[INTP] Girls and women who have Asperger's syndrome

[Coriolis]

I don't like lumping people into categories of disorders and mental illness either. That's why I never sought a diagnosis. But I think the important thing is to look at the underlying thing which is being analyzed and diagnosed, see what it has in common with other things, look at the possible origins, etc. I think some people on this thread could be diagnosed with it but don't want to be, so they dismiss the whole thing. Which is reasonable but not rational. Yeah, maybe our notions of "mental disorders" are just illusory, and exist on a continuum; but this doesn't make the traits people are describing not real, or the associated difficulties. The difficulties are the problem, and need to be addressed. Maybe more people who have these traits but have learned to function well enough in society need to come together and share what they've learned with those who are still learning, and in that way we'll "cure" the "disease".

Mental disorders come from mental systems, which function in certain ways. Mental types come from mental systems which function in certain ways. Often these overlap. It's a fact. It would be highly improbable if everything people happened to describe in types of personality was completely left out of descriptions of difficulties in living life, as the two are related. Disorders are just ways to classify having difficulties in living life.

And all the things in the article aren't "symptoms", they're characteristics of a type overall. There are ways people with depression behave which aren't necessarily symptoms, or ADHD. They're just products of the condition, and ways to holistically identify people. Just as maybe INFP's tend to be spiritual, but being spiritual doesn't make you an INFP.

The difference is that types are considered variations of "normal", not requiring treatment or intervention beyond the usual understanding of strengths and weaknesses. Mental disorders are considered "abnormal", outside the acceptable range of human functioning, and requiring of treatment to "correct" them back toward a "normal" state as much as possible. I have no objection to people pointing out my problems and issues, or even giving them a convenient shorthand label. But as a functioning, contributing, responsible adult, I cannot consider them to be outside normal limits in any clinical sense, and I expect this applies to many others who manage to get themself diagnosed by some health professional or other. I am not saying there is no such thing as actual mental illness; merely that we have started to describe too many deviations from the average in terms of "disorders". This slights both those who really don't have true disorders, as well as those who do.

 

[Thalassa]

My niece has Asperger's...according to this article about animals, nature, legos and reading and having "encyclopedia" facts stored, *I* could have Asperger's according the author's definition, so this seems vague...I mean I get that girls with Asperger's could have these traits, but so could introverts who are Highly Sensitive (HSP).

However, I've read an academic article about a study that shows people with bipolar spectrum disorder are often related to people on the autism spectrum, and there may be a link between the two, that it seems there's some kind of genetic link between the two spectrum disorders.

My niece is obsessed with horse-back riding currently. I'm really pleased with how "normal" she is now, because when she was a baby she would scream non-stop and bang her head and that kind of thing, we thought maybe she had full-blown autism.

 

[Thalassa]

The difference is that types are considered variations of "normal", not requiring treatment or intervention beyond the usual understanding of strengths and weaknesses. Mental disorders are considered "abnormal", outside the acceptable range of human functioning, and requiring of treatment to "correct" them back toward a "normal" state as much as possible. I have no objection to people pointing out my problems and issues, or even giving them a convenient shorthand label. But as a functioning, contributing, responsible adult, I cannot consider them to be outside normal limits in any clinical sense, and I expect this applies to many others who manage to get themself diagnosed by some health professional or other. I am not saying there is no such thing as actual mental illness; merely that we have started to describe too many deviations from the average in terms of "disorders". This slights both those who really don't have true disorders, as well as those who do.

I agree with this. But the problem with today's society, being so overly-socialized (people are constantly in one another's faces where as they used to live in smaller towns or in less populated areas, even cities had less people than they do now) and being so high pressure and focused on achievement (this has really gone into over-drive with increasing corporatism and dependence on luxuries as if they were necessities in the post-modern world, and I think the glaring symbol of it in our society is calling the phone or cable company and speaking to an hourly wage employee who can't even help you and it's not even his or her fault because the company never trained them or the corporation is so huge something gets lost in the shuffle, and no one is a person anymore but a number, and even worse you may just speak to a recording and keep getting transferred to five different people who have no idea what you're talking about) ...it's really hard to get any help or respite WITHOUT being diagnosed with a "disorder."

