Yes
It’s up to you if it helps you to think of it that way. However, if everyone is on the spectrum, then “autism” is less useful as a term for categorizing a group of people with a shared condition that may need help/accommodation in specific ways. How do you provide special services for autistic people when everyone is “on the spectrum”. There’s a solution, but requires a different way of categorizing people.
“spectrum” is a useful analogy to the EM spectrum, which is a literal spectrum. The autism spectrum is not a literal spectrum, we call it that because it’s a useful way to understand neurodiveristy. However, like any analogy, it eventually falls apart as you go deeper into applying it. It’s not the complete way to understand autism nor is it the only applicable analogy.
Autism is not fully understood, but it is characterized by several dimensions that each involve variation from the norm due to a complex of causes. This is why the “spectrum” analogy falls apart–it reduced autism to one dimension. Another analogy might be a crystal that grows in multiple directions, with more growth from the centre being divergence from the norm. Some crystals grow a little bit in all directions, some grow only in a couple directions, and every other combination of amount x direction.
Not everyone’s on the spectrum in the same way that brown is not a color of the rainbow.
It is though. Our eyes just aren’t good at seeing desaturated orange.
Yes and no.
Using blindness as a simplified example, “blind” describes a person with visual accuity of less than 20/500 and/or a visual field less than 10°. The term “blind” describes a binary classification for individuals according to where they fall within those 2 different spectrums.
By definition there is no such thing as more blind or less blind, a person is either blind or not. This is true for the lesser “visually impaired” classification as well, however the flaws of this sort of classification are more apparent there as the treatments for low visual accuity and low visual field are vastly different and so acknowledging and understanding those spectrums are critical for treatment.
However, in acknowledging those spectrums it allows for the phrase “person A is more blind than person B” and it makes perfect sense because for both those spectrums lower scores are directly related to that “blind” classifier and higher scores to “sighted”. So it works perfectly well to describe the relationship between two individuals on those spectrums even if neither is definitionally blind.
This gets extra confusing when it’s unclear which spectrum axis is being compared.
Every human is blind compared to a spy satellite. ~according to visual accuity~
Every spy satellite is blind compared to the average human. ~according to visual field~
Often the way around this is to take those 2 spectrums and combine them into one score to create a “blindness spectrum”. Depending on how one reduces the 2 dimensions down to a single 1 dramatically changes how “impaired” one individual is compared to another, re-introduces the issues faced with the binary classification and additionally can result in many who meet the technical definition above having the same “blindness score” as a sighted person.
In many ways this is worse than the binary classifier because it introduced addition biases, errors and distortions between the root symptoms, in this case visual accuity and field, which prevents actually understanding and helping an individual.
These issues get significantly magnified when one is taking about a disorder like autism which is defined as an individual with “differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction, a need or strong preference for predictability and routine, sensory processing differences, focused interests, and repetitive behaviors.” With each item consisting of multiple different measurements and criteria each defining their own spectrum. It’s no longer just describing an axis direction within a 2d space with fairly precise, impartial measurements, but a very specific cluster of individuals within a 6+ dimensional space using highly subjective measurements.
This imprecise and high dimensional space is the actual “autistic spectrum” and yes everyone is somewhere on this spectrum. “Autistic” is just the name of what appears to be a very specific cluster of individuals, however when dealing with high dimensional spaces what counts as a cluster starts to get real weird and illusions start popping up everywhere, like the mythical neurotypical.
The “can’t be more or less blind” thing is based on the concept that blind means “100% totally optical nerve dead blind” and anything that’s not this extreme is not blind but very bad sighted.
The “blindness is a spectrum” comes from the concept of “legally blind”, meaning that there’s a point where you can technically still see something, but for all legal purposes you are counted as blind, because your vision is not good enough to fulfill the requirements for legal use, e.g. for driving.
The real spectrum here is “vision”. Everyone accepts that vision is on a spectrum, and you can have better or worse vision.
Similar things with Autism. The definition of autism originated as a psychological disorder, an illness if you will. That has shifted in the last decades, but at its core autism (like blindness) is a bundle of things that work differently than on neurotypical people.
So while “having autism” like “having blindess” is a binary definition (linguistically speaking), if you look at the things affected by autism and start with the “healthy” variant, all of that is on a spectrum too. And as with the definition of “legally blind” there is a somewhat arbitrary line that defines whether you have autism or not.
