• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

OCD and the nature of autism

Then again, perhaps ultimately he's not advocating anything, but just doing his own brand of "personal therapy" in a very public way.


I'm really glad you said this. I never thought of that possibility. Fair enough. He does write about all of his issues (MI, gay), not just autism. I do sympathize with his history of misdiagnosis and unnecessary meds, which comes up a lot in his writing. Maybe he's also voicing his frustrations just as I've been voicing mine here. My essential criticisms stand, but you helped me see another side. Thanks.

I honestly don't mean to pound on this guy so mercilessly. My real gripe is with the general lack of organization, not him as such. I've been involved in a lot of grassroots campaigns for various social justice causes. Too many egos, not enough money or both have doomed nearly every one of them. I just left a very well-established statewide effort here in SC because the president of the organization was more interested in self-promotion and being "in charge" than in achieving the goals of our group. The issues are important to the poor in our state, so it was a bitter pill to swallow that my work wasn't going to come to any real good.

I had very high hopes when Nadador said he was working on what would have been a major project for adult Aspies. It would have been the kind of effort that could really do something. Still getting over that, too. It's not his fault. He needed another high-profile partner and couldn't secure one, despite his best efforts.

I remain an activist without a full-time cause. It may sound weird, but when your special interest is social justice, that's really depressing.
 
I remain an activist without a full-time cause. It may sound weird, but when your special interest is social justice, that's really depressing.


It's not weird at all to me. Some believe this is one of many possible "life themes" one chooses on the other side prior to reincarnating into another earthly existence. An interesting theory.

One such life theme is called a "banner-carrier". Those who take social injustice to another level most of their lives as demonstrators, lobbyists, lawyers...whatever it takes to materialize an objective to correct an injustice. Something within you that will NEVER go away. At least not in this life...
 
Last edited:
I'm really glad you said this. I never thought of that possibility. Fair enough. He does write about all of his issues (MI, gay), not just autism. I do sympathize with his history of misdiagnosis and unnecessary meds, which comes up a lot in his writing. Maybe he's also voicing his frustrations just as I've been voicing mine here. My essential criticisms stand, but you helped me see another side. Thanks.

Aaah, that's what I was trying to say! Thank you, Judge, for putting it in a clearer way than I seem to be capable of.

I also looked him up the first time Slithy mentioned doing so earlier in the thread and read a couple of his articles. What I found suggested to me that he had a lot of problems and was just trying to get his life together, and being diagnosed with ASD was a major part of doing that.

I think this might be partly a 'generation gap', as mentioned earlier, where young people put their thoughts out there in the public sphere (social media, blogs, vlogs, etc.) as something that's just a normal part of social life, without thinking of using it for advocacy.

I had very high hopes when Nadador said he was working on what would have been a major project for adult Aspies. It would have been the kind of effort that could really do something.

First, I'm curious: what makes something the kind of effort that could really do something?

Second, the bf's suggestion about 'using the strengths of everyone with neurodevelopmental conditions'. What he meant was, is there any real effort to connect with people with ADHD, for instance? And if not, why not? In general, they have a profile much better suited to social things. Is it a thing where 'we need unity among ourselves first'?
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="royinpink, [/QUOTE]

Hi Royin, Hi Ash loved the Zena warrier thing Ha ha!, Hi Laz! love you too.. don't be mad at Mael for his evil sense of humor.

So Royan at the end of the day after lots and lots of words, you are basically saying most of these auti? linked conditions should be classed as (disabilities) rather than (mental illnesses), because they come from (physical) brain development aberations. And as they are (physical in nature) and (not changable) in a sense like a (mental) illness like perhaps depression which (may) be more thought pattern based...they should be classed as a (physical disability), even tho the problems being dealt with are (mental in nature). :D Maels super power is slicing to the bone on a thing.

On this point I tend to agree with you Royin many of these mental dificulties are really a (physical disability), as the underlying (physical) brain structure that generates them never disapears no matter how good we become at compensating for these things in life.

I would like to also note OCD is sometimes a asset in life with musicians, olimpic athleats, artists anything that requires allot of practice.
 
It was officially subsumed. And there is a difference- the layman might not get that but a PsyD should look past their personal agenda rather than skew what the APA officially termed the move. If you want to say what is acutually happening in practice, that is one thing.