You can't just say "I don't fit into this inhuman brave new world" there has to be some kind of diagnosis, even though a person with even the barest emotional or social intelligence can see that even "normal" people weren't meant to live under this much stress and over-stimulation, and we wonder why people have anxiety disorders and children have ADHD when they've been raised in rooms with televisions and radios blaring constantly, sometimes simultaneously, warring in their noise pollution.

I think the answer is really trusting both Eastern and Western methodologies, because a lot of "conditions" aren't illnesses or disorders, they're imbalances of lifestyle that could be changed by the person having more peace, more silence, getting massages or having a chiropractor, getting regular exercise, doing meditation and/or yoga, and eating healthier food, etc.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I'd sooner believe the Asperger's than the intp diagnosis for you.

You don't think half of the folks on TypoC who type as INTP are for real!

 

[1487610420]

I like me some girls with down syndrome, if ya know what I mean.

 

[Thalassa]

I've read a bunch of stuff on women with aspergers. The only thing that ever confuses me is that they will claim that they are especially emotionally sensitive (to how they are being treated) but at the same time claim that they are not emotionally sensitive to others. How can you be both?

You've never met a person who gets offended really easily or seems sensitive or even gets their feelings hurt or get angry easily....but in the end seem like the most selfish person on the planet? Like they're only upset about themselves?

I'm not sure aspies are like this, because this is actually a trait that narcissists can have, they can get really easily hurt or offended by criticism but will treat other people really callously, coldly, even cruelly in extreme cases.

I know a guy with Aspeger's who is like a humanitarian, he's traveled to developing countries and done stuff with habitat for humanity, he is also really talkative, and apparently likes to talk to people, but it's more like he's talking at you, but he means well. You can see that he's socially kind of clueless, but that his heart is in the right place.

My niece always seemed like a grouchy, moody toddler, and would push people away, even head butt them, so she exhibited signs of extreme emotional sensitivity, but not sensitivity to others.

Of course she's had therapy and she's school-age now, but that's an example of someone being very emotional while not being very sensitive to others.

EDIT: the more that I think about it, I think the difference with Aspie's is actually obliviousness; even my friend who has Asperger's who is all down with causes and meeting new people, it's almost like he's too naive, like he'd just walk up to any seemingly receptive person and just start talking, and not realize if he was boring or annoying them, but not doing it with any malice or cruelty, almost like a hyper small child in that regard, probably could get him in trouble with bad people. I think even with more introverted and less feeling aspies, it's still obliviousness instead of cruelty, almost just like they just want to be left alone, and only want to talk to others to discuss hobbies or interests, not "socialize."

The narcissist is actually quite manipulative, so isn't so much oblivious, but actually does not care about anyone on a fundamental level other than himself, even when he imagines he loves, he loves an idealized projection, an extension of himself.

 

[greenfairy]

The difference is that types are considered variations of "normal", not requiring treatment or intervention beyond the usual understanding of strengths and weaknesses. Mental disorders are considered "abnormal", outside the acceptable range of human functioning, and requiring of treatment to "correct" them back toward a "normal" state as much as possible. I have no objection to people pointing out my problems and issues, or even giving them a convenient shorthand label. But as a functioning, contributing, responsible adult, I cannot consider them to be outside normal limits in any clinical sense, and I expect this applies to many others who manage to get themself diagnosed by some health professional or other. I am not saying there is no such thing as actual mental illness; merely that we have started to describe too many deviations from the average in terms of "disorders". This slights both those who really don't have true disorders, as well as those who do.

So then it's just a matter of how functional people are, right? And that changes. And any trait can result in behavior which makes a person nonfunctional.

[MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION], do you think that Aspie people can learn enough about social behavior and develop their empathy to the point where they are as functional as a "normal" person? Have you experienced anyone like this?

I'm pretty sure my uncle has this. He's a really well meaning guy, very humanitarian, but socially kind of clueless, even when people inform him of things. He's also INTP unless I am very much mistaken. Not that anecdotal evidence proves a correlation, just an example of both.

 

[Coriolis]

So then it's just a matter of how functional people are, right? And that changes. And any trait can result in behavior which makes a person nonfunctional.

[MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION], do you think that Aspie people can learn enough about social behavior and develop their empathy to the point where they are as functional as a "normal" person? Have you experienced anyone like this?

I'm pretty sure my uncle has this. He's a really well meaning guy, very humanitarian, but socially kind of clueless, even when people inform him of things. He's also INTP unless I am very much mistaken. Not that anecdotal evidence proves a correlation, just an example of both.

Forget about "normal". It is more useful to speak in terms of what is functional, remembering that functionality can be as impaired by artificial and unnecessary social constructs as by actual internal limitations in how one perceives or processes information, for instance. So yes, any trait, in the wrong measure, context, or combination, can impair functioning to an unacceptable extent. This goes along with the idea that "disorders" might correlate at least loosely with types, since a given type will tend to demonstrate certain tendencies (e.g. INTJ and paranoia) which can be healthy to a degree, but harmful in certain individuals.

 

[greenfairy]

Forget about "normal". It is more useful to speak in terms of what is functional, remembering that functionality can be as impaired by artificial and unnecessary social constructs as by actual internal limitations in how one perceives or processes information, for instance. So yes, any trait, in the wrong measure, context, or combination, can impair functioning unacceptably. This goes along with the idea that "disorders" might correlate at least loosely with types, since a given type will tend to demonstrate certain tendencies (e.g. INTJ and paranoia) which can be healthy to a degree, but harmful in certain individuals.

Ok, I agree with that. And normal is just a convenient term, which means occupying some sort of statistical position.

 

[greenfairy]

You don't think half of the folks on TypoC who type as INTP are for real!

And does it matter? As there's no objective way to "prove" it, it really just wastes time to be constantly worrying about whether or not people are typed correctly. If someone is ENFP and someone thinks they are ENTP for example, it really just means they have a well developed feeling side. As long as people resonate with a type description and use it to accurately represent themselves, and use the advice for personal development, they essentially are that type even if by some complicated analysis maybe another type is more consistent over the course of their life. And who even has the time for that kind of thing.

My niece has Asperger's...according to this article about animals, nature, legos and reading and having "encyclopedia" facts stored, *I* could have Asperger's according the author's definition, so this seems vague...I mean I get that girls with Asperger's could have these traits, but so could introverts who are Highly Sensitive (HSP).

Once again, the description of these sorts of things isn't meant to be a list of "symptoms," just how Asperger people may exhibit their traits; which doesn't rule out people who are not Asperger also having those characteristics. Like INFP's tend to be spiritual, but being spiritual doesn't make you INFP.

Even if it could be generalized to all people, "All A's are B's" does not entail "All B's are A's".
(I'm not picking on you Marm, just pointing it out for thread purposes, because a couple of other people have said similar things.)

 

[Such Irony]

I related to much of the stuff in the original post. When young, I preferred legos to Barbies, had an odd way of playing with toys, cared less about clothes and perfume, etc. I've never gotten an official diagnosis but I did a have a past therapist suggest it as a possibility. I think based on my childhood, it was eerily similar to what many kids with Asperger syndrome experience. Based on self-diagnosis, I'd say I do have a mild form of Aspergers. It isn't debilitating to the degree that is for some and the average person walking down the street would probably never suspect something was kinda 'off' about me. It's the people who more closely communicate with me that may pick up subtle clues that something isn't quite right.

