Autism do you believe "high-functioning" autism is real and can you grow out of it

Twostripe said:
Can you not delete the shit you write? I was making a whole ass detailed response and you cuck me like that
Click to expand...
I had to reformulate my sentence because I realized this was serious and my tone wasn't serious enough, but I do genuinely believe that "neurotypicalness" is a disease that has effected 99% of the human race and that "autistic" people are normal people or remnants from a previous human species, i.e Neanderthals. Personally I dislike "neurotypicals" because all they do is shout obnoxiously, bang every chick they see and hang around the worst people possible, they have no goals for life and for some reason they feel happy working a job and being a slave to some retail company.

Some are even completely happy with wasting years of their life in an educational institution being educated on random shit for a piece of paper that says that they can do it, even though most of the time they aren't interested and they're unlikely to get a job for what they studied in anyways. That is unless they have extremely good charisma which I'm sure most of them do, I suppose.
 
Soygoy said:
I had to reformulate my sentence because I realized this was serious and my tone wasn't serious enough, but I do genuinely believe that "neurotypicalness" is a disease that has effected 99% of the human race and that "autistic" people are normal people or remnants from a previous human species, i.e Neanderthals. Personally I dislike "neurotypicals" because all they do is shout obnoxiously, bang every chick they see and hang around the worst people possible, they have no goals for life and for some reason they feel happy working a job and being a slave to some retail company.

Some are even completely happy with wasting years of their life in an educational institution being educated on random shit for a piece of paper that says that they can do it, even though most of the time they aren't interested and they're unlikely to get a job for what they studied in anyways. That is unless they have extremely good charisma which I'm sure most of them do, I suppose.
Click to expand...
>Edited it again

Augh... My head hurts...
 
Aedra said:
Psychology isn't science to begin with so saying autism is or isn't real doesn't require scientific proof.
Click to expand...
How is psychology not science though?
 
Aedra said:
Psychology isn't science to begin with so saying autism is or isn't real doesn't require scientific proof.
Click to expand...
Psychology is the study of the mind like how geology is the study of minerals and biology is the study of life. How is it not a science?
 
Steve said:
Psychology is the study of the mind like how geology is the study of minerals and biology is the study of life. How is it not a science?
Click to expand...
Saying that autism isn't real and that psychology isn't a science is like saying that Schizophrenia isn't real or any other mental or psychological condition, I suppose.
 
Aedra said:
View attachment 48247
It's not science, it's just superstition pretending to be science. I'd define it more as a tool of social control. Since you can change public opinion on a topic based on what the "science" says. A major reason for homosexuality becoming so accepted in the west was due to psychology saying it's actually normal and good. The stupid masses will accept whatever the "experts" say after all.
Click to expand...
Your reasoning is ignorant and opinionated, whereas psychology is tested and symptoms of people persist over a large group of people. The reason why autism, schizophrenia, etc exists is because it's symptoms are noticeable amongst a large range of people. Albeit, there are some flaws, for example, it is a "spectrum" and symptoms vary in severity, but ultimately these conditions exist because they have been studied and agreed upon by the general consensus. You, a singular person, is calling it all fake with no facts or logic behind your arguments, calling it superstition.

If you care about science, I would implore you to do your own research and confirm the lack of existence of autism and other psychological studies. If there is a way to prove that autism is fake, then I would like to know about it, acknowledge it, criticize it and explore it and engage further into the discussion about whether psychology is or isn't real, via real science.
 
Aedra said:
View attachment 48247
It's not science, it's just superstition pretending to be science. I'd define it more as a tool of social control. Since you can change public opinion on a topic based on what the "science" says. A major reason for homosexuality becoming so accepted in the west was due to psychology saying it's actually normal and good. The stupid masses will accept whatever the "experts" say after all.
Click to expand...
Interesting case but that is just looking at Psych as how it is used by corrupt leaders, you wouldn't say medicine isn't a science but we all know how the world gov's used it to control the people of the world during 2020 and the Chinese flu hit the world so really every science is prone to corruption by groups who want to influence the general public. I did not study psych myself (engineering major after all) but acting like its not a science at all is obtuse because looking at something that is just superstition like astral signs or horoscope it looks significantly stronger, the field has taught us a lot about the human psyche that was previous unthought of like Freud's theory of the Unconscious Mind (look into this it is big) or the Behaviorism school of thought. Both of these massive ideas were things that we had inklings of thought about but some really bright Psychologists looked into them deeper and taught all of us more about the human mind, which allows doctors and individuals to better examine someone's thoughts by their actions. I will admit that Psychologists are often corrupted like doctors are (the ones who propose ideas the gov doesn't like don't get grants or funding) but writing off the whole field is too far.
 
