One type does NOT ‘fit all’...

When was that written? Has the consensus viewpoint changed since then? This definition does not fit the data! We are thus “inconvenient data”, and a lot would be simpler/easier if we did not exist.

Or, just maybe, a lot would be simpler/easier if a bunch of accommodations were made for us: “universal social design” (based on the notion of “universal design”) as I suggested in earlier courses I took at UNCA.

I wonder if they are also assuming universal “wetware”. Physiological differences in the autistic brain have already been established, and investigation proceeds. The only kind of “universality” I can find peace with is a higher-order construct under which “normal” or “typical” or [some other presumption] are possibilities, as are nonstandard configurations/functionality. So the question becomes, “At what level does the author’s statement apply?”

Last revised: June 23, 2007
(c)2007 Dave Spicer
(back to project main page)