Newbie: Is Asperger's a Racket?

Post Reply New Topic

AS is a spectrum disorder; with various amounts of various syndromes and symptoms. Some of us are merely escapees from the Home for the Perpetually Bewildered, and some are barely functional. Yet we all seem to (mostly) get along here.

If I was going to fake something, it would be something that gave me boundless confidence and the ability to be a social butterfly...

In the US as would be a poor defense for any kind of concideration. US courts don't concider mental conditions as long a the indivitual knows right from wrong at the time the crime is commited. (Thus temporary insanity defenses) As an Aspie I can say that I have a clear distiction of right and wrong, if nothing else.

Bulls eye.

Now can we get back to disagreeing with each other I am far more comfortable with that

I think the general worry is not so much AS playing a part in his defence or allowing him to "escape justice" (he has after all admitted wandering around in US computers) so much as people in the UK are concerned that the American justice system will be biased and pretty much incapable of taking into consideration his AS when handing down a sentence. This is a nation which regularly tasers children and young adults for minor offenses, is regularly inconsistent in its approach to the autistic, and in some cases subjects them to semi-medieval "treatments". There are hundreds of threads here alone filled with case after case of unfair treatment in the US to autistics. Consider this.. Autism Speaks appear to be taken quite seriously by the federal government. Would you want them to be asked for their professional opinion about YOUR care-needs, or called at YOUR trial? Because the vitriol I see directed against them all over this forum suggests that autistic people DONT want anything to do with them...yet there they are, major players in the US.

Add to this the clearly documented contravention of human rights over and over again by the US when dealing with "terrorists" ... imprisonment without trial, renditions, torture... and top it off with the fact that hes a british kid with a weird hobby and outspoken views on UFOs who is being blamed for US incompetence and (in certain sideways stabs) the fall of the twin towers... I consider it quite unsurprising that people here are somewhat concerned that the states dont have his best interests at heart.

Also, his defence appears to involve the fact that the US are "wrong" to retain information about UFOs, and he was merely trying to liberate this information. So to his mind, he may not even consider himself "wrong" so much as acting illegally.. and there are plenty of people who make that distinction. Certainly the real "terrorists" dont consider themselves wrong...

Honestly that's not an unfair assessment of the US government. I was more commenting on my understanding of the OP's comments which is likely incomplete of misinterpreted.

If you are going to argue that your opinions are factual, then the onus is on you to prove your point.


M.

The burden of proof *always* rests with the proposer, which in this case is the person who is trying to segregate humanity by way of a new classification.
Incidentally, I fear that the mallaise surrounding AS is deeper than has been suggested by other contributors to this thread (with regard to eg. obtaining a diagnosis with a view to obviating criminal culpability). The threshold score on the assessment for AS is arbitrary (albeit fixed), is it not? In which case, where does medical responsibility, towards an individual, begin, and where does it end?

Zippie

Ah, but you are the initiator - you have proposed something counter to that which has been evidenced through study. If you have a point to make, then make it; don't expect others to make your arguments for you.

Threshold score? There are diagnostic criteria that must be met, not an Autistics Test of Basic Skills which delineates between those on the spectrum and those who are not. I'm curious what you mean by that comment. And would you clarify 'medical responsibility' in the context you are referring to?


M.

I can see this descending into a futile game of ping pong, as It is *your* claim that there is, here, something which has been 'evidenced through study'. *Your* claim, you must defend it. And you must defend it in such a way as to be better than the ripostes I have be giving, and better than the blog I have cited -- here it is again:
http://racketaspergers.blogspot.com/
-- which means you must make no lame references to the virtues of peer review.

[quote]
Threshold score? There are diagnostic criteria that must be met, not an Autistics Test of Basic Skills which delineates between those on the spectrum and those who are not. I'm curious what you mean by that comment. And would you clarify 'medical responsibility' in the context you are referring to?
[\quote]

Well, I'm curious about what you mean by 'diagnostic criteria'. You mean, answering questions as to how one lives one's life? You answer those in a certain way, and you get a resulting score.
By 'medical responsibility', I was referring to the auspices, which carry weight in legal procedures and schools and what-have-you, of medical opinion that are associated to the diagnosis of AS.

Zippie

Your source isn't asking the question in the title; it's a piece of biased journalism at best, without medical value. We're going to disagree here, as peer review does have merit as opposed to an anonymous blogger who appears to not recognize that the characteristics that Asperger noted decades ago have been somewhat refined, and technique to approach examination have changed and improved. That is not to say that there may be an unrelated cluster of characteristics that would emulate those associated with Asperger's Syndrome; clinical psychology remains a relatively subjective science, as compared to neurology where there is apparent structure. However, the diagnostic criteria is outlined in the DSM-IV, if you wish to review it. As it applies to those who transgress social norms of behavior, I don't feel that myself or anyone else is 'excused' as a result; it is a mitigating circumstance, however, that should and does affect perception of events on an analytic basis. I've stayed well out of the discussion regarding the case likely being implied in the article, but in studying the conversations about it I have observed the sort of black-and-white contrasts in thinking that is representative of those on the spectrum, where there are only two options - absolutely appropriate or entirely abusive.


