Now just to find a competent neurologist who's willing to run a brain scan.
Doesn't feel like an insult at all to me. But then again I've long ago accepted the way I am (society does not).
The way I feel is constantly between bored and overloaded. Simple tasks can overload, yet complex matter or social settings (birthdays, dinner, chrores, etc) can bore me.
I have this with programming but also putting the dishes in the dishwasher but also in gaming. There are too many possibilities. Yet I really dig the freedom to explore the puzzles. Because if the sandbox is too strict, I feel trapped. Which is why vi is a great editor but also one I will never fully master. And that's OK; c'est la vi.
That’s too funny. I should have known better! I didn’t mean it literally as a personal attack. This comment describes how I meant it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39050062.
I definitely appreciate that it was taken literally. I often do that unless I’ve already encountered the phrase.
Yes, it is important to distinguish phenotypes from disorders. If one has the phenotype, but isn’t impaired by it to a clinically significant degree, one does not have the disorder (ASD), but one does have the broad autism phenotype (BAP; aka the broader autism phenotype or subclinical ASD). [0] The number of people who have the phenotype without the disorder is likely several times those having the disorder. The broad phenotype is particularly common among close blood relatives (parents/siblings/children) of those with the disorder. It is also has an elevated prevalence among STEM professionals.
I think it is unfortunate there is not greater public awareness of BAP and its distinction from ASD. Probably many of the people who describe themselves as “on the spectrum” in a colloquial sense have BAP not ASD.
[0] strictly speaking, one can speak of a narrow autism phenotype (phenotype with the clinical disorder) and a broad(er) autism phenotype (phenotype without the clinical disorder), which together make up the autism/ASD phenotype as a whole. Given the distinction between the two is clinical, it is possible in theory for the exact same phenotype to be broad for one person and narrow for another - one person might be in a less supportive environment which produces clinical impairment, the other in a more supportive environment in which impairment remains at a subclinical level - impairment arises through phenotype-environment interaction, it is not always inherent to the phenotype in itself
Thanks! I will remember the categorization. It’s certainly useful to distinguish between a person who needs a full-time caretaker and one who can hold a full-time job where the only categoric similarity is “they think more like each other than not”. I’ll try not to use ASD for myself anymore.
If you got diagnosed with ASD, you have ASD and there are tons of false negatives out there (undiagnosed people) as well as those claiming they're true positive (in reality undiagnosed, they may very well have ASD in some form, or not). It is also possible you have misdiagnosed false positives. Psychopaths, for example, could very well benefit from such.
I know I am not the latter. I know I have empathy, and when I don't, it is likely because of overstimulation otherwise. I recognize this in my children as well. My mother's late best friend (geez, typing this makes me realize how much I miss her) who was different in life as status quo in a way irrelevant to this discussion described my kids when tbey were very young as "friendly". A simple thing to say, but her observation was so aptly sound, I shluld remind myself about it more often next temper tantrums.
BAP is a construct developed by researchers, see e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30995078/ – we can debate its value as a scientific theory, but all this stuff about "being in denial" is irrelevant to its scientific status.
> If you got diagnosed with ASD, you have ASD
There's this MIT PhD thesis I really like, Phech Colatat's Essays in the sociology of autism diagnosis. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/90070 In the first half of his thesis, Colatat looked at three specialist clinics in the US, all run by Kaiser Permanente (which in his thesis he refers to by the pseudonym "Allied Health") – management was already aware that three clinics had significantly different diagnosis rates, but those differences were being ascribed to patient characteristics and referral patterns. Based on statistical analysis of medical records, Colatat argues that neither of those explanations actually work, and instead the real explanation is differences in the professional culture of each clinic – an explanation he backs up by considering the organisational history of the clinics, and the different diagnostic philosophies which influenced their respective founders. He concludes that approximately one-third of the outcome of an autism diagnosis in those clinics is determined by the culture of the clinician – and he notes that, despite these significant differences in clinical culture, they were all specialist clinics which put great emphasis on diagnostic rigour, and many diagnoses are done in generalist clinics with significantly less rigour, so it is entirely possible the cultural contribution might turn out to be even bigger if one brought those diagnoses into the analysis. So, one third (maybe even more) of the time, whether you have ASD depends, not on you, but on which clinician you see.
A cultural aspect is that some practitioners believe the line between ASD and 'not-ASD' is in a different place. In my view, the pathologized label of ASD only really belongs to people that need support (even then I find the 'disorder' label problematic), but a broader autistic label belongs to anyone affected by autistic traits. The distinction of how many traits is the minimum for a autistic label is somewhat arbitrary, and whether someone cares to identify as autistic in light of these traits is outside the purview of the clinic.
Yes, because autism is a cultural construct, and each individual gets to negotiate their own relationship with that cultural construct
Which is not saying it is purely a cultural construct - we started with some very real traits, and then cooked up a family of (unproven) scientific theories to try to explain those traits, and then erected a cultural construct on top of that, which has a rather complex relationship to the traits and theories which it justifies itself with
The 'cultural aspect' is that every society develops tacit rules around conversation, dress, eye contact, politeness, taboos, how to move and touch etc. and penalizes people who can't divine and follow them. However, some cultures are more aligned with autistic traits. Like in Russia it's considered strange (even false) to smile without reason. Some countries have avoidance of eye contact as a feature.
Edit: Interesting aside is Sabine Hossenfelder's video on autism. She takes a self-assessment at the end which yields a positive result, and then concludes, "I don't think I'm autistic, I'm just rude and German", which I think isn't some confirmation that autistic traits don't exist in the context of Germany (Hans Asperger was a Nazi instrument and from nearby Austria after all) but that some countries don't exclude people with autistic traits. And that kind of tolerance is really the ideal end goal.
I have a different perspective. What makes some traits "autistic" and others not? Okay, there is some positive correlation between them - but lots of "non-autistic" traits are positively correlated with "autistic" traits too. How big is the difference in correlation between different "autistic" traits on the one hand, and between "autistic" and non-"autistic" traits on the other? Is that differene in correlation big enough to provide scientific validity for the distinction between those two sets of traits?
Lynn Waterhouse argues that autism originated in a couple of related but distinct scientific hypothesises – Leo Kanner's "early infantile autism" and Hans Asperger's "autistic psychopathy" – both concerning a cluster of postively correlated traits in certain children, which displayed some similarities to those traits displayed in adults with schizophrenia which Blueler had labelled "autistic". As those related hypotheses evolved, they were eventually merged into a single hypothesis "ASD" – which however, is so vague and amorphous as to be essentially unfalsifiable. Waterhouse argues that Kanner's and Asperger's hypotheses were perfectly legitimate for their time (the 1940s), but have never been confirmed, and the best interpretation of the available evidence is that "autism"/"ASD" (in all its versions) is a false theory, that should be filed in the annals of the history of science next to phlogiston and the luminiferous aether. But, like Ptolemy's epicycles, rather than abandoning a scientific dead end, people keep on fiddling with theory to try to keep it alive.
But, even if Waterhouse is right, and "autism" is an inescapable scientific failure - it has had enormous cultural success. And that's what I mean to say it is a culutral construct. Indeed, its cultural success is arguably a major factor stopping people from moving on from it, even if (Waterhouse argues) that is the right thing to do from a purely scientific perspective. And to be clear, while Waterhouse denies that "autism" is anything other than an arbitrary grouping of traits, a label based on history rather than the best current science, she doesn't deny for a minute that sometimes these traits can produce significant impairment–and even if we judge it a failure as a scientific theory, that doesn't in itself answer the separate question of the benefits or harms of the cultural construct that theory has sprouted.
Laurent Mottron's perspective [0] is less radical than Waterhouse's, but has some overlap. He argues (contra Waterhouse) that it is too early to declare the narrower 1980s/1990s idea of "autism" (and even its cousin "Asperger's") a scientific dead end. But, he thinks we've blown up its boundaries to the point that it has lost all scientific value, and so at that point he agrees with Waterhouse that 2020s ASD is a scientific dead end. However, rather than Waterhouse's proposal of abandoning the concept entirely, and looking for complete replacements, he wants to go back to a focus on the older narrower concept (which he labels "prototypical autism"). I think he'd agree with Waterhouse that the current concept is largely a cultural construct riding on the back of a failed scientific theory; but they disagree about the scientific value of its prior iterations.
[0] see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.2494 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9054657/
There's growing evidence of neuroanatomical differences between ASD and control populations in (replicable) studies, and I think further neurological study can be the only path forward to settling this debate as to whether autism needs to fragment, change shape, or be abolished as a concept entirely.
I'm not sure how many of those studies actually have been replicated. My impression is that most of them fail to replicate.
And even those which do replicate, have two serious issues: (1) they only establish group differences not individual differences-even if on average people with ASD are more likely to have X, some ASD individuals will lack X and some non-ASD individuals will have it, meaning we can't actually say X=ASD; (2) most of them are flawed in only considering a single diagnosis (e.g. ASD vs "typically developing"), not multiple diagnoses (e.g. ASD-only vs ADHD-only vs OCD-only vs two or more of the above vs "typically developing"), which renders them incapable to answer questions about the scientific validity of the boundary between ASD and its related diagnoses
> Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) are a heterogeneous group of neurodevelopmental disorders that are diagnosed solely on the basis of behaviour. A large body of work has reported neuroanatomical differences between individuals with ASD and neurotypical controls. Despite the huge clinical and genetic heterogeneity that typifies autism, some of these anatomical features appear to be either present in most cases or so dramatically altered in some that their presence is now reasonably well replicated in a number of studies. One such finding is the tendency towards overgrowth of the frontal cortex during the early postnatal period.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5192959/
My interest in this thread is exhausted, so I'll agree to disagree with you on the biological deterministic aspects of autism, and let you dig down that rabbit hole.
My guess is that either you have no lived experience with autism, don't know many people in the autistic community, or have a lack of sensitivity to the very real nature of the disabilities it entails, even in the undiagnosed cohort—enthusiastic misdiagnoses aside. The difficulties from dyspraxia are of very real consequence, regardless of social interpretation. Stimming and regulating behaviours are a real thing, regardless of whether or not it is frowned upon in a social context. Meltdown, i.e., the consequences of not being able to regulate congruently to one's environmental stimulation and fatigue, is a real thing, whether it is accommodated for or not, in the same way that an epileptic fit is a real thing. One could say that a majority of the population is affected by this, and it doesn't change my argument. One could say that some people are so barely affected by their meltdowns, and it doesn't change my argument; they are still real adverse effects of real consequence experienced by people—actual disability—and no amount of equivocating makes them go away. There's perhaps people who are slightly hypochondriac and are looking to pathologize themselves, but this doesn't change my argument, because they aren't autistic, they're just making false claims. There's perhaps some practitioners who are either incompetent or corrupt, and this doesn't change my argument, because they are misdiagnosing.
> ASD-only vs ADHD-only vs OCD-only
Strictly my opinion: the kitchen-sinking of ADHD, OCD, ASD, dyspraxia, meltdowns etc. is due to the gaining traction on the idea that there's a neurological commonality that drives these behaviours, and their attendant comorbidity. Occam's razor.
My son, however, has severe ASD and will likely need a caretaker for life.
The difference in the spectrum is astonishing.
Do I agree with him on everything? Well, I am on UA side but politically I am progressive left and European. So I obviously do not agree with him on a lot of matters. But apart from his ads (lot of BS/scams) it has been interesting and, at times, valuable. It is a misconception that people on the spectrum get along with each other.
What is "autism"? It is a dimension, a continuum, (even a set of dimensions) not an either-or category. Of course, at certain level of extremity or severity of impairment, the dimensional becomes effectively categorical. But as you move along that continuum in the other direction, there is no clearcut boundary between it and "normality"/"neurotypicality", nor is there a clearcut boundary between it and other distinct forms of "aneurotypicality" with which it has significant overlap (e.g ADHD, OCD, the schizophrenia spectrum, personality disorders, PTSD, eating disorders, giftedness and intellectual disability). Clinical diagnosis is always going to have a subjective element – cases far from those boundaries almost everyone will diagnose the same way, but near those boundaries the diagnostic outcome often says more about the clinician than about the patient/client. The boundary is shifting over time, it varies geographically, and it is questionable to what extent the justification for that spatiotemporal variation is scientific, as opposed to social/cultural/political.
Do I have autism? Well, do I want to have autism? I once almost paid over $1000 for an ASD assessment for myself, but my psychologist and psychiatrist talked me out of – they both said "if you really want to pay over $1000 for a piece of paper telling you what you already know, go right ahead-but maybe there are other things you'd rather spend that money on?" I decided for now to take their advice. But if I ever decide I really want to add ASD to my personal diagnosis collection, I can fork that money out and I'd be rather surprised if I didn't get it.
I have the traits I have, but a diagnostic label is not the same thing as the traits it labels. Our son's psychiatrist once said to me something which will always stick in my head: "psychiatric diagnoses are these strange hybrids of scientific theories and cultural constructs; some clinicians put more emphasis on the scientific theory perspective and others more on the cultural construct perspective; I myself don't have a firm view on the correct balance between those two perspectives, because I haven't been keeping up to date with the research literature on those debates"
I think self-diagnosis is fine for people who don't require support. Though I've noticed that some people will both not acknowledge it, but at the same time unconsciously hold prejudices in relation to this 'difference' that they don't acknowledge, often in condescending ways.
> I think self-diagnosis is fine for people who don't require support.
This is what I don't agree with. I associate "self-diagnosis" with over-reification of ASD, which is a pet peeve of mine – emphasising categorical over dimensional understandings, ignorance of the doubts over ASD's validity as a scientific theory, ignorance of the evidence that it is (partially) socially constructed. And that's hardly a point unique to ASD, it applies to all psychiatric diagnoses – yet, many people seem to "identify with" ASD as their "true self" to a degree that rarely seen with other disorders – how many people identity with BPD or schizoaffective disorder or dysthymia in that way? And I don't like that identification. Whatever diagnoses I may or may not have, they are not me – and I don't want my children growing up identifying with their diagnoses either.
