When they don’t understand

[Judge]

I hate to have to be pedantic here, but that's a misleading statement. 100% of the population are neurodiverse. If you mean neurodivergent then it's also off the mark. Some 17% of the world's population is neurodivergent. The figure quoted is specifically related to autism alone.

Indeed, I was keeping the context of my statements to autism alone as well. Not to emphasize any accuracy on the part of organizations like the CDC or nitpick over comorbid conditions, but simply to emphasize the obvious.

That we are likely to represent a very small social and neurological minority no matter where we reside.

Yes- 83% > 17%. Overwhelmingly greater. We agree.

That a neurological majority exists in such great numbers that most of them won't even attempt to contemplate or recognize the existence of those with alternative thought processes to their own. Compounded by living in societies where the will of a political majority is considered a form of moral authority in general. And above all, belong to a species that most easily relates to others based on their commonalities- not their differences.

All of which makes it arduous to expect or assume understanding and tolerance as if it will occur as a matter of social osmosis or good manners. It won't. I'm not suggesting everyone refrain from the role of becoming an advocate. However they need to clearly understand the potential emotional and physical perils of doing so.

Where you won't be fighting such battles like a line infantryman, but rather surrounded as a paratrooper.

 

[Autistamatic]

Where you won't be fighting such battles like a line infantryman, but rather surrounded as a paratrooper.

This post is a little off topic, but I ought to address this and provide some perspective.

Whilst there is truth in that statement it's an analogy which is thankfully ever decreasing in relevance as more and more advocates come together with unified voices and purpose. A unified voice requires uniform & correct use of terminology. The word "neurodiverse" is terribly misused as a synonym for autism. It simply can't be used as if the two words were interchangeable. There's little chance of Neurodiversity being understood by the mainstream if we can't work with each other to ensure we all understand it and speak about it correctly ourselves. I say this not to admonish or criticise, but to appeal to you @Judge and other intelligent, good hearted people like you, to help us all by keeping our message and our use of terminology consistent.
You're right that social change will not happen simply by osmosis. It takes a lot more hard work than that, but thousands of us are dedicated to putting the hours in for the sake of autistic and other neurodivergent generations to come. It takes far more time and effort than most realise, but the small victories accumulate and aggregate. There are projects in motion, in research, in academia, in politics and in media, some that will take years to come to fruition, but the work is being done. Work that is far more substantial than saying noble things and crossing our fingers hoping people will listen as some people seem to imagine.

 

[Judge]

I say this not to admonish or criticise, but to appeal to you @Judge and other intelligent, good hearted people like you, to help us all by keeping our message and our use of terminology consistent.

I'm afraid such a plea or argument must be directed towards all the scientists, doctors and academicians who have already established the semantics of autism and other neurological conditions. Whether you personally choose to accept them or not. No matter which side of the pond they may originate from. After all, we can't standardize medical terminology for which we fundamentally don't control to begin with.

If one googles "neurodiversity", odds are the very first source to quote is likely to be an academic source. Your argument is with them- not me.

It's strategically a noble idea to want to make everything uniform within the autistic community. I get that. But what you are asking is simply not in our control to do so.

 

[Autistamatic]

It's not something that CAN be argued. The word "neurodiverse" simply does not mean "autistic". It has a clear, defined and immutable meaning.
Judy Singer who created the word and concept of Neurodiversity is alive and well. She's written books on it and has another in the pipeline. She's personally corrected many of those academics who've misused the term, much to their personal chagrin.
Diversity and the state of being diverse (in any sense of the word) cannot be applied to an individual, only a collection or population. An individual cannot be considered neurodiverse any more than they could be said to be biodiverse or racially diverse.
There's lots of misinformation we can google on the Internet, particularly when it comes to autism and neurodivergence. We owe it to ourselves to get it right, even when we see others getting it wrong.

 

[Judge]

It's not something that CAN be argued. The word "neurodiverse" simply does not mean "autistic". It has a clear, defined and immutable meaning.

There's nothing particularly clear or defined about such a definition that I can see. One that potentially involves any number of conditions:

"Neurodiversity is a concept where neurological differences are to be recognized and respected as any other human variation. These differences can include those labeled with Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Dyscalculia, Autistic Spectrum, Tourette Syndrome, and others."

What is Neurodiversity?

I can only quote the same thing published from multiple sources. Your argument remains with them- not us.

To advance the ball you have to have possession. And we aren't even in the game.

 

[Autistamatic]

How does the dsm enter into this? Diagnostic definitions have no relevance to the meaning of the word diversity or the etymology and correct use of the neologistic terms neurodiversity & neurodiverse.
There is no correlation whatsoever with diagnostic conditions. That's a completely separate concern.

