It should be up for question whether the neurotypicals are actually the ones who are "retarded". Just because there's lots of a particular phenotype of a species doesn't mean they have to be the most apt at what they're doing.
- I don't know if I have autism, but I can observe lots of ways of thinking which are deemed as "autistic" by neurotypicals, and to me those are always the ways of thinking which just make the most sense. Or well, at least the high-functioning autism ones to be fair.
The neurotypical way of maneuvering through the world in contrast seems rather childish usually. Things don't have to make sense there. They just are declared as "that's the way it is done, we've always done it like that", and off you go. Sometimes I wonder if such people even think anything at all about what they're doing most of the time.
I don't think I'll ever understand why neurotypicals get so emotional about everything. There's often been times in my life where I've tried to make indisputable logical statements based on hard facts, but someone will decide to take offence and complain because the reality isn't to their liking.
My whole life I've had to navigate around childish neurotypicals who can't handle straight forward conversations about things without getting overly emotional. Just look at what happened to James Damore because he made the mistake of trying to use logic with neurotypicals.
When I was a kid it used to really upset me. I got in trouble several times for trying to explain why various religious stories didn't make logical sense. I also got in trouble for saying I didn't like the head teacher which was an objectively true statement. When I look back now I realise it wasn't me who had the problem. If anything it was them.
I am suspicious that some fairly large portion of problems in people who qualify for various labels is rooted in the world actively breaking them rather than some inherent shortcoming per se.
(Saying from some group I used to hang with.)
I did well in school. I have no criminal record. I'm a decent person and not a drug addict, etc.
And bad things happened to me anyway.
One of them was homelessness and I like to think that talking a lot on HN, where lots of developers and the like hang, about the importance of my cheap tablet and how crucial it was to make my life work while I was homeless helped foster positive changes.
I can't prove that, of course, but it seems a not unreasonable inference.
If only I could find a way to more generally change the focus from big feels and pity and finger pointing to practical details like "Yes, but how do I legally earn a few bucks now while homeless (or whatever)? And how do I stay sane and healthy while trying to fix my problems and get my life back?"
Whining on HN about "I'm on a tablet and can't do X, dagnabbit" used to be a thing I did a lot and then a lot of those issues disappeared. And I wish the world did a better job more generally of hearing "I need a solution for these various practical details -- today, without first having to fix some other problem, like getting back into housing. I need to be able to do X whether I'm housed or not (as one example)."
Often, focusing on othering people boils down to justifying creating problems for them unnecessarily on top of their actual problems. I hate it.
It's also a good reminder that the functional degrees of autism only share characteristics, it is still possible (to my knowledge) that these are entirely unrelated and only related on the facade.
My oldest son likely qualifies for a diagnosis somewhere on the autism spectrum. He was never formally diagnosed because I homeschooled him, so I didn't need a diagnosis to accommodate his needs. I was his teacher and his mom and I could be kind to my child because I felt like it without filling out forms and defending my right to help him make his life work.
He thinks in pictures and talking with him sometimes feels a little like talking to someone who speaks English as a second language because he makes odd language errors of the same sort as he translates my words into pictures in his mind and then translates pictures in his mind into words to engage in conversation.
Given that this is a labor intensive thing for him, it's hardly shocking he's not very social. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, he can also be very verbose when you do get him talking.
He's in his thirties and still lives with me. Over the course of more than three decades I have gotten into the habit of using image-rich language because it's more effective communication for dealing with my child.
I adore him and think he's funny and wonderful and the apple of my eye. I've always found him delightful and I wondered why he did so many weird things as a kid rather than wondering how to break him and force him to "act normal."
I have speculated at times that my words seem to be powerful because of this habitual image-rich communication style. That's a two-edged sword and sometimes gets me in hot water when my words hit hard on sensitive subjects.
It's possible I didn't think it flowery because of this aspect of my life. And, so, I don't know what you are talking about or what relevance that has to my frustrations with a world that wants to say "These kids are defective" instead of wondering at what widespread changes have led to this seemingly sudden "epidemic" of supposedly defective kids who supposedly have sensory issues, lack social skills, etc.
Yeah, entirely possible. For what it's worth, I was trying to agree. I think I just look at it from a different angle, or may have already arrived on the idea that, society decided what a functioning adult is supposed to do/be, and leaves no room for the idea that this is fundamental evolution at play thus people get pressured into behaving/acting/thinking neurotypically.
My use of flowery probably invokes an imagery I wasn't going for, so that's on me.
You have a good day/night/ whatever.
Telling coaches, teachers, etc the diagnosis made things so much worse that she went back to saying "She's just shy." to explain her daughter's social challenges.
That word was not chosen at random. I was involved in a voluntary health and welfare organization for a time and had a spiffy title, though no pay, and lots of people turned to me for support or advice or to share their stories and just talk with someone who would understand.
At one time, I was getting referrals. People would say "You should email this lady about your difficult child." and give them my address.
It never turned into paid work but it is the reason I began blogging.
When do I get to see some headlines asking "Are they really defective? Or did the world just go and get all busier and noisier than in the past while humans kind of mostly stayed the same?"
Re sensory issues (which are often associated with ASD):
My parents couldn't stand noise. They were tyrannical about keeping things quiet so they could sleep.
No one accused them of being autistic. They were just old and set in their ways and spent all or part of their childhoods on a farm where things were quieter than the modern world.
Kids used to be called shy if they weren't social butterflies. Now we take them to a specialist and get them labels like autism and selective mutism and treat them like defective weirdos.
Not everyone is a social butterfly. The human race was never mostly social butterflies.
Also also: social skills are learned behaviors. If kids get less attention from other people and spend all their time staring at a TV or something instead, is it really shocking that they don't have much social savvy these days? Won't this show most obviously in those kids who innately need to work at it to learn it and don't naturally soak it up like a sponge?
(Edited because autocorrect is sometimes an annoying butt.)