Originally Posted by
Loki
Sometimes I feel like people are saying ILI=autisitc.
Autism, I believe, involves impairments in social interaction, communication, a lot of repetitive, ritualistic behavior patterns, as well as difficulties maintaining a person's self-care. These impairments and difficulties go beyond the range of "normal." This is why autism is often referred to as a "disorder."
I don't think it's really a good idea to define a socionics type by a disorder, or heavily correlate this. It's like saying ILEs and IEEs all have ADD.
Yes, maybe a greater percentage of ILIs are autistic than other types (I don't know). Or maybe ILIs can sometimes "appear" autistic.
But I think a child that displays a lot of autistic traits is more likely to actually be autistic than ILI. Unless of course all autistics happen to be ILIs.
My point is I think there's an over-association of autism with socionics type here. In my mind any statement or implication of "I'm autistic, so I'm probably an ILI or LII," or "my ILI-ness is apparent in my autistic behaviors," or "you're just not autistic enough to be an ILI," etc. are borderline ridiculous. I'm not saying anyone's actually saying this, but sometimes there seems to be a little too much emphasis on the ILI-autism connection.
Though, admittedly, the Wikisocion ILI description does rather sound like that of a mildly autistic person. So I can see why it's easy to make the correlation.
, and most autists are ILI or LSI, although there may be cases of ILE or LSE.
Reply With Quote