Broader Autism Phenotype
29 Apr 2015, 9:25 am
Hyperborean wrote:
The term Broader Autism Phenotype is actually quite helpful. It is an acknowledgement by psychologists and other professionals involved in the diagnosis process that the autism spectrum is extremely broad, and that as yet no-one, including themselves, has managed to completely understand all its many facets, nuances and complexities. As we all know here, a diagnosis for ASD (or, previously, Asperger's Syndrome) is relatively recent, and with each new diagnosis the medical profession hopefully learns a little more about this fascinating condition. So by using the term BAP, psychologist are showing some humility and admitting their own limitations, which I find rather refreshing.
Thank you for this point of view. I think this is also likely part of the truth.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
29 Apr 2015, 10:30 am
tagnacious wrote:
It sounds to me as if we are continuing to acknowledge that the traits typical to men on the spectrum are autism and need extra supports. But if your traits are more typical of women of the spectrum, you have BAP and you're out of luck when it comes to having help. That's FUBAR.
I really didn't start this thread to bate a gender conversation, but now that you point it out, I'm kinda fuming. I'm very good at reading body language because it's my special interest. This is often seen in women. We can debate the reason later. If I had the same interest in, say, steam engine trains, would I be more autistic?
Also, we all know (or a lot of us know) that girls on the spectrum have fewer problems with communication on average and more problems with sensory issues. My own experience reflects this. But sensory issues aren't even a part of the new diagnostic scheme. Am I right on this? So what we're really seeing here is a continuation of the theme that boys get help when they need it. Girls get told to accept their reduced status in society.
I really didn't start this thread to bate a gender conversation, but now that you point it out, I'm kinda fuming. I'm very good at reading body language because it's my special interest. This is often seen in women. We can debate the reason later. If I had the same interest in, say, steam engine trains, would I be more autistic?
Also, we all know (or a lot of us know) that girls on the spectrum have fewer problems with communication on average and more problems with sensory issues. My own experience reflects this. But sensory issues aren't even a part of the new diagnostic scheme. Am I right on this? So what we're really seeing here is a continuation of the theme that boys get help when they need it. Girls get told to accept their reduced status in society.
There really is not an entire 'difference' of autism symptoms in males and females....it does present a little bit differently because males and females are a little different, but its not as though there is one set of autism symptoms for girls, and a different set for boys. People really need to do some brushing up on their facts, also there is that some behaviors might be more accepted by 'society' from females than males that autistic females might exibit and have overlooked where if a male does it it gets more notice. I have lots of trouble with sensory issues, but I wouldn't really say I have less of a struggle with communication.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
29 Apr 2015, 10:36 am
Hyperborean wrote:
The term Broader Autism Phenotype is actually quite helpful. It is an acknowledgement by psychologists and other professionals involved in the diagnosis process that the autism spectrum is extremely broad, and that as yet no-one, including themselves, has managed to completely understand all its many facets, nuances and complexities. As we all know here, a diagnosis for ASD (or, previously, Asperger's Syndrome) is relatively recent, and with each new diagnosis the medical profession hopefully learns a little more about this fascinating condition. So by using the term BAP, psychologist are showing some humility and admitting their own limitations, which I find rather refreshing.
Well then they ought not leave anyone out.....we now also need the broader depressed phenotype, the broader ADHD/ADD phenotype, the broader schizophrenic phenotype, because everyone without a disorder causing significant impairments of functioning needs a label to attach them to some kind of mental condition as well. I can't tell if its meant to keep the normals from feeling left out, or an attempt to make those with mental conditions feel more 'normal' by showing 'everyone has a little bit of a disorder'. I still prefer the perspective that normal people can exibit traits associated with various mental conditions without having the mental condition or any pre-disposition to develop it because all 'symptoms' of mental conditions are really just extremes of human emotion/behavior....I don't see what purpose it really serves to label normal non-disordered people into disorder themed catagories like that.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
29 Apr 2015, 10:39 am
Waterfalls wrote:
I didn't mean to be provocative. Just is frustrating that different people see me as having ASD and having BAP and they're quite sure of themselves and I'm just a person to me, it's really weird people always want to label me. The professionals say ASD though. So I get mad why I need another label even though I know it's meant well.
