[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.