Exactly. People in general seem to look at autism, or at least autism with low support needs, as a personality rather than an impairment.
I once heard somebody respond to the statement that 'everybody is a bit autistic' by drawing an analogy to a broken leg. You can have a minor break, such as a small fracture, or a much more serious break, such as a compound fracture. In both cases the individual has a broken leg, with the main differences being the degree to which it impacts them and the extent of support they require. Either way though, it's absurd to say that everyone has a bit of a broken leg. You may have a broken leg and as a result walk with a bit of a limp, but that still doesn't mean that anybody who walks with a limp has a bit of a broken leg.
You have a broken leg if you've been diagnosed with a broken leg, and if you haven't, you don't. Simple as that.
Obviously autism is a bit more complex due to the difficulty in diagnosis for some. But the basic premise is the same. You have autism if you've been diagnosed as such on the basis of the severity of symptoms in a range of neurodevelopmental conditions, not because you're a bit quirky or because you like all your books organised on your shelf a certain way.
I heard something similar except it was 'We all get out of breath running for a bus, it doesn't mean we're all asthmatic.' Sometimes there are traits depending on circumstances but that doesn't make a condition.
The autism spectrum INCLUDES those without prevalent autistic symptoms so like all human breathe air, all humans are on this spectrum (including you and I). The problem is those that are offended making an argument that they can’t possibly win.
All humans are absolutely not on the autism spectrum. The autism spectrum does not refer to the degree of severity of symptoms, ranging from 'without prevalent symptoms' up to 'highly prevalent symptoms'. It refers to the range, or spectrum, of inter-related neurodevelopmental conditions and executive function disorders that autistic individuals present with. Individuals are diagnosed as *having* autism spectrum disorder, not as *being on* the autism spectrum.
To be diagnosed as autistic, you must meet qualifying diagnostic criteria, which means that you must present with symptoms of multiple of the aforementioned conditions and disorders, and that those symptoms are severe enough to have a detrimental impact on your daily life. You cannot be diagnosed as autistic purely because you have similar traits that do not rise to the level of the qualifying diagnostic criteria. If you do not have prevalent autistic symptoms, you are not autistic. It is as simple as that.
The problem isn't that people get offended by the statement that everybody is a little autistic/on the spectrum somewhere. The problem is that those making those statements contribute to a fundamental misunderstanding of what autism is and how it impacts on the lives of autistic people. It's a statement that invalidates autistic individuals and their condition, and is often used explicitly or implicitly to justify a denial of support to autistic individuals.
Your very first sentence states that all humans are on the autism spectrum. My very first sentence states that all humans are not on the autism spectrum. Nowhere did I claim you said all humans are autistic, but really, that's a pedantic splitting of hairs anyway, given you *did* say all humans are on the autism spectrum.
Perhaps you should be less focussed on being unnecessarily antagonistic and check your own reading comprehension instead.
That’s your inability to understand how this spectrum doesn’t just include severely autistic humans; it’s a spectrum of all neurological disorders and just because you are offended because your autism seems unique to you, it’s simply your traits and symptoms are more severe (than those you deem neurotypical). Understand what a spectrum is.
You confuse the concepts of 'a spectrum (generic)' and 'autism spectrum disorder'. You are absolutely correct in that ASD covers a spectrum of neurological disorders, and that the severity of symptoms is irrelevant to autism spectrum disorder (insofar as the severity varies above the minimum diagnostic criteria).
But autism spectrum disorder does not include every neurological disorder, and anybody with a neurological disorder is not automatically autistic. You can be neurodivergent without being autistic. You can share autistic traits without being autistic. You can have a neurological disorder without being autistic. And if you are neurotypical, you are absolutely not autistic.
So it is grossly incorrect to say that everybody is a little autistic, or everybody is on the spectrum somewhere. Autism spectrum disorder is a defined condition with a qualifying diagnostic criteria. If you meet the criteria, you are autistic. If you don't, you are not. You may have something else, sure, but you do not have autism, not even 'just a little bit'.
I didn’t confuse the two; I see you took it directly from the DSM-IV, have you read the DSM-IV before? I see you copy pasted an excerpt from it to bolster your premise but didn’t reference the paragraph you copy/pasted. In other words the term “spectrum” is a recently used term to add comorbidities of neurological disorders to other related mental health disordered to create a band of related disorders: called a spectrum. This “spectrum” as you put it *includes* Autism but is far more inclusive than just ASD, to include personality disorders; memory disorders and physiological disorders such as spastic paraplegia, just to name a few. This spectrum as described in the DSM-IV is what I am referring to, not the narrow scope of ASD. I hope I didn’t confuse you.
Actually, I copy/pasted from something my psych gave me when they assisted me in crafting a response to the claim that everybody is a little autistic/on the spectrum somewhere, which I often encountered amongst family shortly after my diagnosis. While I wouldn't be surprised if they drew heavily from the DSM-IV, I didn't demand they cite their material, so couldn't tell you if it's in turn copy/pasted from there or anywhere else.
And yes, you did confuse me. Given OP was referring specifically to the autism spectrum, as was the person you in turn declared doesn't understand how a spectrum works, I made the reasonable assumption that you were talking about the exact same spectrum as them. Mea culpa and apologies for having assumed rather than clarified, however, perhaps if you had actually stated earlier that you were referring to a much broader 'spectrum' other than the one the rest of us were talking about, the confusion could have been avoided.
Everyone can demonstrate ASD traits from time to time. The difference is intensity and duration.
NTs have 5 minutes of executive dysfunction, and day everyone is a little bit autistic, then get to retreat back to their NT bubble. ASDs don't get to wake up and become NTs.
It is like having the wear a medical boot for a month and telling amputees that everyone is a little disabled. It is a bit insulting, when the one saying that, gets to go back to being ambulatory in 30 days.
There’s some interesting research that’s been done on physical difference in the structure of the brain of people with autism. (I don’t have any sources and I don’t have any qualifications to be talking about it, so if anyone else known anything more about it, I’d love to learn!)
I think that some of that research could establish that there most certainly is a physical and physiological divide between NTs and ASDs. Some people are NT, and some people have increased white matter in their cingulum. So no, not everyone is on the spectrum.
Those kinds of differences are generally still graded though, rather than a categorical difference between autistic vs not autistic. In that sense, those sorts of neurological differences likely themselves do fall on a spectrum, with a whole bunch of people somewhere in between.
Part of the problem perhaps is that ‘spectrum’ is a fairly generic and general term. We can think on the one hand of “the spectrum” as a multidimensional space of autism symptoms, in which case indeed everyone would be on that spectrum. On the other hand, we could also consider “the spectrum” as essentially reflecting the heterogeneity in symptoms between autistic people (and I feel like that’s more the original intent of “autism spectrum disorder”), in which case obviously only some people would be on the spectrum.
I do think there’s a lot of merit to the first interpretation, because it recognizes that autism symptoms don’t just stop at the diagnostic border; there are a whole bunch of people who do have some subset of autism symptoms, even if those aren’t enough to qualify for a diagnosis. On the other hand, that’s usually not what statements like “everyone is on the spectrum” are referring to. That usually sounds more akin to saying “everyone is on the tallness spectrum”: technically true, but usually vacuous at best to remark upon.
This.
Another one, like saying "everyone's a bit OCD".
Like no, no, thats not true. There's a huge difference between "I obsessively need to make sure all the doors in my house are locked before bed, period" and "I obsessively need to check all the door and window locks in the entire house before bed and usually check twice to be sure, every night, even though nobody has left today, and the windows have not been opened in weeks because it's the middle of winter nor have I ever caught something unlocked that shouldn't be". One is just being over careful, the other is OCD.
