What are the symptoms of neurotypical syndrome?

[DuckRabbit]

I find the whole thread divisive and a little bit sad.

Responding to bigotry with more bigotry is the path to a polarised society. It happens extra quick when amplified by access to social media. One of the very real problems much of our world is facing today.

I get where you're coming from - the New Testament encourages us not to resist evil, otherwise we become as bad/ negative/ low-vibration as the thing we're trying to oppose - and that in itself becomes another source of tyranny.

However, could it not also be considered that in NOT holding up a mirror to others, we're doing them a disservice, because we deprive them of the opportunity to get to know themselves, understand their effects, and increase their own consciousness?

And what if those others were misunderstanding / abusing/ persecuting someone you care about or the vulnerable members in society, who were dying earlier than other and having poor life outcomes, including suicide? Would that not warrant stepping and using some (verbal) force to defend the vulnerable?

 

[Outdated]

However, could it not also be considered that in NOT holding up a mirror to others...

You're quite correct in all of your points above.

We do need to respond. Never cave in to a bully, the more you give them the more they will expect and demand.

HOW we respond is an entirely different matter. To bring individuals up short and accurately point out their antisocial shortcomings is a good thing. To label a group and start throwing generalised insults around is not.

 

[Sasha22]

It isn't necessarily "bigotry", no. It can be a response, provided it sticks to relatively objective observations, I mean to the extent that objectiveness can exist - eg responding to the infamous "You're way too literal, stop that!" with a "Maybe to me, you are not literal enough", or to the idea that "Small talk is an inevitable, essential component of social interaction" with a "Well, maybe it isn't". That highlights the fact that there are two or more worldviews with perspectives that are symmetrical in some respects.

There's negative aspects that can be found in any group (the bullying; stupidity; self-absorption, grandiloquence etc). But I find it kind of fun to oppose a "I can call you a syndrome as easily as you can call me a syndrome". What happens next after that, though, is probably what can make or break the dialogue.
=> either we can hear each other and coexist and be happy, or we can take it outside *rolls sleeves*

 

[DuckRabbit]

You're quite correct in all of your points above. In fact the very reason Putin got so bold is because no one said or did anything when he annexed Crimea.

We do need to respond. Never cave in to a bully, the more you give them the more they will expect and demand.

HOW we respond is an entirely different matter. To bring individuals up short and accurately point out their antisocial shortcomings is a good thing. To label a group and start throwing generalised insults around is not.

Research has shown that autistic people are dehumanised by non-autistic people (Cage et al., 2018). This dehumanisation may extend into research itself (Gernsbacher, 2007; Yergeau, 2018; Luterman, 2019; Rose, 2020; Botha, 2021). Research creates and fosters stereotypes about autistic people which then invade social discourses about autistic people (Gernsbacher, 2007).

In contrast, some people strive so hard to stress the humanness of autistic people to prevent or counteract dehumanisation or objectification, that they argue that autistic people are so unique that they lack commonality with each other more so than non-autistic people. Yet in denying an individual a group community or identity, this is in itself a form of dehumanisation (Kelman, 1973).

Surely this applies to neurotypicals too? They too have traits that can unite them as a group. Erasing any potential commonality of identity, community, shared experience, or collectivism, is itself a form of dehumanisation. If we're sensitive to the ways in which ASC individuals can be dehumanised, surely it's only fair to be sensitive to the ways in which NTs can be dehumanised.

I'm persuaded by @Sasha22: ASC individuals have to live with cold, objectifying lists of "diagnostic criteria" rammed down their throats, whether accurate to them or not; if the tables are turned on NTs, the same medicine dished out, what happens then? THAT is where NTs would show what they're made of. Does that NT individual have enough consciousness and humour to acknowledge their own shadow sides? Or are they relatively unconscious and humourless such that "Neurotypical Syndrome lists" trigger "severe annoyance and/or aggression at being corrected by aspies" as @GrownupGirl said? Once they show their character through their response, then you can gauge their level of empathy and awareness, and know whether the NT is worth investing more in or worth walking away from.

If someone were to do a study - presenting "Neurotypical Syndrome lists" to NTs and recording their responses and reactions - then we could determine whether the majority are able to handle a mirror being held up to them, or is this only a small minority, or none?

I agree with @Outdated that the motive should not be to insult an individual or group, but rather, as @Sasha22 implied, to give truthful and accurate feedback - a reality check. Humour is also used to make harsh truths more palatable so maybe there's nothing saying that such lists have to be flat, straight-down-the-line and dull. After all, comedians tell the truth and hold up mirrors to individuals and groups of people all the time by being dark, wry, ironic, snide, metaphorical, cynical, creative etc. That is what parody is. Would we be drawn to comedians if they stated truths like an account's ledger?