@Negazul - I was diagnosed with Asperger’s when I was young.
@bfk - I agree with you regarding over-diagnosis. It reminds me of the present tendency to label any who use manipulation, or interject subtle put-downs occasionally, a narcissist.
However, as I’m sure you’re aware, there are statistically discernible groups of traits, the culmination and observation of which constitute the diagnosis.
The key here is that these labels are not be thrown around willy nilly, nor are they to be haphazardly used as an excuse to sweep social infractions under the carpet.
There’s a limit, of course, which is entirely subjective, but on which there tends to be an approximate consensus - we are after all, human, and live in (mostly) democratic, and (mostly… rough edges) civilised societies. If somebody is clearly, from even the way they speak, that they are severely disabled, and innocently says something, conventionally highly inappropriate, we tend to be quite forgiving, and rightly so.
However, there’s also the grey area of what do to when minor infractions are committed by individuals quite functional, yet possessive of a genuine diagnosis. How is it to be discerned that which emerges out of a lack of understanding, a misunderstanding, or an alternate mode of perception, from that which is fully intentional.
How is it to be known if, in that precise moment, they were, or were not, capable of conducting themselves in a manner which would be deemed appropriate?
That’s the tricky part. That’s where we do, indeed, need skilled and knowledgeable teachers to know and understand troubled children, to know their patterns, their behaviours, to be able to intuit what is and what is not intentionally counter to etiquette.
I was lucky to have had such a teacher, for the most part. Looking back on my past, I had great difficulty interpreting the social dynamic, picking up on social cues, understanding sarcasm, and understanding banter.
However, for those who are capable of the discipline necessary to overcome some of their neurological obstacles, it is important not to allow them the idea that it is OK to behave like that. Disciplinary measures must be enforced, though they must also be tailored to the psychology of the individual, where needs must. You have to be careful about how you go about punishment, as conventional tactics will likely break down completely, and result in more extreme behaviour, or the prolonged suffering of the child.
It’s about helping the individual find balance at the appropriate intersection between the needs and challenges of the individual, and the needs of society.
Related side-story: after taking far too many psychedelics far too frequently, I experienced a mild psychosis. I would trip constantly. That intensity of the trip was felt throughout the day, every day, until even now, though in a diminished form. It fundamentally altered my way of thinking, my perception of myself, and my understanding of body language - it all became hard to miss. It shifted something in my brain which allowed me to connect more deeply to my intuition, on a more conscious level. It, for the most part, allowed me to transcend the limits of my brain’s wiring. I became conscious of various behaviours of mine of which I had not, hitherto, so clearly identified.
It’s all wibbly wobbly mindey wimey stuff, and as such, difficult (technically, impossible) to communicate the experience - only by analogy or reference to common experience, can I do so.
The evidence on that is sketchy. It’s a superstition (*more on that).
Edit: The evidence is perhaps not so sketchy. Take a look at @metaside’s comment below.
(*) Superstition… hmm. Humans, for the most part, aren’t very good at identifying real correlations between events. It reminds me of that idea that different drinks yield different effects. That’s mostly bunk in the objective sense, but in the subjective sense it certainly is real. It’s about alcohol concentration, and rate of consumption. However, what exactly gives us this idea? It FEELS like the drink makes the difference.
Our mode of perception is often determined by our expectations. The minutiae of perceived experience tend to relate more to our expectations, which tend to relate to whatever image, archetype, or iconic representation, is salient in our psyche, or is evoked by the experience itself. Our expectations of experience guide experience, which guides our expectations. It’s a feedback look. That’s why people can become so convinced of some superstition or another, because its a self-reinforcing system, unless disciplined application of critical thinking is used to filter the inferences we take from experience. It is also possible to override the associative relationships formed with retrospective, disciplined application of method. That’s why science works, and why it progresses.
@Negazul - one final note, I don’t interpret any real “anger” so to speak. From what I’ve read of his posts, it seems to be mostly a style of writing. It’s just concerned, assertive, sugar-free articulation of opinion.