But the change is that it was/has been subsumed, not removed- and your note supports that description of the move/action.

Disappointed. Nice snark, Doug. Only midly hurtful as someone diagnosed with HFA who hangs out with aspies. Diagnosis officially changed specifically from asperger's because of presentation. Change more than once affirmed before DSM-V

bottom line: subsumed does not mean suddenly these people disappear from being able to attain services with a DX, but that's what you are suggesting- perpetuating the misunderstanding of the change.

In practice, it may be individual fault [and often is] if the result is not that individuals are given the new DX that corellates with the DSM V.

But your declaration of "liberation" also assumes that the label of aspergers or autism is some how a tie down or a burden. Only when it's assumed I'm supposed to reject and hate it really. Confusing.

Hi Laz :)Hmm..you hit even harder than me with the intelectual language:p...I haven't read up on all these terms no idea what HFA is...I like my auti classification I call my self a auspie because I think auti processing brain cloud is..separate from aspie blank face thing even tho social missques are the same. I think too many diffirent brain sectors disorders are being lumped together causing confusion.

On the sensitivity issue many of us hate the terms crazy:confused: or mental illness:confused: because this stuff is real we were born with it, it isn't our fault and we should get some consideration. I may be overly sensitive to surprises and people messing with me..people could call me crazy or paranoid but the squeezing on my auti mind from those things is real as is the suffering. I'm sure many of you feel the same way on whatever thing you are stuck with, its not just a head thing, it's real, something you can touch, and the suffering is real. :) Best wishes to you all, I'll try to leave the stage without putting my foot in my mouth as usual.:rolleyes:
 
It's not weird at all to me. Some believe this is one of many possible "life themes" one chooses on the other side prior to reincarnating into another earthly existence. An interesting theory.

One such life theme is called a "banner-carrier". Those who take social injustice to another level most of their lives as demonstrators, lobbyists, lawyers...whatever it takes to materialize an objective to correct an injustice. Something within you that will NEVER go away. At least not in this life...

Thank you for writing this, Judge. I've not come across this sort of notion and it makes a lot of sense [the life theme]. haha, I get it's a theory, but it works for me- really great.
 
First, I'm curious: what makes something the kind of effort that could really do something?

Second, the bf's suggestion about 'using the strengths of everyone with neurodevelopmental conditions'. What he meant was, is there any real effort to connect with people with ADHD, for instance? And if not, why not? In general, they have a profile much better suited to social things. Is it a thing where 'we need unity among ourselves first'?


When say an effort that can really do something, I speak from my experience with successful change organizations. His plan was textbook perfect.

Nadador's intention was to start quietly and build a broad coalition, surveying the community and having structured dialogue to establish a clear picture of identity, needs and priorities. He also intended to identify strengths of individuals from across the spectrum community who wanted to actively help, and create working groups of people with specific skills and interests. While getting that done, he intended to have a team develop an up-to-date map of current research, policy, politics and "players" to understand the current landscape beyond the actual community. He would have also determined fairly early on where the organization could get sponsorship, partnerships and other project support, as well as who might work against us. Once he had the most accurate possible picture of what he was working with and against, only then would he have begun to develop a public campaign, with the help of spectrum volunteers and continual surveys of the broader community. I was very impressed by his methodical approach. It would have made a rock-solid foundation and a rare base-up organization with the added advantage of high-profile founders.

These are the components Nadador and his would-have-been partner had in their corner.

Nadador has good connections with the scientific community, including a few key ASD researchers. The other man knows Tony Attwood and people in his homeland government (UK) personally. They both have a high profile and a public megaphone, public credibility and positive image, large fan bases to educate and draw on with appeals, media savvy, ample experience teaching and speaking, and the money to grow a large, complex effort. Both are humble men who wouldn't be in it for personal gain. Both are thoughtful, patient, mature and strategic. Both are experienced leaders and know how to delegate. Both are of the opinion that building communication and consensus in/with the spectrum community is all-important, and envision(ed) an campaign in which the community is ultimately the driver of priorities and everyone has a voice. Nadador has a foot in the community at large through AC, and the other man through his work with community agencies. They would have wanted to harness and expand that. Last but not least, both are actually on the spectrum and personally understand our issues.