M.

In Scotland, earlier this year, a young woman was convicted of the murder of her mother. While she was in prison, on remand, her behaviour was observed and considered sufficiently unusual to merit assessment. She was diagnosed with Asperger's. She did not request this assessment, she did not claim that she was AS.

Sentencing was delayed in order that the implications of her diagnosis could be considered. It was deemed to be relevant only insofar as she showed no apparent remorse for her actions, and irrelevant in respect of the crime committed. She was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 22 years.

There will always be people, of whatever age, who are on the Spectrum, but go unnoticed and undiagnosed until something happens which brings their behaviour under more detailed scrutiny. Sometimes, the "something" which prompts that scrutiny and leads to a diagnosis will be a criminal act.

The terms you quote are just labels, obviously put their to attract search engines; they are not part of the argument.




A) Wherever there are vested interests, peer review is notoriously totalitarian and conformal to the source of funding. You are living in Cloud-Cuckooland if you think otherwise. I know as much -- I've been in amongst that buch long enough.
B) What Asperger noted as being, in his mind, abnormal, was by no means refined; quite the opposite: it was *relaxed* such as to give us this autistic 'spectrum'.



If they are so clear cut, perhaps *someone* can at last, at long last, tell me exactly what they *are*. I have asked enough times.

I like your term 'a relatively subjective science'. Just try submitting that in a philosophy essay, in such an out-of-hand way, on Karl Popper, or on empiricism, or similar! What you seem to be saying, though won't admit, is there is still a medical muddle over the delineating criteria. And It seems to be reflected in comments by other people on this thread; one person said something along the lines that they couldn't see how some of these people diagnosed with AS actually got their diagnosis. It seems to me to be an arbirarily and sloppily constructed 'science' of character traits and their implications.



Another piece of terminology that we are all supposed, now, to accept: 'autistic spectrum'. OK, there might be such a spectrum, if that's the way we have to think; but are we not *all* on this spectrum -- I mean, all of us humans? This whole field seems replete with insidious semantics.

Zippie

No it is not. In this case, you the thread opener have initiated a conversation in which you are posting premises. Interestingly the premise you are referring to above does not appear in your initial post where you actually instead proposed that people are who do not have AS are faking it to get diagnoses to avoid or mitigate criminal culpability. You have failed to meet the burden of proof in respect of this proposition.

If it is now your proposition (as it appears it is the proposition of the blog's author) that AS does not in fact exist, then the burden of proof still lies with you. You see no one here has initiated a conversation with you where they proposed that AS is real, but rather you have intiated a proposal that it is not. That puts the burden of proof on you, not on some absent third parties, not all of whom are even alive, who in fact have fronted up with their evidence, subjected their evidence to peer-review, have widely published about their evidence, and who appear to have met the burden of proof to an appropriate standard.

Your fears are probably groundless. You might note that no one (including yourself) has been able to offer any evidence that indicates that ASD DXs in particular are being exploited in this manner, and there are many good reasons to suspect that they are not being (particularly exploited in this manner).
Not particularly.

The same places/points it begins and ends in any other instance. It's not a "special circumstance" so why would any special standards of medical responsibility toward individuals apply?
You are the OP and initiator of this discussion. You are not responding to someone else's proposition, but rather initiating a discussion by positing a proposition, and until or unless you can present some robust evidence or a compelling case for your proposition why should anyone take it seriously enough to bother mounting a comprehensive counter argument against it?

I have no idea what you mean by "...be better than the ripostes I have been giving..."
So far as I can tell, you have proposed that AS is being exploited by people without AS to avoid or mitigate criminal culpability. I cannot find anywhere in this thread any proof that this is the case, or a strong case that it is likely AS is being particularly exploited in this manner, although there are arguments in this thread that demonstrate that it's not likely.

You now claim that we have proposed AS is real and have a burden of proof accordingly. However, I suggest that you in fact are proposing that it is not real, and have up to this point failed to provide compelling evidence that this is the case, compelling evidence that undermines the case of those who propose AS and ASDs are real, or provided any other thing that would cause anhyone to seriously reconsider their belief in the proposal that AS/Ds is/are real, or to seriously consider your proposal that they are not real.

Along the way you have proposed further premises that you have failed to provide any evidence for, including far-fetched premises such as Simon Baron-Cohen giving out ASD DXs to anyone he conceives might be or become famous or infamous, for the purpose of enhancing his professional profile.

Neither your posts nor the blog you refer to have posited compelling arguments or evidence for any of the propositions made by either you or the author of the blog.


Imagine this scenario. Someone comes up to you and tells you that gravity is not real. When you ask for evidence or a compelling argument, they tell you that the burden of proof is on you. In the course of further discussion they ask you what the definition of gravity is, telling you they've asked for this information often enough, and making it clear that although they think they are qualified to judge whether or not gravity exists, they do not know what gravity is and are aware of this fact. Do you at that point in such a discussion think you are having a discussion with someone who has a clue what they are talking about?


