DuckRabbit
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure whether films about individuals on the autistic spectrum help some neurodiverse individuals while unintentionally making things more difficult for others. Films naturally feel a responsibility to educate audiences about autistic spectrum conditions. Their characters are therefore invariably stereotypes of autistic spectrum diagnostic criteria. This means that when someone presents ‘normally’ in everyday life, people may have a hard time believing that they are in fact on the spectrum.
My argument hinges on the assumption that some individuals are only mildly ‘on the spectrum’ while others are more strongly ‘on the spectrum’. With no intention of causing offence, I’m assuming that autism is the more severe condition, entailing social-political deficits, cognitive impairments and maybe language deficits as well. In contrast, I’m assuming that Asperger individuals are high-functioning autistics, displaying social-political deficits only.
Arguably, autism is characterised to a more obvious extent by visible ‘disabilities’ such as stimming, staring, rebuffing gestures seeking emotional intimacy, or remaining silent or ‘blank’. An example is the boy Nathan Ellis in the 2015 film ‘X+Y’. Nathan didn’t much try to be sociable; he kept having sociability foisted on him. In contrast, Asperger individuals often make enthusiastic attempts at sociability, but these are often rebuffed because they come across as ‘weird’ or ‘odd’.
Sometimes it is the more visible ‘disabilities’ of stimming, staring, rebuffing gestures seeking emotional intimacy, and remaining silent or ‘blank’, that are able to attract more sympathy. With the autistic individual, something unconventional is expected. People almost feel reassured to have their stereotypes reinforced by actual behaviour (confirmation bias). They can pity the individual or at least make allowances, based on the fact that the individual is ‘disabled’/ ‘disordered’/ ‘diseased’, while they themselves are healthy, functioning normals.
In contrast, people may not know that certain individuals are high-functioning Aspergers unless they know them very well. With relatively sociable Aspergers, they may pass as neurotypical for a lot longer, then when their behaviour haplessly veers into ASD without warning, other people may feel more betrayed – “Damn you for making me confront anomaly – and when I wasn’t expecting it”. People may have less warning when Aspergers do or say something socially unacceptable. Accordingly, when the Asperger individual unwittingly violates social protocol, the backlash can be more severe than if a fully autistic individual violates social protocol. People’s demands and expectations of Asperger individuals may be higher, leading to more anger or shock when the expectations aren’t met.
Do you think this is plausible? Could it sometimes be easier socially to be fully autistic rather than high-functioning Asperger’s?
My argument hinges on the assumption that some individuals are only mildly ‘on the spectrum’ while others are more strongly ‘on the spectrum’. With no intention of causing offence, I’m assuming that autism is the more severe condition, entailing social-political deficits, cognitive impairments and maybe language deficits as well. In contrast, I’m assuming that Asperger individuals are high-functioning autistics, displaying social-political deficits only.
Arguably, autism is characterised to a more obvious extent by visible ‘disabilities’ such as stimming, staring, rebuffing gestures seeking emotional intimacy, or remaining silent or ‘blank’. An example is the boy Nathan Ellis in the 2015 film ‘X+Y’. Nathan didn’t much try to be sociable; he kept having sociability foisted on him. In contrast, Asperger individuals often make enthusiastic attempts at sociability, but these are often rebuffed because they come across as ‘weird’ or ‘odd’.
Sometimes it is the more visible ‘disabilities’ of stimming, staring, rebuffing gestures seeking emotional intimacy, and remaining silent or ‘blank’, that are able to attract more sympathy. With the autistic individual, something unconventional is expected. People almost feel reassured to have their stereotypes reinforced by actual behaviour (confirmation bias). They can pity the individual or at least make allowances, based on the fact that the individual is ‘disabled’/ ‘disordered’/ ‘diseased’, while they themselves are healthy, functioning normals.
In contrast, people may not know that certain individuals are high-functioning Aspergers unless they know them very well. With relatively sociable Aspergers, they may pass as neurotypical for a lot longer, then when their behaviour haplessly veers into ASD without warning, other people may feel more betrayed – “Damn you for making me confront anomaly – and when I wasn’t expecting it”. People may have less warning when Aspergers do or say something socially unacceptable. Accordingly, when the Asperger individual unwittingly violates social protocol, the backlash can be more severe than if a fully autistic individual violates social protocol. People’s demands and expectations of Asperger individuals may be higher, leading to more anger or shock when the expectations aren’t met.
Do you think this is plausible? Could it sometimes be easier socially to be fully autistic rather than high-functioning Asperger’s?
