Comment by JohnMakin 2 days ago
Then there's actually people who live their entire existence and every waking moment on the spectrum, and compensating for it - which is what the topic of discussion is. You minimizing it or thinking it isn't real isn't entirely helpful to discussion and frankly is pretty insulting.
> If it's a spectrum, everyone is on it somewhere.
No, because the endpoints of the spectrum are not defined as 0% autistic and 100% autistic.
The spectrum definitionally only includes people diagnosed with autism.
Your approach is like saying "there is a 'how bad is the cancer' spectrum" where 0 is "no cancer" as opposed to something like "cancer but easily curable." No reasonable definition of "cancer suffering spectrum" would include "doesn't even have cancer."
Autism is called a spectrum disorder not because it ranges on a smooth continuum from "no autism" to "lots of autism".
It's because there a handful of associated symptoms for autism and different people have a different mixture of them. You don't need an equally large amount of all symptoms in order to be autistic.
Think of it more like a light spectrum where there are different mixtures of hues for the symptoms, but autism still implies some amount of significant overall intensity. In short, it's a spectrum, not a continuum.
If you experience some or all of the symptoms associated with autism but at a level that doesn't significantly impair your overall functioning, then that's not a diagnosis of autism. Just like everyone who gets sad isn't depressed and everyone who worries doesn't have generalized anxiety. That's just normal human variability and life challenges.
I have encountered this definition of "spectrum", as a vector of numbers that go 0 to 100, rather than a single number that goes from 0 to 100 (which you call "continuum" IIUC).
But... I mean, if you asked 100 people what they think a spectrum means in this context, how many of them would think it meant "vector" rather than "real number"? I would guess fewer than 10. I consider myself a fairly well-informed nerd, but I think I had encountered many usages of "spectrum" describing a single trait for many years, and I think this is the second time I've ever encountered someone using the "vector" definition (the first one was also using it to describe autism). Has this linguistic battle already been lost? Does it improve clarity to call it a "spectrum" and insist on using the "vector" definition?
(I've personally been using the phrase "collection of imperfectly correlated traits")
I think the word "spectrum" is reasonable, as it implies a broad range. Or it's analogous to the rainbow with a variety of colours.
But what people consistently misunderstand is that there is a fundamental dichotomy at the diagnostic level. Speaking from the perspective of the DSM, which I prefer because it's at least concrete and has medical relevance in North America, you meet the criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder ("on the spectrum") or you do not ("not on the spectrum").
In other words, the diagnostic criteria themselves do not constitute a spectrum, especially not a linear one. Maybe people are confusing this with the DSM's three levels of support needs.
I agree, the terminology is confusing. It is extra confusing because the intent is to capture both:
1. Different autistic people may vary in which symptoms are most severe while all still being autistic.
2. Different autistic people may vary in the overall severity of all symptoms and how much it impacts their quality of life. (At the same time, there is still a distinct cut off where you are not considered to have autism if it doesn't manifest significantly in your life.)
The latter point is why "Asperger's" is now simply lumped in with ASD. But that tends to obscure the former point which is also important.
Perhaps "cluster" would have been better, but here we are.
he's saying that the label Autism includes different traits that various people have or don't have. He's falsely using that semantic manipulation to imply that people use it as an excuse not to deal with the conplexities of life.
saying "that's insulting" doesn't impact his assertion. you have to meet their logic where it is to disagree. lucky this case was so easy.
No, I'm not using any tricks (or implications) to argue that people often use psychological diagnosis (self or otherwise) as an excuse not to deal with the complexities of life.
I'm arguing that directly and asserting that web sites like the one posted are exactly the kind of things that make it easy for people to do that because they are relatable to basically everybody.
Not disagreeing with the content of what you said. However, sometimes telling people they sound insulting (unintentionally) has its own value, outside of the logical debate-making about the content of what was said.