Kind of.
If there is a point on the spectrum that’s “minimal to no autistic indicators”, then everyone is included.
I think there are a lot of undiagnosed people who are “normal enough to pass” (forgive the term, but it describes the mentality that lets people slip through the cracks) myself possibly being one of them. I think it’s likely that everybody’s a little autistic, but not LITERALLY EVERYONE.
threeonefour@piefed.ca 1 month ago
No. Blindness is also a spectrum but not everyone is blind. There is a range of normal vision and someone is only blind if they fall outside of that range. However, two people who are deemed blind can have varying degrees of blindness and need varying degrees of assistance.
__siru__@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Although it would probably be fitting to describe it as a subset. If you look at vision, then it is a spectrum that includes everyone. Even blind people. If you are looking at blindness, then it is a subset of the vision spectrum that only includes people that meet certain other criteria, i.e. below a certain threshhold of vision. Same for autism disorder. Every human is on a mentalifty spectrum, and autism is a subset of that.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 month ago
This is how I understood the question, too.
irelephant@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s a great comparison.
oxomoxo@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This is a pretty decent comparison. Not everyone can have ASD because then it can’t be classified as a disorder. There is a threshold for being diagnosed just as with vision impairment. Those who are diagnosed are on a spectrum from least debilitating to most.
9point6@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Surely vision is a spectrum with everyone on it.
One end “better than 20-20” on the other “only darkness”
Valmond@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Vision yes, blindness no.
Drewmeister@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So would it be accurate to say that autism is on a spectrum that also includes non-autistic people? There is a range on the spectrum that includes all autistic people?