I could certainly be wrong but I kind of get the impression maybe you're not entirely convinced people who say these things mean well....perhaps some do and are ignorant, but ignorant comments don't always come from a place of caring but being wrong sometimes people just have to be right or try to show off their 'knowledge' on a topic. I guess the point is its ok to be bothered when people are ignorant.....you don't have to convince yourself they always mean well.
_________________
We won't go back.
29 Apr 2015, 10:55 am
While the BAP concept gets me annoyed because I don't really understand it and don't want another label on top of ASD (I don't understand that either since I'm normal to me but I buy into that more easily since its professionals doing the labeling) but to be fair, it does seem like some terminology is needed to, for example, describe the person who has some characteristics when they have multiple family members on the spectrum. To call such a person neurotypical would make studying ASD more difficult and make it harder to find valid information.
29 Apr 2015, 11:11 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
Hyperborean wrote:
The term Broader Autism Phenotype is actually quite helpful. It is an acknowledgement by psychologists and other professionals involved in the diagnosis process that the autism spectrum is extremely broad, and that as yet no-one, including themselves, has managed to completely understand all its many facets, nuances and complexities. As we all know here, a diagnosis for ASD (or, previously, Asperger's Syndrome) is relatively recent, and with each new diagnosis the medical profession hopefully learns a little more about this fascinating condition. So by using the term BAP, psychologist are showing some humility and admitting their own limitations, which I find rather refreshing.
Well then they ought not leave anyone out.....we now also need the broader depressed phenotype, the broader ADHD/ADD phenotype, the broader schizophrenic phenotype, because everyone without a disorder causing significant impairments of functioning needs a label to attach them to some kind of mental condition as well. I can't tell if its meant to keep the normals from feeling left out, or an attempt to make those with mental conditions feel more 'normal' by showing 'everyone has a little bit of a disorder'. I still prefer the perspective that normal people can exibit traits associated with various mental conditions without having the mental condition or any pre-disposition to develop it because all 'symptoms' of mental conditions are really just extremes of human emotion/behavior....I don't see what purpose it really serves to label normal non-disordered people into disorder themed catagories like that.
By diagnosing certain people as being part of a Broader Autism Phenotype, they aren't labelling those who are 'normal, non-disordered' (itself a category) into disorder-themed categories, they are acknowledging the fact that there are quite a number of individuals who exhibit behaviour, sensory and cognitive issues and other symptoms that are the same as or similar to those found in people diagnosed with ASD, but to a less severe and non-incapacitating degree. Prior to DSM-V, some of these people would have probably been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, but the new criteria are stricter - probably for reasons of healthcare costs, at least partly. I don't think it's true that 'everyone has a little bit of a disorder'. Psychologists certainly aren't perfect, but they know what they are looking for, and can recognise ASD-like symptoms and judge their level of severity.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that at the moment there are 3 categories, each of them in its way quite broad, that psychologists use when diagnosing for ASD: 1. ASD 2. BAP 3. Non-disordered. Of the three, 'non-disordered' includes the majority of the population.
29 Apr 2015, 11:12 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well then they ought not leave anyone out.....we now also need the broader depressed phenotype, the broader ADHD/ADD phenotype, the broader schizophrenic phenotype, because everyone without a disorder causing significant impairments of functioning needs a label to attach them to some kind of mental condition as well. I can't tell if its meant to keep the normals from feeling left out, or an attempt to make those with mental conditions feel more 'normal' by showing 'everyone has a little bit of a disorder'. I still prefer the perspective that normal people can exibit traits associated with various mental conditions without having the mental condition or any pre-disposition to develop it because all 'symptoms' of mental conditions are really just extremes of human emotion/behavior....I don't see what purpose it really serves to label normal non-disordered people into disorder themed catagories like that.
