mopodile wrote:It's interesting reading this thread about imagination. My son, age 6, and Aspergers has a very vivid imagination as do I (i hover somewhere on periphery of AS) yet it has always confused me the way that many diagnostic criteria seems to assume that nobody on spectrum has imagination which is clearly just not true. I guess there may be some differences in the qualities of autistic imagination and neurotypical imagination, but has this been articulated anywhere?
Also it is interesting to read different people's experiences with being lost in their imaginations/dreams as i wonder if it relates to a strange experience i have had. Hard to describe and you may think i am mad. A few years ago, after i had been working too hard for too many weeks on the computer (i am a graphic designer) i turned off my computer and started having strange 'fits' in which i would have these images in my head and then i would try and look at them and work out what they were and where they came from and then i would feel this flash of intense nausea and then the image would disappear. I put this down to stress of overworking but i have had this happen from time to time since then and what i think was happening is that i would have a flash of a memory of a dream i have had in the past (thats what it seemed like) but when I looked into my mind at the image of this dream, it suddenly became very real and too detailed to be a dream, so it felt like i was suddenly living in my dream and this feeling of being popped into a different world would bring up this nausea. I have wondered if a possible reason is that some people have unusually vivid encoding of their dreams, a bit like some of you are describing.
Does this make any kind of sense to anyone? I had not related it before to autism related issues until quite recently.
Hippocampus wrote:I've always had a very intense imagination. When I was a child, I spent most of my time day dreaming and ignoring reality. As a result, my parents, teachers, and pediatrician thought I was autistic or had some kind of neurological abnormality. They gave me an EEG, which turned out to be normal. The autism diagnosis didn't quite fit because of my language skills, so I was diagnosed with ADD-PI and punished for using my imagination too much.
Years later, when I learned about ASD, I thought I couldn't be diagnosed because of my imagination. Everything I read said that people on the spectrum lack imagination. Then I learned otherwise, so I went ahead and got diagnosed.
Hippocampus wrote:Years later, when I learned about ASD, I thought I couldn't be diagnosed because of my imagination. Everything I read said that people on the spectrum lack imagination. Then I learned otherwise, so I went ahead and got diagnosed.
teejay wrote:*Imagination is a trait that only Homo Sapiens has, it is doubtful that previous species of Homo had it.
anhaga wrote:Actually, the idea that it's just "social imagination" that's being talked about is just one of those awful professional backtracks that I wish people would quit making.
It did originally mean that we could not imagine anything beyond what was literally in front of us, in any way. That we just did not have that capacity. We were described in that fashion very frequently. For instance, the whole fuss about imaginative play was a big part of why we were said to have no imagination (when really a lot of us do have imaginative play and show it differently than usual), not just social imagination but any imagination.
Then later when it became really obvious (...again...) that some of us had great imaginations, then to excuse that word, people started saying "Oh, it just means social imagination."
Nope, sorry, wrong, it doesn't, that's just a backtrack for a really bad concept in the autism world.
Same with "lacking empathy". They really meant it at one point, then when that became obviously wrong, they started claiming that it meant some really specialized definition of empathy.
A lot of things work that way, and I can't stand perpetuating the idea that they just mean some really specialized definition of a term, when that's really just a way of covering for a word used in a really sloppy, inaccurate way to begin with. It's just a way for the "experts" to claim they're not wrong.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest