Why Aspergers isn't even a disorder

Post Reply New Topic

Well the Asperger's diagnosis, if I'm not mistaken, excludes verbal communicative problems. So while verbal problems may be key issues for other autistics, it's apparently not a factor in Asperger's.

In addition to the other criteria that need to be present for an Asperger's diagnosis, none of those things are, in and of themselves, in anyway debilitating, unless there's something I'm missing. It really is only the social aspect that creates the disability.

Again, I could be wrong and I'm here for answers. But as far as I can tell, the social thing is the only disabling part of the diagnosis.

I am definitely impaired. While I have social impairments, I find that other impairments can be more of a problem, and even make the social stuff exceptionally difficult. Sensory overload doesn't really make it any easier to talk to people.

I find being autistic to cause impairments in my life. Some of them are even distressing. Others are primarily distressing because of other people. Even others I really don't understand yet, although I've been trying to.

Asperger's syndrome and PDD-NOS will no longer be a given diagnosis in 2013, they will both be considered High Functioning Autism.

Last edited by Washi on 19 Jun 2012, 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, this seems to validate what I've been saying. All of those seem to be social impairments.

"Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities" (under II) don't really seem like they'd be disabling in and of themselves. And II-B, "apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals" sounds more like classic OCD. Unless performing these routines or rituals directly impairs an individual's ability to function, or the rituals are unwanted but must be performed, I don't see them as any sort of disability in their own right.

So, the disability part of Asperger's would seem to be the social disconnect with neurotypicals, nothing else.

But there apparently was a need for such distinction in the first place, if I'm not mistaken. Regardless of how the "officials" wish to classify things, the concept of Asperger's must be real, and it must have some distinction from HFA for all of these people to suspect that they have Asperger's.

When I said verbal communication problems, I meant for autistic people in general - and I wouldn't say those other things are not in any way debilitating, especially sensory issues, with which many people with Asperger's, at least in the years I've been reading this forum, seem to have many difficulties.

The main difference, if I am not mistaken, is that with the DSM V, they're lumping people with AS and PDD-NOS into the same group as people with other forms of Autism, so that they can also get help.

But will they treat Asperger's and PDD-NOS as subsets of High Functioning Autism, in the sense that a newly-diagnosed HFA can learn more about the specifics of their form of HFA based upon the older literature under Asperger's, PDD-NOS, or whatever else?

It may also exclude a lot of people. If the officials say, "you only have the social problems that come from neurological difference, but don't seem to have any other Autistic traits, therefore, denied!"

Not everyone with AS has little interest in socialising, my son works incredibly hard every single day in what seems to be an uphill battle, to make and keep friends. I see how confused, stressful and anxious it makes him and I know that this aspect is a disability. Yes, he has amazing abilities but humans are pack animals by nature and having friends should be a natural right, not a privilege.

Fascinating thread. Going back to the earlier point...

Not my opinion.

The main symptoms may be (for some Aspies) just perceived as a disability only because of disconnect from NTs, but the underlying cause of AS (which nobody really knows for sure) might be from a bio/neurlogical/genetic or toxic defect, or combination of those. We may never know for sure.

For example, if you imagine a highly toxic pill that could be given to an NT person, the pill has a destructive (and the keyword here is *destructive*) impact on the neuro/biology of the body and then cause symptons of AS which lead to a later diagnosis of AS: You could argue that that person is just "different" and only through comparison of other people (NTs) could that person be described as having a disability. But the symptoms are a result of a physical/neurological/biological defect.

Although, who knows the real cause? Maybe AS is really just part of neurodiversity ; but most believe it's a result of some neuro/biological damage or faulty genes, or combination of both.

A *faulty* something is not a good thing. Hence my preference to regard AS as a disability, and my despise of those who try to claim AS is a good thing.

The need was probably that people didn't want to be called autistic.
I've never differentiated between the two.

This is sort of what I was getting at. The root of Asperger's is this social disconnect. Some people with Asperger's may have some other problems, but this is the one common element. To say there's more to it then that sort of disregards Aspies who might not have additional issues.

And I don't believe anything else of the criteria list is debilitating. So there doesn't seem to be much evidence to say it's more than the social thing. The social thing is what makes an aspie and aspie.