Aedra said:
The behaviors associated with mental disorders do exist. But how we see those behaviors changes depending on culture. If I sent you back to 500 years ago, someone might describe such behaviors as the work of satan, or perhaps even the opposite. It was expected among medieval people that saintly people would usually appear foolish. The point is, what exactly gives you the right to claim that psychology is the only way to see the human mind? What proof do you have that all the others like various religious explanations are wrong and you are right? I'd have less of an issue with this if you didn't start with the assumption of being objectively correct in your view.
Click to expand...
Religion and astrology has no place in the conversation as to whether or not Psychology is real, you cannot say that the supposed word of god declares that it is false. Religion is subjective and what people believe differs from person to person, which makes it somewhat unreliable for determining things if someone believes that their god is real because their god said so compared to the other guy who believes his god is real because his god said so.

Aedra said:
But how we see those behaviors changes depending on culture. If I sent you back to 500 years ago, someone might describe such behaviors as the work of satan, or perhaps even the opposite. It was expected among medieval people that saintly people would usually appear foolish.
Click to expand...
Medieval times also has no place in this conversation. You're bringing up a lot of unrelated topics, albeit, psychology and science has always been an always evolving field and back then, leaders were corrupt and used their influence to control what people believed. They did not believe that how people acted was satanic because the bible said so, but because their church told them so.

Aedra said:
The point is, what exactly gives you the right to claim that psychology is the only way to see the human mind? What proof do you have that all the others like various religious explanations are wrong and you are right? I'd have less of an issue with this if you didn't start with the assumption of being objectively correct in your view.
Click to expand...
Religion and science are to be discussed separately. Science has a lot of proof, studying, testing, whereas religion is solely based off of faith. I would like to ask of you if this means that if you believe things in a purely religious perspective that you believe people with autism are the work of satan or something like that?
 
Soygoy said:
Religion is subjective
Click to expand...
No, in any rational sect of Christianity the priest/pastor would agree on 98% of things, and every other religion is false so its pretty objective really
Soygoy said:
erligion is solely based off of faith. I would like to ask of you if this means that if you believe things in a purely religious perspective that you believe people with autism are the work of satan or something like that?
Click to expand...
Religion isn't solely based off faith, there is a LOT of archaeological and witness-based evidence towards stuff that happened in the Bible, if it was soley based off faith that would kinda play God as a fool.
 
Soygoy said:
Religion and astrology has no place in the conversation as to whether or not Psychology is real, you cannot say that the supposed word of god declares that it is false. Religion is subjective and what people believe differs from person to person, which makes it somewhat unreliable for determining things if someone believes that their god is real because their god said so compared to the other guy who believes his god is real because his god said so.


Medieval times also has no place in this conversation. You're bringing up a lot of unrelated topics, albeit, psychology and science has always been an always evolving field and back then, leaders were corrupt and used their influence to control what people believed. They did not believe that how people acted was satanic because the bible said so, but because their church told them so.


Religion and science are to be discussed separately. Science has a lot of proof, studying, testing, whereas religion is solely based off of faith. I would like to ask of you if this means that if you believe things in a purely religious perspective that you believe people with autism are the work of satan or something like that?
Click to expand...
A lot of scientific things are true because they can be tested, experiments can be done by anyone. They're not true because people said so, they're true because you can validate them by yourself. If you really disbelieve that autism is real, you can perform your own testing and experiments. Psychology is the study of the human mind and the behaviours of humans as animals, it's absolutely real and that's why there have been so many studies on how we behave and how we act and what causes that to happen.
Steve said:
No, in any rational sect of Christianity the priest/pastor would agree on 98% of things, and every other religion is false so its pretty objective really

Religion isn't solely based off faith, there is a LOT of archaeological and witness-based evidence towards stuff that happened in the Bible, if it was soley based off faith that would kinda play God as a fool.
Click to expand...
So then, Christianity or Islam. Which one is correct?
Aedra said:
It feels like I'm posting on reddit and not the shlog sometimes.
Click to expand...
I'm not religious, I apologize.
 
Soygoy said:
So then, Christianity or Islam. Which one is correct?
Click to expand...
????? Christianity of course, did I mention Islam? The religion of Islam is literally built on a trust me bro and bends to whatever Muhammed wanted at the time.
 
Steve said:
????? Christianity of course, did I mention Islam? The religion of Islam is literally built on a trust me bro and bends to whatever Muhammed wanted at the time.
Click to expand...
The same applies to Christianity which is what makes Religion subjective. To claim that what you believe is true while what everyone else believes is false purely because of what your bible says and not based off of any level of testing, i.e attempting to prove the existence of god through experiments, is kind of a fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NiggerRigger
High IQ Sentient BBC Down's Syndrome
Replies
5
Views
262
Jimb0
Jimb0
Back
Top