Terminology

Bunny said:

The point of B's post is that the “can of worms” (ie the inaccuracies and over-generalisations) is “already opened” / already exists whenever someone means “allistic”, but instead says “neurotypical”. That's a category error. In objective terms, they're not saying what they actually mean.

If all we know about a group of people (who are being referred to in the abstract) is that they aren’t autistic, then we all can know for certain is that they're allistic. So we know that's an accurate way to describe them.

Exactly. 

Thank you. 

It's a relief to be understood.

B said:

How do we know they are neurotypical unless we know them well personally?

Iain said:

This opens a whole can of worms about labelling anyone with anything.

No, it doesn't. It was a rhetorical question, because we obviously can't know they're neurotypical.

The point of B's post is that the “can of worms” (ie the inaccuracies and over-generalisations) is “already opened” / already exists whenever someone means “allistic”, but instead says “neurotypical”. That's a category error. In objective terms, they're not saying what they actually mean.

If all we know about a group of people (who are being referred to in the abstract) is that they aren’t autistic, then we all can know for certain is that they're allistic. So we know that's an accurate way to describe them.

We don't - and can't - know whether, besides being allistic, everyone in that group is also neurotypical, because some or all of them could, for example, have one or more other conditions (eg Tourette syndrome, dyspraxia, ADHD, etc) that mean they're neurodivergent.

Iain said:

It is also worth noting that many NTs do have ND characteristics though - this is the nature of any spectrum condition. 

If you mean that allistic people can have traits that are associated with autism, then of course they can. But that isn't "the nature of" - or related to autism being - a spectrum condition.

In autism, the spectrum refers to the different ways that autism is experienced by autistic people. It doesn't extend to people who aren't autistic. So an allistic person having one or more traits associated with autism doesn't mean that they're “on the autism spectrum”.

I draw that distinction because you've previously told someone:

Iain said:

Remember that the diagnosis is given only when you are autisitc enough to be disabled by it. You can have lots of autistic traits but not reach the threshold but this does not mean you are not on the spectrum.

That understanding of "the spectrum" is incorrect.

My reply would have been, “what was you expecting, Rain Man?” 

Sorry, but I’m going to muddy the waters a bit further: I am actually uncomfortable with the term ‘autism’ (and its derivatives). What bothers me is the etymology: Bleuler coined the term to describe a condition of schizophrenia in which the patient has reached a state of extreme self-absorption. This is in fact the Lutheran definition of sin and he grew up in a context that was profoundly informed by Lutheran and Reformed theology. Do we really want to cling to a term that still hints at self-absorption and (for some people) sinfulness?

Roy said:

Not looking autist

That has been said to me by a doctor. 

Yep.

No 3.

I don’t know if this falls under terminology? “Not looking autist or being a little bit autistic” Two phrases that offend just about every autistic person.

Iain said:

It is also worth noting that many NTs do have ND characteristics though - this is the nature of any spectrum condition. 

This supports my point well. 

Iain said:

That is like asking what are the characteristics of someone who does not have a cold.

Any of the ND diagnoses have a list of criteria that are noted by a professional and when a certain number at a certain level of intensity are recorded then they pass the threshold for the diagnosis.

If you consider anyone who does not reach this criteria as NT then there you have it.

Being ND is much more complex than the common cold.

Your words help illustrate how talking about NTs is often not meaningful in the context used.

I remember assuming the NT stood for Never Tested based on some of the problems we had! 

I've used all sorts of OSes over the years, they all have their foibles, and all have their own names for the same things which makes troubleshooting interesting 

B said:

Please let me know the characteristics of an NT person then ie someone who doesn't have any of the conditions under the ND umbrella

It is also worth noting that many NTs do have ND characteristics though - this is the nature of any spectrum condition. 

B said:

Please let me know the characteristics of an NT person then ie someone who doesn't have any of the conditions under the ND umbrella to make these conversations 

That is like asking what are the characteristics of someone who does not have a cold.

Any of the ND diagnoses have a list of criteria that are noted by a professional and when a certain number at a certain level of intensity are recorded then they pass the threshold for the diagnosis.

If you consider anyone who does not reach this criteria as NT then there you have it.

Iain said:

It may be better to accept that there is a small margin of error in any diagnosis or labelling and trust that it is the majority to whom you are referring.

Please let me know the characteristics of an NT person then ie someone who doesn't have any of the conditions under the ND umbrella to make these conversations 

Iain said:

meaningful

B said:

How do we know they are neurotypical unless we know them well personally?

This opens a whole can of worms about labelling anyone with anything.

Some autists are actually misdiagnosed so to avoid this uncertainty should we not call them autistic / allistic / ND etc? 

If you try to cater for every possibility then you end up being hugely generalist which makes the conversations much less meaningful.

It may be better to accept that there is a small margin of error in any diagnosis or labelling and trust that it is the majority to whom you are referring.

Yes, it helps understand why some people who might have one or two of these might describe everyone as being as a bit autistic. I believe my father was autistic, but my mother was not, but she was the one who was always tripping over things. One of my issues is spatial awareness and tripping, but I have things that fit all the boxes. 

Alexa said:

Can you explain a little more why you find allistic a better term than NT?

Maybe it's clearer if I ask a question. 

I read on here 'NTs' this and 'NTs' that almost universally as criticism.

So my question is what are the characteristics that define NTs ie all the people who do not have a 'condition' that falls under the ND umbrella? 

I might be able to attempt that for allistics but even that would be making assumptions and putting people into boxes.

A quote from myself below

B said:

Yes, I don't see it as a 'them and us' situation as there will be lots of shades of grey in between 'NTs' and 'NDs'.

I simply can't sum up the characteristics of an NT.

I think there are 2 points here actually.

One about a misuse of the terms but also making great assumptions about characteristics. 

SpiffyVoxel said:

'NT' will always mean 'Windows NT'

Hello from a semi-geek. I've been wrestling with Windows since 3.11 and well remember all my struggles with 95 - the crashes and having to assign port codes to peripherals. Even Vista was so much better!

Have also used Linux (simple distros like Mint and Ubuntu), but Apple is foreign to me.

In my head, as someone who worked in tech support and system administration for many years, 'NT' will always mean 'Windows NT' (New Technology), from which XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 and 11 all trace their lineage. Yes, I'm a geek, and not ashamed, though I'm glad to only do family tech-support these days.

Alexa said:

Can you explain a little more why you find allistic a better term than NT?

No better than today's post below.

B said:

How do we know they are neurotypical unless we know them well personally?

They may have any of the other 'conditions' under the ND umbrella and therefore still be ND even though they aren't autistic.

Therefore unless we know the person very well, 'allistic' is the appropriate term surely?

Great article - thanks!

Can you explain a little more why you find allistic a better term than NT?