The purpose of looking for traits in non-impaired people is to find out what it is that tips into impairment. It isn't a binary where you either have something or you don't. There is a continuum in lots of conditions. I presume you were being sarcastic with the list of other syndromes that also ought to have broader groups that include non-impaired people, but this has already happened.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996401003528
Quote:
A growing body of evidence suggests that delusional or hallucinatory experiences are much more frequent in subjects from the general population than the prevalence of cases of psychotic disorders, thereby suggesting the existence of a symptomatic continuum between subjects from the general population and clinical cases of psychosis. Exploring the risk factors modulating the expression of psychosis-like signs in non-clinical populations may better contribute to elucidate the etiology of psychosis than research restricted to subjects at the endpoint of the distribution of the psychotic dimension.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/expert-answers/clinical-depression/faq-20057770
Quote:
Depression ranges in seriousness from mild, temporary episodes of sadness to severe, persistent depression. Clinical depression is the more severe form of depression, also known as major depression or major depressive disorder. It isn't the same as depression caused by a loss, such as the death of a loved one, or a medical condition, such as a thyroid disorder.
http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/4/1/4
Quote:
In line with this, the behaviour of individuals suffering from psychiatric disorders differs quantitatively but not necessarily qualitatively from the behaviour of individuals without psychiatric problems. The threshold of what is and what is not abnormal is to a certain extent arbitrarily determined, but patients have in common that their behaviour interferes with their normal life and cause the patient (and his/her environment) to suffer. Why certain people pass this threshold and are diagnosed with a disorder and others do not is determined by additive and interacting genetic and environmental risk factors
Wherever you look, there is a continuum and whether you get a diagnosis or not pretty much depends on level of impairment. This dovetails neatly with the social model of disability since some traits will only be disabling in certain contexts. However, there are some traits where you would have a hard time finding a context where the trait wasn't disabling, such as severe mental retardation (but would mild mental retardation be a disability in every context???). From the last quoted paragraph, here is the critical sentence:
Quote:
The threshold of what is and what is not abnormal is to a certain extent arbitrarily determined, but patients have in common that their behaviour interferes with their normal life and cause the patient (and his/her environment) to suffer.
One person's crippling and diagnosable trait can be another person's job description if they live in a different environment. If two people have the identical trait of detachment from reality coupled with hallucinations, one of them may be institutionalized while the other is revered as a shaman. Location,location,location.
29 Apr 2015, 11:17 am
The whole concept of disability is a social construct. Each society has decided which behaviors they see as normal and which warrant correction and/or assistance.
It seems we've drawn this line in the sand about who is and isn't "on the spectrum." This is mostly about deciding who gets the insurance coverage and who gets into certain programs.
I'm fine with acknowledging that some people have traits that point to autism without the disability. But I think we need to take a hard look at the people for whom we are applying this term. Who are they and what makes them different? Are they really needing those services but going without because they don't fit the right box?
I do think its legitimate to examine if the current definition of ASD fails to recognize and therefore serve a large swath of our population, mostly girls, who are drowning in our current educational system but don't qualify for services. Or worse, they get misdiagnosed as ADD, bi-polar, personality disordered, etc, and are medicated in order to make them quiet instead of really helping them.
Also, is using the phrase BAP a way of getting out of putting yourself in the same category as "those people?" BAP could be a way to make sure that even though you're odd, you can still see yourself or your child as "better" than the people in the catagory of ASD. In short, people could use it the same way that some people used to use the term "aspie."
29 Apr 2015, 12:00 pm
tagnacious wrote:
The whole concept of disability is a social construct. Each society has decided which behaviors they see as normal and which warrant correction and/or assistance.
