldn't presume to choose for you, and I hope no-one else would do so either.
The "disadvantage" is that the article repeatedly calls the effects "long lasting"
And I imagine that's what anyone older than a young child would do.
If coffee makes it so you can't sleep, don't drink coffee.
If he was unable to speak I consider medication.