It's not a matter of identity, but explanatory power. To reiterate, the self-acknowledgement/'diagnosis' as autistic (not ASD) is 'useful from a self-compassion and tolerance standpoint'. So instead of, why do I find X difficult when everyone else finds it easy (or even laughs/condescends/points it out), I can say, I'm autistic, that's not easy for me.
I agree that autism is a fuzzy socially-defined phenomenon. The distinction, once again, is only as valuable as how much it comes into conflict with society. So, by example, if a child is being made fun of for not understanding the tacit social rules of the playground, or a teenager of the art of seduction, or an adult of polite conversation, this self-awareness could be useful as a way of understanding one's own difficulties, and also as a way of surmounting or managing them. It can also be useful for others to be more aware or tolerant. I also agree, it's not on the person themselves, they are not broken in some way.
My daughter is 5 y.o. and has a best friend on school. Our daughter is undiagnosed for now, we both are. I get the feeling the mother of her best friend isn't happy with them being best friends. Why? Fear of being excluded, I suspect.
Right now I'm unemployed since December and the lack of employed role model for my kids is thus far more harmful than lack of income (though latter will become relevant again within time).
The day I got unemployed I had to report to the government employment agency, and the above was basically not believed. I feel misunderstood. I already mentioned the story truthful though omitting some personal details, so I'd like to add the art of cooking a dinner as well as programming are some of the most awesome things one can perform, in my opinion. But because of the endless possibilities and the many small steps I can only perform very simple, basic, archaic instruction sets.
I have no problem saying I have autistic traits, as do both my children. I find some things easier than the average person and other things harder, and no doubt my autistic traits have something to do with both. But I'd much rather say "I have autistic traits" rather than "I am autistic". Traits have far greater reality – and scientific validity – than diagnoses.
Autistic traits are also very common in people with something other than autism – in fact, most psychiatric disorders, a significant subset of those diagnosed with them display heightened (even if subclinical) autistic traits. Identifying with a diagnosis rather than traits encourages ignorance of that reality.
I've heard this plaint a lot lately, that there needs to be different language to talk about this common neurological phenomenon. I heard that there was a push to write the DSM VI in terms of its biological mechanisms. It sounds like an almost insuperable challenge, and might explain why an updated revision of DSM V was released after a decade, instead of a new manual.
There are two basic problems with that proposal (1) we still largely don't know what those biological mechanisms actually are, especially not with the degree of confidence necessary for them to be used for individual diagnosis (2) there is massive social/cultural/political/institutional/professional/financial investment in some of the current labels (especially autism/ASD), even though they correspond poorly to what is really going on in the brain, and any attempt to replace them with a more accurate system of labelling or diagnosis produces major pushback from people who are threatened by loss of those investments
I think to gain a better understanding of "what's really going on", good places to start are https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0631-2 and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-016-0085-x and also https://stresstherapysolutions.com/uploads/wp-uploads/RA.pdf
One proposal (in the second paper I linked) is to merge ASD, ADHD, intellectual disability, borderline personality disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, language impairments, learning disabilities, tic disorders, atypical epilepsy, and reactive attachment disorder into a single disorder (an undifferentiated "neurodevelopmental disorder" or what Christopher Gillberg calls "ESSENCE"). ASD is already a kitchen sink, but still small enough that people can pretend it isn't; let's make a kitchen sink so big that nobody can deny it is one. Including BPD and reactive attachment disorder also helps clarify the complexity of causation, that many children's problems are produced by complex interactions between biological factors (genetics, in utero exposures, etc) and social environmental factors (trauma, abuse, neglect, maltreatment, parental mental illness, etc)–whereas labels like "ASD" wrongly put all the emphasis on the former to the exclusion of the latter
> whereas labels like "ASD" wrongly put all the emphasis on the former to the exclusion of the latter
Early intervention autism treatment has limited success. If you've got dyspraxia, inattention/hyperattention, fidget, avoid eye contact, have meltdowns, speech/processing delay, etc. you're fighting something at the neurological level that can at best be attenuated over time by plasticity, or simply just managed, like epilepsy.
Nowadays, the label "ASD" is applied both to children whose issues become apparent in early childhood, and also to children who don't develop serious issues until later in childhood, even adolescence. A two year old with severe issues, it is much more likely to be predominantly biological in origin. But a ten year old with milder issues, it becomes much harder to say to what extent it is biological compared to what extent it is due to how they've been raised.
Consider families where one of the parents (sometimes even both) has a personality disorder such as BPD or NPD – that can produce difficulties with the parent displaying consistent emotional responsiveness to the child, which can harm the child's emotional development, resulting in attachment disorders, emotional and behavioural disturbances, etc. Ideally, the parent is aware of this and can get professional help in preventing this from happening; however, many such people are in complete denial about their condition, and will refuse to seek help. There is a lot of symptomatic overlap between children with attachment disorders and ASD. Commonly, there is lots of funding and resources available for the ASD label, little or none for any others. If the parents aren't open about what is really going on, few professionals want to go digging. So they'll diagnose the child with ASD. If anyones suggests parental issues may be a contributor, many will trot out the tired talking point of "Bruno Bettelheim's discredited refrigerator mother theory".
Added to this, it isn't like "autistic traits due to bad parenting" and "autistic traits due to biological factors" are mutually exclusive categories. It is entirely possible the child already has a baseline genetic disposition to autistic traits, which are then being amplified by the poor family environment. There is a lot of overlap between personality disorders (especially BPD) and ASD, and some even question the validity of the ASD-BPD boundary – even if they are indeed distinct conditions, they likely have some shared genetic loading.
I agree that there's probably a lot of mis-diagnosis, but that's hard to quantify as an outsider to the profession of psychology. I think this is separate to autism being a nurture over nature thing.
> Added to this, it isn't like "autistic traits due to bad parenting" and "autistic traits due to biological factors" are mutually exclusive categories. It is entirely possible the child already has a baseline genetic disposition to autistic traits, which are then being amplified by the poor family environment.
I agree that genetic, pre-natal, and very early childhood environments have a huge impact on behaviour. My opinion relies heavily on an assumption that there's genetic and pre-natal neurological/gene expression differences for autistic people, and that is probably the source of our disagreement (i.e., nurture vs nature).
I agree, but I don't know why we should have "very early" there. Late childhood and adolescent environments can also have an enormous impact on behaviour.
> My opinion relies heavily on an assumption that there's genetic and pre-natal neurological/gene expression differences for autistic people, and that is probably the source of our disagreement (i.e., nurture vs nature).
There's genetic and pre-natal neurological/gene expression differences for lots of people–yes, including "autistic" people, but also including people with "non-autistic" disorders (such as ADHD, OCD, personality disorders, schizophrenia spectrum, bipolar). I'm unconvinced there is any fundamental difference between "autism" and "non-autistic neurodiversity"–"autism" is a heterogenous collection of many distinct differences, and some individuals with "autism" likely have more in common with certain cases of "non-autistic neurodiversity" than they do with most other cases of "autism". The same difference in gene expression or neuroanatomy can produce radically different behavioural results in different social environments
It bothers me a bit that, if you turn it around, the lack of an explanation would be an impediment to self-compassion and tolerance. "I find X difficult" ought to be enough, whether that coincides with any other traits (autistic or otherwise) or not.
This seems like a way to try and reason that you can be autistic and not have the 'disorder', but it doesn't work like that. There is no one who has the phenotype without the disorder.
> I question whether pathologizing differences is that useful.
Homosexuality was first referred to as a "Sexual Deviation" and a "Sociopathic personality disturbance". It's no longer considered a disorder.
Transgenderism (Transsexualism) was referred to as a "psychosexual disorder" or "gender identity disorder". It's no longer considered a disorder but gender dysphoria still is.
Autism is still a disorder, and nothing but a disorder. Autism is defined medically, wholly by weakness, as if that's all autism is. Something we should maybe cure one day, or come up with a pre-natal test for so be can have abortions to ensure such people aren't born.
The "Gold standard" treatment for autism Adaptive Behaviour Analysis has some common heritage between the treatment of Autism and Transgenderism, which involved using adversives (torture), to get people to act in a more gender conforming or less autistic way. I still think about that. If you use essentially the same treatment to modify the behavour of a transgender person or an autistic person, if you do it to the former it's a hate crime, if you do it to the latter it's a medical necessity[1]. I find that VERY revealing as to medicines attitude towards the Autistic, that they are the broken ones who need to change to fit our glorious and perfect society.
The pathologization of Autism is a crime against humanity and probably the first or second most evil thing that has happened to me throughout my entire life. Autism wasn't always a pathology - go 50 years back and nobody considered Autistic here would be considered Autistic by a doctor, wouldn't be considered "Disordered" by their peers, they might have been considered odd but not disordered. Nowadays, there's too much money in pathologizing people as disordered, everybody from parents to schools to doctors to social workers to the autistic people themselves benefit.
I see the status quo as fucked up and firmly believe modern psychiatry has greatly compromised Autistics quality of life through their hateful views on Autism which rub off on the wider popuation. When these esteemed medical experts call you disordered - why shouldn't everybody else think you are?
The way forward I see is how we handled homosexuality and transgenderism - de-pathologise being different from other people - but diagnose people with mental conditions that impair quality of life which are associated with Autism - and use those diagnosis's to allocate support and funding. This model also lets you make more sense of things like how both the richest man in the world and profoundly disabled people who can't hold down a job could both be "Autistic".
[1]ABA is not necessarily evil, it's more how it's used for the purpose of making autistics less autistic or transgender people less transgender which is philosophically fucked up
For instance, I think homosexuality's long combat to marry, a very VERY conforming demand, is helping it move away from the view others had of it being a non-conforming sexual behavior. Nobody's talking anymore of the physical act, the actual difference, but instead we talk about their attempt to conform, and it's very hard to find arguments against it.
What are you talking about? Gay people want to and indeed do: marry all the time. It's the government that oftentimes makes such an act illegal and fails to gives the privileges of a lawful union that straight people are given without any issue. Gay people also want to raise children - to put plainly: they just want to pursue a happy life like anyone else.
The government MUST accept it, it s the ONLY value of marriage: it is not an "act", it s a legal contract.
Ofc it s stupid not to make it happen, and it has been a long combat. Most of humanity doesnt allow it yet, and maybe from the comfort of where you type from, it's done and away, but here in China, it an exhausting fight.
What were you finding so strange in saying it was a long combat ? I see 100 years at least before it happens here.
If you're saying it's government and culture (and many religions) that are against gay people marrying, I agree with that.
How much should we expect people to conform? How much effort should we expect a nonconforming person to make, and what kind of social pressure should we apply to those people?
I am generally more in favor of letting people be themselves to the extent that they are happy with it (absent social pressure) and that it does not harm anyone. That means a social standard of accepting non-conformity, rather than expecting it or as is often the case coercing it.
How much do you think I have to conform vs being myself ? It s not that they re mean in refusing to accept my Frenchness, it's that they cant even care, and if I want anything done, I need to meet them halfway: learn how conventions work in China to not brush them off, how to speak their language, how to dress and behave in a way they can recognize, so many little details that transform me from an alien ghost-faced weirdo to a surprisingly enjoyable human to hang around with.
I wonder if it wouldnt be the same for other groups: maybe minorities in general would enjoy life more if they were given more chance to conform, rather than given more space not to change ? Im not even trying myself, Ill eat my croissant in secret if I want, but for most people, I m a rice noodle eater like every "normal" person here. I hate it, I still do it: I conform, and life goes on.
The majority of people don't know, and don't care.
> Go on autism or trans reddit. It's full of people desperately trying to figure out how to fit in.
Obviously, beacuse people who figured out how to fit in just fit in, and don't hang out much on such subreddits. On those boards, you're dealing with a minority within a minority.
Social difficulty is probably the most common affliction of autistic people. I've met extravert hypersocial autists, but they are very much the minority of the minority.
From the second line of the wiki article for autistic spectrum:
> Other common signs include difficulty with social interaction
So, what should I or they do ? Tolerate me, they could try, but shouldnt I ... fit in more ? Learn more seriously the language, dress more like them, marry local, put my kids amongst them, or even leave and live amongst my peers ?
I think it s impossible to ask a majority to tolerate me beyond very basic human politeness. My religion, my culture, my beliefs are so foreign for the majority, 1.4bn people, that the most efficient way for us to live together is for me to change and adapt a lot more than for them to do so.
Autism is literally defined by a deficit in social skills + restricted repetitive behaviours and nothing else so that is basically what gets treated - the symptoms gets treated with behaviourism and the underlying causes of that behaviour are ignored. GI problems are comorbid in like ~40% of autism cases. Do schools stress getting these autistic kids exercising and teaching them how to cook healthy meals so they can overcome these struggles, live a life without pain, so they can not only live a higher quality of life but have an easier and more pleasant time being social? Sometimes - but the overwhelming emphasis is simply making them act more normal in a very simplistic and direct and to the point way. The system isn't designed to improve autistic kids quality of life you see, it's designed to make them less troublesome for the people around them, and hold them accountable for the trouble they're causing, that's people's mindset.
There is a very cold and unemphathetic attitude towards autistic kids where they're just expected to be iron willed stoics who behave using a fake personality that pleases others around them while their underlying issues basically get no attention from the system. I think if autistic people were treated with more empathy, as less of a monolith, as being defined as being more than "social deficits + repetitive behaviours", we would go a long way.
I suppose our disagreement might be in how feasible each is: it is easy, maybe lazy, to try to make autists adapt to the rest of us and probably impossible, at best extremely expensive, to make the rest of us more atuned to their needs. Not that we dont want to, but we're all thermodynamics machines trying to save energy: we may never really massively expense some to their benefit, sadly, especially if they dont learn to go our ways, sometimes.
You talk about what I'm saying being short-sighted because of "extreme expense" and "massive expense", and how society serves to "Crush difference". I call absolute horseshit. Schools spend MORE on the physical education of normal students than they do with the majority of their disabled students. They do NOT crush difference, they alienate their disabled students from the rest of the student body. They discriminate against them, they make them sick though idleness, they set them up for failure, and when they fail to pretend to play the game it's all blamed on their sick minds and weak bodies. It's not the schools fault of course, it's that these students are such freaks that the school is blameless for them failing. Of course kids who don't exercise are failing socially - not exercising makes you ugly, mentally unwell, markedly different from the other kids, and culturally disconnected - if they gave a fuck about autistic kids social functioning they would make them exercise but they don't care.
[1]https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/physicalactivity/inclusio...
How about society loosens its prejudices?
> And I think nobody's really asking anyone to actually change behavior, And I think nobody's really asking anyone to actually change behavior
Literally regulating behaviors are punished in regular social situations, by parents, teachers, police, etc.
> homosexuality's long combat to marry
Strange tangent. Who is 'homosexuality' here? Demanding equal treatment doesn't necessary mean you need to exercise all liberties that are available. I'm certain there are many that didn't have a desire to marry that also believed in equal treatments and the affordance for those that did want to marry, that they could.
That's the trivial part. Conformance isn't about petty differences in lifestyle or ideas. It's about being able to function together.
Humans can't cooperate with other people if they're not predictable enough. The flip side of "theory of mind" is that you're going to have a bad time with me, if you can't intuitively grasp my reactions and behavior. And vice versa. The major job of culture and civilization is to reduce variance in people, because the easier it is for us to understand each other, the better and more peacefully we can cooperate.
Again, this is not about different learning styles or different personal preferences. It's about whether or not I can trust this person to work with me, to live around me. Will they melt down or get violent at slightest provocation? Are they telling the truth? Can I trust them with work, or with not randomly swerving their car into a crowd because fuck knows why? That's the other end of the spectrum of conformance, and people who are stuck there end up being segregated away - committed to prisons or mental institutions or otherwise pushed aside and kept away from civilization's more powerful toys.
In this broader spectrum, it's rather obvious that conformance is both an advantage and a necessity. Not total conformance - just enough to be able to be a part of society. And society itself can be accepting of only so much - there's only so much unpredictability our wetware can process before fight-or-flight kicks in.
Autistic meltdown can be made a lot worse if someone hasn't the theory of mind to understand when someone is experiencing it (i.e., the double empathy problem). This can lead to situations, especially where law enforcement is involved, where people get killed. Physical abuse from parents towards autistic children—once again due to lack of empathy—can cause outbursts to be excessively violent.
If you have difficulty reading autistic people, there's training for that, but on the other side, asking autistic people to not meltdown is akin to asking an epileptic person trying not to have a fit. If someone gets particularly violent during meltdowns, they essentially need to be kept away from other people. This can't be trained out with therapy.
> Are they telling the truth?
If they're autistic, likely answer is: To a fault. A higher IQ autist (archaically 'aspies') can learn social mechanisms, rarely even over and above a neurotypical, but with greater conscious effort and delay.
> or with not randomly swerving their car into a crowd because fuck knows why
Sounds like a conflation with psychosis. I'm not sure how it's relevant. Many autistic people do struggle with driving and may have dyspraxia, which may require more lesson time, or not qualifying a driving test. I wouldn't class that as exceptional 'conformance' for autists though.
But truth be told, autistic people are coached all the time by caregivers on proper behavior, because as you say they have to live in the world.
Yet there are societies where my wife would have to conform in the sense of having to hide her facial hair due to dominant religion even though she herself is an atheist. If we were to go to such society, we'd have to conform.
Conforming is sometimes necessary, but a trait of assimilation. It isn't as black or white as it is though. There are parts in USA where you cannot be openly gay, and there are parts where you can.
There are also two sexual preferences which have to conform in the West as they're not accepted by society: children and animals as sexual preference. I agree with not accepting these since they're predatory instead of equal terms. However it is relevant to mention as people with these preferences (as well as psychopathy) have to mask it.
Meanwhile, homosexuality is a spectrum as well. There are shades of gray (nuances) between gay and straight, bisexuality being one of them. To put it differently: one does not have to be either. In an ideal world, I'd have grown up openly bisexuality or at least bicurious.
My problem with transgender is very specific: fertile women are attractive to males because of their fertility which is deeply related to their behavior (look, smell, act, etc). This is something transgender females cannot (yet) offer and it firmly puts them outside the definition of being female _for_me_. However, it is irrelevant to me nowadays as I am (the cliché) married with children. I believe it is the root underlying issue related to acceptance though, akin to con-artism. For me it is. But that is my problem, not theirs.
A lot of undiagnosed women with autism conform/assimilate by masking. It is considered harmful on the longer term (as you put: the short term might be beneficial). You get people who are acting as if they're something they're not. And they will fail their act. Then you get a situation like Girl, Interrupted. A temper tantrum, diagnosis borderline (what I believe to be often a undiagnosed autism among females).
The M.O. should be you are yourself at the very least at home. And that requires acceptance and embracing of how you are as a starting point. Masking is going to be required more tgan enough, it shouldn't be the target goal.
I'd like to end my post with an open question: Do you believe we as Western society benefit from people with a sexual preference for children, animals, and psychopaths in general masking themselves?
I think that's more recent history than anything - and very much specific culturally.
Pathologizing is useful in that if ASD was considered a simple personality trait, that would mean there would be no need to help people with ASD in any way.
The idea is that before providing help, which can be in the form of medicine, therapy, special arrangements, welfare, etc... we need some kind of way to establish that you need that help. A diagnosis for a pathology is just that, a way to help people, not a way stigmatize or diminish them. Now, how effective that help will be is another story, but recognizing the pathology is a necessary step.
Of course you're not wrong that it's likely to come with disorder anyway, since for example the autism spectrum has all sorts of possible symptoms, like being unable to learn how to speak fluently, or at all. It's hard to argue that not being a disorder, just in terms of it being an unnecessary impairment and not just a difference in specialization.
FYI: Autism isn’t diagnosed by brain imaging. It’s an area of active research and there have been a few small studies from researchers claiming progress with fMRI techniques, but there is no current imaging test a doctor can order to check you for autism.
So if you do find a neurologist who claims to be able to diagnose you by brain scan, you should actually leave that doctor and find a better one.
I have heard that certain patterns can be seen in the brain activity of autistic people as early as the age of 2. The progress which has been claimed by researchers, I presume. I do expect that to be a more consistent diagnosis option in the future but, to your point, that may just be wishful thinking.
We both have autism diagnosis and there are so many traits we recognize in our children (5 y.o. female, 3 y.o. male) that in a few years during a heteroanamnesis they also will surely ding ding the boxes. From stimmung to all kind of other behavior we also expressed in our youth. But we remained undiagnosed until well into adulthood and we want our children to land more softly than that.
I just mean that I commonly hear the advice to get a second or third opinion, or otherwise to involve a team of professionals, were one to seek a diagnosis.
