The Fallacy of Neurodiversity

A famous advertisement for a large technology company in Cupertino, California once said, "Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. ... The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently."  Such words work well to describe individuals who, despite being eccentric, introduce countless innovations into the world, be they in art, technology, science, or medicine.  It would be a blemish on the human condition to see such individuals ostracised, perhaps due to an ignorance of social mores or simple unwillingness to observe the pieties of daily life.

Karl Jung, the discoverer of analytic psychology, doubtless came into contact with such personalities in the course of his work; in fact, Jung was, in all probability, one of the chosen few himself.  Jung acquired fame for his characterisation of human personality; whereas in the infant days of psychology and psychiatry, a man with a somewhat reserved, introspective air might have been considered to suffer from a personality disorder, Jung's analytic psychology simply placed such an individual on a continuum of normal human personality types, labelling him an 'introvert'.

Other such valuable ideas have been propounded by people in a similar situation; a measure of this potential was later devised---it was termed, adequately enough, the intelligence quotient.  With the advent of the modern era, societies had been formed in which people exhibiting an intelligence quotient above average could socialise and innovate, even though the means to quantify intelligence was yet to be discovered. Yale's famed student society, the Skull and Bones, as well as the international order of the Freemasons, stemmed from this heritage; after the invention of psychometric tests, another such organisation, Mensa, was formed.

Such people, like humanity in general, exhibit areas in which their mind is well-conditioned, as well as areas in which assistance is needed.  One may be strongly-minded in, for instance, self-expression through the English language, and yet be out of their depth in basic algebra.  Fictional characters have been created in this mould as well: Sherlock, a 'consulting detective' and lead character of the BBC's eponymous crime drama, as well as Greg House, diagnostic physician and lead character of Fox's House, both exhibit this tendency.  For all his eccentricities and drug use, Greg House is a likable-enough man---he has his faults, but he is a realistic, normal human being.

Sadly, though, there are people, both real and fictional, who exhibit similar traits of high intelligence, but only in one, very particular, narrow area.  Most visbly, it is as if these people's understanding of basic social cues, such as irony, sarcasm, and humour, had evaporated; such individuals tend to live, or be represented as living, a highly regimented life based on one unvarying, dull routine.

The prototypical character, in my own mind, that exhibits this disorder is Sheldon Cooper from the American situation comedy, Big Bang Theory; even more obviously abnormal are Forrest Gump from Forrest Gump, and Raymond Babbitt from The Rain Man.  In real life, one person quite similar to these characters---most similar, actually, to Sheldon---is Temple Grandin, professor of animal science.  Babbitt's deficiencies are explained in the film as stemming from autism, a neurological disorder; Grandin is herself an autism sufferer.  For the rest of this post, I'll assume Forrest and Sheldon suffer from the same.

I always have thought that it must be a rocky road, raising children; when I see a mother pushing a pram down the street, or dealing with an overactive toddler, I think about offering her a handkerchief to wipe her forehead and a couple Nembutal.  I recoil in horror at the thought of investing one's lifetime---bleeding, sweating, crying---to build a better tomorrow, only to discover that the child is, for lack of a better term, cognitively defective and will be receiving colouring books for Christmas the rest of his life.

Now, the thought of the word 'eugenics' may be chilling, as it recalls the inhuman experiments performed on prisoners in Germany under Nazi rule; however, the true meaning of the term is innocuous.  Eugenics is, essentially, planning whether and when to have a family in light of socio-economic and genetic factors; it comes from the Greek for 'good birth'.

The theory of utilitarianism plays a large part in the exercise of eugenics.  Utilitarianism holds that, given a choice, one must always take the path corresponding to the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.  By carefully planning a family, one weighs the advantages and disadvantages of procreation.  With modern science have come genetic markers that aid in assessing the probability of certain diseases prior to taking the plunge, so to speak.

Unfortunately, no such screening test exists for autism.  In fact, it is generally assessed by a competent psychologist or psychiatrist in early childhood.  This leaves, in strict utilitarian philosophy, only one recourse: euthanasia.

In this day and age, however, the human life, however flawed it may be, is valued almost to the point of veneration.  Even people dying from terminal diseases often have no recourse but to take their exit from this world into their own hands.  'Pulling the plug' on an autistic child, therefore, is not a realistic possibility, although it would, in all likelihood, be of benefit to civilisation.