As always with almost everything concerning humans, everything is on a spectrum.
I would encourage you to re-read because I did cover exactly what you’re mentioning here and it seems like you might have stopped reading after the second paragraph.
the “healthy” variant
This is what was meant by the “mythical neurotypical”
I encourage you to not understand everything as an opposition to what you wrote. I was adding to your point. But if you insist on a fight, I will allow you to choose time, place and weapon.
You started with adding three opposing definitions of blindness and then did the arguably worst thing of creating a single “blindness spectrum” that you call “vision”.
What you wrote isn’t adding to my message, it’s in direct opposition in a lot of ways and shows that you didn’t stop to understand what was being said before “adding” to it.
I think we do agree with the “everything is a spectrum” part, but my whole point could maybe be best summarized as “reality is a spectrum, classifications and language are not”
So I guess we’re fighting now. Meet me at the Brooks river at the end of the month, it’s a fish slapping contest, you’ll recognize me as #901 here
No. Blindness is also a spectrum but not everyone is blind. There is a range of normal vision and someone is only blind if they fall outside of that range. However, two people who are deemed blind can have varying degrees of blindness and need varying degrees of assistance.
Although it would probably be fitting to describe it as a subset. If you look at vision, then it is a spectrum that includes everyone. Even blind people. If you are looking at blindness, then it is a subset of the vision spectrum that only includes people that meet certain other criteria, i.e. below a certain threshold of vision. Same for autism disorder. Every human is on a mentality spectrum, and autism is a subset of that.
This is how I understood the question, too.
That’s a great comparison.
This is a pretty decent comparison. Not everyone can have ASD because then it can’t be classified as a disorder. There is a threshold for being diagnosed just as with vision impairment. Those who are diagnosed are on a spectrum from least debilitating to most.
Surely vision is a spectrum with everyone on it.
One end “better than 20-20” on the other “only darkness”
Vision yes, blindness no.
Vision is the opposite of blindness, no?
Surely if the spectrum exists for one it must exist for the other?
0 becomes 100 and 100 becomes zero
0% blind is perfect vision, 100% blind is no vision
Technical an common language often intersect in logically confusing ways.
Blindness is on the greater vision spectrum but not all of the vision spectrum is the blindness spectrum. At a point on the vision spectrum one stops being blind and becomes sighted. Think of it like light. Ultraviolet is on the light spectrum and has a spectrum of its own; but not all of the light spectrum is ultraviolet.
So would it be accurate to say that autism is on a spectrum that also includes non-autistic people?
Kind of.
If there is a point on the spectrum that’s “minimal to no autistic indicators”, then everyone is included.
I think there are a lot of undiagnosed people who are “normal enough to pass” (forgive the term, but it describes the mentality that lets people slip through the cracks) myself possibly being one of them. I think it’s likely that everybody’s a little autistic, but not LITERALLY EVERYONE.
everyone is a little Autistic
- the people who hang around Autistic people
Autism is many spectrums but in discourse we typically merge all the parts of what we call autism into a single spectrum. And that spectrum is the degree to which behaviors associated with austism cause functional difficulties in your life. The diagnosis of autism requires the autistic behaviors to limit your ability to function. So, everyone is on the spectrum of “the degree to which autistic behaviors limit your capacity to lead a life independently,” with many being on the “basically not at all limited” end, but when we say “on the autism spectrum,” we are typically referring just to the side of the spectrum where someone’s life is notably limited in some ways by the effects of autistic behaviors or learning disorders.
This. My college psych professor said, “It’s only a disorder if it interferes with your daily life.”
On the spectrum is short for on the autism spectrum. What that realky means is that there are several characteristics, all of which are spectrums themselves, which have a subset that is associated with autism. There is basically a formula for calculating a score that combines them and if it is in a certain range, they call it autism.
All and all, autism is a syndrom, which means they don’t know what causes it or even what it is. They just take a bunch of people who have similar symptoms and lump them under a syndrome so they can try and study it better. Same as IBS. Most likely there are multiple different causes that may very well be unrelated.
That’s a common theme in psychology. We’ve built this house of cards on opinions, subjective observations and beliefs. Neurobiology and statistics are gradually beginning to pull the rug under the mess we call psychology.