Our diagnosis involved heteroanamnesis, and many, many questionnaires and interviews. By a team with each being a specialist in the field on a different facet.
I cannot recommend getting tested enough. Because those who suspect likely researched into it, and are being told traits get recognized or they're facing challenges in their life. But I live in a country with a sort of working social system which (although weakened) so mandatory insurance worked. If you do not have access to that I'd sing a different tune... and in such a society it is very likely a lot of undiagnosed and stuck people are runnin' around.
At the end of the day, self acceptance must come with or without diagnosis.
Anyway, I firmly disagree. Self acceptance knowing you are wired differently and understanding aspects like Theory of Mind are a great opportunity to better function. The earlier the person learns to deal with these fundamentals (with which they likely WILL face issues with including in early childhood), the better.
Case in point: my 5 y.o. daughter just does not read her little brother's social cues. She cannot fathom he does not want X or Y.
I explain her needs and desires do not necessarily align with his and that she must try to notice his (I describe them like do you hear he is yelling because of XYZ). This is largely futile. Because she notices he yells but doesn't understand why. He's only 3, so he mostly plays parallel (normal for his age).
I also describe the circumstances of the situation. Usually it is before dinnertime. So I explain right before dinner isn't a good time to play together. Because they trigger each other. So it is a good time to play solo and respect each other's boundaries. At that time they're hangry and difficult, so often some drama isn't avoidable.
Unfortunately some triggers cannot be avoided. They have to go bath sometimes, and we settled for once a week. He hates to wash his hair. Our daughter had same, as did I.
That she is not an expert socializer at five years old does not indicate shes autistic. There are tens of thousands of confounding variables.
Until I knew I had a brain injury, I could not figure out how to work around my issues. Everything I tried was a dead end. It was unrelenting failure and judgement.
Knowing what a problem is gives you the ability to solve it. Not everyone will use that knowledge to their benefit, but withholding the knowledge from someone is abusive.
I was surprised by this when in my high school class the teacher (a doctor) asked the students if they would like to be accutely aware of an unfixable chronic brain impairment (if i recall it was memory impairment in this case). To my horror almost everyone said no.
Autism isn’t diagnosed by blood tests or imagining like you might expect from simpler disorders.
> I have heard that certain patterns can be seen in the brain activity of autistic people as early as the age of 2. The progress which has been claimed by researchers, I presume.
These studies start with doctor diagnosed cases of autism and look for patterns that might separate them from controls. Latest research claims to have around an 80% match rate in a decent sized sample but these tests aren’t coming to your local doctor any time soon.
I, perhaps incorrectly, understand a diagnostic test for ASD to be something involving a lot of interaction between the patient and the professionals analyzing the patient’s behavior and described thought processes. That process isn’t perfect but it can work.
The brain imaging method seems more robust in theory. As you point out (thanks for the details!), it’s not particularly advanced and may not be effective in the long run but my hopes are still high for it. It may be a long way off but a future generation might have access to a less costly and more accurate test. I guess calling the current process a “test” seems off?
I imagine many others are also like this and have single or few such things. It progresses to being a disorder when people can't function, but when they can, it's probably just a trait.
For example: anxiety. I've always suffered from quite debilitating anxiety, which has verged into hypertension, panic attacks, and assorted complications by now. But 30 years ago, nobody was discussing this basic trouble with me, and so I had no tools for even recognizing it, much less reducing its impact on my life.
I was homeless/poor/unemployed for a long, long time, and intellectually I had no satisfying explanation of how I got into those situations. Once I was able to deeply reflect on myself and identify some root causes, and then gain tools to work on those debilitating symptoms, I was much better equipped to fashion a better life, some realistic goals, and a future for myself.
That results in a rather hostile environment for those who wish to label, discuss, contribute etc to the documentation of the subject.
In a similar way the frequently-online Deaf community is remarkably hostile to the idea of cochlear implants in a way that you just don't see among the less-online deaf community.
To many people with autism, it’s the people without autism which seem in need of a diagnosis.
The more random, disorderly brain of the “typical” person is simply more predisposed to navigating the society made for “typical” persons.
It absolutely is. They are a deviation from the norm in a way that more often than not has negative consequences, in addition to any benefits that may or may not exist.
There are plenty of non-autistic people who are perfectly logical, so that point doesn't matter.
Autistic people thinking NT people need to be more like them is a result of their thinking being out of whack. Things like tolerance in society are irrelevant to that point.
And for the record, you can count me among the people who think that the average person could stand being about 20% more autistic. There’s nothing noble or special about being leashed to emotions and arbitrary social cues.
When it's not something to do with sensory overload or having trouble navigating something in the world even without any interaction, sure, almost all that is left is problems with interaction.
And even then when the problems are due to interaction, it's not always due to a lack of tolerance or something, it's often due to the autistic person being unable to read social cues and similar, and so that's a negative consequence, not just a neutral difference.
> And for the record, you can count me among the people who think that the average person could stand being about 20% more autistic.
Yeah that's ridiculous. It's like deaf people wanting people that can hear to be deaf.
> There’s nothing noble or special about being leashed to emotions and arbitrary social cues.
NT's are not leashed just because some people are, anymore than all NDs need to rock back and forth or something to deal with sensory overload.
Social cues are an arbitrary language, and you can find a very wide degree of competence among the NT, let alone ND. Meanwhile some people suck at hand-eye coordination, some people suck at maths, some people suck at social cues, and some people suck at logical deduction. Negative consequences can stem from any of these deficiencies. If you want to single out one of those and call it a disability, my response is whoop-de-doo.
Analogising autism with deafness tells me that you've never interacted with an autistic person in anything other than a shallow way, or in a cruel ABA-style setting, rendering this conversation pointless. I can only hope you're speaking from actual ignorance and have no influence over the support given to anyone with medium to severe ASD.
> I could easily trigger sensory overload in the vast majority of people.v
No, you couldn't. Not easily. It can certainly be easily triggered in the vast majority of autistic people though.
> Our society doesn't tend to trigger sensory overload because it's tuned to provide a level of sensory stimulus within a certain arbitrary range which is acceptable to the majority of people
It's not arbitrary, it's the result of human evolution. That's like calling the colors range we can see arbitrary. That autistic people can and often are more sensitive is part of the disorder.
> Social cues are an arbitrary language, and you can find a very wide degree of competence among the NT, let alone ND.
Again, not arbitrary. And yes many NT are competent, many more are not.
> Negative consequences can stem from any of these deficiencies. If you want to single out one of those and call it a disability, my response is whoop-de-doo.
I didn't say disability, I said disorder, but if you have trouble with the most basic human things, which math and logical deduction are not, then yes, you have a disorder, just like if you have very bad coordination to the point you can't catch, throw or maybe even jump or run well.
> Analogising autism with deafness tells me that you've never interacted with an autistic person in anything other than a shallow way
It was to make a point in a specific context, and that point is valid. Maybe don't make more of it than it is.
> I can only hope you're speaking from actual ignorance and have no influence over the support given to anyone with medium to severe ASD.