Yes, even small efforts can do something. But one like this could DO something. Thus my profound disappointment.

On your other question, I personally think we'd have to build a defined community identity just as people on the spectrum before we started reaching out to others. They key to this stuff is to start small and focused. Group unity first.
 
I hope you didn't take my question as a challenge--I don't doubt your experience or that you have good reasons to say so. I'm sincerely asking.

Everything you wrote sounds excellent, and if I could be a part of that, I would. (I guarantee I am not flaky or self-serving!) I do want to press you on your reasons for striving for group identity first, though. You write:

He also intended to identify strengths of individuals from across the spectrum community who wanted to actively help, and create working groups of people with specific skills and interests. While getting that done, he intended to have a team develop an up-to-date map of current research, policy, politics and "players" to understand the current landscape beyond the actual community. He would have also determined fairly early on where the organization could get sponsorship, partnerships and other project support, as well as who might work against us.

Wouldn't we have a broader base to do that from if we also reached out to those with ADHD, learning disorders, etc.? Hell, some of those overlap with those in the ASD community. The general public is already aware of ADHD, and I think a lot of people already dislike how it is over-medicated but aren't quite sure what to do about it.

From the legal perspective, it hurts our credibility if we're trying to advocate for only ourselves on the basis that neurological difference should be value-neutral, when there are so many other ways of being neurodivergent. It's like...well, we've made analogies to homosexuality enough here, so why not: like if gay men just decided to advocate for themselves and leave all the lesbians, bisexuals, and trans people behind. You might speculate that it was due to sexism or that they were just so self-centered that they didn't consider anyone else. More importantly, though, I think people would be less likely to listen. Something about people who are marginalized banding together grants them a bit more of the moral high-ground in public perception. It's easier to dismiss someone who is only looking out for 'people like them'. Just as parents of low-functioning autistics often accuse aspies of only looking out for themselves.

But I don't know the history of the gay rights movement. I can only look at a timeline and guess. It does seem that yes, gay men organized first, but things really started happening after lesbians and trans people also organized. And shortly after that, it became 'LGBT'. But from that, I can't really know how that change happened, how how defined and focused each organization was first, how necessary that was to creating a larger LGBTQ movement, or at what points this analogy breaks down. I could see it going either way, but I do want to seriously consider the possibility before dismissing it.

There's another potential advantage of uniting with other neuroatypicals (sidenote: please someone come up with a better word! o_O But at least with this one, I feel comfortable adding 's' whereas neurodivergents sounds wrong.). Each of our diagnostic profiles is also associated with certain strengths--although of course that's a gross overgeneralization. For instance, this article talks about de-pathologizing ADHD and seeing it as a personality type. He suggests social/evolutionary strengths:

It is not hard at all to think of conditions in which ADHD-like characteristics are socially valuable.[2] Distractibility may result in efficient monitoring of changes in the environment, so that sudden dangers or new opportunities, which others would have missed, are detected. Impatience may be a valuable counterweight to the tendency to dwell too long on a way of thinking or behaving that isn't going anywhere. Impulsive action may underlie bravery in the face of dangers that would keep others immobile. Difficulty following instructions may imply independence of mind, which can lead to novel ways of seeing and doing things. Emotional reactivity may be a good counterweight to the tendency of overly controlled people to hold in their emotions and ruminate. One thing I have observed (informally) in people diagnosed with ADHD is that they rarely hold grudges; they let their emotions out and then get over it.
Aspies' strengths tend sometimes to be the opposite: obsessive focus, long-term memory, detail-oriented. These come with weaknesses in changing tracks, letting go, and getting over mistakes. We tend (with exceptions) to be better researchers than networkers, which leads quite easily to organizing us being like 'herding cats' as you mentioned. It might do us a lot of good to get some input from those with different tendencies.

The biggest immediate obstacle is harnessing sustained energy from enough people to get an initial plan and strategy going. That may be a problem in this community. I haven't seen much genuine will. Maybe it seems like too big of an idea to wrap our heads around? Like it would take too much energy and commitment?

