About the existence or inexistence of Asperger Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

That does not indicate an absence of innate problems unless being solitary is a species typical trait as opposed to being socially cooperative. Human beings are a socially cooperative creature, it is an innate part of our survival strategy and entails a number of evolved species typical traits that facilitate the acquisition of core competencies in the social realm.

If they way they present themselves is both disadvantaging (for instance provokes disadvantaging harmful reactions from others or fails to sufficiently produce advantaging reactions) and is caused by impairment/lack of insufficiency in a species typical competency, then the problem is innate to the person not the situations. As humans it is to our advantage to be able to get what we need socially from others, and to our disadvantage to be impaired in getting what we need socially from others.

Social cooperation is innate to humans just as it is to bees and ants. Social cooperation is core to the human life-way.

Being inward looking and thoughtful is not AS and AS is not being inward and thoughtful though. One can have no significant impairment in core communication competencies and be thoughtful and inward looking.

I do not see how you could expect to know whether or not you suffer from such delays. It is not as though you would have any other experience to compare to. But I do expect that once there are objective biological means by which we can assess for ASDs, that at least some people might find they were not correctly diagnosed. Even with biological measures there will be occasional misdiagnosis, since this occurs in other conditions that are biologically tested for.

Evidently, a hearing processing assessment will not be enough by itself to assess everyone, since some people actually cannot hear at all; we would need other means to assess any such individuals suspected of having a clinically significant ASD.

I doubt you will meet with success unless you can demonstrate negligence, recklessness, or significant deviations from expected standards of care, although I admit to no particular expertise regarding the legal details in your particular jurisdiction (I'm guessing in other words).


I do not see that I can begin to comment on the level of non-ASDs being misdiagnosed as ASDs; I do not have the evidence on which to even begin to arrive at an opinion about that.

I think the thing is that many/most of the younger members were diagnosed young, take their label for granted, and think that their depression, lethargy/inertia, anxiety, insomnia, brain-fog/loss of cognitive function, poor "executive function", poor memory, hyperactivity/"irritability"/hyper-reactivity, overload, general incapacity is AS, whereas none of those things are in the criteria for AS.

I think that most of this is co-morbid/associated "illness", to which people with the genes/metabolisms which create AS are particularly prone, ( see my thread "Starch, or the Decline and Fall of the AS organism" ), and could be eliminated, and not by medication, which so many seem to be on, ( and I'm convinced is the cause of many of the cognitive problems too ), but by diet, in the case of at least 56% of people diagnosed with AS anyway.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Mar 2009, 8:02 am, edited 3 times in total.

Talk of differences here. This would make me go like: urgh, horrible!

I'm often bouncy, loud, can't keep to routines, love to get in touch with people, laugh a lot, look everyone in the eye unless I forget, need my hands and gestures to support my words and I can't keep to intellectual rules that I'd need to learn by heart.



I didn't think about that some people are so mild(?) that rather than a lack of eye-contact or a very obvious abnormal eye-contact some have much milder impairments that are hardly noticeable.

I thought that a lack of eye-contact, lack of facial expressions or only 1-2 facial expressions were rather obvious and definite.

Criteria do say 'marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors'.

But what's hard to notice isn't marked or obvious or easy to notice. So I don't think that if it's hardly noticeable or complicated to find out whether someone has such impairments that they're marked and therefore should not count for the diagnosis. That would totally defeat the purpose of the criteria.

And the special interest it also says that 'these interests and activities are pursued with great intensity often to the exclusion of other activities.'

Normal people also sometimes have intense hobbies that however don't mean (unless they're disordered) that they will forget to eat or clean, don't get their work done or only ramble on about it 24/7 without paying attention to everyday things from locking the door to not being able to learn anything else than about their hobby.

This might be really controversial, but I'm not sure if those milder than that should receive this diagnosis made on the basis of these criteria if they don't meet the criteria.



The DSM and ICD say the special interests is typical for AS and that repetitive behaviours of those with AS often take the form of such. I don't necessarily agree and think that routines are a part of AS too, but the criteria say otherwise.

It isn't silly because the list of traits that are being used to diagnose many of us are also occuring without any physical dysfunction:

social difficulties, few or no friends, passionate interest in 1 or 2 subjects, being teased and bullied, not understanding fashion trends, not talking in a voice that swoops through 4 octaves in 1 sentence, not staring at other peoples eyes when you talk, physically not well coordinated, IQ towards the top of the herd, problems with relationships...

These are the criteria used to diagnose me (and everybody that same psych sees, I assume). The only one that I can see could have any physical dysfunction is the lack of physical coordination. And even that is doubtful as it is only a problem when forced to play team sports with the physically gifted i.e. it is relative not absolute. I'm a semi-pro musician so I doubt I really have any 'physical dysfunction' at all, but I do have a difference. Like everybody else on the planet, I'm unique and should not feel pressured to be ashamed of it Labelling my unique attributes as a 'dysfunction' does not help me, but it does help maintain the high salaries of psychiatrists.

As for repetitive and stereotypical behavior, I agree with Ouinon that is the norm and this is so subjective I fail to see how it could be used to diagnose anything. Other than the lunacy of the current diagnostic criteria, that is.

Pandd, I have a fundamental difference of opinion with you on where the line is drawn between what is the normal position on the spectrum of "fitting in with the herd" and "being an individual". I don't believe there is one correct spot or even a narrow band where we all should be. "Man is a social animal" is true, but trite, because it says nothing about the different qualities of social interaction we can have.