Diverse doesn't mean different, it means "comprised of variety" and the same applies to the term and concept that Judy, a respected sociologist who is autistic herself, created 20 odd years ago. Individuals can't be diverse nor can a group of individuals with the same characteristics, only groups with a variety of characteristics. Any statement such as "I am neurodiverse" or "x% of a group is neurodiverse" is gobbledegook without meaning.
If I describe myself as "racially diverse" it is an oxymoron which tells you nothing about me. If I say I am Caucasian it gives you information about me as an individual.
My "argument" doesn't lie with anyone, here or elsewhere. There is nothing to argue about when the meaning of a word is so specific and well documented.

 

[Judge]

There is nothing to argue about when the meaning of a word is so specific and well documented.

"Neurodiversity is a concept where neurological differences are to be recognized and respected as any other human variation. These differences can include those labeled with Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Dyscalculia, Autistic Spectrum, Tourette Syndrome, and others."

If you consider such a definition to be so specific, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That strikes me as an ambiguous definition. Though I didn't write it either. And it doesn't surprise me in the least when you consider how the DSM-IV has evolved into the more ambiguous DSM-V. There's really not much point in splitting hairs over such definitions in a regulatory environment not within our control.

 

[Kalinychta]

I think what Autistamatic is saying is that the word “diversity” implies plurality e.g. just like you can’t say “I am people,” because the word “people” means more than one person. He’s talking about grammar. (Right, Autistamatic?)

 

[Judge]

I think what Autistamatic is saying is that the word “diversity” implies plurality e.g. just like you can’t say “I am people,” because the word “people” means more than one person. He’s talking about grammar. (Right, Autistamatic?)

I hope not. I just see no point in attempting to debate petty things like grammar or semantics technicalities that don't change the point I'm trying to make. That we exist as a very small social and neurological minority.

And in terms of this disparity we're still talking about all of us- not just one of us. However the-powers-that-be choose to measure it.

 

[tree]

A Person Can't Be 'Diverse'

How can someone be a "diverse" person? « Economics Job Market Rumors

Has ‘Diversity’ Lost Its Meaning?

From what I see in these articles, it is appropriate to refer to a group
as being diverse, but one person alone is not diverse.

 

[Judge]

A Person Can't Be 'Diverse'

How can someone be a "diverse" person? « Economics Job Market Rumors

Has ‘Diversity’ Lost Its Meaning?

From what I see in these articles, it is appropriate to refer to a group
as being diverse, but one person alone is not diverse.

Good question. Though I suppose to really find the answer it may be necessary to connect those who invented the term with those who control or influence the meaning of words.

They may not be on the same page either.

That quest for such concise meanings may not really exist in a society where it's conceivable that new words evolve from some very strange- and not so grammatical sources that can potentially be "freelanced" by virtually anyone.

In the big picture, do such considerations really matter? No. It's why there are adjectives like "pedantic" to both describe and de-prioritize them in the process.

 

[Kalinychta]

That a neurological majority exists in such great numbers that most of them won't even attempt to contemplate or recognize the existence of those with alternative thought processes to their own. Compounded by living in societies where the will of a political majority is considered a form of moral authority in general. And above all, belong to a species that most easily relates to others based on their commonalities- not their differences.

Grammar aside, this is your overall point, and I completely agree with it. Before I was diagnosed with autism, I had no interest in it, because it wasn’t relevant in my life. Most people know about autism only through movies and television shows, so any large-scale change in the way it’s understood and perceived will probably have to happen through media.

 

[Judge]

Grammar aside, this is your overall point, and I completely agree with it. Before I was diagnosed with autism, I had no interest in it, because it wasn’t relevant in my life. Most people know about autism only through movies and television shows, so any large-scale change in the way it’s understood and perceived will probably have to happen through media.

Exactly. Me too.

I'm simply pointing out a quantitative truth that so permeates the divide between autistic and non-autistic people. A disparity so great that so many are not the least bit interested in who and what we are simply because they don't have to. A consideration that doesn't imply malice or indifference.

I know in my own case autism was a total mystery to me. One where I knew no one who was autistic and consequently didn't give the subject much thought at all. Though in the process of becoming self-aware of my own autism, it's gratifying to look back in hindsight and identify likely members on the spectrum as both friends at work and a family member or two. Now I know better.

 

[Kalinychta]

Exactly. Me too.

I'm simply pointing out a quantitative truth that so permeates the divide between autistic and non-autistic people. A disparity so great that so many are not the least bit interested in who and what we are simply because they don't have to. A consideration that doesn't imply malice or indifference.