Perhaps aspies are the wrong ones to look to for much of that energy for starting something new. A good number of us are terrified of change, especially if it involves a big commitment with uncertain consequences. We do better with specific instructions and a predictable routine. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
And here I was just thinking you would be a great vlogger yourself, like Egyptian said. I'm sure your videos would be spot-on, message-wise.

Aw, thanks. I am really camera-shy, though. Plus, my words don't come out nearly so easily spoken as they do in writing. I would have to script and practice...so, I could, but I would cringe and be unable to look at it ever again. Very stressful.

Legacy organizations are having to adapt to the different expectations of younger Gen Exers and Millennials, who aren't as friendly as their elders to top-down, traditional social justice organizations. Younger advocates want more collaboration and independence of action. They have become very confident in their own methods, especially independent use of social media, for better or for worse.

Yes, I definitely see that, but there are some good sides--like you say, "for better or worse." I know Twitter has made news for its utility in protest movements, and some organizations like Avaaz approach activism differently (there's too much going on there for me to summarize) to suit the younger generations you speak of (and which I'm a part of!). With some imagination and the right people, surely we could find a way to use that to our advantage rather than treat it as a stumbling block.

Yeah, I understand the reasoning. It's rooted in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, that linguistic usage influences thought, and was adopted in the late 1980s by some heavyweight advocacy groups. It obviously caught fire, at least among activists, doctors and other "helping professionals".

Wait...which reasoning is rooted in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? The justification of PFL? That's a bit odd to me. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis just explains how, like...if your language has gender, and certain nouns are feminine, you will associate them more with feminine things than nouns that are masculine. Whorf also suggested word order influencing thought, etc. It seems to me that Vaughan is actually agreeing with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis by saying that the way we order our descriptions of people says something about whether we perceive it as positive or negative. That said, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been severely misunderstood and misused, so I'm not surprised.

"In interaction with others, disabilities are almost never ignored…If we are going to expend this concentrated effort, why not launch a broader-based, more substantive crusade which would change images and ideas about conditions that are sometimes frightening and seldom well understood? For example, why not work on changing the connotations of what it means to be blind--to challenge old understandings with new insights about blindness?"

Yeah, I agree with this--the whole impulse behind 'reclaiming' labels, too. And based in the idea that changing the words just contributes to the 'euphemism treadmill'. Basically that anything taboo has negative connotations which people avoid by creating euphemistic (or PC in this case) language, which eventually becomes taboo as the language is used and acquires the negative connotations of what it refers to. Until people have different perceptions of the taboo, changing the language is useless.

This reminds me of the whole "Native American" thing. Most American Indians still call themselves Indians (or nowadays, the very cool "NDNZ"). Before the Smithsonian Institute named its Museum of the American Indian, it surveyed the actual AI community and found that name was their overwhelming preference. Sorry if this digression is a drag. I just thought you might find it interesting.

I know a guy who in college put a footnote on all his papers about American Indian rights explaining that he used the term Indian because this was an artificial group created by whites who came to America, not a native group, which were the tribes, who already had their own names. I've never heard of NDNZ.

I don't think it's a drag! :)

In one section, he suggests that people who have internalized society’s oppression of the identity groups to which they belong are more likely to view personal characteristics (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) as essential aspects of their social identity. Maybe you just don’t feel very oppressed? :D

Hmm...good question. I get what he's saying, as generally the dominant groups are perceived as the 'unmarked' (an expression borrowed from linguistics, where male was the unmarked gender, meaning 'he' referred to both men and women when gender was unknown), fully human perspective, so they don't have to worry about it. Obviously, that would apply to me as a white person. As a woman, the situation is more tricky. I certainly care about feminism, and I never fail to bring it up with people who are close to me, much to their frustration. But at the same time, I don't feel much identification with the idea of womanhood or femininity. I don't see myself as a woman. I have never related well to other women. They usually intimidate me. In dreams, I switch genders freely. Is this because, like Simone de Beauvoir, I have not 'internalized society's oppression'?

No; far from suffering from my femininity, I have, on the contrary, from the age of twenty on, accumulated the advantages of both sexes; after L’Invitée, those around me treated me both as a writer, their peer in the masculine world, and as a woman; this was particularly noticeable in America: at the parties I went to, the wives all got together and talked to each other while I talked to the men, who nevertheless behaved towards me with greater courtesy than they did towards the members of their own sex. I was encouraged to write The Second Sex precisely because of this privileged position.
Or is it simply because I am so lost in my head, I care little about my body and how others perceive it until it inconveniences me and I am angered at the injustice? I don't know. Maybe I simply never felt I belonged with any social group.
 
