The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by morecambebay

Original post by morecambebay
Ok.

Imagining putting 100 people in a room, 99 german and one french.

Is the french one inherently damaged because he cant communicate well with the others? No. Because his lack of german language skills is counter balanced by his skills in french language.

Simularly, my lack of social skills is counter balanced by my maths skills. Everything is subjective.


Good example..
Original post by booksnob
Gay and ginger people have a hard time socially? Do you mean, with social acceptance? I was talking about social skills.
My friend is autistic and she scoffs at all this Aspie Pride kind of waffle she's been fed over the years. She can recognise her Asperger's brings some real limitations and she tries to overcome them--for example, making an effort with people, not just seeing things as literal.


Yes, accept the limitations. But accept the benefits aswell.

There hasnt been a proper objective test of our social skills yet. To carry on my french/german analogy. It is one thing to say that the french person struggles to socialise with germans, but to claim an objective weakness you would have to show that they struggle full stop. Psychiatrists are well aware that autistic people struggle to communicate in this society, but to test it objectively they would need to view us in an environment in which we were the majority and see if we still had problems. And that experiment simply hasnt been done. It would be to big.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 42
Original post by morecambebay
Ok.

Imagining putting 100 people in a room, 99 german and one french.

Is the french one inherently damaged because he cant communicate well with the others? No. Because his lack of german language skills is counter balanced by his skills in french language.

Simularly, my lack of social skills is counter balanced by my maths skills. Everything is subjective.



Original post by Ocassus
No, not at all. They are just people godammit, they think bit differently, but they are perfectly able individuals who are mentally capable. Doctors shouldn't even come into it, it isn't something to be treated, it is who they are...


Nobody is saying they are to be "treated" or they are damaged or defective. I'm just stating a fact that they have social and communicative difficulties.
Original post by OL1V3R
I have Asperger's Syndrome, but it's part of a spectrum; some people with it have it more severely than others. In my case, it is very mild in that if you started a conversation with me, you probably wouldn't really notice that I have Asperger's.


Sorry for quoting you but exactly this.
Reply 44
Original post by morecambebay

Original post by morecambebay
Yes, accept the limitations. But accept the benefits aswell.


This, and just understand that you are an individual, and like everybody else on this planet, you are unique. Everybody is a little different, this trait might be slightly more traceable, but it is not an illness or something to be treated.
Reply 45
Original post by n1r4v

Original post by n1r4v
Nobody is saying they are to be "treated" or they are damaged or defective. I'm just stating a fact that they have social and communicative difficulties.


That is how wider society views people with these conditions. Yes, they have social and communicative skills, these traits aren't exactly mutually linked to Autism/Aspergers, you can not have these things and have these problems (IE, somebody who lacks confidence). It is just a part of who they are, nothing more, nothing less.
Reply 46
Original post by booksnob
There's no need to get aggressive. I just think, to say it's not a syndrome or defective is a bit silly. In its extreme forms, it's a very terrible thing; it lesser forms, the symptoms can be mild. But it isn't something you would choose to be.


some of the greatest minds ever were 'autistic', they were therefore better than 'normal' people.

some people might be better soically but are stupid, are they defective?
Reply 47
Original post by Ocassus
That is how wider society views people with these conditions. Yes, they have social and communicative skills, these traits aren't exactly mutually linked to Autism/Aspergers, you can not have these things and have these problems (IE, somebody who lacks confidence). It is just a part of who they are, nothing more, nothing less.


No, lacking confidence is different. Autistic people are inherently unable to communicate in certain ways. They are unable to learn it. For instance, they can have aprosodias, where they are unable to recognise prosody (emotion conveyed in speech). They are unable to recognise certain emotions such as disgust. They have an inherent inability to communicate in certain ways. They fundamentally cannot learn these things.
Reply 48
Original post by int92
some of the greatest minds ever were 'autistic', they were therefore better than 'normal' people.

some people might be better soically but are stupid, are they defective?


You, my friend, are the one saying people are 'better' or worse for being being autistic or not. I'm not.
I didn't label autistic people are 'defective', but autism as a defect/defective. Because defective, by definition, means faulty, and the autistic brain is, to be blunt and very unromantic, faulty. This doesn't mean non-autistic people are 'better', but just different. Yes, there are benefits with the limitations, but that's beside the point.
Reply 49
Original post by n1r4v
No, lacking confidence is different. Autistic people are inherently unable to communicate in certain ways. They are unable to learn it. For instance, they can have aprosodias, where they are unable to recognise prosody (emotion conveyed in speech). They are unable to recognise certain emotions such as disgust. They have an inherent inability to communicate in certain ways. They fundamentally cannot learn these things.


