Debate Corner

Hello Josie,

My strengths feel very unusual at times - to the point where others can't comprehend or even notice them (although they are there as they have observable effects). What would you say your strengths were? I find a lot of NT's take some strengths for granted as they think everyone else has them (they don't!). An aspie friend of mine helped me to finish the 'birds of a feather' line - he said 'Birds of a feather flock together, unless they are an Eagle'. He thinks everyone is disabled - in the sense that unless you are no.1. in the world at something, you are less abled than someone else - and nobody is no.1. at everything. Interesting perspective!

Damian - Community Champion

Hello Josie,

I agree about the working together thing - the problem is recognising abilities that one doesn't hold oneself in other people - if one can't do something than it is impossible to be empahetic about it. Being able to recognise difference is very important I think. One may not be able to imitate the other, but one can build an appreciation of at least the end product and be in awe of the process etc.

My friend would relate about making improvements - one of his favourite sayings about table tennis is that his favourite shot is his weakest one!

Open-mindedness can be a strength and a weakness (most things are in human nature!) - yet I think one can train to have better courage of one's convictions. Luckily I have both (yet may be rare?) - my mother is quite like you in this respect. Sometimes having a good sounding board with a blunt perspective helps in this regard - e.g. 'of course you are right' or 'I don't think so...' - maybe Tom will provide this for you, as I have done for my mother (lol!)?

The Roman philosopher Seneca once said that one should not ever worry about catastrophe that is beyond one's control - if you could not prevent something, there is no point worrying etc. - it is simply an illogical connection between personal agency and events. In other words however - the thing we should worry about is our actions! Mmm...I wonder if he would have been diagnosed if around today (lol!)?

I am often told that people take advantage of my good nature - yet I am autonomous - I don't have to do what I do (although some philosophers would disagree!). Yes - if people take advantage, I see that more as their problem.

If the world was full of autistics what would it look like? You would probably still get tribal divisions - you would have the 'Vulcans' (society based on logic), peaceful anarchists, not so peaceful anarchists, possibly a few dictatorships (yet they wouldn't last long with all the revolutions) - in a way, politics would be pushed to extremes...not sure if this would be better? Maybe there is a functional evolutionary reason for our existence, but also another for our sparcity in numbers? Then again, I remember watching the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics and thinking 'see - when aspies organise things...' (lol!). Then I realised it was also the stack of money they threw at it. Then again - when British politicians throw money at things...

It is certainly an interesting hypothetical!

Debating is quite different when I largely agree with someone!

Damian - Community Champion

Thanks for joining the debate Tracy,

You say that autism is a disability - yet what would you define a disability to be? Compared to normal? This is a hypothetical construct ('normal' that is). Compared to what someone would be without autism (this is illogical - they do have autism...etc.). This in itself is a tricky one...so when in doubt - look in dictionary (p.s. Claire - so glad that Jack likes dictionaries - a good thing to get into!):

Disability - thing that disables or disqualifies.

Ability - power or capacity (to do), cleverness, talent.

Qualify - make or become competent, fit, eligible.

The 'medical model' of disability looks at pahologies as compared to the statistical average (as a measure), they say that everyone who is 'normal' fall under majority parameters. Thus anyone outside these parameters has at least a 'deviance' or 'abnormality'. These are often also treated as pathological and dysfunctional (for rather more complex historical reasons). Thus the idea here is to 'cure' or 'rehabilitate' the deviant into a state of normality - or help them reach as close to it as possible (yet remain with a feeling of inadequacy for not being able to).

In this view, autism is a pathology - a deviant abnormality that disables people - it is incurable - therefore people will never quite reach 'normality', yet we can give them an ultimately unfulfilling life by setting a goal that it is known they cannot reach (an NT standard set by NT people!).

However, I have no intention of being 'average' (lol!). The 'social model' of disability suggests that it is society that disables - both in its material existence (e.g. ramps, doors) + and attitudes (you must be an 'enthusiastic team player' to get a job etc.).

In the latter sense - yes - society does disable me (it is an NT dominated one, set up for the interests of NT people) - yes, some of this is inevitable, yet I will fight injustices anyway (lol!). You say that 'we' should not be treated any less 'equal' (yet equality is a very vague concept) - in terms of 'rights' and 'laws'?

Things have affected me - I am hyper-sensitive 'compared' to most other people (seem to be) - this brings advantages as well as disadvantages. I have an eye for detail and am good at focusing - yet when I do - I miss what else is going on. etc. - really - I don't see myself as disabled in the medical sense (nor do the government in terms of benefits - in a social or medical sense!).

May I correct you on some points about 'classic autism' - the idea of 'never come out of their own worlds' is an NT description and not very accurate (from my view). In my philosophy, we are all locked into our own perceptual worlds, yet NT's often hold the delusion that they can understand others perceptions through communication (and don't often realise that all communication attempts are faulty or reductionist / symbolic in nature) - in many ways language is quite poor at getting a message across (and quite good at excluding people - e.g. the 'in' joke). In terms of communication and interaction - my son for instance - does so quite a lot and is socially minded (just in a different way) - NT's often assume that verbal ability = awareness of others - this is not the case.

You say they need 'constant care' - one could argue that we all do as social beings - something overlooked with NT's - new parents be warned - NT children will need support for life too!

Do I not see them as 'disabled' - not in the medical sense - in the social sense - absolutely! In a capitalist society where social worth and value is measured by productivity and profit making - than yes, people like my son will always be socially disabled in this society.

One is made to be socially 'ineligible' and 'incompetent' - this need not always be so in every social context. In short - society disables autistic people a great deal more than the autistic 'symptoms' do (many on the spectrum would disagree - yet I would argue that many arguments used have a basis in social realities). The 'raw deal' I got was from society - not autism!

Do the positives outweigh the negatives - yes! Although I have had some very hard times - I like being alive (I think Nye does too). Yes - there have been times when I questioned this, yet not anymore (Nye helps me in this respect). The things that have got me down have always come from an external source. My mind on the other hand is my greatest asset, it is 'me', without it - I would not be me (I'd be dead - lol!).

I think most of us will be able to agree on social difficulties and prejudices - yet what is your view on the 'medical' model? What would you compare the 'disabled' with the 'abled' - and does this not assume a level of 'better than' and 'inequality'?

Josie - what do you think? Also - how would you respond to Tracy?

Damian - Community Champion

Hi Damian and Tracy

I dont use the word "disabled" to describe Tom because I dont see him as disabled; I have had to explain that he is autistic but |I would never say disabled.

Having said all that I think the word "disability" can be subjective. My ex-husband who has Aspergers calls himself "disabled" even though he is a very intelligent and capable person and he does this because to him the word autism equates with disability; I think that is wrong! You only have to look at the myriad of people on the spectrum who are high achievers and the contributions they have made to society; people like Temple Grandin. I am now thinking about Steven Hawking (dont know if he is autistic) who would understandably be classed as "disabled" simply because he is in a wheelchair, cant walk and cant speak unaided, but look at just how mentally alert and brilliant the man is .... a better description for him would be physically challenged; he certainly doesnt seem to be challenged in any other way!!

I think the word "disabled" isnt a useful one; it's one of these words that needs further clarification as to the actual condition that warrants the term "disability" ... so why use it??

That's just my tuppence worth!!

Josie - Community Champion