That is perhaps better answered by someone who actually has autism, but I would be highly surprised if “neurotypical” were not excessively narrow.
I suppose the sentence could be rewritten as “other cognitive abilities notwithstanding” or something to that effect, but that would hardly make the sentence read better. Given that the sentence is descriptive, not normative (I’ve never actually participated in any discussion of the issue prior to this one—I’m trying to narrow the inferential distance between the two camps in this debate), I don’t see why it would be taken as disrespectful.
Probably it would be better asked by someone who has autism, too—I might well be barking up the wrong argument tree.
On the other issue… I’m confused now. I’m not sure if this is a case of the connotation overwhelming the denotation, or what, but I initially took “correcting the lack of ability to communicate, irrespective of other cognitive function” to mean something like “installing an ability to communicate, no matter what that would do to other cognitive function”. I still don’t see what else it could mean, but your confusion as to why that would be taken as disrespectful seems to indicate there is something...?
No, I had something totally different in mind -- that enhancing the ability to communicate would be a good thing regardless of how strong the treated individual’s other cognitive abilities might be. I was not suggesting that there should or must be any effect at all on those other abilities.
Ah, ok. I guess what caused the confusion is my expectation that the “other cognitive abilities” are bound up with the inability to communicate in a rather more Gordian fashion than is implied by this idea. But I’m far from certain, of course, and your point seems plausible regardless.
That is perhaps better answered by someone who actually has autism, but I would be highly surprised if “neurotypical” were not excessively narrow.
I suppose the sentence could be rewritten as “other cognitive abilities notwithstanding” or something to that effect, but that would hardly make the sentence read better. Given that the sentence is descriptive, not normative (I’ve never actually participated in any discussion of the issue prior to this one—I’m trying to narrow the inferential distance between the two camps in this debate), I don’t see why it would be taken as disrespectful.
Probably it would be better asked by someone who has autism, too—I might well be barking up the wrong argument tree.
On the other issue… I’m confused now. I’m not sure if this is a case of the connotation overwhelming the denotation, or what, but I initially took “correcting the lack of ability to communicate, irrespective of other cognitive function” to mean something like “installing an ability to communicate, no matter what that would do to other cognitive function”. I still don’t see what else it could mean, but your confusion as to why that would be taken as disrespectful seems to indicate there is something...?
No, I had something totally different in mind -- that enhancing the ability to communicate would be a good thing regardless of how strong the treated individual’s other cognitive abilities might be. I was not suggesting that there should or must be any effect at all on those other abilities.
Ah, ok. I guess what caused the confusion is my expectation that the “other cognitive abilities” are bound up with the inability to communicate in a rather more Gordian fashion than is implied by this idea. But I’m far from certain, of course, and your point seems plausible regardless.