Newbie: Is Asperger's a Racket?

Post Reply New Topic

i don't think any of these disorders would be anywhere near as easy to fake as AS. AS requires you to simply SEEM a certain way, anyone can act shy, and pretend not to have eye contact and rock a little....no real skills of performance even necessary. these other disorders would require actual performances to be convincing.


None of which is a sensible reason for choosing to fake AS the numerous other conditions they could fake for the puposes of mitigating or avoiding criminal culpability.

If people are choosing to fake AS for the purposes of mitigating or avoiding criminal culpability, rather than some easier to fake and likely more effective (for their purposes) diagnosis/condition, for the reasons you posit, then I would suggest these people in the majority of such instances, are less than likely to be competent enough to pull it off. Arguably anyone choosing AS for such purposes on the basis of such reasoning are being less than pragmatic, less than sensible and likely are not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Hence my lack of concern that such a ruse is likely to be successful a significant proportion of the time. [/quote]

yeh i agree. i supposer there are BETTER conditions to fake for this situation, but not as easy to do as AS. and because of the whimsy and innocence (i forgot to mention innocence before) associated with having AS and the fact that is commonly known as a form of autism (which most people equate with being ret*d), people claiming to have it will be penalized less harshly because rather being seen as 'off the rails' or 'psychotic' they are simply innocent and ret*d and know not what they do.

Last edited by 88BK on 01 Dec 2009, 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

^^ Having worked for a clinical Psychologist while striving for my undergrad degree in Psych/Math, I would have to agree with pandd here. You just don't know how easy it is to land "Adjustment Disorder w/Mixed Emotional Features", for example (that's a DSM diagnosis, btw -- at least it was when I was an undergrad ). Waaaaaaaaaaay easy.

Unless you have experience to the contrary?

I do not know how anyone who actually is working from a reasonably informed position could arrive at such a supposition. Baron-Cohen already has an exceptional professional profile and he did not get it diagnosing people who would hit the headlines. Being caught out giving dubious and/or indiscriminate diagnoses would significantly detract from rather than enhance Baron-Cohen's currently exceptional professional profile. Further more, I believe Baron-Cohen is more than clever enough to understand that this is the case.

Are you suggesting people with Aspergers Syndrome cannot appear affable? On what basis do you judge this person as intuitive, urbane or normal? What kind of stereotype do you have about people like me that causes you to believe you can necessarily tell if someone has AS from the material about McKinnon available in the media? Do you imagine we are universally incapable of appearing affable. That none of us can for even short periods of time "fake" being "normal"; that we are all obvious "freaks" to the most casual observation?

If what McKinnon did actually was an extraordinary hack, this would not be evidence against Asperger Syndrome. On the contrary, many people with Asperger Syndrome are gifted in the kind of skills that would be needed to achieve an "extraordinary hack".

Appearances must be deceiving in this instance. In fact it is notoriously difficult for people who have AS to get a diagnosis, particularly if they are adults or females, or female adults.

I suffer from being short sighted, although less so than from AS. I do not understand your reasoning. If someone suffers a knife wound, obviously that they have been stabbed is a causal source of suffering, but the so is the knife wound.


AS is not failing to be a member of a homogenous social mass. It does not change to suit the individual.


I do not think you sound harsh.
What in the blog do you believe is a clear argument that merits a clear refutation?


You would be entirely wrong.

The problem with your supposition is that people who actually have an ASD can behave as you describe above and consequently be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. If this behavior fails to get an AS diagnosis when the person behaving has an ASD, I doubt it is necessarily easier to intentionally use the same behavior to get a diagnosis.


I completely disagree. You point out what you think would get an AS diagnosis, but in fact assessment includes asking questions and seeking information. So the person would have to perform well enough to fool someone who probably has expertise in recognizing people with AS when they are deliberately hiding their symptoms, and would have to luck out on an assessor who would even consider an AS diagnosis, and would have to know how to answer the right questions. On the other hand there are many conditions that one need only answer the questions correctly to achieve diagnosis. No observable symptoms need to be present at the time of assessment. I do not see why faking them would be more difficult.