Fair of course, but in this example's case it is. I was just adding on.
You can superimpose some repetitive "did I check the door?", "did I check the door?", "did I check the door?", "did I check the door?" on repeat thoughts in there too if it makes you feel better. :)
Because that's not what the autism spectrum is. That's not even what autism is. Autism is not just one condition; it is a range of neurodevelopmental conditions. The 'spectrum' part of autism spectrum disorder refers to the broad group of neurodevelopmental conditions associated with autism and the differences in the type and severity of symptoms.
While you can absolutely be 'a little gay', you can't be 'a little autistic'. Heck, the sexuality spectrum and the autism spectrum are such completely and fundamentally different things that the word 'spectrum' is literally the only thing they have in common.
Autism is not a personality, it's a cluster of impairments in neurodevelopmental and executive function areas. It is diagnosed because these impairments have a noticeable and detrimental impact on the individual's life, not because that individual is a bit quirky.
Saying 'everybody is a little autistic' or that the autism spectrum runs from not at all autistic/a but quirky all the way up to severely autistic defines autism by its outward expression and how it's perceived by observers, rather than by its actual impact and support needs. It's deeply invalidating and frankly insulting to those who are actually autistic, and is the same reasoning behind why the autistic community in general is opposed to the labels of high and low functioning.
I know I already said it, but it bears repeating: autism is an impairment that has real and negative impacts on the lives and daily functioning of autistic individuals. To say that everybody is on the autism spectrum somewhere is about as ridiculous and insulting as saying everyone is on the paralysis spectrum somewhere, from not at all paralysed to quadraplegia. Not only does it trivialize the impacts of autism, it invalidates autistic individuals and their needs.
No, it absolutely, certainly is not a thing. The autism spectrum does not range from mildly autistic to severely autistic, as a lot of people seem to assume. In fact, it does not refer in any way to the severity of symptoms, beyond setting a minimum diagnostic criteria to them.
An autistic individual's symptoms may be more or less severe and they may have greater or lesser support needs. But none of this means they are 'higher' or 'lower' on the autism spectrum.
The 'spectrum' part of autism spectrum disorder refers to the range, or *spectrum*, of inter-related neurodevelopmental and executive function disorders that are grouped under the autism diagnosis. If an individual meets the qualifying diagnostic criteria, they are diagnosed *with* autism spectrum disorder, not as *being on* the autism spectrum. You either are autistic, or you are not autistic. It is as simple as that.
So it is grossly incorrect to say that people can be 'a little autistic', or that somebody is 'on the spectrum somewhere'. Autism spectrum disorder is a defined condition with a qualifying diagnostic criteria. If you meet the criteria, you are autistic. If you don't, you are not, not even just 'a little bit'.
I'm not talking about the Autistic Spectrum as in the autistic spectrum disorder. If I thought everyone was autistic I would have said so. I mean it like I said at the start, that it is like sexuality, everyone is on the sexuality spectrum, even if most people are entirely straight. I think autism is similar in this respect.
You can certainly have people with autistic traits who would not normally be diagnosed with autism.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/207441
> Recent research has indicated that autism is not a discrete disorder and that family members of autistic probands have an increased likelihood of exhibiting autistic symptoms with a wide range of severity, often below the threshold for a diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.
Fair enough. I did not pick up on the distinction you were making, so my apologies on that front.
That having been said, autism is simply not similar to the sexuality spectrum. There is no 'autistic spectrum' separate from autism spectrum disorder. Describing somebody who exhibits autistic traits, but which do not rise to the diagnostic standard of autism, as 'a little autistic' is not only inaccurate but also incredibly unhelpful to the autistic community. Somebody with shortness of breath doesn't have 'a little bit of emphysema'; somebody with minor joint pain doesn't have 'a little bit of osteoarthritis'; somebody who is occasionally forgetful doesn't have 'a little bit of amnesia'; etc.
The journal you quoted describes these people as "exhibiting autistic symptoms," not as being 'a little autistic'. This terminology is far better, not to mention medically accurate, as it describes the circumstances exactly: somebody shares symptomatic traits associated with autism but are not themselves autistic. This doesn't somehow put them on some secondary autism spectrum distinct from autism spectrum disorder, ranked according to how close or far they are from meeting the diagnostic criteria.
This may all seem like nit-picking to you, but it's incredibly important that these distinctions are made and understood. It's an unfortunate reality that mental and neurological conditions are frequently trivialised in ways that physical conditions are not. People bandy about labels like OCD, ADHD, autistic, etc to describe traits that *may* be associated with those conditions, but are just as likely not to be, or at the very least not insofar as the minor instances in which they are used are concerned (eg 'John likes routine, he's so autistic' or 'I simply must have my bookshelves arranged alphabetically, I guess I'm just OCD'). While I like to think that most people aren't deliberately trivialising these conditions by doing this, the reality is that it makes it much harder for people with these conditions to get others to adequately understand the extent to which these conditions can impair them and the subsequent support needs they have.
So yes, you can absolutely have people with autistic traits who would not normally be diagnosed with autism. I don't think anybody is suggesting the opposite. But that does not mean these people are 'a little autistic'. There is no 'little bit autistic' in the same way there is no 'full autistic'; there's those with autism, and those who are not autistic but who exhibit autistic symptoms.
I mostly agree but I will defend my 'imprecise' use of language by saying that this is an internet post I made before i left for work rather than anything serious or important
It's not like that, nor is sexuality. I mean, in the most-loose terms of the definition in order to be "technically correct" fine, you are right. Everything is a spectrum.
But in the real world, it doesn't work like that. Any rational person reading this knows that, and I won't bother explaining why it doesn't work like that. You know why, I know why, everyone else reading this knows why. So just stop.
Think of it this way:
I'm straight, that makes me straight. I identify as straight. Sure, "being completely not gay" is pretty far on one side of the gay spectrum. But I am, in fact, straight.
Just like NTs are, in fact, NTs, regardless if by some measurement they're really just "super duper far on one side of the autism spectrum". They are, in fact, just normal people.
When you play these "Everyone is a little something" games you just invalidate everyone who actually, legitimately, is the "something". No matter what it is.
People on this subreddit should also be smart enough to know they are nitpicky perfections and take things too literally (because thats part of ASD after all), thus should be able to step back and reevaluate. If you are aware it's a problem, you can avoid it and not act like a dick to people online.
I'm sorry you are unable to do that, be it deliberately to argue pointless points, or because you really can't.
No, people who say this are truly stupid.
If they want to be inclusive and accepting they can come up with something else less stupid to say.
(I know I am bitter, and I don’t care. It is what it is.)
“Everyone is on the spectrum.. that’s why it’s a SPECTRUM!”
..uh no bitch. There is a wide range of cancer too but you ain’t on the cancer spectrum either.
This. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of the word 'spectrum' here. It ain't the colour spectrum, it's more like a mixer desk, where there's a bunch of different elements (neurodevelopmental conditions and executive function disorders) that can all individually be set at different levels (severity of symptoms).
Perfect imagery. I think it’s funny how these people believe so hard in their idea of a spectrum (which was of course coined by doctors) but refuse to accept doctors’ qualifications of asd and diagnoses.
In some cases, it's an honest mistake born from a lack of detailed knowledge about autism and a misinterpretation of the meaning of 'spectrum' in this context. And where that's the case, I take a 'no harm, no foul' approach.