It seems we've drawn this line in the sand about who is and isn't "on the spectrum." This is mostly about deciding who gets the insurance coverage and who gets into certain programs.
I'm fine with acknowledging that some people have traits that point to autism without the disability. But I think we need to take a hard look at the people for whom we are applying this term. Who are they and what makes them different? Are they really needing those services but going without because they don't fit the right box?
I do think its legitimate to examine if the current definition of ASD fails to recognize and therefore serve a large swath of our population, mostly girls, who are drowning in our current educational system but don't qualify for services. Or worse, they get misdiagnosed as ADD, bi-polar, personality disordered, etc, and are medicated in order to make them quiet instead of really helping them.
Also, is using the phrase BAP a way of getting out of putting yourself in the same category as "those people?" BAP could be a way to make sure that even though you're odd, you can still see yourself or your child as "better" than the people in the catagory of ASD. In short, people could use it the same way that some people used to use the term "aspie."
It seems we've drawn this line in the sand about who is and isn't "on the spectrum." This is mostly about deciding who gets the insurance coverage and who gets into certain programs.
I'm fine with acknowledging that some people have traits that point to autism without the disability. But I think we need to take a hard look at the people for whom we are applying this term. Who are they and what makes them different? Are they really needing those services but going without because they don't fit the right box?
I do think its legitimate to examine if the current definition of ASD fails to recognize and therefore serve a large swath of our population, mostly girls, who are drowning in our current educational system but don't qualify for services. Or worse, they get misdiagnosed as ADD, bi-polar, personality disordered, etc, and are medicated in order to make them quiet instead of really helping them.
Also, is using the phrase BAP a way of getting out of putting yourself in the same category as "those people?" BAP could be a way to make sure that even though you're odd, you can still see yourself or your child as "better" than the people in the catagory of ASD. In short, people could use it the same way that some people used to use the term "aspie."
There's a lot of sense in what you say here. Many psychologists aren't comfortable with the current criteria used to define ASD, and some continue to diagnose Asperger's Syndrome. A psychologist I know in the UK, who was involved with much ground-breaking work with children on the spectrum, says there shouldn't be a diagnostic threshold that means you either have ASD or not; autism is far too complex for drawing 'lines in the sand' - in fact to continue the analogy, it exists on shifting sand.
The fact that many girls and young women are now being diagnosed (in the UK at least) underlines your point about the way females have somehow been excluded from the process, because received wisdom (i.e.: ignorance) has always been that girls don't have ASD.
But I don't think BAP is a way of avoiding the category of ASD - at least not in my case. My diagnosis is BAP, and I accept it as an accurate reflexion that I share many of the traits of people with ASD, but to a less severe extent. I certainly don't regard myself as 'better' than my many Aspie friends.
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
29 Apr 2015, 1:01 pm
BAP is also useful for understanding the traits of autism, since many BAP people have similar traits to autistic people, and you can't tell the difference between them if you focus on a single trait at brain+behavioral levels. Looking at the whole individual, however, BAP usually has milder traits, fewer traits, and plenty of neurotypical traits that make their adaptation in society easier. But they may have some problems adapting too, and some have to work harder to do so too, but there is no big impairment or obvious accommodation that would help them.
_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!
29 Apr 2015, 1:15 pm
tagnacious wrote:
The whole concept of disability is a social construct. Each society has decided which behaviors they see as normal and which warrant correction and/or assistance.
It seems we've drawn this line in the sand about who is and isn't "on the spectrum." This is mostly about deciding who gets the insurance coverage and who gets into certain programs.
I'm fine with acknowledging that some people have traits that point to autism without the disability. But I think we need to take a hard look at the people for whom we are applying this term. Who are they and what makes them different? Are they really needing those services but going without because they don't fit the right box?
