Published on 12, July, 2020
So I recently stumbled across this article that really resonated with me - https://aeon.co/essays/the-autistic-view-of-the-world-is-not-the-neurotypical-cliche
It describes to negative connotations and stereotypes associated with autism and covers controversial areas, such as how autistic people lack empathy, are unable to love etc.
The scope of the article highlights how autistic people are observed and judged by neurotypicals and explains how their perceptions and prejudices are based on their own perspectives and experiences.
This may sound harsh and divisive at first, but there is a valid point throughout that due to our minority status, we rarely have a voice to explains ourselves and although I confess I could never fully understand something from a neurotypical perspective, at the same time I wouldn't expect a neurotypical to fully understand something from a neurodiverse perspective either.
What is depressing for me, is that despite that insight into each other worlds, so to speak, clearly lacking on some parts, it is the autistic person who us at fault and not a problem shared by both parties.
I shared this article with my partner and his response was, when are you going to accept life is unfair and you just have to get on with it. Of course he wants to crack on with things because it doesn't affect him! I gave the example of how it would appear should you swap the autistic person with someone who is homosexual or black - he didn't think the same thing applied and so this is why this article is so relevant for out times.
I don't want a NT and ND division, so how do we come to understand each other better?
Well the way I see it is do cats and dogs like each other? Some do, some don't lol
Cats are NT dogs ND, but I guess that depends if you love cats or dogs
No, it's the other way around! Cats are much more independent creatures who will do things on their own terms and spend lots of time alone. They aren't always demanding our attention like dogs. They aren't as servile as dogs either. If they don't want you, they'll just walk away.
I don’t think I know how to twist words and your view of the book is simply your view, not that of the whole autistic community. It’s a valid and rightful opinion, but it’s only yours not everybody else’s.
I don’t happen to think that a Muslim person is different to anybody else, other than their religious beliefs, maybe, or a person who is gay. They may have different religious or sexual orientations to me, but I don’t see them as different to me. Maybe I don’t judge people and categorise them into groups according to how their brain works or what their religion is, etc, that’s all, so to me, grouping people is exhausting and I’m not sure I get the point of it. Although I understand it in terms of business and selling books etc.
Wouldn’t it be easier to show autistic people in a positive light by talking about the positive aspects of autism and how many of us are succeeding in life and not talking about all the difficulties? I don’t get that logic. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m just saying it’s different to how I see the world.
I’m sorry if it appears I’m doing some weird stuff with your words, I fully respect your view on the world, as I do everybody else’s, we all see the world differently and I enjoy listening to other people’s world views as it’s interesting and helps expand my awareness, which is limited due to my autism, I have the rigid thinking patterns and think everyone sees the world like me. So it’s good for me to hear other people’s world views.
It’s a shame (to me) that you no longer want to talk, I was enjoying the conversation and learning a lot. I do tend to frame what others are saying, in my understanding, as it helps me to understand them. It’s a bit like translating French into English and saying it back, to check with the other person that I’ve understood correctly. This works with most people, and they get to understand me a little better as well, but I understand my style of processing and understanding the world, doesn’t work for everybody so I respect your wish to not talk any more on this subject.
Thanks for that conversation so far though, I can see why you’re a winner at work. You seem like a tender hearted soul.
Oh, yeah, that’s very confusing (to me), to me when somebody refers to autistic people as a group of people that are all the same but different to others, I take it that they see autistic people as being similar to each other and different from non autistic people. It’s hard for my mind to separate the two because I don’t see a separation to begin with, I guess.
Just as all Muslims are different. Or all Polish people. The label 'autism' confers an idea in the public mind that's in many senses influenced by stereotypes (as, unfortunately, does the term 'Muslim', or any other group identifier). That's what the article is about challenging, that false public perception. We aren't all savants or nerds or social lepers, but that's how it's so often portrayed. Even the DSM categorisation, if you read the article, tends to confirm a negative stereotype.
you say you think it would be beneficial for a non autistic person to experience what life is like for an autistic person, which to me, implies that all autistic people are the same and all non autistic people are different,
No. I say it would give them the experience of what it's like, which might lead to a greater understanding. Inevitably, though, there would be a focus on what are regarded as the classic 'impairments', so it would most likely be a generalised model of experience. Something particularly that could show it in terms of predictive coding, and how we build our models in our heads, which would then lead away from thinking of 'impairments' altogether and more towards looking at autism more positively as simply different ways of experiencing and processing phenomena. Not wrong or impaired, but different. Again, though, each person experiences these things in greater or lesser ways.