EDIT: the more that I think about it, I think the difference with Aspie's is actually obliviousness; even my friend who has Asperger's who is all down with causes and meeting new people, it's almost like he's too naive, like he'd just walk up to any seemingly receptive person and just start talking, and not realize if he was boring or annoying them, but not doing it with any malice or cruelty, almost like a hyper small child in that regard, probably could get him in trouble with bad people. I think even with more introverted and less feeling aspies, it's still obliviousness instead of cruelty, almost just like they just want to be left alone, and only want to talk to others to discuss hobbies or interests, not "socialize."

The narcissist is actually quite manipulative, so isn't so much oblivious, but actually does not care about anyone on a fundamental level other than himself, even when he imagines he loves, he loves an idealized projection, an extension of himself.

Very good points.

 

[violet_crown]

It annoys me so much that this was posted in the NT commune.

 

[greenfairy]

It annoys me so much that this was posted in the NT commune.

Why? Are you denying a correlation independent of any evidence? I'm not claiming either a correlation or evidence, but I saw a source somewhere that did, and I see similarities (and some other people have posted about similarities), so I'm provoking discussion, and hoping that some evidence either for or against a correlation will come up. Does it personally offend you that there might be a correlation? If so I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to get at the truth. So I'm not that sorry.

 

[violet_crown]

Why? Are you denying a correlation independent of any evidence? I'm not claiming either a correlation or evidence, but I saw a source somewhere that did, and I see similarities (and some other people have posted about similarities), so I'm provoking discussion, and hoping that some evidence either for or against a correlation will come up. Does it personally offend you that there might be a correlation? If so I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to get at the truth. So I'm not that sorry.

The association just plays on a fairly knee-jerk stereotype about NTs. Naturally there's a kernel of truth to be found in any stereotype, but that doesn't mean that it's genuinely insightful or worthwhile contribution to dialogue on the group as a whole. I feel this thread was driven more by your desire to feel like you belong somewhere, than actually "provoking discussion". Recognizing that, it's probably unsporting of me to have made my little comment in the first place, but god if I'm not sick of prosaic commentary treated like it's some kind of a revelation. Yes, NTs in general (and INTPs in particular) are socially maladroit. Great. You got anything else?

 

[Coriolis]

Yes, NTs in general (and INTPs in particular) are socially maladroit. Great. You got anything else?

NTs, especially INTs, often have a perspective, communication style, interests, and even values that differ from those of most people they meet. This can lead to misunderstandings and even friction in social situations, unless all involved make an effort to overcome these differences.​

Better? I don't like stereotyping either, but I see more than a kernel of truth in in some of these associations. It's not so much understanding where you "belong", though that helps; it's understanding what to do when you are clearly where you do not belong. Some people have a harder time with this than others, and I suspect the degree of difficulty and what causes it is a big part of where one falls on the so-called autism spectrum.

 

[violet_crown]

NTs, especially INTs, often have a perspective, communication style, interests, and even values that differ from those of most people they meet. This can lead to misunderstandings and even friction in social situations, unless all involved make an effort to overcome these differences.​

Better? I don't like stereotyping either, but I see more than a kernel of truth in in some of these associations. It's not so much understanding where you "belong", though that helps; it's understanding what to do when you are clearly where you do not belong. Some people have a harder time with this than others, and I suspect the degree of difficulty and what causes it is a big part of where one falls on the so-called autism spectrum.

I'm not taking issue with anything you just wrote, but honestly, how is that quote not equally applicable to INFs who are equally uncommon, or intuitives in general for that matter? And what's compelling in and of itself about the idea that being an uncommon type is going to mean making adjustments to get on with the general population? That just seems like common sense to me.

Moreover, I think tying the difficulties that an INT might have with communicating and relating to some sorta disorder just crystallizes the issue as opposed to it being a challenge to be explored and met head on. I'd be more interested in a conversation that drew on the strategies the autistic used to function in society as a model that INTs might use to aid in their own adaptations then the more superficial parallel that was made here. If there's a problem, then why not work on fixing it rather than huddling around applying labels to yourselves that should probably be reserved for people with real problems.