I do think its legitimate to examine if the current definition of ASD fails to recognize and therefore serve a large swath of our population, mostly girls, who are drowning in our current educational system but don't qualify for services. Or worse, they get misdiagnosed as ADD, bi-polar, personality disordered, etc, and are medicated in order to make them quiet instead of really helping them.
Also, is using the phrase BAP a way of getting out of putting yourself in the same category as "those people?" BAP could be a way to make sure that even though you're odd, you can still see yourself or your child as "better" than the people in the catagory of ASD. In short, people could use it the same way that some people used to use the term "aspie."
It seems we've drawn this line in the sand about who is and isn't "on the spectrum." This is mostly about deciding who gets the insurance coverage and who gets into certain programs.
I'm fine with acknowledging that some people have traits that point to autism without the disability. But I think we need to take a hard look at the people for whom we are applying this term. Who are they and what makes them different? Are they really needing those services but going without because they don't fit the right box?
I do think its legitimate to examine if the current definition of ASD fails to recognize and therefore serve a large swath of our population, mostly girls, who are drowning in our current educational system but don't qualify for services. Or worse, they get misdiagnosed as ADD, bi-polar, personality disordered, etc, and are medicated in order to make them quiet instead of really helping them.
Also, is using the phrase BAP a way of getting out of putting yourself in the same category as "those people?" BAP could be a way to make sure that even though you're odd, you can still see yourself or your child as "better" than the people in the catagory of ASD. In short, people could use it the same way that some people used to use the term "aspie."
Yup, yup, all of this, but I'll also add that many girls who don't get the support they need are diagnosed with anorexia, but their ASD is missed. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264666.php
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
29 Apr 2015, 2:51 pm
cavernio wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
It makes no sense you either have autism or not, like autism is a single module that you have loaded in your brain or not.
Citation needed.
Go look in the literature yourself.
There's too many citations to cite in a thread.
The citation needed response is the most pointless, because if you really wanted to understand a topic, you could search google scholar to get an idea yourself.
_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!
29 Apr 2015, 3:02 pm
btbnnyr wrote:
cavernio wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
It makes no sense you either have autism or not, like autism is a single module that you have loaded in your brain or not.
Citation needed.
Go look in the literature yourself.
There's too many citations to cite in a thread.
The citation needed response is the most pointless, because if you really wanted to understand a topic, you could search google scholar to get an idea yourself.
...
If you really wanted to understand a topic or have anyone take anything you say as any sort of truth, you would search google scholar to convey your idea. /sarcasm
The point of saying 'citation needed' is entirely about getting the person who said something to check their facts. It is not actually me asking for facts, it is me challenging you, it is me getting you to recheck what you said, not the other way around.
It's also laughable for you to suggest to me that I don't use google scholar enough.
_________________
Not autistic, I think
Prone to depression
Have celiac disease
Poor motivation
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
29 Apr 2015, 3:08 pm
cavernio wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
cavernio wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
It makes no sense you either have autism or not, like autism is a single module that you have loaded in your brain or not.
Citation needed.
Go look in the literature yourself.
There's too many citations to cite in a thread.
The citation needed response is the most pointless, because if you really wanted to understand a topic, you could search google scholar to get an idea yourself.
...
If you really wanted to understand a topic or have anyone take anything you say as any sort of truth, you would search google scholar to convey your idea. /sarcasm
The point of saying 'citation needed' is entirely about getting the person who said something to check their facts. It is not actually me asking for facts, it is me challenging you, it is me getting you to recheck what you said, not the other way around.
It's also laughable for you to suggest to me that I don't use google scholar enough.
I didn't suggest anything about your use of google scholar.
I don't do citations, because there are too many citations, and it is waste of time to copy and paste links into threads.
If you want to know, you can look them up yourself.
_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Autism |
31 Jan 2024, 12:58 am |
| Autism |
13 Mar 2024, 7:44 am |
| best books on autism |
06 Mar 2024, 3:45 pm |
| A father with autism |
08 Apr 2024, 10:51 pm |
