I'm Just Me--Unique and Wonderful Me

A little update on what's been going on with me: 1. I still haven't found a job; 2. I missed my opportunity to get the classes I needed to get into the Rad Tech program at Mesa College; 3. I'm scheduled to take the PTCE on September 25th. Instead of studying for the PTCE, I've been reading a book that has had my head spinning, my heart pounding, and my blood boiling. It is about IQ tests: how they came about, why they came about, and what they historically have been used for. As I currently understand it, I have no IQ. No one has an IQ. IQ is a failed construct that should have been discarded along with the categories of feeblemindedness that it once engendered: idiocy, imbecility and moronism. Now my thinking has taken a new turn. What if Hans Asperger's ideas concerning autism are as flawed as are Francis Galton's concerning intelligence? If that is so, then I am not autistic, and neither is anyone else. What has been called "autism" is merely an arbitrarily selected portion of a universe of human diversity. Galton and his many philosophical descendents are essentially eugenicists. They believe that some human attributes are "better" than are others. For example, it is better to be white than black; it is better to be tall than short; it is better to speak English than to speak some other language. People who know how to live in a wealthy enclave of an anglophone country are apt to be judged more intelligent than are those who grew up in a poor, agrarian, non-English-speaking backwater. Even though Asperger never wrote that poor children were more likely to be diagnosed autistic than were wealthy ones, the same psychologists who applied Alfred Binet's and David Wechsler's ideas--without their reservations--have served to identify, and to describe, those on the so-called Autism Spectrum in this country. Since our penchant has been to identify and weed out undesirables, and since our ethnocentric perspective has tended to identify as undesirable those who least resemble us, it stands to reason that those attributes least contributing to a mainstream identity are most apt to be labeled "disorders". It is undeniable that my natural bent is toward big-picture thinking and excelling in tasks of a technically- rather than a socially-demanding nature. Does that mean that I am “autistic”? Not necessarily. The lines are drawn somewhat arbitrarily between alleged “disorders”. What can be said with relative certainty is that each person is unique and so comprises a unique set of attributes. Some of those attributes will prove advantageous in adapting to certain environments (be they social or physical) and some won’t. The fact that certain of my attributes make social adaptation difficult as opposed to easier does not mean that I am “sick” or “malformed”. It simply means that I am presented with certain challenges in life that certain other people aren’t. Chances are that they are presented with certain life challenges that I am not. God has promised that we will never be “tempted” beyond what we can endure: “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV) He has not, however, promised that we will not be challenged by circumstances beyond what we can bear. That is simply a part of life.