Hate the saying"Were all a bit autistic"

Well if 190E, Taylor's Version and I got together I don't think we'd find much in common, I've never knowingly heard a Taylor Swift song! Thats not to say they're a bad person, just one who have little in common with, whereas I suspect you and I could have some good conversations about some of our shared interests, history etc.

To a degree many people do have traits that are associated with neurodivergency, it's not until you have enough of them does it become noticeable. It's like saying everyone has one leg longer than the others, if it's a millimetre it's not a problem but if it's one hundred millimetres then you're going to notice.

agreed TheCatWoman there is the potential for a lot of conversation about shared experience from the what it's like to be autistic in a neurotypical world angle, maybe since the diagnostic criteria place us with shared traits our perspective is likely to be similar.  Yes it is tricky to know what to talk about with someone one has little in common with - at least to start with.    Hehe -  what I'm about to write is intended to be a jokey reflection but I wonder if psychopaths, when they get together, find similar experiences.  (won't elaborate too much for fear of being innapropriate!)  Still. after they've got thro' the "isn't it fab not having to feel empathy for victims" and "what's your favourite torture weapon" maybe they are reduced to "nice day today isn't it" or similar...  :-)

It could be that autistic people get along better with each other, as once the 'I'm autistic' bit of the conversation is out of the way, we can drop a lot of the masks we use in social situations and maybe talk about shared experiences of trying to navigate an NT world. I've also got to say that once past that, I wonder how many people I would actually have anything much in common with?

We are still human, so at the top level we tick the same boxes, e.g. one head, one brain, a spine, nerves, etc.

However, I think we run a different operating system, or at least have various modules that are different.

We can also run an emulator. But it takes up processing power.

So can I feel feel pain, sorrow, love, happiness, the same as others, I don't know. No one knows whether someone else's subjective experience is the same. You can only see that for input A you get output x. If everyone produces x if given A as input,  you assume there is some similarity.

But it is clear that there is some difference, at least till the emulator has perfected its job, because I don't give the same output.

If certain outputs are similar, but ramped up, or down, or appear in response to other inputs, does it mean it is the same processing? I don't know and I am not sure how to tell.

So is everyone a bit autistic, I don't know. Everyone has a similar mix of emotions, fears and hopes. Whether they experience them the same is unknowable.

I expect the basic lizard brain stuff is the same, but higher level stuff has some difference.

I agree with you Martin   -

For the time being science does not define as are not a seperate species.  However I am persuaded by experience and observations to consider that the analogy of chimps and bonobos may be pretty close to the mark as TheCatWoman suggests.

Maybe intermingling of the 2 gene pools?  I am drawn by observation that autistic people get on better with other autistic people than with neurotypical and perhaps that has something to do with genetic selection along the way...

Notwithstanding the genetics, phenotypically autistic people are not part of the continuum of the neurotypical population, they are a discrete part of it - albeit with overlaps.

An individual is autistic based upon observable physical, biochemical and behavioural characteristics that are discrete albeit with overlaps to neurotupical.  Agreed the boundaries for this phenotype are set by clinicians - however these boundaries are very well informed.  So so Bunny  raising the BAP makes sense.

The thing that kind of makes things messy (albeit functionally understandable) about the diagnosis and the condition is that the individual has to be disabled in some way by it to receive the nomenclature.  That's where the patronising part comes into it maybe as 190E(Taylor’s version)  picks up on and as others have said very well

Here's to a day when society is so understanding of neurodiversity and mutually accommodating that autism doesn't need to be defined by the disability of any person.

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" 

Further to Martin  ‘s reply, the idea of the “Broad (or Broader) Autism Phenotype” (BAP) reflects the fact that some people (including, for example, relatives of autistic people) might experience similar issues, but to a lesser extent than meets the diagnostic criteria for autism.

BAP isn’t an official condition or term (ie it is not recognised in diagnostic manuals), but it has been discussed and written about for many years.

This article explains more:

Autism Parenting Magazine - What is the Broad Autism Phenotype?

Whereas the phrase, "We're all a little autistic" is palpably wrong, the phrase "Some people are a little autistic" is undoubtedly correct. Genetics seems to account for around 80% of autism, and most of this is due to autism-associated alleles (minor variations in coding or non-coding DNA). These are found throughout the general population, autistic people just have more than average. As this is the case, there must be a population of people with just under the number or combination of alleles needed for an autism diagnosis; these people would be a 'little autistic'. However, the problems of a diagnosed autist are obviously more profound than those of anyone who would fall below the diagnosis threshold.

As an analogy, autism is not like an off/on switch, where you are either autistic or not. It is more like a thermostat, with the analogue of the temperature when the boiler comes on, being the threshold for diagnosis set by clinicians. Autistics are part of a continuum within the general population, not a separate species.

I often use ND rather than autistic, because I find it a more inclusive term, other wise its like writing an alphabet that ends up more confusing and I inevitable leave some group out which causes hurt and confusion where none was meant.

There are times when I wonder if we are a different species! Or more precisely if NT's are, I think it's a bit like chimps and bonobo's we look the same but theres a huge difference in behaviour between the two species

Yeah 

That's tough, I'm sorry to hear that the severe emotional stress and anxiety cause you to self harm.

Im not really out at work yet. I thought it would be better to come to terms with it myself first and it has only been a couple months.

I agree people do say things like "we are all on the spectrum somewhere" and similar things. I have to be honest though I used to say those things too. In my case it came from a place of ignorance. 

Yeah. That.

Obviously, everybody isn't 'a bit autistic' or another one I hear from time to time 'on the spectrum'. Public perception of neurodiversity is typically inaccurate and framed by tedious stereotypes. 

I have seen, and heard, nds referred to as 'autistics' - a term which serves to illustrate how we are perceived as subhuman, almost a separate species.

I

It annoys me too, I find it belittling, I also think a lot of it is diagnosis envy, by which I mean they envy us being "special" in some way, that we get different treatment, like extra time in exams or something. I think most of them are trying to be inclusive, but are missing the mark by a country mile.

I get the sentiment becuase having so many normal human traits all at once makes you autistic but it’s the way it’s ment thats very patronising 

I share that frustration.

I grappled with this myself when trying to refute my psychologist (who tells me I am Au.)

I take this much as valid: some of the traits of an autistic person can be shared by NTs.

However, when one looks carefully at the extent in which those qualities appear in an Au individual, there are big differences.

Maybe the comparison comes from NTs selectively attending at only _some_ aspects while ignoring most. For example, some may say, "I also use earplugs for sleeping, then I am a bit Au."

If instead there are many traits they can name, then _they_ may be Au, but not _everyone_.

One may also look at how much struggle it produces for them practically. If they "just forget about it" then it is quite low. 

Many Au thrive in the right environment, but it rarely happens "in the wild".