Death of the Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

Not sure if serious.

How would you know that? It sounds like a statistic derived from research at the end of the alimentary canal.

The problem that I see is that there is a lot of material that described "Aspergers" as something just like me and my son. There is also a lot of material describing "autism" as something different.

I have no problem considering myself autistic, but what kind of autism? The old label was useful and meaningful. Nothing in the new system appears to be as useful. So far, when I have disclosed my diagnosis, I have done it both ways: I have Aspergers--I am autistic. Autism is a spectrum and I am on that spectrum because of my symptoms. You might think of nonverbal, self-harming children or rainman, but it's much more complicated than that.
Some people are like that some are much more verbally skilled and can seem almost like neurotypicals--except when they don't. You can find a lot of stuff that is more like me if you look up Aspergers Syndrome.

Can you explain why not calling it aspergers will simplify these conversation or help people to understand? I sent the relatives I disclosed to this youtube link:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkzCHhE6g58[/youtube]
I send this because she does a good job of describing what things seem like to me--the only thing she talks about that is not similar to me is that I don't get too physically close to people and I do get most figures of speech. Is there a video like this that is not talking about Aspergers?

Another one that I fiind helpful is this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eATX4juKdLA[/youtube]
Again, I can identify with a lot of what she says and she uses the Asperger label.

Another one that I found useful was the Autismhangout interview with Tony Attwood that included a discussion on "catastrophizing emotions:"
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbZ2QRJnUVg[/youtube]
This is a big problem for me and my son. I never heard anyone describe my internal process quite so clearly and matter-of-factly as Dr Attwood in this interview and it has been a huge relief to me to understand this. I found it quickly when I was researching Aspergers. I am sure I would find it researching ASD as well, but as quickly?

It seems like the new system is immediately less useful to me. The developmental pediatricians, neuropsychologists and psychiatrists that I have discussed this with say that they also find the Aspergers label is convenient, though they always called it an ASD and said that the diagnosis would change when the new DSM came out. They also said neither of us would lose the diagnosis, so that's not the issue.

My concern really has nothing to do with stigma or being associated with rainman.

I can understand that there is a need for a separate diagnosis like the modern Asperger syndrome, but I find the label a bit unfortunate because of the differences between Hans Asperger's original condition and some of the modern literature on Asperger syndrome. Thought few may read the research by Hans Asperger, his name may mislead the reader.

As the old conditions discovered by Asperger and Kanner describe me way much better than any modern literature on autistic disorder or Asperger syndrome, I welcome the new spectrum diagnosis which is the best I've seen in resembling these old conditions.

Who actually has Asperger's.

False.

The authors which have said that are just stating opinions. People will say anything to sell copies.

I think it's obvious, just nobody wants to talk more directly why they are really annoyed their old label has been changed.

More a cursory observation of perceptions and attitudes on WP forum; rather than an examination of the products of my alimentary canal.
Nobody walks around with a formal diagnosis signed by a psychiatrist p/copied onto their forehead. Perception of what mainstream society thinks of us does dictate how we feel about the change from Aspergers to Autism. Even "blind Freddy" can see that the Aspie community (parents and children) will continue to refer to themselves as having Aspergers. The reasons are self evident and obvious.

I think you misunderstand my stance. While I see the scientific logic of amalgamating AS under ASD, the two being seperate also has some logic. I think funding needs to be diverted to children with most needs. The cost of speech therapy for children with speech delay is exhorbitant, I'd prefer autism pertain to children with speech delay and serious stimming rather than including people like myself who would always be able to blend into the NT world with ease.

No, I agree with you. When I read your post I wasn't doing English very well and didn't understand it. I thought you were saying something about 90 degrees removed. Sorry about that.

The real one, yeah, that's false.

But the one from the movie? Other than not having the interest present, typical AS there. Watch the movie with the DSM-IV-TR in hand (criteria and expanded text).

I think most people who don't think he has AS/HFA haven't actually watched the movie all that much, nor do they actually know what AS/HFA is and can present as.

OK! I don't know why I have a problem with this--I know that when I see people use 90%, 95%, or 99% it's a quite reliable indicator that there is no statistical information in the statement, but they are just saying "I strongly believe that a high majority..." and "I want to dress that view in statistical drag so that it seems more scientific and convincing" -- but for some reason I can't easily make the leap to "I am using an arbitrary high percentage as a figure of speech." I see that this is what you were doing and now feel slightly foolish for my valid but irrelevant rejection of it.

I don't understand this at all. I am fairly new to this whole world having lived the decades of my aspie life up until the last few months in ignorance of the fact that my autistic traits are autistic traits.

My impression is that the great majority (perhaps I should say 95%?) of people in "mainstream society" don't know anything about Aspergers and very little about autism nor do they give it much thought. I think they do think about it when they are confronted by people with marked outward presentations like strong stimming or severe speech impairment--and when they think about it they are disturbed by it, fear it and sometimes feel compassion for the people with those signs and their families.

So basically, mainstream society doesn't think of us. Worrying about how slight changes in the diagnostic terminology changes the general view of us is like worrying about mainstream views on the ontological status of wave function collapse. The only thing that has a significant impact on public perception, I think, is publicity around mass media centered on people like Temple Grandin and Jake Barnett.

When you say the reasons for the continued use of the term "Aspergers" by the aspie community, defined as parents and children, are self evident and obvious, I wonder why you don't include diagnostic and therapeutic practitioners in that community. The reasons members of those groups have given me for their likely continued use of the term are largely the same: it's helpful in communicating with their patients.

To the extent that the aspie community and the related medical community will continue to discuss Aspergers, I think it would be premature to announce the death of the syndrome. As a formal diagnosis--sure. But in notes attached to an ASD diagnosis or discussion of that diagnosis with the patient and family--It seems that Aspergers will be with us until something of greater utility replaces it. The proposed system of degrees of impact within a loosely described ASD is not more useful, therefore it is not a sufficient replacement and will not be used.


OK, I don't know about blending with ease! It sounds great.

I am not sure what that has to do with use of Aspergers as a descriptive term for a subset of autistic people. I would prefer that medical costs be contained and needed therapeutic interventions. I don't really understand what you are saying about diverting funding -- I hope this is not a zero-sum game where we have to deprive aspies of needed accommodation for the benefit of those with more obvious impairments?

In any case, this seems like a different question--although I can see that reworking the terminology can have an impact on those resource allocation and health system design issues, it's a secondary effect. I can't imagine a concern for that psychological effect on a budget debate somehow outweighing the self evident and obvious reasons that the aspie community and related professions will keep using the term Aspergers despite the official obituary.

In California, there is a law that diverts funding to the children with the most needs. It says that children with autism get more services and more one-on-one services than children with AS or PDD-NOS. This law caused most children on the spectrum to be diagnosed with autism in California.

For what I remember from the movie, I doubt that he meets this point:

rain man has high functioning autism

I don't meet this point. I read elsewhere that many diagnosed with AS do not meet this point.

He actually isn't mentally ret*d, rather his spatial intelligence is through the roof at the expense of his verbal one (but even then, you couldn't determine what his verbal one is).

That's not uncommon in AS and HFA.

It was show in the film that he could speak as a child (which is often a sign for a low overall IQ).