• radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
    3·
    4 months ago

    I think the doctor was just being thorough. I didn’t take it as judgmental. She really just wanted to highlight every area in which a neurodivergent person might differ from neurotypical people. There were a lot of parts of the diagnosis which stated “[In this area being discussed], Radicalautonomy was unremarkable”, meaning I did not differ significantly from neurotypical people in that area.

    • I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.autism.placeOP
      1·
      4 months ago

      Thanks for that! Based on what you said, I think my judgement of her report is more of a thing I bring to it. Now, I gotta figure out what’s going on with me that I felt that way. 🤔

      • oracle@lemmy.world
        1·
        4 months ago

        So, as a non-autistic person, something I’ve noticed, is that people with autism can’t handle anything that remotely describes them as stupid and useless (exaggerated sense of self/narcisism). This wouldn’t normally be an issue however, except it compounds with this other thing I’ve noticed, that people with autism have this intense urge to reach 100%, and anything less than that is actually 0% (in other words, yall see things in black and white).

        This interaction produces this awkward logic where anything negative (including personal mistakes) is taken as a personal insult, which produces one of two results, A (you have personally insulted me, that means I get to personally act like a complete asshole on purpose and/or meltdown), or B (somebody/or myself said something negative about me, and that means I’m stupid and useless and sad now).

        Since tone is something that asian cultures have built in to their language, and the lack of ability to understand tone and its effect on communication is incredibly obvious from my standpoint.

        Anyways, long story short, purely neutral descriptive language and judgemental language are very different. Purely descriptive language, especially scientific, often tries to describe a thing in as many words as possibly allowed, because otherwise you run into information compression loss (too much jpg). If you want to be accurate, and accuracy is tantamount in any scientific field, then every possible description from every possible viewpoint is required. This is the opposite of what people with autism like to do, which is “efficient”. Yall gonna end up describing a moon rock like, “it is grey and dusty”, which is severely useless. Sometimes you cannot describe an object in less than 20,000 words, especially if you’ve never seen it before.

        Autism being a spectrum of traits in variable degrees of effect, I would expect such 20 page papers when trying to formally diagnose someone.

        If you wanna see some judgemental language and the difference between such and anything not, go on r/roastme and check out the roasts.