 

[greenfairy]

The association just plays on a fairly knee-jerk stereotype about NTs. Naturally there's a kernel of truth to be found in any stereotype, but that doesn't mean that it's genuinely insightful or worthwhile contribution to dialogue on the group as a whole. I feel this thread was driven more by your desire to feel like you belong somewhere, than actually "provoking discussion". Recognizing that, it's probably unsporting of me to have made my little comment in the first place, but god if I'm not sick of prosaic commentary treated like it's some kind of a revelation. Yes, NTs in general (and INTPs in particular) are socially maladroit. Great. You got anything else?

Fair enough. Maybe it doesn't mean anything. I just thought it was worth exploring to see if it did. And starting the thread had nothing to do with me, I was just using myself as one example of potentially both things. I think it is more than a stereotype. I was thinking both personality and disorders can arise from some sort of common factor, and I wanted to find out what it was. Not that they are the same, or that they are necessarily correlated. If you find the common factor, you can both better treat the disorder and use the information to help certain personalities (or any personality for that matter, as it relates to the common factor) develop to their full potential. Like for instance, there is a website which gives strengths and weaknesses for each type and how to develop the weak areas; INTP advice explicitly addresses some of the same kinds of things Asperger people have trouble with. It basically says to use Ne to observe people, Ti to make sense of their behavior, and then integrate it into Fe in order to learn social skills. What the functions translate into is the same kind of thing you would tell someone with Aspergers. There is the common factor of having trouble with social skills, which doesn't have to have anything to do with a "disorder." What I'm looking for is how trouble with social skills arises, from what cognitive conditions, and then how to teach people to develop themselves according to how those conditions are present in them as an individual.

I'd be more interested in a conversation that drew on the strategies the autistic used to function in society as a model that INTs might use to aid in their own adaptations then the more superficial parallel that was made here.

This is what I was getting at. I don't know why it wasn't clear, but obviously I'm not good at communicating subtleties at the outset of a conversation. I don't know how many times I've started a thread and people have argued with me based on something they thought I was saying which I wasn't, and then finally arguing for a point which I was initially trying to make.

 

[violet_crown]

Fair enough. Maybe it doesn't mean anything. I just thought it was worth exploring to see if it did. And starting the thread had nothing to do with me, I was just using myself as one example of potentially both things. I think it is more than a stereotype. I was thinking both personality and disorders can arise from some sort of common factor, and I wanted to find out what it was. Not that they are the same, or that they are necessarily correlated. If you find the common factor, you can both better treat the disorder and use the information to help certain personalities (or any personality for that matter, as it relates to the common factor) develop to their full potential. Like for instance, there is a website which gives strengths and weaknesses for each type and how to develop the weak areas; INTP advice explicitly addresses some of the same kinds of things Asperger people have trouble with. It basically says to use Ne to observe people, Ti to make sense of their behavior, and then integrate it into Fe in order to learn social skills. What the functions translate into is the same kind of thing you would tell someone with Aspergers. There is the common factor of having trouble with social skills, which doesn't have to have anything to do with a "disorder." What I'm looking for is how trouble with social skills arises, from what cognitive conditions, and then how to teach people to develop themselves according to how those conditions are present in them as an individual.

Gotcha. J vs P communication styles may have just tripped me up. I apologize for launching on you a bit, and hoped I adequately explained the source of my frustration in previous posts.

I'm interested in what you've said in the bolded. Assuming the lack of "social skills" is not a function of some type of disorder, then it must be attributable to the fact that some other form of reasoning is preferable to that of social or emotional reasoning. The trick then is in translating emotional cues and making them relevant to the subject, which is gonna depend on how the individual prefers to understand the world. If the individual is an INTP, the assumption is that an Fe preference makes the relevance of social rituals less of an issue and translation moreso. They get the why of social interactions, but not necessarily the how. Improving their social skills means gaining a fluency in the symbols of interpersonal relating, and how those symbols interact such that they end up with something like a functioning "social calculus". This is just an idea, but is it along the lines of what you're talking about?

