BBC In Depth: the ongoing battle to define autism

These stereotypes are so easily sown. I always dismissed the possibility that I could be in anyway autistic because I had heard at some point that people with autism did not understand humour and could not feel empathy. I am embarrassed now that I didn't question that but that's how these things start. Some "expert" making a comment like that and anybody who doesn't know any better stores that as fact 

I used to run communication teams and had a reputation as a gifted communicator. What wasn't evident to those kind enough to say that was the huge investment of energy (spoons) necessary for an autistic person like me to achieve and maintain that in my field. All the masking, self-editing, frustration, rehearsing, performance anxiety, replaying, ruminating, self-doubt, etc. Uta Frith's comments about Chris Packham made me very cross on his behalf as I sense he has to work really hard, and he is in the public eye as a broadcaster and writer.

There is an "ongoing battle to define autism" but nobody ever tries to define neurotypicalism, or Sub categorize it into different levels of needs.

There are supposedly billions of neurotypical people living on this planet (if the statistics are correct that autistic people are no more than 2% of humans) and that neurotypical population includes people with learning disabilities, mental health issues, plus other conditions that mean they may need support. 

So why shouldn't the autistic population also have a wide range of differing needs?

There are quite a lot of traits that differ between NT and ASC people without bringing learning disabilities or other conditions into it.

"Social engagement for neurotypical individuals is often driven by an intuitive, subconscious understanding of unspoken rules and emotional states... In contrast, autistic individuals often approach social interaction through a learned, analytical, and rule-based lens."

"Social motivation also presents a divergence, as neurotypical individuals tend to seek broad, generalized connection with peers. Autistic individuals, however, frequently prefer deep, shared interest-based connection, where the social interaction is secondary to the mutual passion for a topic."

 "The neurotypical brain possesses efficient “sensory gating,” a neurological process that automatically filters out redundant or irrelevant sensory input... The autistic nervous system frequently processes sensory input differently, often with reduced or atypical sensory gating, meaning the brain is flooded with unfiltered information."

 "Neurotypical cognition tends toward “central coherence,” prioritizing the synthesis of information to quickly grasp the “big picture” or overall gist of a situation.,.. In contrast, autistic cognition frequently leans toward a detail-focused processing style, often referred to as a strength in “local processing.” This systematic approach allows for exceptional attention to minute details, patterns, and inconsistencies that others overlook"

The above quotes are from an article titled "Autism vs. Neurotypical: key differences explained"

Here is a link to the full article:

https://scienceinsights.org/autism-vs-neurotypical-key-differences-explained/

I watched a couple of her interviews online. I think she has been fairly consistent.

The point she is getting at is that the term is now too broad. Others have suggested the same. Having one bucket for everything seems unhelpful. It is why Asperger's was separate.

I am not sure she is saying people don't have struggles or may not need help, but that it is not the same as the people with higher support needs. I think she wants the term to be reserved for those with the highest needs.

How to classify things in a way that is helpful is always a challenge. External observations don't show the full internal world.

Knowing what you have, i.e. a diagnosis, is a starting point to explore and understand yourself, so things make more sense and you can achieve more. I don't mind what it is called or what I have.

Thanks everyone.

I've had an unusually social day today so am typically exhausted, but have been reading all of your responses to this very important subject.

That really is disgusting. Uta nonsense!

Sorry, I meant Times interview! 

no worries Shardovan , thanks

Wordsmith said:

But then she said in that Telegraph interview that it was absurd to call Chris Packham autistic because he could communicate so well!

That's appalling. 

Being undiagnosed or re-diagnosed would for me like being excluded from the only tribe where I've ever felt comfortable. Do I send the rest of my life trudging through life trying to find yet another identity.

...and sorry for initially misspelling your user-name ... now remedied! 

But then she said in that Telegraph interview that it was absurd to call Chris Packham autistic because he could communicate so well! In my view, publicly questioning someone’s diagnosis is also ‘a terrible thing’.

Yes. For many who are late diagnosed there was a lack of understanding as to what autism was. I believe it is only with increasing knowledge via the internet and getting to a stage where they were no longer able to 'cope' that late diagnosed people look for a diagnosis. It is only then, that explanations for things they experienced and tried to manage become clear. It is only in recent years for example that I have become aware that many people do not experience the sensitivities I have always struggled with. 

I believe for late diagnosed adults, needs have increased by then and sometimes by then, support that they had relied upon in earlier years is no longer there. 

I agree that support is needed for those with high needs, but for others who struggle with living a 'normal' life, it is much harder to ask for or explain the need for support and understanding. It is interesting in this time when we are expected to understand everyone's differences, that it appears that some are dismissed.

Indeed, old rehashed news and Frith has received legitimate and persisting criticism over her comments earlier in the year, even from former colleagues. As you were, lovely folks...

Thank you B for posting this.

ArchaeC said:

The last thing I read was that there are potentially at least five types of autism, based on genetic differences.

Thanks for that.

Thanks, Phased... likewise :-) 

I found the assertion by Dame Uta Frith that autism researchers who themselves are autistic have some 'conflict of interest' particular galling in that article. I feel the headline would be more honest if it was "the ongoing battle to erase autism". The lady who was interviewed last had it right: it doesn't matter what you call the condition, what matters is that those with it get both recognition and support. Alas, it feels like Dame Uta and others would prefer that people with autism of any kind or degree just be swept aside and ignored, because the alternative would require actually giving a damn *and* systemic changes.

These words of UF's are reassuring I think for those already diagnosed:

"It would be a terrible thing to take away a diagnosis retrospectively. It's the future I'm concerned with, making diagnostic process more precise - targeting very different individual needs rather than a label."

RachelO said:

So Uta Frith wants those who are late diagnosed to lose their diagnosis.

I believe not (see above).

I don't know how it would work but from personal experience something as simple as reasonable adjustment by my employers could have been life changing for me as opposed to qualifying for PIP payments or blue badge entitlement.