What is an aspie?

Post Reply New Topic

It's all implied, you just need to understand what it means. Being in the DSM means it's a mental disorder. Next, it's important to note a few things, which may or may not be in the statistics section of the DSM. Like most mental disorders, the early it can be diagnosed, the more severe it is. That's because it signifies a stronger neurological basis, and then has more impact across a life time if treatment is late. Autism is not entirely genetic, and that opens up the possibility for social influences in the development of the disorder, of which many theories have been made. For example, one contemporary theory of autism is that it's kick started by overactive empathy, which results in behavior causing deattachement which shapes the social enviroment of the autistic person, causing social skills to become underdeveloped. Autistic people can be taught social skills, so it's pretty obvious social influences are important. This leads to the most important part for why the medical definition of autism is different from the neurodiverse one. That is criteria D, which is that in order to be diagnosed by the symptoms must be clinically impairing. Approximately one in ten people with autism grow out of the diagnosis because after therapy, which is primarily socialization, they no longer are impaired enough to merit diagnosis. If socialization can cause someone to no longer merit diagnosis, then it can certainly cause someone to not merit diagnosis before they even have the chance to be diagnosed. So according to the medical definition, people aren't born autistic, but rather, they are born with the diathesis for autism which causes them to become autistic at a later age. The neurodiversity model meanwhile argues the person is born autism because they define autism as the diathesis, not as the disorder.

You can't write that academically, lol.


Source?


Source?


Source that it's due to socialisation?

1. Source is my professor, I can't just give her to you, but it's probably in the DSM in the statistical section and if not that then in the textbook. Look up stats about onset and prognosis.
2. I don't need to source a trivial calculation. I'm saying they've had more years of the course of the disorder without treatment, that is all.
3. The problem isn't that I don't have a source, it's that you fundamentally don't understand what socialization is, as it's implicit.

In two years this post is the nearest thing to a heated argument!
Getting back to the original OP.
We all seem to fit under a single umbrella, following a set path of AS conformity.
It's as if we have all unknowingly, downloaded the same app.
Conformity (or like minds) is the beginnings of culture.
Which is in our case is an unstructured group based on common genetic values.
We do not have Hive minds, nor do we bow readily to peer pressure.
So we don't fit well in a top down (BIG BOSS) Chimpanzee Type troupe.
This makes us Day to Day feel isolated, just like being a star in a Pierre Boulle film.

Where do I find this?


I don't get what you mean.


I wonder if there's a name for a disorder where understanding of socialisation and implied meaning is impaired.


You have one post and there's been actual arguments in that time frame.


Isn't that contradicting?

I'm chiming in as something stands out to me:

Where in the literature is this stated?

The DSM states with regard autism that severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour.

This contradicts the severity/chronology of onset model you are proposing.


The DSM also states in the very next sentence that the symptoms, whilst having to be present in the early stages of development, do not necessarily have to present themselves at that specific stage.



On a purely anecdotal level: if someone were to go to the doctors and be treated for depression early, this could save them from very severe depression.


The statement RE timeframe of diagnosis determining severity seems, to me, ludicrous.

it is common for something like Aspergers to be diagnosed later than classic autism because the "deficits" found in Aspergers do not usually emerge until the child is of preschool age or later.

The "pathology" found in classic/Kanner autism are evident much earlier, sometimes even in early infancy.

Usually, classic/Kanner autism has a more "severe" symptomography than Aspergers.

There is much evidence for this. One only has to read case studies of both.

I know it's probably inaccurate to most others, but I use the term 'Aspie' for everyone on the spectrum, even low-functioning autistics.

Not recognised until then =/= didn't emerge until then. I had deficits before I was of preschool age, but wasn't diagnosed until 18.



there is no clear evidence that they are different disorders

Not recognized.

Aspergers is normally not recognized until a child is school-aged or frequently even in adulthood.

It's true that deficits occur when very young--but they are usually too subtle to be recognized by clinicians.

You and ganandox are talking about two different things.

Date of onset is one thing, but the date that your parents/caregivers/school teacher recognize the problem enough to send you to a shrink- so the shrink can test you to see you even have it in the first place- is another thing.

I was presumably aspie from the moment I was born. But my behavior didnt stand out as different from that of other children in a recognizable way until probably first grade in school. In contrast a type III autistic would be recognized as odd, and as lagging behind peers,earlier, maybe as a toddler, or even as an infant.

How come I was diagnosed with AS at 8, even though I'm female with only mild AS? I feel so severely autistic or ret*d or something. I hate my stupid f****d up f*****g brain what had to be NT for 4 years, then severely autistic for 6 months, then moderate autistic for 4 years, then mild AS for about 12 years, then suddenly social anxiety and ADHD currently. What's next? Dementia?

Statistics are in the DSM. You can also use google.

It's just a statement on the amount of time between when the problem came up and when the problem started being dealt with, I don't see how that's so a hard concept.

Here you completely missed the point. It's not that there is evidence for aspergers and HFA being separate disorders, but that more severe autism has an earlier onset. On *average*, a case of aspergers is much less severe than a case of autistic disorder, and this is a reflection of diagnosis patterns regardless of whether or not they are actually different

Citation needed.

It's diagnosed earlier as an average, I get that, but onset earlier? Prove your claim.

There was a reason I was ignoring you before. There are plenty of sources that have been referred to you, you're just being a pain. If it didn't onset later, it wouldn't be diagnosed later. Problem is again you don't understand what autism is from a medical perspective. Now I'll resume ignoring you.