You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on Autism and Lesswrong - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: CuSithBell 07 April 2011 03:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (29)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 08 April 2011 06:41:18AM 2 points [-]

Well, yes, precisely: the problem with "neurotypical" is that it's politics and social status marking more than anything to do with an individual's neurology. More so than every term is, I mean. Its entire purpose seems to be a bit reframing, a bit "take that!"

I see it used far more as a natural descriptor defined by not having a known set of symptoms. We seem to disagree about the state of the universe here.

What does its use usefully predict?

Expected degree of sensitivity to clothing fabrics. What is likely to happen when you look at their eyes. At a young age it predicts that you are more likely to get confused about whether a duck will appear in a photograph if the duck is removed from the scene after the photograph has been taken. It predicts that you are more likely to accurately deduce what another child believes about the contents of a smarties packet when you have more information than them.

Comment author: David_Gerard 08 April 2011 06:46:25AM *  -1 points [-]

Expected degree of sensitivity to clothing fabrics.

Note above that the term also apparently describes "not bipolar", and other things, just in this thread. Do you have references to studies on bipolarity versus fabric sensitivity? ADHD versus fabric sensitivity?

If you're defining it to mean "not autistic or aspergic", what advantage in communication does it have over "not autistic or aspergic"?

I see it used far more as a natural descriptor defined by not having a known set of symptoms.

Its use as a term that attempts to demedicalise autism, and now bipolar and ADHD as well, may well be a good idea, but is entirely politics.

Comment author: wedrifid 08 April 2011 06:51:00AM *  6 points [-]

what advantage in communication does it have over "not autistic or aspergic"?

It is one word not four. Humans always invent jargon terms if they are in a subculture that requires repeated reference to a specific concept.

It also allows to some extent to include the not-bipolar, not-ADHD things by default which is useful. Because it is easier easier to have general discussions about category if you can conveniently eliminate most of the outliers.

Comment author: wedrifid 08 April 2011 07:06:00AM *  0 points [-]

Do you have references to studies on bipolarity versus fabric sensitivity? ADHD versus fabric sensitivity?

For what it is worth, look at Hallowell for information on fabric sensitivity and ADHD. But not only is the way you have framed a demand for references a tad disingenuous bipoar/ADHD fabric sensitivity is not even required for the point. (And I have no specific information regarding bipolar clothing.)

If autistics tend to have greater fabric sensitivity than average then the average of that trait in non-autistics is going to be higher than either the autistic group or the whole population. That provides predictive power.

Excluding bipolarity and ADHDness is a strength of the term, not a weakness. Once you throw out all the complicated outliers you can have an easier time just describing what makes bipolar (or autism or ADHD) what it is.