I am reminded of an aphorism I learned during a merger & acquisition: two weak companies don't make one strong company.

I question whether "neuroatypical" ever means something other than hard wiring. I just don't see it. Exaggerating to make a point, physics and chemistry are not the same science. I can medicate improvement for ADHD and depression. I can't medicate Asperger's, and while I can function, although in a constant state of crisis, with ADHD and depression, there is nothing that changes about my core Aspergianity.

Being aspergian is not going to kill me, but chronic major depression untreated can. I'm saying there are important differences and I'm not perceiving the organizing principle that puts them all under one umbrella and saying "we're NoT." (Couldn't resist a bad pun.)

I do realize I'm arguing from my own experience only, but I have to work with what I know. Both of you know more than I about this.
 
I hope you didn't take my question as a challenge--I don't doubt your experience or that you have good reasons to say so. I'm sincerely asking.


I didn't. I'm just a terrible over-explainer. :D

I do want to press you on your reasons for striving for group identity first, though. You write:


This is where I would really have to defer to Nadador, unfortunately (since he isn't available). He has very strong, well-studied views on this. Mine are much less polished.

All I can say is that if we want to make a better distinction between actual ASDs and their common comorbidities, sort of like you have suggested previously on this thread, it would behoove us to establish an group identity based on our autism first. Many of us have comorbids, but many of us don't. What we all have in common is our ASDs. Also, I would think that reaching out to people with other disorders that are often comorbid with ASDs but who don't actually have ASDs would make it harder to establish priorities, etc. specific to our community. It could also be confusing to the public.

Nadador's original intention was to specifically focus on just one group -- adults with Asperger's. I don't think he was opposed to possibly expanding later but his primary interest was the issues of that particular subset, which is currently underserved by existing autism organizations. I believe his reasoning was that a more focused effort would be more likely to make earlier strides. I don't disagree. Maybe Egyptian would have more to say about this, since he has almost four decades of hardcore change movement experience to my measly 15 years. He was one of the major individual players in getting same-sex unions passed in Vermont (the first state to adopt the practice). He was also a key player in the passage of other LGBT rights legislation there, and in legalizing same-sex marriage/getting various LGBT rights bills passed in his home state of Massachusetts. It was a combination of his experience with change movements and his recent self-diagnosis of Asperger's that prompted me to invite (okay, implore) him to join AC.

Perhaps aspies are the wrong ones to look to for much of that energy for starting something new. A good number of us are terrified of change, especially if it involves a big commitment with uncertain consequences. We do better with specific instructions and a predictable routine. :rolleyes:


That thought has definitely crossed my mind. ;)
 
That thought has definitely crossed my mind. ;)

I don't like the idea of trying to find some strong group to do all the organizing for me so that I can hitch my own ride. Perhaps I'm not understanding. Nothing good has ever happened to me if it depended on waiting for a human being to rescue me. Unless I paid them well first.

Spiritual help has a different set of rules, and if there is a moving spirit here, my question would be, what's the spirit of the thing, and are we in a slipstream, or a riptide?
 
Yes, I definitely see that, but there are some good sides--like you say, "for better or worse." I know Twitter has made news for its utility in protest movements, and some organizations like Avaaz approach activism differently (there's too much going on there for me to summarize) to suit the younger generations you speak of (and which I'm a part of!). With some imagination and the right people, surely we could find a way to use that to our advantage rather than treat it as a stumbling block.


I agree 100%. This is where the generation gap becomes problematic. Old timers (who usually have the money) usually prefer the tried-and-true. I've run into this in groups I've been part of; older members didn't understand the power of social media, etc. They wanted to focus on/invest in the stuff they have seen work well before, with new methods only as accessories. The first thing I thought when Nadador broke the bad news about his prospective partner's decision was, "It's hard to teach an old Aspie new tricks." Add older age to an Aspie's reluctance about change and you get....

Wait...which reasoning is rooted in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? The justification of PFL?

