if an autistic cannot see outside of himself to understand others, because we see only ourselves and others in relation to ourselves, perhaps we need to step entirely outside of the question and learn how NTs see NTs and how NTs see autistics and compare this to how we autistics see ourselves and how we see NTs. (NTs being Neurotypicals, or non-autistics.)
but without understanding who the autistics are versus NTs, is there a way to determine which answers go in which category? or do the answers themselves help one decide who goes in which category?
and what kind of questions would really illuminate anything? any question that sheds light on the question would have to be cultural and you would end up misclassifying those not raised in this culture. or are there social questions that would be answered cross culture while still highlighting the differences of one without much socialization?
does how one is raised reflect more in those answers than how one thinks? an autistic raised in a fundamental household will answer far differently than one raised atheist, just as NT children would. would a strictly raised autistic, who therefore has enough structure to function, answer more or less normally than an NT raised without rules and has no structure from the outside?
what's the difference between someone with no structure within but gets structure from without, and someone with internal structure but none from without?
isn't how a child is raised, NT or autistic, a huge indication of how they can and will think later in life? is the child raised to think rationally and critically? is the child taught to blindly obey rules? is the child taught to question or to blend in? and how different are each of these in comparing an autistic and an NT?
truly, most people have children to make someone who will love them and validate them. when they realize the child is a person who has obligations to a family, perhaps, but is certainly more interested in being loved and validated themselves, things fall apart. in a non autistic this apparently happens around teenagehood, hence all the drama therein. for autistics, it happens in toddlerhood, if not sooner, hence the fatigue and desperation of the parents.
how would a parent who simply loved the child react? if one had less to lose would one have more patience? if one loved and validated themselves would one have less anger at the child for not providing these things for them?
i've often read that the reason parents put up with the sleepless nights and the crying and all the bullshit an infant puts a parent through is for things like the first smile, and the child connecting and learning to talk. in essence, the kid giving back a bit, dammit. so what happens if the child has nothing of the sort to give? the things an autistic has to give cannot be understood until a lot more barriers are breached by both parties.
so is there perhaps no reason for the parent of an autistic to give to the child? the child is not fulfilling their end of the bargain, if you think about it. what right does the child have to not unconditionally love their parents and to not bond and to not smile or do those endearing little things that real children do?
is it not, then, more of a wonder that any parent of an autistic takes the time to find ways to reach the child, than that a parent of an autistic gives up and just tries to get through the day without sending the kid to an institution?
anyone who doesn't pull their own weight has no purpose in a society. they only drag everyone else down. there are noble things, i have heard, like taking care of the useless shows some human spirit of those who help, but let's be realistic. dead weight is dead weight and a child who does not do their share in adding to the family dynamic is, indeed, a dead weight.
so i have to wonder if this big drive to understand autism isn't some noble let's reach them pie in the sky bullshit, but rather a way to force the kids to be members of society who give back instead of only taking. autism awareness is, when done by NTs, a way to get rid of dead weight and, when done by autistics, a way to convince others we aren't dead weight. perhaps we should recognize that we all have the same goal and find a way to make autistics useful.
instead of changing autistics, why not find ways that we can be useful as we are.
medical experimentation is out since autistics do not respond physically the way most people do. however studying the results of medical experiments might yield good results as autistics get stuck in very different thought ruts than NTs do.
we are good at throwing fits and being overwhelmed by noise which could very well make the most effective front line cannon fodder ever in a war. here comes a group marching toward you and you startle them, and suddenly the noise and wailing and shouting and screaming is more terrifying than a bunch of blue painted celts mooning romans.
we are great at sorting things. perhaps you can hire autistics to sort out trash for recycling. or to find the wrong one in a bunch of anything for manufacturing quality control. we can sort and file for medical records and other paperwork deluged office.
or perhaps they will find that we do best in outdoor jobs, growing things and weeding and helping animals. maybe we all need shipped out to farms where we will get fresh air and sunshine and safe food to eat. actually, i like this plan best. slave labor meets goodwill. the farms get much needed help to do things organically and autistics get structure and a healthier environment. everyone benefits.
perhaps a peta-like anti packaged food group needs to cage autistics and spray paint NTs and show everyone what happens when the world is full of chemicals and diets full of carbohydrates. use us as the poster children for atkins or the vitamin d council. "if you want to give birth to one of these, keep eating HFCS".
if we all work together, we can keep autistics from being dead weights without having to "cure" them (salt cured or sugar cured? and why not just sun dry us?). we can find ways to be useful without having to diagnose half of america to get enough funding to stop us from existing. no one is sure what the difference is between us and NTs anyway. i'm all for the amygdala theory, myself. but if we are just going by behaviors, i think every human shows various qualities of autism. we aren't all that different, just exagerated here and there.
in our struggle to become human, we are going to have to understand what humans are, and i don't think most humans are going to be very pleased with us as we do so. we are going to see far more differences between us before we are able to accept those terrible things that being human entails. and perhaps we can help humans change to be something that doesn't shame us all.
after all, the thing that makes autistics most intolerable, next to our intensity and fit throwing, is our honesty.
i do find it a sign of the rising self esteem of autistics, as a group mind, that we claim anyone genius, prodigy, extraordinary as autistic. einstein, mozart, tesla... where once we saw ourselves as idiot savants and children banging out head on walls, we have come to see ourselves as the geniuses and gifted. perhaps we will even learn, as a group, to push ourselves harder and further than others because of that potential, instead of cowarding and inhibiting ourselves with the knowledge that we are "disabled" and somehow less.
one and all, autistics seem to be questioners. why? how? what does that do? how does that work? when will this happen? why can't i? and we are inherently narcissistic since we don't recognize outsiders. logically, this means we question ourselves, our lives, our interactions, our realities, our questions. it is, perhaps, the answers that help keep autistics locked up within their worlds.
and once we do that and race past the humans being merely NT, will they push themselves to follow us? catch us if you can, because our diversity is going to force us to do more in order to be you until we realize we aren't you, we have pushed ourselves beyond that.