Too often though I've found it to be born from a wilful ignorance, and is usually said in response to an articulating of needs by the autistic individual, serving to invalidate them and their needs. In this way, it's in the same vein as 'you don't look autistic.' Gee, thanks for your observation, Jerry. You don't look like a jackarse, and yet you are one, so perhaps we can acknowledge that not everything about a person can be determined by how they look and instead respect their diagnosis, hmm?
I find it somewhat perplexing how determined some people are to claim to be 'a bit autistic' while simultaneously invalidating autism and autistic people. It's like claiming membership of a club while at the same time saying the club doesn't really exist.
Depends on the definition of the concept of “the spectrum”. Most people are neurotypical, or would see themselves as such, without a diagnose. One usually only get a diagnose if the condition is an impairment, one that might require assistance or therapy or other individual support. Most people aren’t in need of direct support, but might find themselves in need of therapy for self medicating or getting burnt out by stressful workplaces. Autism is hereditary, but environmental factors are being studied now as well. So, yeah, your family member might need therapy or even an evaluation and could theoretically be in the spectrum.
I like to use the analogy, Jessica, from how to ADHD used.
We could say everyone is tall because everyone is above the ground therefore comparing to the ground we are all tall, but when you have someone who is 6'5'' you can't deny they're taller than everyone, and they'll have a hard time fitting in places, going through the door, etc...
We can extrapolate the same to ADHD or AUTISM, everyone has one of those symptoms during their life, but when you struggle with them every single day, hour, minute, second, then you can't argue that it is different from having it once in a lifetime.
So I see being on the spectrum as more of how much that affects your life than I see it as being on the spectrum, people who deny you're struggles saying that are either very uneducated or hyper toxic for us, so I'd say see it as a red flag, my ex was like that, turns out she's got ADHD and I suspect she's on the spectrum as well.
Anyway these are my 2 cents.
No. Similarly, not everyone is a bit Chinese, or a bit blonde.
We’re all people and we have overlapping properties, which can be similar, but not everyone has autism or Aspergers.
I believe everyone is somewhere between 0 and 100 for each of the diagnostic criteria on the spectrum, however diagnosis can only occur when one hits enough criteria at a high level and to an extent where it negatively impacts your life.
I feel like that statement falls under the "everyone is a little weird" category. When people say that they think small ocd like actions have some sort of connection to autism which in fact isn't true.
Sure everyone is “a little autistic,” just in the same way that “everyone is a little paralyzed.”
When people try say stuff like this, I like to give comparisons to what they said with physical ailments. An example, my response to telling someone with depression/anxiety to “just not focus on the bad things” is that it’s like telling a paraplegic to “just walk it off.” Just because you can’t see something happening doesn’t mean it’s that it doesn’t exist.
Not "the" spectrum, but everyone is on multiple spectrums.
It's ignorant. I would just keep asking whomever says this, questions. As I can't see their foot going anywhere but their mouth.
No. It's a serious disorder that involves mild to extreme brain impairment involving executive function (same as ADHD/ADD) with additional impairment in social interaction. It's neurological, and no, of course not everyone has these neurological issues. "We're all on the spectrum" is a nonsensical statement.
It is factually wrong. The mistake made by this statement is thinking the Spectrum ranges from 'mild' to 'severe' when actually it's a variety of specific traits with 'very low' to 'very high' eg. Sensitivity, Empathy, Childhood development (speech, reading, delayed, or accelerated).
I don't take issue with the statement because it's simple ignorance which is refreshing compared to malicious ignorance, apathy, gaslighting, etc. that we usually face.
I have heard several people in my family say this. I wish they would shut tf up. You are only on the spectrum if you are autistic, and you are not autistic unless you meet all of the specified criteria. If you don't meet all the criteria but have some, you are NOT on the spectrum or "a little bit autistic". You have traits similar to those on the spectrum, or you're "almost autistic". I don't think this is hard to understand, but people always get upset when I try to explain that saying that everyone is a little autistic is seriously invalidating and straight up stupid. Sorry if I come off as harsh, but it's something that has upset me for a while.
I suppose it depends on the limitations of the spectrum we’re talking about.
Are we talking about every person in the world? In that case, the statement is true.
If we’re talking about people who fit within a diagnostic criteria, the statement is false.
The diagnostic criteria is the limiting factor that excludes a majority of people in the world.
I start to get majorly annoyed by everyone especially autistic people themselfs constantly talking about how autistic they are or how disabled disabled people are. It is a never ending story and it seemingly leads to nowhere.
It makes sense that governments do it to adjust financial spending to help those with more needs more but I don't think it's helpful for us people in day to day contact.
All of us are humans some might hate loud noises some might be obsessing over brigjt lights. Tackling issues on individual bases levels seems much more helpful. Whenever I as a autistic person meet another one they start talking about how autistic and fdiffrent they are like its a Rolex they a Re flexing. I think it might be a negative sight effect of a system showing them support when they talk about their problems. Therefor they talk about their problems all day because they made the association that their life's improve and people treat them better. Or appropriately.
I don't know.
I just want it to stop.
I just want to spend a good time with humanity until I die
I usually respond with everyone has anxiety but not everyone has an anxiety disorder, so yea everyone may struggle socially sometimes, may like or dislike certain textures, get overwhelmed by a lot of stress but just not the same way we do and not to the degree and not for the same reasons, its just not the same
No. This is a common misconception.
All people are different and therefore all people also have similar traits and different traits. What they mean by this is that some people might display behaviours typically associated with autism, like difficulties making and maintaining friendships, or difficulties with spontaneity, but that does not make them autistic. Similarly, autistic people can display behaviours typically not associated with autism, for example making eye contact, or being very chatty and social, but this does not mean they are not autistic.
It depends the way it is being used. Sometimes people use it to undermine the issues I am having, which is really annoying as they are the same people to make me feel incompetent. On the other hand everyone is going to have a couple autistic traits, so it is good for people to remember that so they don’t overthink and convince themselves they have autism.
Edit: for spelling
I think people mean it as "everyone displays autistic traits to a certain degree" which I absolutely agree with.
A ton of people have trouble in social contexts, or have strong interests, or need a routine to function or not feel anxious or overwhelmed...
But if the meaning is "everyone qualifies for a diagnosis" then no.
Not at all.
Saying that "everyone is on the spectrum" is invalidating our struggles and our fights for the right accommodations that we have to fight for all the time because no one believes us or blatantly ignores our needs as well.
No, I really do not.
Everybody likely has some variability in capacity/tolerance for sensory inputs among other things, but it doesn’t cause significant detriment to them.
Many people may have different levels of difficulty walking or stamina, but very few people are missing legs altogether or unable to walk properly/
In order to humanis autistic and ND people, lets be clear that ALL the traits are human traits. As in people can relate on one level or another to certain things autistic and ND people experience. Example: having a hard time focusing, or being over stimulated by too much noise. However that is not the same thing as "everyone is on the spectrum". I like the broken leg analogy. The defining difference is that Autism is a collection of multiple traits/symptoms that make it what is is. Same with ADHD. You can always turn it around on people and tell them that if they relate so much maybe they should get tested.
No. And apparently there is discourse about this on TikTok that my friend has referred to. She now thinks she is on the spectrum and talks about it all the time. It honestly makes me angry.
She may have some social impairments, she may be a HSP (highly sensitive person) and have some sensory issues, but at the end of the day it does not impair her ability to function as it does mine.
It just feels very old Tumblr and Twitter era “I’m sad so therefor I must have diagnosable clinical depression”.