You say this simply because I think it's ridiculous that you think most people should be more autistic. Which again, is a ridiculous argument and stance, and you should be ashamed for having it and maybe do a whole lot of self-reflection and maybe be honest with yourself about why you think that.
This speaks to a lack of imagination on your part. Absolutely I could. Easily. Of course it would involve something outside of social norms, but that's the whole point. Go on, try to be imaginative.
> It's not arbitrary, it's the result of human evolution.
"It's not your kind of arbitrary, it's this other kind of arbitrary." Autism is a facet of human evolution too, by the way. In a sense, societal norms are nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.
> if you have trouble with the most basic human things
The most basic according to you. Somewhat ironically, society is already doing an excellent job of making some of these "basic human things" less relevant. Face-to-face interaction is less frequent. The "me too" movement is shifting the pendulum away from subtle social cues and towards arbitrary social rules. And the job market has never been better for people with the sort of hyper-rational mindset often correlated with ASD (if they can get past the job interview, which is increasingly automated too).
> It was to make a point in a specific context, and that point is valid.
It really isn't valid. Most mild to moderate autistic people have natural deficits which can be mitigated with targeted education. Some "normal" people have similar natural deficits with respect to sport, which can be mitigated with targeted education.
> Which again, is a ridiculous argument and stance
Which again, is an understandable reaction if you only had a superficial understanding of autism's extreme outlier cases. Here's an interesting little tidbit for you: there is a school in my city which has an enrolment exclusively comprised of ASD students. If nobody had told you this, you probably couldn't have guessed. The vast, vast majority of autistic people are really no different to the general population except for needing a bit of extra help in a few areas, but — much like the "normal" kind of social awkwardness or deficiency in physical coordination — can be overcome with empathy and education.
I also suspect you're one of those "needs to have the last word types", which is also common in autistic people (despite supposedly being less emotional according to you), and, well, that's not going to be a productive discussion if that's your motivation or even part of it.
Cheers.
Except you didn’t. You kept going.
> I also suspect you're one of those "needs to have the last word types"
I physically laughed at that. Framing your opponent in an ongoing discussion as “having the last word” is just a low effort way of deflecting away from substantive conversion, and suggests a lack of seriousness in your prior discourse.
If you have anything useful to add, I’m happy to continue the discussion.
From my perspective, monotropism is almost to be expected as normal in 90%+ of people. Then again, I may just be extrapolating from my own experience, but if I'm really wrong and only a small % of the populace employs this thinking strategy, I'd be truly dumbfounded.
Does washing the dishes not sound simple and instead sound like something which would take a fair amount of focus to make sure you're doing it right? It does for me, at any rate.
I'm reading this article you posted because I wasn't sure of any of this terminology and I never have panic attacks or anything like that, though. I more or less just get startled and want a quick back and forth so I can get right back to it. Definitely could occasionally from off as snappy.
Dishes I also forget about unless I do them immediately. So same thing, when I finally walk by the sink and notice them I hyper focus and knock them out super quick like I'm in the zone.
This paragraph is confusing me, first PDA is totally bad at all of the bullet points but if PDA is not diagnosed with classic autism spectrum it's actually all positive social stuff? Sounds strange.
> Although PDA has its own traits that are separate from autism, people with PDA generally meet the diagnostic criteria by having significant difficulties in social interaction and communication.[1] Alternatively, they may instead be diagnosed with ODD.[1] Those who propose that PDA should be a separate diagnosis from classic autism spectrum disorders, observed that, compared to children with classic autism, those with PDA:
* are more sociable * have better social skills and social understanding * use apparently socially manipulative and shocking behaviour[3][4] * are more interested in people than objects * are more comfortable with pretend play, and * are more imaginative
It could also very well describe actors like Henry Cavill.
Also, in DSM-V there is only autism spectrum disorder. And people with ASD can be very imaginative, plus traits can be masked. And trained.
My wife did a social study. Because it fascinated her. Yet she masked a lot in her life. Both our parents (mothers) still refuse to accept themselves as such. And yet we sometimes put their nose in the pie.
It would have been amazing if it wasn't for that whole pandemic situation.
Anecdotally, I work in layers. If a layer gets too complicated, then a new layer is formed -- breaking apart the current layer, maybe keeping some of the parts and then other parts are only cherry picked into an abstraction and the details shoved into a deeper layer.
Much like I do for software.
Most of the time it works "fine". Sometimes I get so busy building layers that I end up two weeks later and have way too many layers and none of them are clearly identifiable. Ooof. Time for cleanup, another two weeks at least.
My boss calls it "rabbit holes" -- taking things apart, figuring out how they work, picking out what's relevant or useful to me, putting things together simplified...
Tough part is when there's a deadline.
That's fair. I'll often forget the details or maybe the abstraction isn't good enough, or abstracts the wrong thing. I often have to switch layers, pick up some critical info, and keep that in context when working above. Sometimes it happens often -- forgetting piece A to work on piece B, then forgetting piece B to remember piece A, then having to remember all the intricacies.
I stopped trying. I just write unit tests for the layers and details. It also helps me to keep things simple -- if the unit test is too complicated at a lower layer, then the upper layers are going to be even more complicated. So simplifying that layer is certainly necessary.
It feels like a constant rabbit hole because once the layers are there, the features themselves can get built in a blink of an eye, so that the balance goes even further towards layer building.
Because of increased feature velocity so does increased feature “ambition”, so in a way the balance just remains the same…
This is how my mind works, but I've actually found it to be extremely unusual, and I would say your estimate of 90% of people's not thinking like me is, if anything, low.
I normally have anywhere from 4-7 things going on in my mind at once. This is comfortable for me. It takes concerted effort to keep things from popping into the 4th slot if it ever empties out.
I start to notice overwhelm at 10, and become incapacitated at 12. Whenever I reach the point of needing to brain dump and write things down because I'm getting overwhelmed, there end up being 10 things on the list. At 12, I short circuit.
But I'm ruminating on 4-7 things at any given time. My dreams are mostly lucid, and this happens in them too.
I don't know how to answer the "how" question, because as far as I can tell, I've been this way since very early childhood. I remember being 3 or 4 years old and having an adult tell me it's not possible to talk about one thing when you're thinking about something else, and laughing openly because I thought they were kidding. Of course it's possible. What other way is there?
But as you noted, I've found my experience to be extremely uncommon. I think most people can handle two or three things if they have to, but that's all. I can no more understand what it's like to be able to do that without being understimulated than I imagine they can understand what it would be like to experience my brain without being overwhelmed.
So, pretty much in every class I have ever taken the teacher starts out by saying that we don't need to take notes because their lecture materials will be posted online. Why do they say this? Because almost everyone can't take notes and also hear everything the teacher says. The only exception is probably court stenographers.
It feels like professional educators spend a lot of time coming up with ways to categorize people as a bad fit for the classroom rather than evaluating their own teaching methods.
I think on the contrary. As I imagine it, you focus on one item, keep it in your working memory, then refocus on the other item, so that you can put both together. For me, both items are just there, and no special effort is needed to handle them. I don't think that the concept of working memory even applies to those who are not "monotropic".