I know in my own case autism was a total mystery to me. One where I knew no one who was autistic and consequently didn't give the subject much thought at all. Though in the process of becoming self-aware of my own autism, it's gratifying to look back in hindsight and identify likely members on the spectrum as both friends at work and a family member or two. Now I know better.

Agreed. That’s why the activists and advocates Autistamatic was talking about are so important. In a room full of a hundred people, it’s better to have even one person speaking up for you rather than none at all. We’d all probably be chained to the wall in Bedlam Hospital right now if it weren’t for the very small number of people throughout history who have slowly and painstakingly chipped away at discrimination against autistics.

 

[Judge]

In a room full of a hundred people, it’s better to have even one person speaking up for you rather than none at all.

Ideally speaking, maybe. Then again, maybe not.

I suspect much of it depends on the content of one's message, their delivery and how receptive or not that audience may be. A dilemma at times depending on their ability to effectively communicate with Neurotypicals on their terms rather than our own. A tiny few might actually appreciate observing autism without any masking. Most will not be amused as I discovered personally.

An experience I went through once, and don't care to repeat. They were anticipating a brief online presentation of autism by an ambassador and diplomat. Instead they heard an Aspie. It didn't go over so well with them.

Sadly I think I learned much more from that experience than they did.

 

[Fino]

I would have answered in the same way and I still don't get this. It seems like 'thing' needed an adjective to qualify it, like a 'horrible thing." Then his reaction would have made sense, given that he wanted to express that he was afraid of it.

I can't know for certain it's the case here, but typically "that's a thing" means "that's a thing that people do/say/think/etc," that it's a known phenomenon in the world. For example, eating ketchup off the floor for fun is likely "not a thing," but eating peanut butter with jelly "is a thing".

 

[SusanLR]

I can't know for certain it's the case here, but typically "that's a thing" means "that's a thing that people do/say/think/etc," that it's a known phenomenon in the world. For example, eating ketchup off the floor for fun is likely "not a thing," but eating peanut butter with jelly "is a thing".

His use of the word was regarding a physical object that he found frieghtening or an abomination.
Like The Thing in the old movie or the creature from the black lagoon.
Throwing it down as soon as he touched it and with a look of disgust meant he used the word in place
of it's true name, but, acted as though I should have known what he thought it was.
It could have been a pencil that he found on the floor and didn't like it's look or feel.
If I hadn't seen the incident I wouldn't have known what he was calling a thing.
But seeing it was a huge sea urchin spine it finely hit me he must have thought it was scary
and not to be handled.

 

[Progster]

I can't know for certain it's the case here, but typically "that's a thing" means "that's a thing that people do/say/think/etc," that it's a known phenomenon in the world. For example, eating ketchup off the floor for fun is likely "not a thing," but eating peanut butter with jelly "is a thing".

Thanks - I get it now.

 

[Fino]

His use of the word was regarding a physical object that he found frieghtening or an abomination.
Like The Thing in the old movie or the creature from the black lagoon.
Throwing it down as soon as he touched it and with a look of disgust meant he used the word in place
of it's true name, but, acted as though I should have known what he thought it was.
It could have been a pencil that he found on the floor and didn't like it's look or feel.
If I hadn't seen the incident I wouldn't have known what he was calling a thing.
But seeing it was a huge sea urchin spine it finely hit me he must have thought it was scary
and not to be handled.

Now that I find confusing. I feel like I would have thought he was asking "does that exist" or something. I don't even know. So I see what you mean now.

 

[Schism]

if they do not want you to respond truly and honestly to a question they ask,--in other words, if they don't actually care what you really think but rather just want you to placate, reassure, and lie to them,--then you'd rather they didn't ask you at all.

There are some seriously deep & intellectual answers here on the OP's thread. I can't match those but Kalinychta is spot on here. A lot of people ask, not because they want the truth or even an answer, but to bolster their own self-esteem. The current media label of 'snowflakes', do a lot of this. Tons of social media to get approval & offended at the slightest negative comment. If you don't want honesty, don't ask someone on the spectrum! ☺

As someone else earlier suggested (paloftoon?), perhaps check they are okay with getting a negative answer first? In principle, I agree here but who is going to admit to just wanting flattery? (I personally am very uncomfortable with it face to face - until I am alone & then I think 'ok, yeah, maybe?'). We all need assurance in some way.

So I'd have a problem there. I wouldn't necessarily be aware I was going to be negative or offensive so wouldn't think to check first. I've learnt to just pause in those situations though (instantly awkward anyway) & generally be evasive as possible. Not ideal & not always. Probably why I have no friends :-/