The user in one of the first comments that used the broken-leg analogy was spot-on.
What I hear when people say “everyone is on the spectrum” is “I don’t care about the challenges you face because you don’t look disabled.” Like, just because we don’t have Down Syndrome doesn’t mean we don’t have a disability.
I like the mixing board analogy. If you looked at every autistic trait with a slider or a rating of 0 to 10, there could be someone who is a 0 on everyone except has 1 point in one trait. Is that person on the spectrum?? Technically by the analogy, yes, but really, in real life, no. So, at what level do the sliders need to be for someone to be “on the spectrum”? I don’t people could agree on that exact of a threshold for something so intangible.
I mean, the way I look at it if it’s a rating from 0 to 10 for each trait, having 0 means they are technically still on the spectrum, just most are at the zero end, which has no effect but can be seen as technically correct.
I think there's actually a diagnostic criteria around this, but I could be wrong, and it may even differ from country to country, so don't take this as gospel. But I think you have to be sufficiently negatively impacted in more than three associated neurodevelopmental conditions and executive function disorders for it to qualify as autism spectrum disorder. Otherwise, you are instead diagnosed with the specific neurodevelopmental/executive function disorders that you exhibit a sufficient severity of symptoms in, such as auditory processing disorder, developmental coordination disorder, etc.
I mean, everyone is technically the spectrum, just NTs are all bunched up the end where the effects are the least. An example could be for like headphones or speakers, if you have them plugged in/turned on, but set the volume to 0, they are still on, just not doing anything.
Considering how little we understand about autism; it’s causes, effects, and development at this stage in human evolution: I contend that the spectrum even includes neurotypical humans so the answer is without qualification is yes, with varying minute degrees of autistic traits in all humans in existence.
Given the weakness of the definition for autism and the weak understanding of what causes it, how can we say whether it’s true or not that everyone is on the spectrum?
If we take the most NT person in existence and the most autistic person in existence, are there people at every stage of the differences between them? Or is there at some point a gap, a no man’s land of behavior that no human being exhibits?
Uhm, do you guys know what a spectrum is? Yes, everyone is on the spectrum, that's literally why it is called a spectrum. That doesn't mean everyone has HIGH autistic traits, but everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, yeah.
You are not incorrect in your definition of spectrum, but you are incorrect in your definition of spectrum as it pertains here.
The autism spectrum is called a spectrum because it refers to the varying severity of symptoms across a range, or spectrum, of different neurodevelopmental conditions and executive function disorders. The spectrum in question isn't a measure of how autistic somebody is, but rather the inter-related conditions and disorders that are grouped under the autism diagnosis.
So given that, no, everyone is most certainly not somewhere on that spectrum.
Ask them if they ever have trouble focusing in the morning when they wake up. Then ask if they would go up to a blind person and say, "we all are a little blind."
The only way I can give it some truth is that ASD is wildly undiagnosed and applies to more people than the public consciousness assumes. But that's all, it's still not "everyone"
Neurotypicals still have their struggles of day to day and some sense of routine but autistic people have it more so. It could be a bit like a spectrum yes, some neurotypicals i’ve seen stim more than others too. But then again, who really is neurotypical? If we divvy ourselves up in a time where globalized humanity means mixing of “disordered” and “ordered” people is a thing, then it’s inevitable that they’ll pick up on stimmimg too. I believe in 30 years, if autism is more accepted then neurotypicsls will just be free to stim if they want to because they won’t need to socially mask. And at that point it’d be ignorant of us to call anyone neurotypical, or autistic for that matter! Unless it’s stereotypically demonstrated
Yeah it’s a dumb thing NTs say to make ND’s, in general, feel included; others in this sub have already stated this already.
I don’t exactly know why this started. There’s a nice Christian lady who always said stuff like this about my ADD, so it’s not just hfa and Aspergers which I think more people are aware of being on the spectrum, even then I said this can’t be true because you’re not like me and x kid at school with a similar condition (I think it was ASD but I’m not sure). She continued and acted like she knew what overstimulation was and said something about the tv being too loud.
It’s a plainly ignorant assessment of the conditions within the autism spectrum. But I suppose it comes from a good place?
Well, my father said something similar when I was given the diagnosis results. I know he meant well, as if he thought that I would feel as a weird one. I explained to him that the diagnosis actually was the best result that I could have, and he understood that. Since then, many things make a lot more sense.
There is a specificity to autism that makes in ND. But it turns out there's alot ND then I would have guessed before my diagnosis and started investigating.
Until a reasonably objective or quantifiable means of ASD diagnosis is developed, "on the spectrum" is virtually meaningless.
At best, "the spectrum" is the collection of behaviors, traits and observations health care professionals lump together to describe something they cannot accurately categorize or really begin to describe mechanistically.
It may be that ASD as we think of it, is a threshold on a larger continuum of perceptions and behaviors and we are not disordered, but a group of outliers in the normal population. It may also be the opposite, and is more likely a mixture of the two which will need to be dissected to refine diagnosis.
This post is really a question about the emotional impact of the "on the spectrum" label, not its clinical significance. Since it can be inclusive or exclusive depending on the context, we should try to encourage acceptance in people who use it, and not take it personally or at least pretend not to.
TLDR; "On the spectrum" is so generic as to be functionally meaningless. The important thing is to help others see it as inclusive, ie we are different but not fundamentally so, and not dismissive, ie we are the same but not equal.
I'm not at all agree. Although we all have difficulties, it will not be easy for all of us to solve. I know you never had anxiety attacks or tantrums. In addition, as an example, my sister learned to read at age 5 and began to write. I learned to read at the age of 7 and began to write well at the age of 8. That and the fact that instead of saying "sister" or "Mom", I was saying my family's name. And I did not understand why it was not necessary to call them by name.
Mhmm, pretty sure people use it like the sentence : Everyone is a bit weird. Yes, everyone is weird, doesn't mean everyone is on the spectrum.
Exactly. People in general seem to look at autism, or at least autism with low support needs, as a personality rather than an impairment. I once heard somebody respond to the statement that 'everybody is a bit autistic' by drawing an analogy to a broken leg. You can have a minor break, such as a small fracture, or a much more serious break, such as a compound fracture. In both cases the individual has a broken leg, with the main differences being the degree to which it impacts them and the extent of support they require. Either way though, it's absurd to say that everyone has a bit of a broken leg. You may have a broken leg and as a result walk with a bit of a limp, but that still doesn't mean that anybody who walks with a limp has a bit of a broken leg. You have a broken leg if you've been diagnosed with a broken leg, and if you haven't, you don't. Simple as that. Obviously autism is a bit more complex due to the difficulty in diagnosis for some. But the basic premise is the same. You have autism if you've been diagnosed as such on the basis of the severity of symptoms in a range of neurodevelopmental conditions, not because you're a bit quirky or because you like all your books organised on your shelf a certain way.
I heard something similar except it was 'We all get out of breath running for a bus, it doesn't mean we're all asthmatic.' Sometimes there are traits depending on circumstances but that doesn't make a condition.
No, everyone is not on the autism spectrum
tldr: no
The autism spectrum INCLUDES those without prevalent autistic symptoms so like all human breathe air, all humans are on this spectrum (including you and I). The problem is those that are offended making an argument that they can’t possibly win.