Assuming, however, that medical science progresses at the current rate, a scenario will inevitably arise in which autism and other such diseases can be combated.  One such possibility---presumably the more advanced of the two---is an actual cure or full management of autism.  By this, I mean that perhaps the condition can not be 'cured', but palliative treatment might progress to the point that the symptoms become a non-concern.

The second, more controversial, possibility would be the discovery of the genetic indicator for the disease, as well as a test for autism in the amniotic fluid; in this case, the foetus could be aborted before problems start for the family and other interested people.  This is controversial for good reason; abortion essentially amounts to murder of an unborn human.  In addition, abortion following amniocentesis may be denounced, even by pro-choice advocates, as 'playing God'.  These are certainly valid points, and must be well considered before such measures are taken, when and if amniocentesis for autism becomes available.

However, one objection, even to a cure or complete treatment for autism, is absolutely invalid: it goes by the name of 'neurodiversity'.  Neurodiversity is a view chiefly espoused by those suffering from autism, and autism advocates; the majority of autism sufferers do not identify with neurodiversity, but a significant proportion do.  Neurodiversity asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be recognized and respected as any other human variation; to put it more simply, the theory of neurodiversity amounts to the false view that autism is not a disease or disorder of any kind; therefore, the idea of a cure is moot.

Essentially, the fallacy of neurodiversity is an extension, albeit a pseudoscientific one, to Jung's axis of introversion/extroversion; neurodiversity adds another axis, that of autism/schizophrenia, to create a plane.  However, the fallacy here is that, while introverts and extroverts both benefit society (most leaders being extroverts, and most engineers and accountants being introverts), those suffering from autism and schizophrenia do not; quite the opposite.

Introverts display a number of personality traits: shyness, hesitance, a preference for solitude, and moderate difficulty in self-expression.  Artists, writers, musical composers, inventors,  sculptors, and engineers tend to display at least a slight degree of introversion.

Similarly, extraversion is also characterised by certain defining personality traits: enthusiasm, assertiveness, gregariousness, and comparative ease in self-expression.  The archetypal extravert can be found in politics, teaching, marketing, management, and brokering.

In autism, too, certain traits can be found: they are, in fact, the hallmarks of introversion, taken to an almost pathological degree.  Shyness in social situations is one of the hallmarks of an autism sufferer; so, too, is a preference for solitude.  It can be said, then, that autism is a disorder of introversion.  Similarly, higher-functioning autism sufferers may, or may not, have slightly elevated intelligence quotients.

Many autism sufferers also display obsessive-compulsive disorders; OCD sufferers display symptoms such as repeated hand-washing, arranging objects in stacks or lines, or closing and opening doors a specific number of times when entering a room.  Restricted behaviour is also apparent---a limitation in focus, interest, or activity, such as a preoccupation with a particular television show, game, or toy.  This, however, is also a feature of ordinary introversion.

Although sufferers of autism generally display these associated pathologies, these problems do not add up to autism.  What is truly pathological of autism---only autism---is repetition and consistency.  If the depictions of autism in the media are accurate---and I am quite confident of that---autism is characterised by particular repetitive movements of the body.  Most commonly depicted in the media, and also most commonly seen in real life, are movements such as rocking, hand-flapping, spinning, or vocal tics.

In addition, autistic people generally display a particular, pronounced resistance to change; this is echoed in their ritualistic behaviour, such as visiting the toilet, without exception, when visiting a new place, or arm-flapping when happy.

Self-injury, too, when combined with the above, is a diagnostic indication for autism; self-injurious actions in autism are generally repetitive, rather than the wrist-slitting associated with borderline personality disorder, and they include acts such as eye-poking, skin-picking, head-banging, and hand-biting.

Neurodiversity advocates point to the introversion and elevated intelligent quotients as some of the gifts of autism; however, these aren't autistic traits, but merely traits having an increased prevalence with this disorder.  In fact, the spark of neurodiversity was lit by an article in the New York Times, which stated in part: "Neurodiversity may be every bit as crucial for the human race as biodiversity is for life in general. Who can say what form of wiring will prove best at any given moment? Cybernetics and computer culture, for example, may favor a somewhat autistic cast of mind."

How can computer culture or cybernetics favour a rocking, hand-flapping, head-banging, neurologically challenged wreck of a human being?  So, to any parents of autistic children that somehow stumble onto this, I urge you, in the words of Nancy Reagan, to Just Say No to neurodiversity.