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not taking issue with anything you just wrote, but honestly, how is that quote not equally applicable to INFs who are equally uncommon, or intuitives in general for that matter? And what's compelling in and of itself about the idea that being an uncommon type is going to mean making adjustments to get on with the general population? That just seems like common sense to me.

Moreover, I think tying the difficulties that an INT might have with communicating and relating to some sorta disorder just crystallizes the issue as opposed to it being a challenge to be explored and met head on. I'd be more interested in a conversation that drew on the strategies the autistic used to function in society as a model that INTs might use to aid in their own adaptations then the more superficial parallel that was made here. If there's a problem, then why not work on fixing it rather than huddling around applying labels to yourselves that should probably be reserved for people with real problems.

Yes, uncommon types will need adjustments, but I suspect the types of adjustments INFs need will be different from those INTs typically need. It is just common sense, and part of that common sense is learning from people who have similar difficulties as you. What's compelling is to realize that labelling clusters of traits as a "disorder" is counterproductive in that it masks the commonality among people who may really just be exhibiting similar tendencies to different degree, and may even keep people from realizing what can be learned from each other. So, I object to the assumption of a "disorder", but not to making the underlying connection.

Assuming the lack of "social skills" is not a function of some type of disorder, then it must be attributable to the fact that some other form of reasoning is preferable to that of social or emotional reasoning. The trick then is in translating emotional cues and making them relevant to the subject, which is gonna depend on how the individual prefers to understand the world. If the individual is an INTP, the assumption is that an Fe preference makes the relevance of social rituals less of an issue and translation moreso. They get the why of social interactions, but not necessarily the how. Improving their social skills means gaining a fluency in the symbols of interpersonal relating, and how those symbols interact such that they end up with something like a functioning "social calculus". This is just an idea, but is it along the lines of what you're talking about?

As I wrote somewhere else (another thread?) I suspect what we are calling a lack of social skills comes about from some combination of how one reasons, absorbs information, communicates, etc. The net effect can be that one fails to notice, or to interpret correctly, or even to value social and emotional input. If someone has enough difficulty with all this that he/she has trouble functioning, that would cross the line into being a "disorder" as opposed to just differing personality traits. "Functioning", however, is a subjective designation, so the line between disorder and different is quite hazy.

 

[greenfairy]

Gotcha. J vs P communication styles may have just tripped me up. I apologize for launching on you a bit, and hoped I adequately explained the source of my frustration in previous posts.

I'm interested in what you've said in the bolded. Assuming the lack of "social skills" is not a function of some type of disorder, then it must be attributable to the fact that some other form of reasoning is preferable to that of social or emotional reasoning. The trick then is in translating emotional cues and making them relevant to the subject, which is gonna depend on how the individual prefers to understand the world. If the individual is an INTP, the assumption is that an Fe preference makes the relevance of social rituals less of an issue and translation moreso. They get the why of social interactions, but not necessarily the how. Improving their social skills means gaining a fluency in the symbols of interpersonal relating, and how those symbols interact such that they end up with something like a functioning "social calculus". This is just an idea, but is it along the lines of what you're talking about?

Yeah, it is. I was thinking just this sort of social calculus, as you put it, is what is needed for both kinds of people. It could be modified a bit for other mbti types. I've done some of this very thing (which is one reason I thought INTP), and even am thinking of writing a book about how to "act normal," which translates as understand and exhibit common social behavior appropriate for one's circumstances (as well as self presentation). Empathy and intuition, as well as emotional intelligence with regard to the self is also necessary in order to become fully functional. So mbti-wise, it is ideal to develop all of one's functions in an order closely resembling the standard (Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te, etc.) for each type, but this could correspond to practical advice for people independent of typology.