That said, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been severely misunderstood and misused, so I'm not surprised.


I didn't say it was a correct interpretation, just that it's where the reasoning behind FPL supposedly came from. I agree with everything you said about this.

I know a guy who in college put a footnote on all his papers about American Indian rights explaining that he used the term Indian because this was an artificial group created by whites who came to America, not a native group, which were the tribes, who already had their own names. I've never heard of NDNZ.


I'm pretty sure NDNZ started as the name of a First Nations community group in Canada. I know it's been adopted by a lot of young AI activists, especially those living off-rez.

The AIs I've known would all rather not have to use the term "Indian", but as they explain it, when a whole continent of independent tribes became an oppressed minority and continued to be oppressed over the generations, they adopted the label for the purposes of universal identity. As rights movements popped up there was disagreement about nomenclature. Sympathetic outsiders (trying to assuage White Guilt, IMO) have favored newer terminology, but on the rez, most AIs actually call themselves Indian, just like most African-Americans call themselves Black.

Just so you know my background on this issue: I grew up near a reservation for a tribe of the Iroquois Nation. When I was active in Wicca many years ago, my local coven system often did sweatlodges and community rituals with people from the rez, because American Wicca borrows a lot from AI traditions. This was my first exposure to AI issues and activists. Since then I have interned and volunteered with a couple of state offices for American Indian Affairs. An ex-boyfriend of mine was the co-author of a recent media project based on western U.S. AI lore and got involved with activists through that. I was in on it by association, and took advantage of the opportunity to sit in on meetings and interviews with elders from a few tribes in the desert west. I find their cause and issues very appealing but I no longer have good connections, plus I have no AI blood so I can only really be a peripheral contributor. They understandably prefer to do their own thing with their own group. Our history of massive, indiscriminate, destructive cultural appropriation makes them wary of interest from the dominant majority (yes, the White Man).

I certainly care about feminism,

But at the same time, I don't feel much identification with the idea of womanhood or femininity. I don't see myself as a woman. I have never related well to other women. They usually intimidate me.
Or is it simply because I am so lost in my head, I care little about my body and how others perceive it until it inconveniences me and I am angered at the injustice? I don't know. Maybe I simply never felt I belonged with any social group.


Good quote from de Beauvoir.

I sounds like you and I are in the same place on this. I identify less with my womanhood than I do my other social identities, and for any or all of the reasons you mused on. Maybe some of it is exactly what Appleby was saying, too, in my case. I've never encountered much sexism personally; at least not until I moved to South Carolina in my thirties, at which time my identity "priorities" based on oppression were already well-established. My bisexuality was the one I've consistently had problems with, so I was much more aware of it. Then my mental ilness (MDD). Then being low-income (and uninsured). And now of course I know I'm an Aspie.
 
I don't like the idea of trying to find some strong group to do all the organizing for me so that I can hitch my own ride. Perhaps I'm not understanding. Nothing good has ever happened to me if it depended on waiting for a human being to rescue me. Unless I paid them well first.

Spiritual help has a different set of rules, and if there is a moving spirit here, my question would be, what's the spirit of the thing, and are we in a slipstream, or a riptide?


I'm actually the same way, but as an Aspie whose primary symptoms aren't convincing even to my own therapist, I guess I'm not in a position to want/need much advocacy. :cool:

I suspect your second comment was more rhetorical. It's worth saying that I get my spirit-being-Aspie (sorry, Harrison) needs met by AC and my friends here.
 
I'm actually the same way, but as an Aspie whose primary symptoms aren't convincing even to my own therapist, I guess I'm not in a position to want/need much advocacy. :cool:

I suspect your second comment was more rhetorical. It's worth saying that I get my spirit-being-Aspie (sorry, Harrison) needs met by AC and my friends here.

I'm unquestionably aspie to a professional with appropriate background, and I don't want to hand over advocacy to people who do have legitimate problems but who aren't neurodiverse.

Actually, my second question wasn't rhetorical. I'll make it blunt: if Nadador's intent is no longer ongoing, but it keeps coming up, is this conversation doing more than simply discussing OCD? I've been wondering that for a couple of days now.
 