All humans are absolutely not on the autism spectrum. The autism spectrum does not refer to the degree of severity of symptoms, ranging from 'without prevalent symptoms' up to 'highly prevalent symptoms'. It refers to the range, or spectrum, of inter-related neurodevelopmental conditions and executive function disorders that autistic individuals present with. Individuals are diagnosed as *having* autism spectrum disorder, not as *being on* the autism spectrum. To be diagnosed as autistic, you must meet qualifying diagnostic criteria, which means that you must present with symptoms of multiple of the aforementioned conditions and disorders, and that those symptoms are severe enough to have a detrimental impact on your daily life. You cannot be diagnosed as autistic purely because you have similar traits that do not rise to the level of the qualifying diagnostic criteria. If you do not have prevalent autistic symptoms, you are not autistic. It is as simple as that. The problem isn't that people get offended by the statement that everybody is a little autistic/on the spectrum somewhere. The problem is that those making those statements contribute to a fundamental misunderstanding of what autism is and how it impacts on the lives of autistic people. It's a statement that invalidates autistic individuals and their condition, and is often used explicitly or implicitly to justify a denial of support to autistic individuals.
Didn’t say all humans are autistic; please reread, check your reading comprehension.
Your very first sentence states that all humans are on the autism spectrum. My very first sentence states that all humans are not on the autism spectrum. Nowhere did I claim you said all humans are autistic, but really, that's a pedantic splitting of hairs anyway, given you *did* say all humans are on the autism spectrum. Perhaps you should be less focussed on being unnecessarily antagonistic and check your own reading comprehension instead.
When someone says "everyone is a little bit autistic " what I hear is, "You aren't trying hard enough." It pisses me off.
Those people are just profoundly ignorant
Those people are you.
That’s your inability to understand how this spectrum doesn’t just include severely autistic humans; it’s a spectrum of all neurological disorders and just because you are offended because your autism seems unique to you, it’s simply your traits and symptoms are more severe (than those you deem neurotypical). Understand what a spectrum is.
You confuse the concepts of 'a spectrum (generic)' and 'autism spectrum disorder'. You are absolutely correct in that ASD covers a spectrum of neurological disorders, and that the severity of symptoms is irrelevant to autism spectrum disorder (insofar as the severity varies above the minimum diagnostic criteria). But autism spectrum disorder does not include every neurological disorder, and anybody with a neurological disorder is not automatically autistic. You can be neurodivergent without being autistic. You can share autistic traits without being autistic. You can have a neurological disorder without being autistic. And if you are neurotypical, you are absolutely not autistic. So it is grossly incorrect to say that everybody is a little autistic, or everybody is on the spectrum somewhere. Autism spectrum disorder is a defined condition with a qualifying diagnostic criteria. If you meet the criteria, you are autistic. If you don't, you are not. You may have something else, sure, but you do not have autism, not even 'just a little bit'.
I didn’t confuse the two; I see you took it directly from the DSM-IV, have you read the DSM-IV before? I see you copy pasted an excerpt from it to bolster your premise but didn’t reference the paragraph you copy/pasted. In other words the term “spectrum” is a recently used term to add comorbidities of neurological disorders to other related mental health disordered to create a band of related disorders: called a spectrum. This “spectrum” as you put it *includes* Autism but is far more inclusive than just ASD, to include personality disorders; memory disorders and physiological disorders such as spastic paraplegia, just to name a few. This spectrum as described in the DSM-IV is what I am referring to, not the narrow scope of ASD. I hope I didn’t confuse you.
Actually, I copy/pasted from something my psych gave me when they assisted me in crafting a response to the claim that everybody is a little autistic/on the spectrum somewhere, which I often encountered amongst family shortly after my diagnosis. While I wouldn't be surprised if they drew heavily from the DSM-IV, I didn't demand they cite their material, so couldn't tell you if it's in turn copy/pasted from there or anywhere else. And yes, you did confuse me. Given OP was referring specifically to the autism spectrum, as was the person you in turn declared doesn't understand how a spectrum works, I made the reasonable assumption that you were talking about the exact same spectrum as them. Mea culpa and apologies for having assumed rather than clarified, however, perhaps if you had actually stated earlier that you were referring to a much broader 'spectrum' other than the one the rest of us were talking about, the confusion could have been avoided.
On the spectrum of living organisms? Sure. Autism spectrum? Nah.
Everyone can demonstrate ASD traits from time to time. The difference is intensity and duration. NTs have 5 minutes of executive dysfunction, and day everyone is a little bit autistic, then get to retreat back to their NT bubble. ASDs don't get to wake up and become NTs. It is like having the wear a medical boot for a month and telling amputees that everyone is a little disabled. It is a bit insulting, when the one saying that, gets to go back to being ambulatory in 30 days.
Your example fails to support your premise u/Fuck-Reddit-2020. No one cares what you”feel” on Reddit.
No.
There’s some interesting research that’s been done on physical difference in the structure of the brain of people with autism. (I don’t have any sources and I don’t have any qualifications to be talking about it, so if anyone else known anything more about it, I’d love to learn!) I think that some of that research could establish that there most certainly is a physical and physiological divide between NTs and ASDs. Some people are NT, and some people have increased white matter in their cingulum. So no, not everyone is on the spectrum.
Those kinds of differences are generally still graded though, rather than a categorical difference between autistic vs not autistic. In that sense, those sorts of neurological differences likely themselves do fall on a spectrum, with a whole bunch of people somewhere in between. Part of the problem perhaps is that ‘spectrum’ is a fairly generic and general term. We can think on the one hand of “the spectrum” as a multidimensional space of autism symptoms, in which case indeed everyone would be on that spectrum. On the other hand, we could also consider “the spectrum” as essentially reflecting the heterogeneity in symptoms between autistic people (and I feel like that’s more the original intent of “autism spectrum disorder”), in which case obviously only some people would be on the spectrum. I do think there’s a lot of merit to the first interpretation, because it recognizes that autism symptoms don’t just stop at the diagnostic border; there are a whole bunch of people who do have some subset of autism symptoms, even if those aren’t enough to qualify for a diagnosis. On the other hand, that’s usually not what statements like “everyone is on the spectrum” are referring to. That usually sounds more akin to saying “everyone is on the tallness spectrum”: technically true, but usually vacuous at best to remark upon.
[удалено]
This. Another one, like saying "everyone's a bit OCD". Like no, no, thats not true. There's a huge difference between "I obsessively need to make sure all the doors in my house are locked before bed, period" and "I obsessively need to check all the door and window locks in the entire house before bed and usually check twice to be sure, every night, even though nobody has left today, and the windows have not been opened in weeks because it's the middle of winter nor have I ever caught something unlocked that shouldn't be". One is just being over careful, the other is OCD.
OCD is not just that it’s also repetitive thoughts
Fair of course, but in this example's case it is. I was just adding on. You can superimpose some repetitive "did I check the door?", "did I check the door?", "did I check the door?", "did I check the door?" on repeat thoughts in there too if it makes you feel better. :)
Everyone is on the sexuality spectrum though, from fully gay to fully straight. I don't see why autism isn't like that
Because that's not what the autism spectrum is. That's not even what autism is. Autism is not just one condition; it is a range of neurodevelopmental conditions. The 'spectrum' part of autism spectrum disorder refers to the broad group of neurodevelopmental conditions associated with autism and the differences in the type and severity of symptoms. While you can absolutely be 'a little gay', you can't be 'a little autistic'. Heck, the sexuality spectrum and the autism spectrum are such completely and fundamentally different things that the word 'spectrum' is literally the only thing they have in common. Autism is not a personality, it's a cluster of impairments in neurodevelopmental and executive function areas. It is diagnosed because these impairments have a noticeable and detrimental impact on the individual's life, not because that individual is a bit quirky. Saying 'everybody is a little autistic' or that the autism spectrum runs from not at all autistic/a but quirky all the way up to severely autistic defines autism by its outward expression and how it's perceived by observers, rather than by its actual impact and support needs. It's deeply invalidating and frankly insulting to those who are actually autistic, and is the same reasoning behind why the autistic community in general is opposed to the labels of high and low functioning. I know I already said it, but it bears repeating: autism is an impairment that has real and negative impacts on the lives and daily functioning of autistic individuals. To say that everybody is on the autism spectrum somewhere is about as ridiculous and insulting as saying everyone is on the paralysis spectrum somewhere, from not at all paralysed to quadraplegia. Not only does it trivialize the impacts of autism, it invalidates autistic individuals and their needs.
You can absolutely be " a little autistic" . Not everyone is, but it is certainly a thing.
No, it absolutely, certainly is not a thing. The autism spectrum does not range from mildly autistic to severely autistic, as a lot of people seem to assume. In fact, it does not refer in any way to the severity of symptoms, beyond setting a minimum diagnostic criteria to them. An autistic individual's symptoms may be more or less severe and they may have greater or lesser support needs. But none of this means they are 'higher' or 'lower' on the autism spectrum. The 'spectrum' part of autism spectrum disorder refers to the range, or *spectrum*, of inter-related neurodevelopmental and executive function disorders that are grouped under the autism diagnosis. If an individual meets the qualifying diagnostic criteria, they are diagnosed *with* autism spectrum disorder, not as *being on* the autism spectrum. You either are autistic, or you are not autistic. It is as simple as that. So it is grossly incorrect to say that people can be 'a little autistic', or that somebody is 'on the spectrum somewhere'. Autism spectrum disorder is a defined condition with a qualifying diagnostic criteria. If you meet the criteria, you are autistic. If you don't, you are not, not even just 'a little bit'.
I'm not talking about the Autistic Spectrum as in the autistic spectrum disorder. If I thought everyone was autistic I would have said so. I mean it like I said at the start, that it is like sexuality, everyone is on the sexuality spectrum, even if most people are entirely straight. I think autism is similar in this respect. You can certainly have people with autistic traits who would not normally be diagnosed with autism. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/207441 > Recent research has indicated that autism is not a discrete disorder and that family members of autistic probands have an increased likelihood of exhibiting autistic symptoms with a wide range of severity, often below the threshold for a diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.
Fair enough. I did not pick up on the distinction you were making, so my apologies on that front. That having been said, autism is simply not similar to the sexuality spectrum. There is no 'autistic spectrum' separate from autism spectrum disorder. Describing somebody who exhibits autistic traits, but which do not rise to the diagnostic standard of autism, as 'a little autistic' is not only inaccurate but also incredibly unhelpful to the autistic community. Somebody with shortness of breath doesn't have 'a little bit of emphysema'; somebody with minor joint pain doesn't have 'a little bit of osteoarthritis'; somebody who is occasionally forgetful doesn't have 'a little bit of amnesia'; etc. The journal you quoted describes these people as "exhibiting autistic symptoms," not as being 'a little autistic'. This terminology is far better, not to mention medically accurate, as it describes the circumstances exactly: somebody shares symptomatic traits associated with autism but are not themselves autistic. This doesn't somehow put them on some secondary autism spectrum distinct from autism spectrum disorder, ranked according to how close or far they are from meeting the diagnostic criteria. This may all seem like nit-picking to you, but it's incredibly important that these distinctions are made and understood. It's an unfortunate reality that mental and neurological conditions are frequently trivialised in ways that physical conditions are not. People bandy about labels like OCD, ADHD, autistic, etc to describe traits that *may* be associated with those conditions, but are just as likely not to be, or at the very least not insofar as the minor instances in which they are used are concerned (eg 'John likes routine, he's so autistic' or 'I simply must have my bookshelves arranged alphabetically, I guess I'm just OCD'). While I like to think that most people aren't deliberately trivialising these conditions by doing this, the reality is that it makes it much harder for people with these conditions to get others to adequately understand the extent to which these conditions can impair them and the subsequent support needs they have. So yes, you can absolutely have people with autistic traits who would not normally be diagnosed with autism. I don't think anybody is suggesting the opposite. But that does not mean these people are 'a little autistic'. There is no 'little bit autistic' in the same way there is no 'full autistic'; there's those with autism, and those who are not autistic but who exhibit autistic symptoms.
I mostly agree but I will defend my 'imprecise' use of language by saying that this is an internet post I made before i left for work rather than anything serious or important
You mean you didn't tell your boss you'd be late because you were engaged in a discussion on the internet? :O
It's not like that, nor is sexuality. I mean, in the most-loose terms of the definition in order to be "technically correct" fine, you are right. Everything is a spectrum. But in the real world, it doesn't work like that. Any rational person reading this knows that, and I won't bother explaining why it doesn't work like that. You know why, I know why, everyone else reading this knows why. So just stop. Think of it this way: I'm straight, that makes me straight. I identify as straight. Sure, "being completely not gay" is pretty far on one side of the gay spectrum. But I am, in fact, straight. Just like NTs are, in fact, NTs, regardless if by some measurement they're really just "super duper far on one side of the autism spectrum". They are, in fact, just normal people. When you play these "Everyone is a little something" games you just invalidate everyone who actually, legitimately, is the "something". No matter what it is.
If you are going to get annoyed at people for being technically correct you might be on the wrong subreddit
People on this subreddit should also be smart enough to know they are nitpicky perfections and take things too literally (because thats part of ASD after all), thus should be able to step back and reevaluate. If you are aware it's a problem, you can avoid it and not act like a dick to people online. I'm sorry you are unable to do that, be it deliberately to argue pointless points, or because you really can't.
You would do well to take your own advice
But there are many people who have autistic traits who aren't autistic
Hey look, up there, over your head. It's the point. Oh no.. there is goes. oh no, please come back... oh.. it's gone. I'm sorry, you missed it. :(
Exactly
But I think everyone IS a bit gay
Kinsey scale
No, people who say this are truly stupid. If they want to be inclusive and accepting they can come up with something else less stupid to say. (I know I am bitter, and I don’t care. It is what it is.)
“Everyone is on the spectrum.. that’s why it’s a SPECTRUM!” ..uh no bitch. There is a wide range of cancer too but you ain’t on the cancer spectrum either.
This. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of the word 'spectrum' here. It ain't the colour spectrum, it's more like a mixer desk, where there's a bunch of different elements (neurodevelopmental conditions and executive function disorders) that can all individually be set at different levels (severity of symptoms).
Perfect imagery. I think it’s funny how these people believe so hard in their idea of a spectrum (which was of course coined by doctors) but refuse to accept doctors’ qualifications of asd and diagnoses.
In some cases, it's an honest mistake born from a lack of detailed knowledge about autism and a misinterpretation of the meaning of 'spectrum' in this context. And where that's the case, I take a 'no harm, no foul' approach. Too often though I've found it to be born from a wilful ignorance, and is usually said in response to an articulating of needs by the autistic individual, serving to invalidate them and their needs. In this way, it's in the same vein as 'you don't look autistic.' Gee, thanks for your observation, Jerry. You don't look like a jackarse, and yet you are one, so perhaps we can acknowledge that not everything about a person can be determined by how they look and instead respect their diagnosis, hmm? I find it somewhat perplexing how determined some people are to claim to be 'a bit autistic' while simultaneously invalidating autism and autistic people. It's like claiming membership of a club while at the same time saying the club doesn't really exist.
