The grandma story reminds me of David Walliams stories of kids and their grandmas - Gangsta Granny comes to mine with her 'squeaky bottom'. I am definitely someone who is annoyed by other people's noisy eating. In this scene Alex is reminding me of an autistic kid but I must remind myself, one autistic trait does not an autistic diagnosis make.
I had replied to your note but not here. And after a bit more time I’m seeing an interesting parallel between your point that “one autistic trait does not an autistic diagnosis make” and a broader line through the book making a similar statement about schizophrenia or related conditions. If those conditions are spectrums, then everyone inevitably falls somewhere.
I hear you, though I don’t think I would agree with this idea that these conditions, including autism, are spectrums upon which everyone falls - unless you’re including falling OUTSIDE the spectrum entirely. Everyone on the autistic spectrum HAS the diagnosis. Everyone outside of it doesn’t have the diagnosis, THOUGH may have some of the traits. [Caps for emphasis and clarity, not shouty].
[Don't worry, I totally understood your caps. I wish we could use italics in these comments!]
Absolutely, sorry that wasn't clear, I was extending the spectrum to include literally everyone, going all the way to 0. The whole self-diagnosis boom happening now is the result of people noticing traits or behaviors that share qualities with those under the umbrella of one diagnosis or another despite not having "earned" the diagnosis itself. The easy example is people saying they're OCD when really they're just fastidious. There is a line between fastidious and OCD, but that line isn't a clean slice, it's a gradient.
What I mean in relation to the book's broader statement is that my exclusion of labels is not only true to my own experience, which didn't get labeled or categorized, but I also hope it makes the experience more accessible—the difference between "reading about a person with paranoid schizophrenia" and "reading about the feeling of being watched."
This reminds me of a beta reader with Tourette's who told me people without our particular psychological experiences wouldn't understand the intrusive thoughts aspect of the book, when from what readers tell me, that's actually the part that resonates the most.
The grandma story reminds me of David Walliams stories of kids and their grandmas - Gangsta Granny comes to mine with her 'squeaky bottom'. I am definitely someone who is annoyed by other people's noisy eating. In this scene Alex is reminding me of an autistic kid but I must remind myself, one autistic trait does not an autistic diagnosis make.
I had replied to your note but not here. And after a bit more time I’m seeing an interesting parallel between your point that “one autistic trait does not an autistic diagnosis make” and a broader line through the book making a similar statement about schizophrenia or related conditions. If those conditions are spectrums, then everyone inevitably falls somewhere.
I hear you, though I don’t think I would agree with this idea that these conditions, including autism, are spectrums upon which everyone falls - unless you’re including falling OUTSIDE the spectrum entirely. Everyone on the autistic spectrum HAS the diagnosis. Everyone outside of it doesn’t have the diagnosis, THOUGH may have some of the traits. [Caps for emphasis and clarity, not shouty].
[Don't worry, I totally understood your caps. I wish we could use italics in these comments!]
Absolutely, sorry that wasn't clear, I was extending the spectrum to include literally everyone, going all the way to 0. The whole self-diagnosis boom happening now is the result of people noticing traits or behaviors that share qualities with those under the umbrella of one diagnosis or another despite not having "earned" the diagnosis itself. The easy example is people saying they're OCD when really they're just fastidious. There is a line between fastidious and OCD, but that line isn't a clean slice, it's a gradient.
What I mean in relation to the book's broader statement is that my exclusion of labels is not only true to my own experience, which didn't get labeled or categorized, but I also hope it makes the experience more accessible—the difference between "reading about a person with paranoid schizophrenia" and "reading about the feeling of being watched."
This reminds me of a beta reader with Tourette's who told me people without our particular psychological experiences wouldn't understand the intrusive thoughts aspect of the book, when from what readers tell me, that's actually the part that resonates the most.