Children with autism have more nerve synapses in their brain. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821124730.htm]
Is it possible that we with the LESS synapses regard people with MORE synapses as “problematic” and “non healthy”? How arrogant can we be? How blind?
We seem to all “know” what “normal” and “healthy” is.
But at the end of the day, it all comes down to arbitrary definitions imposed by the majority…
What do you think?
According to majority opinion, ex post facto, Einstein was on the autism continuum, which seems to indicate the the minority has yet to demonstrate an all inclusively valid interpretation including all non normative cases.
Errata: In the above, majority should replace minority.
I won’t say anything about ‘healthy’, but ‘normal’…surely it’s not arbitrary that normal is defined by the majority. ‘The majority’ and ‘what’s normal’ are not completely identical, but they’re pretty intricately linked.
On second though, I do have something to say about ‘healthy’ as well. I have some experience with Aspergers, a form of autism, and there’s a very real sense in which it’s not arbitrary to call (at least extreme) cases of Aspergers ‘less healthy’. They can often have something legitimately describable as a mental disability when it comes to empathy and understanding other humans. They’re almost natural solipsists; often they find it difficult to understand or care about the feelings of the people they’re interacting with. They can have extremely specific needs that they will expect other people to meet, but they won’t communicate those needs. They’ll just expect other people to somehow be aware of their needs, even if those needs are really unusual and not in any sense obvious.
Now, with certain mild forms of autism, one can reasonably say, ‘It’s not so much that they are unhealthy, it’s just that they don’t fit in this world.’ But with extreme cases of Aspergers, they’re not just ‘not fitting in’ – it’s hard to imagine any world that they could emotionally thrive in. They’re very adaptable in certain respects, but very unadaptable in other respects, which means that any world that isn’t tailor-made for them will pretty much inevitably result in emotional breakdowns.
Not all people with Aspergers, and certainly not all Autistic people, are like that, but some are. Some just have a mind that can’t cope with a world that is anything less than tailor-made for them. And I think that’s legitimately ‘unhealthy’.
Flannel: Your conclusions are qualified, thankfully. The qualifications do depend on presumed quality of life expereince, and as things are looking today, there are an awful lot of people, who seem to think we are going to the dogs. So if the process of denigration goes on, are we to suppose, that after a while a majority will tend to be dissatisfied by the way things are going? The next stage in that development will be mass autism, where according to Your definition, society as a whole may become unhealthy. Yhis is not that too boldof a claim to make, in fact a lot of changes in the categorization of illness, especially mental ilness , has to do with normalization and equivication of symptomology with social changes. That concept did originate way back, with the de-mthologization of certain categories of mental unhealth. Some like homosexuality was practically normalized overnight by social pressure. The nexg stage was purely conceptual, vis, the idea that more emphasis be placed on the 'nurture side than the ‘nature’ side of the derivation-onset relationship. The continuum idea took place as a form of slipping and slidig idea, that no designation is written in stone, and overlaps assure the consisrency and foundation to the idea. It makes for a much less reifed concept,
and this process can indicate a revision in thought, as the reason behind more numerous and significant statistical verification behind the claim.
Incidentally this is not as new as people are willing to admit, T.Mann’s novel ‘Magic Mountain’ illustrates the idea well enough. Illness as a metaphor, examplifies the belief of delicate balances in this respect, between normative, r so called normative societal markers, and their consequent adaptations.
One of the greatest sins throughout human history: “More is better”.
The truth of this statement is absolute.
I think cancer cells are MORE vital and reproduce MORE effectively than similar non-cancerous cells. Why should we normal people with LESS cell growth consider someone with a severely metastasized tumour to be non-healthy?
Or, more succinctly: What on Earth should number of synapses have to do with health?
I see your point. But don’t all people have trouble expressing their feeling?
Not “we” but the independent, sovereign, and therefore responsible rulers are arrogant and blind. This blindness is because of their dictated libertarianism, egalitarianism. and fraternalism (humanitarism), thus: their totalitarianism. When I say there is a difference between the intelligence of the humans, most of the people cry: „You can’t say that because it is IQ racism!“ But it isn’t! You have no idea, my stupids and hypocrites. Some or even many of those stupids and hypocrites could know better, provided that they were allowed to know better - but they are not allowed to know better.
There are more differences between huamans and also or even especially between male humans and female humans than you (are allowed to) think - confused by the political correctness. Those differences are very important when it comes to develop successfully. People who want to reduce those differences are people who want to reduce humans.
Political correctness is indeed a major problem today. We should be allowed to talk about any issue without being attacked as “racist” just because one states differences between categories of humans. Hacing said that, the major problem of autistic people today is based on that political correctness which does not allow people to address the issue in a straightforward manner.