You do understand that in instances of criminal charges there is a party that prosecutes the case, and would be quite certain to do their research and present a clear picture to the jury or judge if there was any question that the defendent might be mistaken for someone who is ret*d when in fact they are not ret*d and being mistaken for such might jeopardize the prosecution's case, or unreasonably reduce the sentence impose?

Even if you don't fake AS well enough to get an outright diagnosis, you can these days surely manage a 'borderline' case. People have got off the hook on the basis of that - it's been on the news. The whole notion of the borderline diagnosis is perplexing to me, and makes me really wonder about the whole syndrome. There weren't borderline diagnoses of anything when I was young; you had something or you didn't -- and there was good reason for that philosophy, because if you've 'got' something, it suggests grounds for giving you a separate kind of consideration, as distinct from recognising you in a normal, sensitive way for your strengths and weaknesses. Nowadays teachers or what-have-you can forget the sensitive concern for strengths and weaknesses and say 'if you are not diagnosed with this, that or the other, you can darn well achieve/do what is expected of everyone'. To me, there's something wrong with that.

A good interview to listen to, as regards McKinnon, is the 'hackerworld' one the link to which is supplied on the Wikipedia page, at the bottom. He's certainly not the naive type he's been portrayed as.

I still don't know *precisely* what it is that delineates Asperger's. And from what I can gather about Baron-Cohen, he's a bit silly -- like most of these types who like the sound of their own 'voice'. Sorry; just an opinion.

Zippie

People have faked borderline AS and avoided criminal culpability entirely on that basis? And it's been in the news? Great, it should be very easy for you to provide examples either by directly linking to them or giving specifics that allow us to search for information ourselves.

Obviously educators do not behave the same the world over. When I went to school decades ago, the attitude was very much that everyone could and therefore should do what was expected of them. My step son is still in school. The attitude now is if one goes through the motions, that is as good as trying hard and everyone who tries hard should be praised. Meanwhile the entire national standards were thrown out the window a couple of years ago in favour of a system that is intended to be sensitive to the different strengths (and weaknesses) of students.


You have had ample opportunity to present some basis for your opinions about Baron-Cohen. So far despite making more than one rather insulting comment about Baron-Cohen, you've failed to produce a single premise or fact that supports such an opinion or gives any indication that the opinion is well formed, informed or otherwise worthy of consideration by others.

The onus is not on *me* to prove anything. As a taxpayer, I might even be justified in being a bit peeved when a new societal ideology, brought about by the notion that we've all got to recognize a whole new set of syndromes and disorders, complete with a new breed of 'top experts in the field', is foist upon us. After all, it's got implications for how criminals are (or are not) brought to justice, as I have tried to point out.

Zippie

No.

Next question?

Last edited by Locustman on 01 Dec 2009, 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, it isn't. Regardless of whether or not he's guilty, his alleged crime was committed on British soil and its in the UK that he should be tried. The US government are just looking to make a convenient scapegoat/example of him. If the American army really wanted to tighten up their cyber-security, they'd give him a job, seeing as he seems to be more clued up than any of their so-called security experts.

Nobody said there was an onus on you to prove anything. All that was said was that you failed to prove anything. What you have done there is sort of a Straw man
A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

So what. I am pretty much the same, in a professional situation ie client / contractor discussions I am fine. Why? because I know the rules, I am not making social chitchat, I am discussing their needs and wants. I have also been interviewed live on the radio, one interview was an indepth look at my personal experience with homelessness and drug abuse, this interview lasted a little over 25 minutes. I was comfortable with the subject matter and my role as an interviewee.

However you put me into a room with strangers and tell me to mix and chat and I will move awkwardly from one group to another or more likely the groups will split up and desert me a few minutes after my arrival.

Aspergers sits on the autism spectrum and as such there is no such thing as A-typical aspergers. So what if this guy managed a couple of radio interviews this only proves that he was comfortable talking about the subject matter and understood his role in the interaction.

