Playacting and Identity

I recently had a little discussion on autismvox.com, when Kristina Chew phrased a thought question. I'm answering it, somewhat tangentially, here.

It's as follows, "Just a thought experiment: What if things got to the point where people tried to “pass” as autistic…". Of course, for me, the first thing I had to think of was, well, what would "trying to "pass" as autistic" would entail, and to whom.

First, since people would probably try to pass as "autistic", it could really be radically different depending on what their information source. If it was for popularity or for representation/mockery (in other words, a low value on realism), there are a few considerations that come into play. It would be amusing and an exercise in acting skill to play "autistic" in the classical sense, because of all of the little details. You could easily do play that role (except, I think, to those who are sensitive to pitch) to the untrained eye, though you would still fall for the trained eye, who would catch the normalcies and stereotyped aspects.

But what if you had to be really serious about this? Say you needed the supports that autism can get you for one reason or another. Let's say you're aiming for Asperger's, for now (not that I'd normally use that in that sense, but it frames it quickly). How would one go about that?

And here it gets interesting.

You'd be able to cut out some of the smaller details (saying that you'd learned not to do this or that, which all are legitimate statements), and go for some of the grosser categories. A lot of different behaviors can be rationalized by an autistic person, and with good reason; autistics aren't fundamentally boxed individuals, and depending on what emphasis was placed where they can learn to do/not learn to do certain things. Even the trained eye would have a tougher time with this kind of representation at first.

The hardest part to get down right, though, would to pass off as representing a totally different thought process, which would only play in a long-term picture. I'd suspect that associational thoughts, some of the more specific personal focuses, and stimuli reactions would be hard to categorically and repeatedly play out, because you'd have no starting point.

I'm taking a look at this from reverse perspective, because some of these things have come up in learning certain social circumstances. Learning the assumptions of human thought was tough (what do people assume? What do they not assume?), and even then I only have a shaky grip on some of it. And stimuli reactions have taken a lot of observation and notation, as to what bothers people, what they notice, what they don't (this is not even as simple as it sounds. I mean, certain things change depending on things such moods, and selective perspective depends on the person's mindset and circumstances).

Now, if you weren't looking for this, you could miss this regardless, but it'd catch me if this wasn't somewhat present. There are some tendencies that I would almost certainly find in someone who was autistics are verbal/writing, and I'd notice if they weren't there over a period of time. But it's not an easy call.

But to pull off such a stunt, you really have to be exhaustive. You'd have to separate media representation from personal representation, and then you'd have to figure out where things were different and similar, and in what ways. And they're pretty subtle differences in representation in certain ways. And, worst of all, a lot of it is linked to past circumstances pretty heavily (personal projects? strong associations (with both associated to and from with each one)), so you'd have to put a lot of thought into that.

Let's say, at least, that you'd have a much easier time playing out a different gender orientation, even with the most high-functioning autistic individuals.

I mean, if you were to replace me and try to be me (we'll assume you look the same for one reason or another, for sanity's sake), you'd have to know an extreme amount about me. And people would notice. I mean, my brother not only knows my favorite number (22), but the rationale behind my favorite number (there are two twos in 22, and when two is my favorite so-called base number this is ideal in a number of ways). You'd have to get all of these details straight, and it'd be incredible. And these kind of details just aren't missed in a fair representation, and if someone was paying attention you'd have to get these details all straight.

Harder part is then getting all of these details then to come up at the right time, and you'd have to know what assumptions did I learn and what ones do I tend to miss, and then apply the right assumptions at the right time, and play the correct misunderstanding.

So would it be possible for, say, certain kinds of accommodations or benefits? Not impossible to an untrained eye. But you'd have to be careful, and you'd have to be pretty exhaustive to do it right. If you were trying to do it with, say, a family, this becomes exponentially harder.

Now, the question might have arisen. "Now what does this have to identity?" Simply enough, I'm arguing by implication that there are aspects to the autistic mindset and qualities which are subtle and much more elusive, having to deal with internal elements, than external elements that are easy to replicate. Autism isn't really about specific behaviors as much as it is about the specific underlying mindset and tendencies of thought and, to a differing degree, character that unifies everyone with the different skill sets. The identity, thus, becomes a little more complex as it deals with many of these factors that normally would come from circumstance in a whole deal of new ways.

Mind you, I've pretty much had to do just this to present anywhere near normal. But that's not quite fair, as I have the biggest case study (almost all others), and I have been able to observe certain things and make inferences to that effect in language, and you wouldn't have that benefit. I used to do that a lot more, but I've really stopped paying as much attention. I mean, my sanity comes first, clearly.

It might be a fun exercise, though. I'll personally send you a gold trophy and aspirin if you can do it for a week convincingly, at least as compensation for the headache.