[hhh]

This is quite interesting. Being on the spectrum myself, and many of my friends being so as well, it is very important how different everyone on the spectrum truly is. For high functioning people like myself I see Autism more akin to a mental super-power that can be crippled by small things. The difference in thinking is magnificent, and it aids in my success in most things that I do, but is an absolute disaster when it comes to socializing with people near me. In a town of 300 people, there aren't really any tech nerds or otherwise. Which makes socializing awkward since technology and game are a massive portion of my life. Even to just go to the doctor the interaction is anxiety inducing that my heart rate can raise by a good amount. (I've seen 133 on a bad day, when normally I hang out around 100.) Having to rely on analysis of people and memory of what people think is acceptable is absolutely exhausting.

Having a clear test for autism is wonderful, but the spectrum is of infinite width and infinite height.

[keithnz]

my son ( 7 ) is like this, his brain lets him do interesting things, like from early on, you could hand him some paper and ask him to write things, then you could rotate the paper any way you like and he'd just carry on writing so it was fine when rotated back to normal. But he has a ton of trouble with socializing and has never made a friend, he is also a super realist. He doesn't like to pretend to be anything but himself. "If you could be an animal what animal woruld you be? - Human Boy". Any suggestion to pretend to be something else tends to be met with a reaction of "why on earth would I want to be anything but who I am". Or even if you over emphasise something like "Wow Ethan,you are super awesome" "no... I'm not awesome, I'm just normal"

[hhh]

It's quite interesting the differences. I wish you and your son the best of times in the future.

[spiritcat]

I like this kid.

[core-questions]

> The difference in thinking is magnificent

How do you know this, having not experienced neurotypical thinking?

[aussieguy1234]

Its obvious, based on interactions with others, asking how they think and its well documented in research

[JauntyHatAngle]

To play Devil's Advocate though - confirmation bias is a funny thing, and self-diagnosis is too.

Not saying you or OP are wrong, and I believe the non-neurotypical thing, but these topics are ones where nearly everyone who says they are on the spectrum appear to be 100% vehemently sure they are, but not 100% of those people are correct.

[spartanatreyu]

^ this. People without a sense of smell still know that the smell of feaces is not enjoyable, just by observing and learning from other people's experiences.

[antihero]

Same with ADHD too.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

> spectrum is of infinite width and infinite height

If this were true, everyone is diagnosable.

[hhh]

It was more for the aesthetic of the sentence, but if you have a spectrum including 'normalcy' that is infinite width and infinite height, with x being ability (a combined measurement of communication ability, sensitivities, etc) and y being level of function, it is possible to include 'normalcy' as it is defined at the farthest top right corner.

This could even have more dimensions to it, represented as 0-1 on each. If we're creating a diagnosis of a spectrum that directly affects function, does it not make sense for the general acceptance of normalcy to be represented as either all 1's or a number in-between? If being a savant gives someone greater individual knowledge, should this not be represented in a diagnosis of autism? Do they not instead become above that of normalcy by having this increased ability for specialized knowledge? This almost extends the idea of the spectrum into an extensive representation of a human's ability to function. With the idea of the spectrum being so wide, having a system to classify a human's ability to function over certain categories can aid in the ability to define normalcy and otherwise. The more pieces of information we have in this essentially matrix allows us to have a clear-cut understanding of what most people fall under. To limit this to 3-dimensional space helps as humans to visualize this, but to limit a tool to what we can visualize can hamper its ability.

(I am not a doctor)

[samatman]

This is wrong twice I'm afraid.

First: a graph with two infinite dimensions doesn't have a top right point, it has a top right extent.

Second: when graphing, you don't get to pick what the normal is. That's a property of the graph. It is not the (impossible) property you've described.

[hhh]

Choosing the normal in this case would mean the most common among the population would it not?

[samatman]

Precisely, the highest point on the curve where the derivative is zero.

[Jarwain]

I feel like two different definitions of 'normal' are at odds here. 'Normal' in the context of a graph, and 'normal' to mean typical or usual

[samatman]

The semantics are chosen to be as close to identical as is feasible given data.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

That seams reasonable enough.

I have two thoughts: a) this risks become a personality test, which are notoriously poor as a medical diagnosis tool, and b) I don’t think we (society) should be in a hurry to slap a medical diagnosis on everything.

[hhh]

I don't agree with slapping a diagnosis on anything either, but I think it could be a reasonable tool for people who are in the process of being diagnosed, or looking to better understand their character traits combined while going through the sometimes complicated process of being diagnosed.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Good points.

I always upvote thoughtful responses even if I generally disagree with the overall theme.

As is typically the case, I’m probably wrong and will end up, over time, holding opinions opposed to my present collection, so I try not to stifle divergent opinions.

[hhh]

It is never possible to predict changes in perception or possible realizations one might have, even from personal experience. I think it is always good to have a fully open discussion.

[acangiano]

This is a side note to your insightful comment, but is your heart rate 100 at rest, or is 100 the normal number you see under the elevated stress of seeing a doctor? I ask because 100 resting heart rate is really not healthy for most people. Diet and exercise can really bring it down for you. Mine used to be 95 at rest. Today is in the low 60s and dropping over over time thanks to a restricted diet and moderate exercise (5h a week). I don't know your individual situation and hope you didn't find my comment to be inopportune unsolicited advice.

[hhh]

Just at the doctor, I have a heart monitor for when I stream games for friends to see when I become the most stressed. When I pay attention I normally rest at around 70-85.

I absolutely appreciate the insight and comment. I had feared that the time I saw 120 twice in a row at a doctors visit, so I started measuring it at home.

[polm23]

Having high blood pressure only when visiting the doctor is common enough it has a name and a Wikipedia page and has been the subject of clinical studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_coat_hypertension

[krageon]

A resting heart rate of 100 bpm? That is definitely not normal. Is that also anxiety related?

[jvln]

it is definitely not resting. It must be while walking. 138 is around the 5 flour by using stairs.

[hhh]

This was at my peak anxiety point after having hallucinations the night before, taken by a nurse before I was to see everyone my psychiatrist. Resting normally and not anxious or having a panic attack I rest around 70-85.