The Flip Side
Every time I look at the list of criteria for Asperger syndrome in DSM 4; I want to create an alternate list entitled:
Diagnostic criteria for “Normal Humans”
And cite examples such as:
A. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
- gluing themselves to a T.V. each weekend to scream at groups of individuals alternately:
- running around after a misshapen ball, wearing armor under their clothing,
- running around in shorts playing keep-away with a round ball,
- running around on ice skates slapping a frozen cookie with sticks.
- sitting on stools with their backs to the room imbibing the waste material from the fermentation of microscopic fungus as a result of consuming barley and/or other grains,
- freezing like a “Deer in the Headlights” when they realize you have Aspergers.
But that would be childish, so I’ll move on to a comparison of something more useful.
The flip-side of the frequently encountered paradigm of:
Individuals with Asperger syndrome frequently have significant difficulty understanding and utilizing non-literal language.
Which causes me to wonder if the following is true:
Individuals without Asperger syndrome frequently have significant difficulty understanding and utilizing literal language.
In my essay on Mechanism I pointed out that without the automagic ability to call upon the information stored in the lower brain; I as an Aspie often have to translate the non-literal manually.
However, once I do this I have a deeper, wider, broader understanding of the sarcasm, idioms, cliches, and metaphors.
The humor, irony, jokes, and teasing once deciphered and understood, are understood in both the non-literal and literal sense.
And I can now backward engineer the non-literal to its original source, hence the initial meaning of the expression, and evolution to the present meaning.
Exposing another category for:
Diagnostic criteria for “Normal Humans”
B. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in the ability to differentiate, based on the actual literal words in sarcasm, idioms, cliches, and metaphors, to:
- Find the essence of the expression vs. the implied or normalized use,
- Track the sound of the words, their individual meanings to determine:
- The true meaning,
- Semantical and syntactical fit in the expression,
- The origin of the expression.
When I hear: “Rule of Thumb” I wonder, where it came from. Only to discover seriously ominous origins.
I understand the underlying meaning, the proverbial meaning—I just choose not to use it.
It’s inappropriate in my repertory.
I know the deeper meaning. Normal people know only the surface meaning, and continue to use it.
Another one is:
“You have to break some eggs, to make an omelette.”
Nope, won’t use it.
My favorite display of this “…impairment in the ability to differentiate…” in the normal diagnostic criteria is when an attempt is made to recreate the expression, based on only the surface knowledge of having heard it.
Resulting in expressions such as:
- Tow the line.
- Hone in on the target.
- For all intensive purposes.
- Mute point.
- Beck and call.
And, an even better assault on the King’s, best demonstrated in a scene in The Boondock Saints where the more complicated metaphor is parodied:
- People in glass houses sink ships
- A penny saved is worth two in the bush
- Don’t cross the road if you can’t get out of the kitchen
And, believe me; watch the news, you’ll catch at least one of these a day.
It reminds me of anther expression: “When God closes a door; He opens a window.”
I believe knowing as much as possible about words, their meanings, and implications is important.
Written June 22 2026