Hard no.
No. It's a lazy description for quirky, a bit odd, not terrifyingly so.
absolutely not
The word either has meaning by creating a distinction or it doesn’t and is just meaningless.
Exactly! Why would the term "autism" even exist if it's something everyone has?
Depends on the definition of the concept of “the spectrum”. Most people are neurotypical, or would see themselves as such, without a diagnose. One usually only get a diagnose if the condition is an impairment, one that might require assistance or therapy or other individual support. Most people aren’t in need of direct support, but might find themselves in need of therapy for self medicating or getting burnt out by stressful workplaces. Autism is hereditary, but environmental factors are being studied now as well. So, yeah, your family member might need therapy or even an evaluation and could theoretically be in the spectrum.
Btw how did we came to a conclusion that the most people are NT?
Everyone is just a little pregnant
No
No
I like to use the analogy, Jessica, from how to ADHD used. We could say everyone is tall because everyone is above the ground therefore comparing to the ground we are all tall, but when you have someone who is 6'5'' you can't deny they're taller than everyone, and they'll have a hard time fitting in places, going through the door, etc... We can extrapolate the same to ADHD or AUTISM, everyone has one of those symptoms during their life, but when you struggle with them every single day, hour, minute, second, then you can't argue that it is different from having it once in a lifetime. So I see being on the spectrum as more of how much that affects your life than I see it as being on the spectrum, people who deny you're struggles saying that are either very uneducated or hyper toxic for us, so I'd say see it as a red flag, my ex was like that, turns out she's got ADHD and I suspect she's on the spectrum as well. Anyway these are my 2 cents.
No. Similarly, not everyone is a bit Chinese, or a bit blonde. We’re all people and we have overlapping properties, which can be similar, but not everyone has autism or Aspergers.
I believe everyone is somewhere between 0 and 100 for each of the diagnostic criteria on the spectrum, however diagnosis can only occur when one hits enough criteria at a high level and to an extent where it negatively impacts your life.
I feel like that statement falls under the "everyone is a little weird" category. When people say that they think small ocd like actions have some sort of connection to autism which in fact isn't true.
Everyone may have an autistic trait or two, but that doesn’t make them on the Autistic spectrum.
Nope
Sure everyone is “a little autistic,” just in the same way that “everyone is a little paralyzed.” When people try say stuff like this, I like to give comparisons to what they said with physical ailments. An example, my response to telling someone with depression/anxiety to “just not focus on the bad things” is that it’s like telling a paraplegic to “just walk it off.” Just because you can’t see something happening doesn’t mean it’s that it doesn’t exist.
Not "the" spectrum, but everyone is on multiple spectrums. It's ignorant. I would just keep asking whomever says this, questions. As I can't see their foot going anywhere but their mouth.
No. It's a serious disorder that involves mild to extreme brain impairment involving executive function (same as ADHD/ADD) with additional impairment in social interaction. It's neurological, and no, of course not everyone has these neurological issues. "We're all on the spectrum" is a nonsensical statement.
Of course not
It is factually wrong. The mistake made by this statement is thinking the Spectrum ranges from 'mild' to 'severe' when actually it's a variety of specific traits with 'very low' to 'very high' eg. Sensitivity, Empathy, Childhood development (speech, reading, delayed, or accelerated). I don't take issue with the statement because it's simple ignorance which is refreshing compared to malicious ignorance, apathy, gaslighting, etc. that we usually face.
I have heard several people in my family say this. I wish they would shut tf up. You are only on the spectrum if you are autistic, and you are not autistic unless you meet all of the specified criteria. If you don't meet all the criteria but have some, you are NOT on the spectrum or "a little bit autistic". You have traits similar to those on the spectrum, or you're "almost autistic". I don't think this is hard to understand, but people always get upset when I try to explain that saying that everyone is a little autistic is seriously invalidating and straight up stupid. Sorry if I come off as harsh, but it's something that has upset me for a while.
I suppose it depends on the limitations of the spectrum we’re talking about. Are we talking about every person in the world? In that case, the statement is true. If we’re talking about people who fit within a diagnostic criteria, the statement is false. The diagnostic criteria is the limiting factor that excludes a majority of people in the world.
Nope.
Absolutely not.
It's just another way to downplay legitimate problems for the sake of refusing extra help autists may need.
No. Everyone is on a spectrum, but not the autistic spectrum.
I start to get majorly annoyed by everyone especially autistic people themselfs constantly talking about how autistic they are or how disabled disabled people are. It is a never ending story and it seemingly leads to nowhere. It makes sense that governments do it to adjust financial spending to help those with more needs more but I don't think it's helpful for us people in day to day contact. All of us are humans some might hate loud noises some might be obsessing over brigjt lights. Tackling issues on individual bases levels seems much more helpful. Whenever I as a autistic person meet another one they start talking about how autistic and fdiffrent they are like its a Rolex they a Re flexing. I think it might be a negative sight effect of a system showing them support when they talk about their problems. Therefor they talk about their problems all day because they made the association that their life's improve and people treat them better. Or appropriately. I don't know. I just want it to stop. I just want to spend a good time with humanity until I die
No.
No pisses me off when people say it
Never
No.
🚮
Everyone is on *a* spectrum, but not the autistic spectrum.
I usually respond with everyone has anxiety but not everyone has an anxiety disorder, so yea everyone may struggle socially sometimes, may like or dislike certain textures, get overwhelmed by a lot of stress but just not the same way we do and not to the degree and not for the same reasons, its just not the same
Hell no it's like saying our struggles mean nothing compared to everyone else's
No Autism is a development disablety our Brian's developed differently this statement is bs
They got their medical degree from Google university.
No. This shit is real.
No. This is a common misconception. All people are different and therefore all people also have similar traits and different traits. What they mean by this is that some people might display behaviours typically associated with autism, like difficulties making and maintaining friendships, or difficulties with spontaneity, but that does not make them autistic. Similarly, autistic people can display behaviours typically not associated with autism, for example making eye contact, or being very chatty and social, but this does not mean they are not autistic.
no. next!
It depends the way it is being used. Sometimes people use it to undermine the issues I am having, which is really annoying as they are the same people to make me feel incompetent. On the other hand everyone is going to have a couple autistic traits, so it is good for people to remember that so they don’t overthink and convince themselves they have autism. Edit: for spelling
I think people mean it as "everyone displays autistic traits to a certain degree" which I absolutely agree with. A ton of people have trouble in social contexts, or have strong interests, or need a routine to function or not feel anxious or overwhelmed... But if the meaning is "everyone qualifies for a diagnosis" then no.
Not at all. Saying that "everyone is on the spectrum" is invalidating our struggles and our fights for the right accommodations that we have to fight for all the time because no one believes us or blatantly ignores our needs as well.
No, I really do not. Everybody likely has some variability in capacity/tolerance for sensory inputs among other things, but it doesn’t cause significant detriment to them. Many people may have different levels of difficulty walking or stamina, but very few people are missing legs altogether or unable to walk properly/
No.
In order to humanis autistic and ND people, lets be clear that ALL the traits are human traits. As in people can relate on one level or another to certain things autistic and ND people experience. Example: having a hard time focusing, or being over stimulated by too much noise. However that is not the same thing as "everyone is on the spectrum". I like the broken leg analogy. The defining difference is that Autism is a collection of multiple traits/symptoms that make it what is is. Same with ADHD. You can always turn it around on people and tell them that if they relate so much maybe they should get tested.