That's cool, but the other fellow with HFA, under its current definition, said there were some differences. And I'd have no objection to the idea that Asperger's is a form of autism, as it is. I was talking about differences in the forms of autism, or the way they manifest.

Edit: Fixed quoting mistake.

Last edited by again_with_this on 19 Jun 2012, 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

It does not exclude verbal communication problems. I was diagnosed with AS and I just started this thread not too long ago:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt201490.html

What AS is supposed to exclude is a delay in developing speech. There are many verbal communication issues that go well beyond whether you spoke on time or late.



You are missing a lot, I think. Being wrong is okay, I think a lot of us get here without knowing much at all. But when people are explaining how these problems go beyond the social thing, telling them they're wrong sort of suggests you might not understand the points people are making.



Interests can be quite debilitating, especially if it's just about the only thing you can focus on or talk about. It can certainly spill over into social stuff, but it's not strictly social stuff.

A fixation on routines can be extremely debilitating and it doesn't have to be a social impairment at all. I've had disruptions in my routines make it nearly impossible for me to perform certain tasks that did not actually cause me direct social difficulties, but did cause me other difficulties (such as eating regularly).

Further, ASDs tend to occur with things like impaired adaptive and self-help skills. Although AS is technically supposed to exclude those, a lot of people diagnosed with AS actually have those difficulties. Again, these can have social repercussions (and often do) but also extend beyond social repercussions.

And then of course there's sensory overload, meltdown, and shutdown. I often have shutdowns during which I cannot move or speak or understand what might be going on around me. This means that for up to several hours, I am unable to do anything. This is often caused by sensory and/or emotional overload - loud noises, bright lights, lots of shapes and images (like on a TV screen), strong smells (and what smells strong to me might not be the same to others). Really loud noises effectively shut off my brain and I have to figure out all kinds of things when I can think again - like where I am and what I'm doing. I remember taking a road trip with a friend who had a talking GPS device. Every time it spoke my thoughts completely fragmented.

Meltdowns are relatively infrequent for me. My last meltdown resulted in the destruction of a somewhat expensive gift someone had purchased for me (we played the same MMO). The destruction itself was accidental and I wasn't trying to destroy anything, but that's not the point. The point is that it causes me problems beyond the social repercussions of a grown adult basically appearing to flip out over what looked like nothing, but was really the last straw in a series of things that I didn't even notice because I have trouble identifying my emotions until they get particularly intense. Oh, and that's another issue.

All of these can impact social issues, I won't even try to argue otherwise. But they are not strictly or even primarily social. The reason that autism spectrum disorders are defined so thoroughly as social is because they are defined by NTs, who are inherently capable of being more social (or more successful at being social) than autistic people. The less social a trait is, the less likely you are to see it discussed in much detail. If a trait can be described in terms of how it affects us socially, it will be described in that way rather than a more balanced, objective description that goes beyond the social impairments.

I do not mean they completely deny the impairments have non-social consequences, but that the portrayal is biased toward the social.

You seem to have a fairly rigid idea about what AS is, and people who have put a lot of time and effort into studying and understanding what AS is are saying that it's not just that one thing.

Well they say rigid thinking is often a trait with Asperger's, so maybe I'm in the right place.

That said, I'm not denying that people with AS may have other issues, but I don't know if those other issues themselves are mandatory requirements to actually have AS. For instance, the criteria doesn't include some of the stuff you mentioned, such as meltdowns, shutdowns, etc. And I'm not sure how many of those things would be universal for all aspies. Though I think the neurological difference and an inability to mesh with NTs would be the one constant variable among all aspies.



What I'm saying is that beyond the social thing, these other attributes may vary considerably and for some people might not be an issue, does that make it impossible for them to have Asperger's?

Haha, touché.



A lot of things aren't mandatory requirements to have AS, since the criteria lists so many traits and only requires three for a diagnosis. The Gillberg criteria and a couple others seem to have a better list of criteria, but those end up requiring things like motor difficulties and other non-social impairments alongside the social impairments.

Given the large number of traits listed for diagnosis combined with the small number of traits required, there aren't any required traits. Any two people diagnosed with AS can have very different symptoms. This even extends to autism, which has 12 total symptoms and you need at least six. That means a very large number of possible combinations and it's even possible for any two autistic people to be diagnosed with no symptoms in common.



I think if someone strictly has social impairments, they are more likely to meet the criteria for something like schizoid personality disorder than AS.