I'm unquestionably aspie to a professional with appropriate background, and I don't want to hand over advocacy to people who do have legitimate problems but who aren't neurodiverse.

Actually, my second question wasn't rhetorical. I'll make it blunt: if Nadador's intent is no longer ongoing, but it keeps coming up, is this conversation doing more than simply discussing OCD? I've been wondering that for a couple of days now.


I wouldn't want to hand over advocacy to NTs, either. That's how Autism Speaks has become such a nightmare. It's not For Us, By Us (to steal from Damon John).

I agree that the thread has been sidetracked. Can't argue with the idea that this may be better discussed elsewhere.

The introduction of the video into the thread opened the door for discussion of advocacy and activism, so I think some of us are pursuing it because we would in fact like to see a more organized/powerful movement than what's currently out there. Maybe the thought that something could come of continued discourse on that is quietly hovering. Or maybe it's just a tangent exploring the subject in general. Perhaps both. I've taken my cue from royinpink as the author of this thread that it's been okay to continue the digression. I'd certainly defer to the will of roy and others if you want to go back to only discussing OCD.
 
Ah, not my intent. I think conversations are exactly that, and go where they need to go. I just wondered how OCD and advocacy for asperger's coincided, and if it was free-flowing or had an agenda I just hadn't picked up. Thanks for clarifying!
 
It may be that your company merger analogy is totally apt (my own feeling is that there should be at least one established, well-defined organization first, but I am nowhere near certain of that). Or it may be that we need to unite earlier to accomplish certain things we aren't good at alone. Like I mentioned, I just want to explore the possibility before dismissing it.

I question whether "neuroatypical" ever means something other than hard wiring. I just don't see it. Exaggerating to make a point, physics and chemistry are not the same science. I can medicate improvement for ADHD and depression. I can't medicate Asperger's, and while I can function, although in a constant state of crisis, with ADHD and depression, there is nothing that changes about my core Aspergianity.

I'm unquestionably aspie to a professional with appropriate background, and I don't want to hand over advocacy to people who do have legitimate problems but who aren't neurodiverse.

While I totally agree with you that NTs shouldn't be leading any organization we create, you seem to be saying that ADHD is not a neurological condition? That is not the case. Not only is it classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder in the DSM (see the full list at the bottom of this post), but there are biological differences, although not well-understood enough to use as an aid in diagnosis yet (but to be fair, neither are autistic brain differences). This is from the article I linked to upthread:

However, overall, the research suggests that people with ADHD, compared to other people, may have (a) slightly reduced neural mass in the prefrontal cortex, (b) reduced activity in some parts of the prefrontal cortex while performing certain tests of executive function; and (c) fewer dopamine receptors in certain parts of the brain that receive input from the prefrontal cortex. All of these differences are highly variable from individual to individual and observable only as a result of statistical averaging. So far no biological marker of ADHD has been found that is sufficiently reliable to be used as an aid in diagnosis.[3]

The studies of brain differences are interesting, but they have no bearing at all on the question of whether ADHD is a disorder or a normal personality variation. All personality variations have a basis in the brain. Of course they do. The brain controls all of behavior, so any difference that is reflected in behavior must exist in the brain. The only means by which natural selection can produce personality variation is through altering genes that affect the brain. If people diagnosed with ADHD differ behaviorally in any consistent way from other people, then their brains must in some way be different.​

Unlike depression, which although it does affect the brain, is a condition that is not inborn or lifelong, people with ADHD are generally recognized to have this trait throughout childhood into adulthood. However, clinicians are also not good at drawing a line between 'true ADHD' and 'childhood rambunctiousness' as of yet. ADHD has its own comorbids, which are quite similar to the ones often found with ASD.

The overlap between ADHD and ASD is a complicated one. Basically, we share executive functioning deficits, which are based in the frontal cortex. A kid with a severe case of ADHD will actually look a lot like an aspie or HFA kid with their problems organizing, controlling inappropriate outburts, motor skills like handwriting, avoiding distraction, etc. (I say this as a teacher). The distinguishing factors, when there are any, are in that the aspie has special interests and a single-minded focus, whereas the ADHD kid prefers or even excels at multi-tasking. The aspie also has sensory sensitivities. As for social deficits, although there is a different basis for some of them, they can be confused, as ADHD kids also have trouble taking turns, interrupt or blurt things out, and talk 'too much' (can be confused with aspie monologuing). So the clearest distinguishing factors are often special interests and sensory sensitivities rather than social impairments.