But you describe them as something negative and defective. Are people with physical disabilities treated that way? Or would be PC society say otherwise?
Reply 50
Original post by n1r4v

Original post by n1r4v
No, lacking confidence is different. Autistic people are inherently unable to communicate in certain ways. They are unable to learn it. For instance, they can have aprosodias, where they are unable to recognise prosody (emotion conveyed in speech). They are unable to recognise certain emotions such as disgust. They have an inherent inability to communicate in certain ways. They fundamentally cannot learn these things.


They are more severe personality traits, that is really it. It might be physical, but to the individual it is merely who they are.
If the majority of people on this planet had aspergers, and there were a few like the majority of people today, would they then therefore be treated as defective? Because the 'norm' is to have aspergers? Perhaps, but that isn't really right.

People have inherent predispositions to not be able to or learn certain things, they are predispositions that are part of our psyche. Aspergers is merely more prominent and therefore distinguishable, they are otherwise perfectly functioning human beings and should be treated as such. By labelling them explicitly as 'different' from the rest of the human race only serves to isolate them in a bubble of societal pity, when that really isn't necessary, there is no need for it whatsoever.
Reply 51
Original post by booksnob

Original post by booksnob
You, my friend, are the one saying people are 'better' or worse for being being autistic or not. I'm not.
I didn't label autistic people are 'defective', but autism as a defect/defective. Because defective, by definition, means faulty, and the autistic brain is, to be blunt and very unromantic, faulty. This doesn't mean non-autistic people are 'better', but just different. Yes, there are benefits with the limitations, but that's beside the point.


Are they?

Why? Explain to me by what measure they are faulty?
Reply 52
Original post by hunstatham
But you describe them as something negative and defective. Are people with physical disabilities treated that way? Or would be PC society say otherwise?


Oh I'm sorry, I'll just say everything is alright? I'm just stating the current understanding of autism.
Original post by n1r4v
No, lacking confidence is different. Autistic people are inherently unable to communicate in certain ways. They are unable to learn it. For instance, they can have aprosodias, where they are unable to recognise prosody (emotion conveyed in speech). They are unable to recognise certain emotions such as disgust. They have an inherent inability to communicate in certain ways. They fundamentally cannot learn these things.


There are some things that non-autistic people fundamentally cannot do. There is a whole other section to our minds that you cant see. It lets us learn maths at triple the rate you can, it lets us focus for 72 hours solid and not even realise where the time has gone, it lets us leave the god damn group and be individuals.
Reply 54
Original post by n1r4v

Original post by n1r4v
Oh I'm sorry, I'll just say everything is alright? I'm just stating the current understanding of autism.


Which is not necessarily correct.
Not got an opinion as such, but as was pointed out, it's fascinating in a scientific way. My Dad used to work as a kind of behavioural psychologist for people with autism and the stories he would tell me were really really interesting.

Also, a fantastic novel written about a boy with autism: The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Nighttime. Read it.
Reply 56
Original post by morecambebay
There are some things that non-autistic people fundamentally cannot do. There is a whole other section to our minds that you cant see. It lets us learn maths at triple the rate you can, it lets us focus for 72 hours solid and not even realise where the time has gone, it lets us leave the god damn group and be individuals.


That's true. You're stating facts like I was. I don't understand why people are getting so emotional over this.
Reply 57
Original post by booksnob
You, my friend, are the one saying people are 'better' or worse for being being autistic or not. I'm not.
I didn't label autistic people are 'defective', but autism as a defect/defective. Because defective, by definition, means faulty, and the autistic brain is, to be blunt and very unromantic, faulty. This doesn't mean non-autistic people are 'better', but just different. Yes, there are benefits with the limitations, but that's beside the point.


read again 'some of the greatest minds ever'---> better than normal people.

they are defective? who are you to judge whats defective or not, maybe 'normal' people are defective and autistic people arent.

different doesnt mean defective
Reply 58
Original post by n1r4v

Original post by n1r4v
That's true. You're stating facts like I was. I don't understand why people are getting so emotional over this.


Because you are (perhaps without realising it) making a case of the distinguishment and differentiation of people with Autism or Aspergers. Those labels don't need to exist anymore, they're people, like the rest of us, and in the same sense, no different.
Reply 59
Original post by Ocassus
Are they?

Why? Explain to me by what measure they are faulty?


That's my understanding anyway. You seem very knowledgable on the matter though. Tell me then, what is the biological difference between an autistic person and a non-autistical person?

Latest