Lets not forget that the US are notoriously unpredictable in their treatment of mental health issues, and simply notorious in their treatment of those they suspect are terrorists, be they foreign nationals or not. Despite "asuramces" that Mckinnon will be well treated, the rest of the world is painfully aware of how much weight that "promise" carries, and sadly how likely our government are to do anything about it if he IS subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.. (or even just the US health system.)

+1

I was on Judge Hatchet (national television) and looked pretty decent overall. It's not representative of how I'd handle social interaction. People with AS who are highly functional would do well in public speaking because they are TALKING AT others rather than trying to TALK WITH others. The one-sided nature of the communication favors their disability.

You might have come here to post your opinion because you want no one to consider it or take it seriously in any respect or capacity, but if you came here and posted your opinion because you want it to be given serious consideration, then you will probably need to demonstrate that it is anything other than uninformed nonesense.


ASDs and AS are not "new".


I have not encountered any evidence whatsoever that recognition of AS or ASDs generally is having a negative impact on any particular justice system. You have had ample opportunity to provide such evidence, for instance all these examples of people faking borderline AS and subsequently avoiding criminal culpability that according to you have been in the news.

I don't really blame some NTs for being sceptical about AS.

All I can really do is to assert that from my own experience, and from my observations of aspies I've met, it is a real and disabling condition. Plus, I have read of people's lives being ruined by going undiagnosed. Also, I have read of brain scans showing genuine, observable differences in brain functioning between aspies and NTs.

Despite all this, the question 'where do you draw the line?' is a valid one.

My own (admittedly not very well-informed) opinion is that ADHD might well be overdiagnosed. That would probably offend some of my fellow neuro-untypicals, which doesn't give me any pleasure, but there you go.

you would be wrong.




you would be wrong. unlike these other disorders it IS possible to get an AS dx without answering ANY questions (especially in cases like my own where i am basically non verbal). besides people are always so quick to point out how uninformed doctors are about ASDs, i'm sure someone with alot of knowledge of how they present could fool an uninformed professional quite easily. especially in the situation where someone is being assesed BECAUSE they have commited a crime.



yet, in spite of what you say it has been done many times.

No, I would not be. In addition to anecdotal evidence from acquaintances, this is actually something that has been confirmed by research (conducted by NAS in association with the governmental health agency).

AS is Asperger Syndrome. I find it rather unusual that a basically non verbal individual would be diagnosed with AS. Note that Autistic Disorder is not routinely questioned as a reality, is not being challenged anywhere in the blog entry and is not explicitly challenged by the thread's Opening Poster.
I find it rather difficult to believe that someone could fake an ASD by deciding to pretend to be nearly or basically or actually non-verbal, for the purpose of using an ASD diagnosis to avoid criminal culpability. I reiterate, in such cases there is a prosecuting party whose purpose is to undermine any defense presented, and I find it difficult to believe that it would be hard for such a party to find some former school-mate, teacher, a relative, a current acquaintance, etc who can confirm that the act is just an act.

That people go on about something does not make it true. Physians who do not have specific expertise in ASDs have no business diagnosing anyone with such a condition, nor ruling one out either. All physicians have a duty to practice within the limits of their clinical competency.
In criminal procedings, the prosecution can challenge any fact alleged by the defence. A physician who will pedal any diagnosis in court procedings would not need to be fooled in respect of any diagnosis and since AS is not a particularly effective condition for these purposes, I expect one of these other diagnoses would be picked. To stand up in court if relied on as part of a defence, a diagnosis would need to be carried out by someone who could demonstrate to a judge or jury that they have the relevant expertise and experience to make a robust and reliable diagnosis.


If this has occured so many times with AS then it is remarkable that no one has yet provided a single certain example of such. AS is not particular in that it could be faked and might be relevant to criminal procedings. It is not easier to get a diagnosis of AS than of other conditions that would be more effective for this purpose. In fact instances of AS are commonly misdiagnosed as a number of these other conditions; there is no body of evidence suggesting that misdiagnosis of these other conditions as AS happens at a proportionate rate. It would be odd if AS were therefore a particular concern in respect of having potential to be faked for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating criminal culpability. While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, it's also true that unlikely premises for which there is no evidence should not be given undue consideration.