Hate the saying"Were all a bit autistic"

I too become somewhat agitated myself if I encounter someone using this term Kenny_1622 , especially from those who might reasonably be expected to already have some insight into autism.  Any ire I feel is mainly reserved for mental health professionals who behave this way - although I am trying to control this better...  :-)   I feel somewhat sad for those people who are unable to recognise their culpability - in my opinion they literally do not realise what they are missing out of.

As others have indicated it may be that the individual saying this has as yet undiagnosed autism or sub-clinical traits present and therefore may be of the opinion that their condition is indeed normal for everyone else too.  In this sense many of the discussions I had with people before my diagnosis were premised upon my working under the misapprehensions of the " dual empathy problem" myself.  My and their miscommunication and misunderstanding foundering upon this.

Notwithstanding the diagnosis being a clinical one which encompasses many factors, the trait analysis of autism e.g. as identified by the "Autism Quotient" clearly identifies autism as being a distinct subgroup of the population.  Genetic links are also objectively measurable.  Objective studies of brain anatomy and its functional chemistry also objectively ratify this clinical diagnosis.

I have some suggestions as to how to resolve this if you would like them?

Firstly ascertain if the person is open to discussion on the topic by looking for clues already present in their behaviour or the situation.

If not then either don't bother to try to explain (hehe oh gosh that I find really hard personally as what I am engaged with now demonstrates!  ) or simple state that no, we are not all a little autistic and leave it at that.

If they would like me to share with them my understanding of the differences between autism and neurotypical then...

(ok this can confuse things but hey, it's worth a go maybe...  I try not to forget to bail out of this if either it's going wrong or adapt if  the "contact" is lost... and to remember to run with or adapt to developing understanding that is demonstrated)

If they are open to discussion then how one explains to them depends upon finding a way they understand things to explain it - "pitching" the explanation by tailoring to what and how they understand things most readily.  Sometimes sharing extra concepts along the way as necessary.

so maybe suggest to people  that they consider the different computer operating system analogy

what Google AI tells me 

"author Richard Maguire is associated with a similar analogy comparing autism to having a different "operating system". The popularization of the specific "Windows PC vs. Mac" analogy is often attributed to neurodivergent writer and speaker Ellie Middleton"

If they're up to it and/or want/need more detail then I go with explaining the graphs that the AQ study throws up as different.

Likewise the computer generated images that show differences in brain structure and function.

Hehe with a personal background in biochemistry I'll even have a go at explaining that.

I have personally found some really good success by shared discourse of the "better" presentations of autistic people in various media - I spoke to someone yesterday who waxed on about their having seen "the good doctor" - hehe I think that's how they see me...

Anyway I hope what I've shared here is worthwhile :-)

Thanks for the thread.

one last thought - by way of 2 jokes (apologies I've looked but don't know who first coined these) ...that maybe sum a few things up here:

"how many therapists does it take to change a light bulb - one but the light bulb has got to want to change" 

"how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb - one but the light bulb will change when it is ready" 

I too become somewhat agitated myself if I encounter someone using this term Kenny_1622 , especially from those who might reasonably be expected to already have some insight into autism.  Any ire I feel is mainly reserved for mental health professionals who behave this way - although I am trying to control this better...  :-)   I feel somewhat sad for those people who are unable to recognise their culpability - in my opinion they literally do not realise what they are missing out of.

As others have indicated it may be that the individual saying this has as yet undiagnosed autism or sub-clinical traits present and therefore may be of the opinion that their condition is indeed normal for everyone else too.  In this sense many of the discussions I had with people before my diagnosis were premised upon my working under the misapprehensions of the " dual empathy problem" myself.  My and their miscommunication and misunderstanding foundering upon this.

Notwithstanding the diagnosis being a clinical one which encompasses many factors, the trait analysis of autism e.g. as identified by the "Autism Quotient" clearly identifies autism as being a distinct subgroup of the population.  Genetic links are also objectively measurable.  Objective studies of brain anatomy and its functional chemistry also objectively ratify this clinical diagnosis.

I have some suggestions as to how to resolve this if you would like them?

Firstly ascertain if the person is open to discussion on the topic by looking for clues already present in their behaviour or the situation.

If not then either don't bother to try to explain (hehe oh gosh that I find really hard personally as what I am engaged with now demonstrates!  ) or simple state that no, we are not all a little autistic and leave it at that.

If they would like me to share with them my understanding of the differences between autism and neurotypical then...

(ok this can confuse things but hey, it's worth a go maybe...  I try not to forget to bail out of this if either it's going wrong or adapt if  the "contact" is lost... and to remember to run with or adapt to developing understanding that is demonstrated)

If they are open to discussion then how one explains to them depends upon finding a way they understand things to explain it - "pitching" the explanation by tailoring to what and how they understand things most readily.  Sometimes sharing extra concepts along the way as necessary.

so maybe suggest to people  that they consider the different computer operating system analogy

what Google AI tells me 

"author Richard Maguire is associated with a similar analogy comparing autism to having a different "operating system". The popularization of the specific "Windows PC vs. Mac" analogy is often attributed to neurodivergent writer and speaker Ellie Middleton"

If they're up to it and/or want/need more detail then I go with explaining the graphs that the AQ study throws up as different.

Likewise the computer generated images that show differences in brain structure and function.

Hehe with a personal background in biochemistry I'll even have a go at explaining that.

I have personally found some really good success by shared discourse of the "better" presentations of autistic people in various media - I spoke to someone yesterday who waxed on about their having seen "the good doctor" - hehe I think that's how they see me...

Anyway I hope what I've shared here is worthwhile :-)

Thanks for the thread.

one last thought - by way of 2 jokes (apologies I've looked but don't know who first coined these) ...that maybe sum a few things up here:

"how many therapists does it take to change a light bulb - one but the light bulb has got to want to change" 

"how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb - one but the light bulb will change when it is ready"