It took us a few hundred years to go from medieval alchemy to modern biochemistry, and the same should apply to psychology as well. Check back in a hundred years or so to see if it’s any better. My guess is, it’s going to take 200 years to figure out what autism even is, how to classify it, how to test for it and so on.
We have a very long way to go, so the current terms are only marginally useful. Don’t take them too seriously just yet.
I very much agree on the don’t take the terms too seriously. They are just labels. Not entirely arbitrary, but still mostly arbitrary. That said, I do think we are due for a medical revolution anytime now. So I don’t think 200 years. But certainly plenty more time.
No
It is a spectrum not a line plot
Yes
Squares come in different sizes and colors. There is a spectrum of squares, some very small and some very large, with all sorts of colors.
This does not mean circles are squares.
What about squares with rounded corners then? Some could be very sharp, and some could be extremely rounded. See where I’m going with this?
That’s missing the point of my metaphor.
We should start saying that neurodivergence is a high dimensional manifold.
The lines between OCD and ADHD and Autism and even like schizophrenia and generalized anxiety and depression are all kind of blurred and all related. Within each of those it’s still a multidimensional space.
Do you have train autism or obsession over morality autism or both?
Is being antisocial due to the autism or the anxiety?
Do you need to have things organized because of the autism or the OCD?
Do you have the I-can’t-sit-still ADHD or the I-can’t-get-myself-to-do-anything ADHD? (Or both)
Do you have difficulty regulating emotion due to ADHD, autism, or bipolar depression?
Do you feel no reward for achievement because you’re ADHD or depressed?
Do you have the “I only know I’m hungry when I start shaking” kind of neurodivergence or the “I just eat instinctively and compulsively” kind of neurodivergence? Why? ADHD? Anhedonia? Autism? Anxiety? Depression?
Point is that it’s very difficult to categorize neurodivergence. It’s a mess of symptoms that generally seem to correlate in certain groups but it’s not precise.
What’s more important (imo) is how it affects your life and you can deal with it. Have a shit ton of executive dysfunction (symptom of ADHD)? Stimulant medication might help, but depending on the way your brain works maybe Adderall works better than methylphenidate or maybe you’d be helped by an NRI or even an SSRI.
If you have to use a different medication, then are you really the same kind of neurodivergent as the other ADHD people? Probably not neurologically, but it doesn’t matter; you’ll still be able to find support and community from those other ADHD folk.
Do you have the “I only know I’m hungry when I start shaking” kind of neurodivergence or the “I just eat instinctively and compulsively” kind of neurodivergence? Why? ADHD? Anhedonia? Autism? Anxiety? Depression?
Funny you should mention this. I know Binge Eating Disorder is closely related to ADHD (and is also often treated with Vyvanse/Lisdexamfetamine). Im certain depression plays a part in all eating disorders/weight-related body dysmorphia.
Agreed. A lot of things, at its root, is dopamine seeking. Binge eating, gambling, drugs, high risk behavior, anything for a hit of dopamine. We’re finding that ADHD brains struggle with dopamine signaling, so it makes sense that you’re going to see more dopamine seeking behavior in that cohort.
The graph on https://stuffthatworks.health/ is the closest to what you describe
As I understand it, no. An autism diagnosis is only given if certain criteria are met.
Imagine a swimming pool. There are people swimming in the shallow water, there are people swimming in the medium depth water, and there are people swimming in the deep end of the pool. These can represent the 3 levels of intensity that autism diagnoses are broken down into. However, there are also people outside of the water sunbathing in the pool’s beach chairs. These can represent the allistic (non-autistic) individuals. They are still at the pool but they are not in the water at any depth.
(Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor)
Yes, i view it like a complex 4D vendiagram, some things connect, some things don’t, everyones human, everyones gotta deal with shit.
Looking at the answers that have been given I think the degree in which everyone is on the spectrum is, itself, a spectrum.
If everyone’s on the spectrum, then no one is on the spectrum.
In the sense that “on the spectrum” is often used to say that someone has autistic traits, yeah. But there would still be a spectrum and everyone would be on it, it would just reach from no autistic traits to maximum autism.
That one really makes no sense.
Everyone’s on a spectrum between perfect vision and blindness as well. What would it even mean to not be on a spectrum between perfect vision and blindness?
Same with autistic traits. Everyone’s on a spectrum between “no autistic traits” and “100% autistic traits”. Where would someone be who’s not on that spectrum?