Of course, some are diagnosed with both, and not without reason, but to me it seems like variation among aspies in terms of which executive functioning issues affect us most and how much they impair us. Clinicians also have to be careful not to mistake stimming for ADHD fidgeting or the anxiety common to ASD for hyperactivity, etc.

Of course, there will be differences among those with different neurological 'disorders', but there are also issues that uniquely affect gay men, lesbians, and especially trans people...and we certainly wouldn't want to do the equivalent of slighting bisexuals by saying they are either 'really' homosexual and in denial or 'really' straight and 'just experimenting'.

Another interesting overlap is with schizophrenics. The neuropsychologist Michael Slate believes that the genetics behind schizophrenia and autism are very similar, although the behaviors are different. I originally saw him mentioned in The Autistic Brain, but this article explains a bit more:

Both papers noted overlap in the list of ASD-linked genes conferring risk, with risk genes identified in studies of other psychiatric illnesses. In the words of the authors of one of the papers: “De novo mutations in ASD, intellectual disability, and schizophrenia cluster to synaptic genes, and synaptic defects have been reported in models of these disorders.” In this way and perhaps others, the new research supports the notion of overlap among genetic factors that cause or confer risk for a number of serious brain disorders.
Perhaps schizophrenia is due for reclassification with along with ASD, ADHD, and intellectual disability. But anyway, aside from growing evidence for a scientific basis, people with all of these conditions have objected to being pathologized.

Those with ADD/ADHD are beginning to advocate and address the issue of adults diagnosed with the condition. See here for 7 different organizations or here for another one. Some are more set up by outsiders trying to provide 'help' and resources, while others are more oriented toward education and advocacy. Some interesting stuff there.

Schizophrenics are also organizing. There's now the Hearing Voices Movement (catchy name--a couple sites here and here), and they have the psychologist Eleanor Longden (with her excellent TED talk--which someone here at AC recommended to me..was it Epath?) among them doing research and self-advocating.

There's also advocacy for intellectual disabilities. I mentioned one upthread: Down's Syndrome. It is certainly genetic, uncurable, and part of their identity, not to mention the target of hate crimes and widespread discrimination.

Of these, however, besides the ones commonly confused with ASD or misdiagnosed, ADHD seems the easiest to ally with.

Being aspergian is not going to kill me, but chronic major depression untreated can. I'm saying there are important differences and I'm not perceiving the organizing principle that puts them all under one umbrella and saying "we're NoT." (Couldn't resist a bad pun.)

I hope from the above you can see that I am limiting it to conditions that are truly developmental and have a significant group hoping for better understanding and to be de-pathologized. I think in defining that group, we should probably take the lead from research, although of course we should also hope to have more autistic researchers and speak out about flawed and myopic research. The DSM's list, flawed as it may be, of neurodevelopmental conditions is:
Intellectual Disabilities
  • Intellectual Disability (Intellectual Developmental Disorder)
  • Global Developmental Delay
  • Unspecified Intellectual Disability (Intellectual Developmental Disorder)
Communication Disorders
  • Language Disorder
  • Speech Sound Disorder
  • Childhood-Onset Fluency Disorder (Stuttering)
  • Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder
  • Unspecified Communication Disorder
Autism Spectrum Disorder
  • Autism Spectrum Disorder
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Other Specified Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Unspecified Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder
Specific Learning Disorder
  • Specific Learning Disorder
Motor Disorders
  • Developmental Coordination Disorder
  • Stereotypic Movement Disorder
Tic Disorders
  • Other Specified Tic Disorder
  • Unspecified Tic Disorder
Other Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Other Specified Neurodevelopmental Disorder
  • Unspecified Neurodevelopmental Disorder
I like your pun. :)
 
Last edited:
Autism Spectrum Disorders...The inability of the brain to function as a whole, see the big picture, sensory issues, audio issues, light sensitivity....These are about -connections-
The co-morbids are about -control-
OCD, ICD, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY....





If you can not explain it to a six year old, you do not know the subject
 

New Threads

Top Bottom