All autistic people being the same and all non autistic people being the same, isn’t my reality.
Nor is it to me. I think I made that clear. I don't know why you seem to be implying that I seem to be saying anything different.
I don’t know anything about Slenderman, I’ve never heard of him as I’m not into popular media or tv’s and things like that, so I have no idea what you’re talking about there.
Fair enough. There is plenty of information about it if you were ever interested in looking. I just thought it was an interesting example that could be used to help explain why many autistic people have difficulties (to a greater or lesser degree) with analysing facial expressions.
Yes, I understand people make jokes about autistic people and that’s your right to do so, I know people make jokes about autistic people being like dogs or cats or whatever, I just wasn’t expected an autistic person to make jokes about us, but that’s cool, I just don’t get jokes very often, not just because it’s about autistic people, I often don’t get jokes full stop, so I’m not sayimg your jokes are rubbish and I guess it’s probably because like I said, I see us as all being different, so a joke like that would go right over my head and I’m not into joking about people in that way anyway, as the term can easily get used and turned into a derogatory statement even when it just started off as a joke. But if I did find the joke funny, I would laugh so I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with making jokes about autistic people, if that’s what makes you laugh.
I wasn't making jokes about autistic people. Why would I? What I meant was that I made the comment
Rocinante said:No, it's the other way around! Cats are much more independent creatures who will do things on their own terms and spend lots of time alone. They aren't always demanding our attention like dogs. They aren't as servile as dogs either. If they don't want you, they'll just walk away.
in a jokey or light-hearted way. It's an analogy that I often see used, and is useful perhaps up to a point. I prefer the Windows/Mac analogy myself. But the scenario of the person landing up in a foreign country and experiencing culture shock is more salient. You seem to be turning my words around quite a lot in this comment. I have already stated that I don't regard all autistic people as the same, and that I'm against authors who sell their work on the basis of its being about bringing up an autistic child only to write a book that does treat autism more or less as something to be mocked and laughed at. The sheer transparent arrogance of her 'This book wasn't really written for an autistic audience'! It was marketed as a book essentially about autism, so why wouldn't it appeal to an autistic audience? So she quite cynically cashed in on the 'autism' buzz word, then used the book to make condescending remarks about her son, mock him during his puberty, and even suggest at one point that it might be an idea to have him sterilised. And before you make the argument again about books and their audiences, here it is plainly. I have worked in the publishing industry. It is, as you might imagine, very cut-throat. Publishers are always on the lookout for the next big money-spinning thing, and autism is currently something that is attracting a lot of curiosity (it has for a few years now, in fact). So a mother writes quite a damaging book about bringing up an autistic child, and it gets published and released to the world, available in most bookshops and online at Amazon (where, if you don't know the title, you can find it very quickly by typing in the search term 'autism', or even just looking up another book like 'Neurotribes' and seeing 'To Siri with Love' suggested as another book you might be interested in). To add to the sell, the cover of 'To Siri' talks about the author's 'emotional intelligence', and calls the book 'moving', 'touching', 'warm' and 'wise'. It's quite likely, therefore, that it will pique the interest of an autistic person. What the book presents to the world, however, is something quite different, quite offensive and denigrating to autistic people. So the author uses the cop out 'This book wasn't really written for an autistic audience'. Define an audience? The book is public property. Autistic people make up members of the public. By saying this, therefore, this author is essentially saying we aren't classed as members of the book-buying public. Who is she to determine who and who isn't an appropriate reader of her book? Is she really bothered if she's getting the sales? I don't much like cooking. Does that mean a cook book isn't written for my kind of audience, and that therefore I shouldn't be buying it? If I'm a gay person, and someone publishes a book about bringing up a gay child and then says 'This book wasn't really written for a gay audience', then I'm going to want to read it to find out why. Why I, as a gay person, should not be reading a book about a gay child. I want to know why the author thinks I shouldn't read it. What is she afraid of?
I think I have nothing further to say on this particular subject now because it seems the more I say, the more you seem to want to pick my words apart or twist them to suit your own definition of what you wish to believe I'm saying. I believe that we're essentially on the same side and agree on the same things. Perhaps we should really be looking back to the main topic of the thread. I've tried to stay with that, but this feels like a diversion that will just go on and on and probably lead nowhere.