I don't think it has anything to do with autism.
Anyway, I haven’t really heard of “polytropism”. Maybe nobody thinks that way. I don’t know how much that topic has been explored.
Until then, I will remain agnostic on any theory unless it is very obviously causal.
How does neuroscience get around this problem, and how close are we to actual "brain chips" that could provide viable diagnostic data?
There is also something specific happening with the way my brain processes sound. When I go to dinner with my wife, for example, I can hear and can't help but focus on every conversation happening in the room, making it difficult to stay focused on my wife (she is blessedly understanding about this because she can see that I am in slight distress if I am not wearing my attenuating earplugs). I describe it to people as being akin to all sound in a given space "coming in at the same volume" which is not what is actually happening, but gets the idea across. This happens while still taking in too much visual info too, but sound definitely dominates me.
I've approached two doctors about this, but they seem quite clueless. I was diagnosed with GAD about 14 years ago, and the last doc chalked it up to that and sent me to a psych who wanted me on an SSRI after only 20 minutes of speaking to me, a drug that has done very little to improve this condition in the past.
I work in a field that requires earplugs (or good earbuds) basically all the time, so thankfully those help me cope. It's not debilitating, I can still function out in public in a limited-engagement capacity, but I have a plan ahead for hours, sometimes days of decompression because of this sensory overload.
I also experienced a milder form of what you describe when I stopped taking benzos, but that sideffect went away.
But generally I find walks in the park nice for the opposite of what you describe. Nature sounds do not stimulate or annoy me in the way background human noise does.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002771...
You can probably do much of that research and introspection on your own. At least to the point of getting more of a head start. The clinical option is a team diagnosis, which will be expensive. You'd want to weigh what the benefits vs risks (cost, medical records, etc) are for formal diagnosis vs informal (yourself as diagnostician). Especially considering lack of direct treatments.
Such as? Thanks.
It’s true that these same therapies might generally be helpful for all people, but that’s why it’s a spectrum.
Ever since we got our diagnoses our life has been in full motion once again. Though we also became parents right after (twice) and that alone is a rollercoaster.
Difficulty reading social cues, sensory overwhelm, robotic affect and processing--all totally normal for me.
In my case, I later discovered that early childhood trauma's symptoms can often mimic autism, especially if the perpetrator is the type of gaslighter who denies that they meant what every nonverbal cue suggested they meant.
Even the sensory overwhelm can happen because of trauma, because if you were not safe when your neural pathways were forming, you may have learned to pay keener attention to your environment looking for threats, at the same time that your parasympathetic nervous system never developed the normal ability to down-regulate your stress responses because the threat was never really over.
There's every chance you specifically are an autistic adult who's never been diagnosed, or who just has autism-like traits. I just want to bring it up for anyone for whom it might be helpful.
In my case, it turned out not to be, as working through the trauma eliminated the symptoms that had previously been interpreted as caused by autism, but it's certainly possible to be both autistic and a trauma survivor.
But I'm not going out of my way to label it. I'm clearly not neurotypical but whatever label I put on it doesn't really change that. Learning to live with it does make it a lot more bearable though.
In my case I think its due to issues with my father who was not abusive but angry and unpredictable, and unable to empathise with or mirror anyone else’s emotional state. This lead to a lot of trust issues with people that probably comes across as autism but is more anxiety and social awkwardness.
I have a very robotic "manager" part that spent a lot of time running things for me. It takes input from the nearest authority figure and precisely meets expectations, but doesn't feel, doesn't internalize, doesn't connect.
It was protecting a lot of confused, vulnerable little parts that had been kind of pushed out of conscious awareness when I was young, because it sounds like we had similar fathers.
I heard this great line that really helped crystalize part of it for me too:
When children are dealing with unstable parents, they don't doubt the parent. They doubt themselves. They don't stop loving the parent. They stop loving themselves.
It's a process I'm still working through every day, but at least it finally feels like I'm moving forward, not backward or spinning my wheels in place.
> Hope you're getting along ok :)
Thanks! It certainly helps to have a clearer idea of the differences (or potential differences as I try to remind myself) in how I think compared to how others think. I’m glad you feel confidence in the idea as well! I’ve seen it elsewhere but it’s always nice to have this independently “agreed upon” (since I don’t quite want to call it “confirmed”).
Yet, I feel connected to monotropism in some way: I can only get interested almost obsessively in one thing at a time and completely forget and disregard anything and anyone else. It s very annoying for people around me and many find me autistic somehow, geeky at best.
All Im saying is, either it s really what a "spectrum" is or it s just a sort of common human traits. Us programmers had to be a bit obsessed with computers to dedicate most of our waking time to it, and everyone here is probably sharing this trait, none of us being really autists and may sound disrespectful or misguided calling ourselves so ?
It might be worth looking more into this. I’d describe myself similarly and I’ve heard it described similarly:
> Many autistic individuals report feelings of excessive empathy, yet their experience is not reflected by most of the current literature, typically suggesting that autism is characterized by intact emotional and reduced cognitive empathy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9804307/
The rest is very interesting! It might be a bit “exposing”, if you’ll pardon the pun, but there are many “masking” behaviors an autistic person might learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masking_(personality)
It’s also not unheard of for autistic people to live healthy social lives and even engage socially to varying degrees. I wouldn’t discount it even based on the all-night clubbing given what I’ve read but that’s definitely getting way more into my personal opinion and factually exceptional territory for those who’ve been formally diagnosed.
(Not trying to lead you too strongly. Just offering information in case you haven’t encountered it. You know how you think better than anyone else!)
The point about “spectrum” or “regular” is interesting too. I think that’s kinda why I find this monotropism vs. “polytropism?” idea so fascinating. I want to hear about the other thing more, at this point -- assuming it exists. It feels like a good topic to explore more.
Edit: Just caught this too:
> I m very chatty in general and overshare
This can also describe an autistic person’s social behavior. Generally, I’ve read it manifests as talking a bit too much about a topic they’re interested in, possibly even irritating others with their focus on it. (A lot of “me irl” stuff in this personally.) I’ll even go out on a limb and guess you’ve been accused multiple times of “dominating a conversation”. Correct me if I’m wrong! Anyway, it just makes me wonder more about the real differences in how people think. Why does that sort of disagreement even happen?
Some autistic folks will avoid sensory stimulation while others seek it out. I'm definitely one of the ones that seeks it out and I'm pretty extroverted. It's a heterogeneous condition, and indeed a spectrum. Who knows for your situation, but you may be autistic.
That being said though, I think the important thing isn't the neurotype but rather that you've found what matters to you and what makes you happy. At the end of the day that's what counts, not the underlying neurology.
In what way, can you explain, does it feel like a personal attack?
The result is decisions that are remarkably short of the careful considerations nominally applied, and taken for granted, by neurotypical people as well as many unfounded fears. My other observation is that this behavior is entirely unrelated to intelligence but it does dictate personality indexes, for example higher neuroticism and lower conscientiousness.
I suspect many people incorrectly assume the monotropism as a factor because of an over simplification in isolation.