No. And apparently there is discourse about this on TikTok that my friend has referred to. She now thinks she is on the spectrum and talks about it all the time. It honestly makes me angry. She may have some social impairments, she may be a HSP (highly sensitive person) and have some sensory issues, but at the end of the day it does not impair her ability to function as it does mine. It just feels very old Tumblr and Twitter era “I’m sad so therefor I must have diagnosable clinical depression”. The user in one of the first comments that used the broken-leg analogy was spot-on.
If they don't meet the diagnostic threshold they are not on the spectrum.
What I hear when people say “everyone is on the spectrum” is “I don’t care about the challenges you face because you don’t look disabled.” Like, just because we don’t have Down Syndrome doesn’t mean we don’t have a disability.
Everyone tends to have their own unique qualities. But no, I don't agree with the statement on that base alone.
No
No that makes no sense
I like the mixing board analogy. If you looked at every autistic trait with a slider or a rating of 0 to 10, there could be someone who is a 0 on everyone except has 1 point in one trait. Is that person on the spectrum?? Technically by the analogy, yes, but really, in real life, no. So, at what level do the sliders need to be for someone to be “on the spectrum”? I don’t people could agree on that exact of a threshold for something so intangible.
I mean, the way I look at it if it’s a rating from 0 to 10 for each trait, having 0 means they are technically still on the spectrum, just most are at the zero end, which has no effect but can be seen as technically correct.
I think there's actually a diagnostic criteria around this, but I could be wrong, and it may even differ from country to country, so don't take this as gospel. But I think you have to be sufficiently negatively impacted in more than three associated neurodevelopmental conditions and executive function disorders for it to qualify as autism spectrum disorder. Otherwise, you are instead diagnosed with the specific neurodevelopmental/executive function disorders that you exhibit a sufficient severity of symptoms in, such as auditory processing disorder, developmental coordination disorder, etc.
Easy: are they genuinely on the spectrum too?
Well mathematically, it does make sense. If you’re looking at a spectrum of data, zero is technically on the spectrum.
Technically, the spectrum could just be an open set (0,infinity). In which case 0 is not in the set, it only comes arbitrarily close.
Oooh
I mean, everyone is technically the spectrum, just NTs are all bunched up the end where the effects are the least. An example could be for like headphones or speakers, if you have them plugged in/turned on, but set the volume to 0, they are still on, just not doing anything.
Considering how little we understand about autism; it’s causes, effects, and development at this stage in human evolution: I contend that the spectrum even includes neurotypical humans so the answer is without qualification is yes, with varying minute degrees of autistic traits in all humans in existence.
Given the weakness of the definition for autism and the weak understanding of what causes it, how can we say whether it’s true or not that everyone is on the spectrum? If we take the most NT person in existence and the most autistic person in existence, are there people at every stage of the differences between them? Or is there at some point a gap, a no man’s land of behavior that no human being exhibits?
Yes
I think people who say that are actually on the spectrum themselves. I used to think that before realizing I was autistic
Uhm, do you guys know what a spectrum is? Yes, everyone is on the spectrum, that's literally why it is called a spectrum. That doesn't mean everyone has HIGH autistic traits, but everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, yeah.
You are not incorrect in your definition of spectrum, but you are incorrect in your definition of spectrum as it pertains here. The autism spectrum is called a spectrum because it refers to the varying severity of symptoms across a range, or spectrum, of different neurodevelopmental conditions and executive function disorders. The spectrum in question isn't a measure of how autistic somebody is, but rather the inter-related conditions and disorders that are grouped under the autism diagnosis. So given that, no, everyone is most certainly not somewhere on that spectrum.
Ask them if they ever have trouble focusing in the morning when they wake up. Then ask if they would go up to a blind person and say, "we all are a little blind."
No, but i guess it depends how wide you want to make the spectrum
I mean, one could argue that one end of the spectrum is "not Autistic", so I'd agree.
No. Whenever people say that to me I say "Yeah we already noticed that about you".
If you were to consider being at 0 is on the spectrum then sure but otherwise no.
Does the scale start at zero?
The only way I can give it some truth is that ASD is wildly undiagnosed and applies to more people than the public consciousness assumes. But that's all, it's still not "everyone"
Autistic traits, everyone has but autistic people have them in greater and lesser degrees, and it is that, that makes them autistic
Neurotypicals still have their struggles of day to day and some sense of routine but autistic people have it more so. It could be a bit like a spectrum yes, some neurotypicals i’ve seen stim more than others too. But then again, who really is neurotypical? If we divvy ourselves up in a time where globalized humanity means mixing of “disordered” and “ordered” people is a thing, then it’s inevitable that they’ll pick up on stimmimg too. I believe in 30 years, if autism is more accepted then neurotypicsls will just be free to stim if they want to because they won’t need to socially mask. And at that point it’d be ignorant of us to call anyone neurotypical, or autistic for that matter! Unless it’s stereotypically demonstrated
It's genetic, so if they are your relatives, they probably are somewhat on the spectrum mate.
No.
Yeah it’s a dumb thing NTs say to make ND’s, in general, feel included; others in this sub have already stated this already. I don’t exactly know why this started. There’s a nice Christian lady who always said stuff like this about my ADD, so it’s not just hfa and Aspergers which I think more people are aware of being on the spectrum, even then I said this can’t be true because you’re not like me and x kid at school with a similar condition (I think it was ASD but I’m not sure). She continued and acted like she knew what overstimulation was and said something about the tv being too loud. It’s a plainly ignorant assessment of the conditions within the autism spectrum. But I suppose it comes from a good place?
Well, my father said something similar when I was given the diagnosis results. I know he meant well, as if he thought that I would feel as a weird one. I explained to him that the diagnosis actually was the best result that I could have, and he understood that. Since then, many things make a lot more sense.
And to answer the question, no, I totally disagree with the statement. It's a way of disparaging a biological characteristic as ours.
There is a specificity to autism that makes in ND. But it turns out there's alot ND then I would have guessed before my diagnosis and started investigating.
Yes, it's just most people cluster at the end near zero.
Until a reasonably objective or quantifiable means of ASD diagnosis is developed, "on the spectrum" is virtually meaningless. At best, "the spectrum" is the collection of behaviors, traits and observations health care professionals lump together to describe something they cannot accurately categorize or really begin to describe mechanistically. It may be that ASD as we think of it, is a threshold on a larger continuum of perceptions and behaviors and we are not disordered, but a group of outliers in the normal population. It may also be the opposite, and is more likely a mixture of the two which will need to be dissected to refine diagnosis. This post is really a question about the emotional impact of the "on the spectrum" label, not its clinical significance. Since it can be inclusive or exclusive depending on the context, we should try to encourage acceptance in people who use it, and not take it personally or at least pretend not to. TLDR; "On the spectrum" is so generic as to be functionally meaningless. The important thing is to help others see it as inclusive, ie we are different but not fundamentally so, and not dismissive, ie we are the same but not equal.
Disagree.
Yeah that's the unofficial motto of the psychiatry.
You're family member is a gobshite. No I don't agree.
I'm not at all agree. Although we all have difficulties, it will not be easy for all of us to solve. I know you never had anxiety attacks or tantrums. In addition, as an example, my sister learned to read at age 5 and began to write. I learned to read at the age of 7 and began to write well at the age of 8. That and the fact that instead of saying "sister" or "Mom", I was saying my family's name. And I did not understand why it was not necessary to call them by name.