Yes, but a functioning television would have seemed impossible or supernatural to the average medieval peasant, not because it is impossible or supernatural, but as a consequence of the peasant's lack of knowledge and understanding (as pertains to televisions).

Really, this is descending into a mass of confusions and conflations. One cannot prove a negative, so I shall not attempt to argue that Asperger's is not 'real', as you put it. The question is over the term 'real', because you are confusing an empirical concept of 'real' (as used in the phrase 'the reality of gravity') with my mere suggestion that the classification called Asperger's syndrome has yet to be *justified*. And I have every right, as a taxpayer, to demand new classifications, strata, ideologies, etc. are not imposed upon society withoout without due justification. Unless it is shown definitively to contribute to the overall well-being of society, I think it is fundamentally wrong to carve up God's beautiful unity of spirit that is humanity, into categories of person -- and I am sure I am not alone in having that sentiment.

I wonder if there is anyone here who got diagnosed with AS at, say, the age of seven, then ten years later found themselves angry, frustrated and possibly stigmatised at having gone through that sensitive time, adolescence, with such a label? I am willing to bet there are many such people about.

I still have yet to be told what this marvellous peer-reviewed body of evidence has actually thrown up, other than nebulous conclusions. Speaking of which, I am astonished that nobody has yet given me this much-vaunted, clear-cut diagnostic characteristic of AS everyone's says will knock down my case. I present that failure as *evidence for my case* that there is none such.

PS I don't need to prove that deliquents use any diagnosis they can to get them off the hook. You could call it human nature. Same with egoism in the medical profession: it doesn't need to be proven -- anyone who knows the first thing about the medical profession can see a mountain of evidence of it.

PSS It's a great setup we've got: get together as many people as possible who have a tunnel-visioned (in a previous poster's words, 'black-and-white') view of the world, and make a discussion forum for them! Sorry, I couldn't resist that one!

Zippie

Proving a negative has nothing to do with it. The premise "Asperger Syndrome lacks justification as a nosological entity" is not a negative. The premise "Simon Baron-Cohen would diagnose anyone who might be or become famous to enhance his reputation" is not a negative. The premise "people who do not have Asperger Syndrome are faking it for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding criminal culpability" is not a negative. You have proposed all these premises are true, and apparently do not have a sound or compelling argument in respect of any of them.
You made these proposition, you started this thread, the onus of proof is obviously on you; there is nothing confused or confusing about that.


This is a complete straw man. Society is not prevented from rejecting Aspeger Syndrome as a diagnosis. The AS DX was not "imposed" on society. As for due justication, it strikes me that someone who needs to ask what the criteria for a DX are, is ill-qualified to make any judgements about the validity of the DX.

Be that as it may, many people believe that the individual should not be sacrificed for the "greater good". Anyone can harp about the "greater good"; it is after all a mainstay justification of any common "banana republic" dictator. Society has imposed on me more than enough. Why should it be proven that society will benefit before I am allowed protection from discrimination, the opportunity to participate in occupational and community activities and to have access to the goods and benefits of my society? Has the good of recognizing and accommodating the difficulties of being hearing impaired, for the overall well being of socity been proven? Or in your view should people who are hearing impaired be denied the right to be accommodated to facilitate their inclusion in society and their access to its benefits? Are only certain kinds of people entitled to the benefits of this "overall well being"? Specifically those who can do so without any accommodation or recognition of their particular challenges, or only those who can prove that accommodating their difficulties will contribute to the overall well-being of society?

Wonder no more, I know of at least one such member. However, I know of many more members who were not diagnosed at any time in childhood and who lived through misery none the less. They were stigmatized because without the label, the symptoms and impairment were still present and without a diagnosis, they are sufficient to produce stigmatization, exclusion and even abuse.

Perhaps you should not wait around expecting to be told things. I still have not been told why you have formed such dim views of Simon Baron-Cohen, his intelligence (you must think he is a right idiot if you believe he would risk his exceptional reputation by giving willy nilly diagnoses to anyone who might be famous, intending that this will improve rather than destroy his reputation) and his ethicism (or lack thereof). I doubt I will hear of such because I strongly suspect your accusations were completely without substance and were made not because you believe they are true, but because you believed making these accusations would facilitate doubt about the AS DX as a nosological entity.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Why are you expecting the world handed to you on a silver plater? You are waiting to be told this, and expecting to be given that. Perhaps you should do your own research, preferably before you form opinions and post about them on internet sites...

Who precisely is vaunting a clear-cut diagnostic characteristic? AS is a syndromal condition, so why would there be any clear-cut single characteristic?

In other words, you cannot prove that there is any justification whatsoever to the accusations you have made in respect of Simon Baron Cohen, nor can you provide evidence that AS is being used in this manner in particular, and despite your claims that this is happening, you cannot even provide a single proven instance of it happening.

As I have stated, there is no reason to believe that AS in particular is being exploited in this way and many reasons to believe it is less likely to be so used than other DXs that could be put to this use.


The set "people who have tunnel vision" and the set "people who disagree with Zippy" might not be universally exclusive to each other, but they are not the same set.