Your viewpoint also appears to be strongly underpinned by the concept that "The majority is normal, is right, is healthy" and normality can be judged by distance from the norm of the masses. I do not hold this viewpoint, so when I see someone operating "far from the norm", I do not necessarily see 'dysfunction' or a problem that needs curing. On the contrary, I sometimes see dysfunction in those operating very close to the norm! I have a feeling that you will totally dispute this viewpoint...but I don't see how we can change the position we view from!

Last edited by ManErg on 20 Mar 2009, 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

That would have been my reaction 25 years ago aswell, because that is what I was like in my early 20s too, when I was on a sustained "high" of gluten, casein, coffee, sugar, etc, before my system's adaptative-response to food-intolerance collapsed and I had a breakdown with manic-depression, and emerged ... exhausted, went on an exclusion diet, ... at which point my "AS" became visible, no longer covered-up by all the environmentally-produced behaviours.




.

Whatever our alleged disorders are, I really don't see how we can both have the SAME personality disorder ! !

The post by MR on another thread just leapt out at me:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts94041-start30.html

Evidence that labelling *can* change people - and not for the better.

Last edited by ManErg on 20 Mar 2009, 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

In the DSM-III there was a thing called "Schizoid Disorder of Childhood or Adolescence"; these diagnosis does not exist any more and I think that is considered an "old name" for Aspergers. However, perhaps it could be an appropriate diagnosis (not necessarly with the name "schizoid disorder...") for some individuals (that today are considered "mild AS"):

It is relevant, because we were discussing the concept/label. Take away negative valuations of homosexuality at the conceptual level and it's not necessarily any problem or impairment. Take away negative valuations of AS as a concept and there are still real life pragmatic problems.

The very much overlooked and persistently ignored fact is that AS is not about attitudes to being quiet or reserved because people with AS are not universally quiet or reserved. Without any label or anyone believing any medical label applied to me, as a non-quiet, non-reserved person I experienced significant and persistent impairment. It is not the label or social attitudes toward character traits. Plenty of quiet reserved people get by without significant impairment. So this is not about society's attitudes to such superficial personality traits.

No amount of acceptance will remove the impairment. All human societies are socially cooperative because of core species typical traits of humans, and all rely on a suite of communication competencies. As a result, any individual impaired in these core communication competencies will be disadvantaged in any human society compared to an individual who is not impaired in these competencies. No amount of attitude adjustment will alter these facts.


The first would actually shift impairment to the majority, and it is not necessarily true that they could choose to do this anymore than we can choose to speed up. The second is not relevant because AS is not a failure to make eye-contact. Some individuals fixedly stare at the eyes of others, and there are societies where eye contact is very often not appropriate, and yet people in such societies still have AS and are impaired.

Why would that be sensible given the utility of facial expression, the advantage to having this as a means of communication, and the fact that they can no more choose by attitude or ideology to not do this than we can choose to simply play along with it. Would you also very unreasonably and unjustly demand everyone else no longer use verbal language to fit with you if you could not?

Humans are humans and cannot choose to abandon non-verbal behavior even if they wanted to because it is part of species typical humaness. But given its utility, why would or should they want to be rid of non-verbal communication? Are you volunteering to never see again because some people are blind?

The fact is non-verbal behavior varies between societies but characterizes them all because non-verbal communication is a species typical competency that advantages.

Humans will not and probably cannot produce societies that exclude non-verbal communication from social intercourse. Non-verbal communication is utilized by humans in all societies, not by design, or choice but as a result of human species-typical traits. They cannot turn it off by mere attitude even if they wanted to. Nor should they have to. I am not getting my legs cut off just because some people are amputees. I do not see such people should not be included, but will not pay the price of my legs for their inclusion; call me selfish if you will.

No human produced society will not entail non-verbal communication. Would you consider this such a reasonable suggestion if we include verbal communication that many with ASDs also struggle with? There is no chance whatsoever of anatomically modern humans producing a society free of either verbal or non-verbal communication. That's just the way humans are.


See above.

One thing that is not a species typical trait is the ability to magically change the very essence of how everyone communicates to make things easier on the minority. Non-verbal communication is as much a species typical imperative as is verbal communication. While we could imagine some society where there is no verbal communication, this offers no real solution to humans who are non-verbal, because no human produced society will ever fit the fantasized conditions being posited as the solution. You might as well expect dogs to meow and cats to bark.

Actually it is utterly incorrect to suggest that what is posited is not a biological condition. The traits are being posited as being the result of biological factors. You might argue the premise is wrong, but that is an entirely different issue. Poverty does not require a biological cause, but AS does (you can argue AS does not exist as premised, but not that it is inconsistent that it is premised as a medical condition while poverty is not).

"Social difficulties" is being repeatedly used in this thread in a way that obfuscates the reality. Having social difficulties does not necessarily mean one meets so much as a single criteria in the list. Not a one.

You are not describing AS. Popular stereotypes are often gross and not particularly accurate representations of the more complex reality. As is no exception. Listing associated stereotypes is just listing associated superficial stereotypes. People can fit every item you listed without having AS, or meeting the properly applied diagnostic criteria. If you think AS is the things you describe, then you lack a clear understanding of what AS refers to.

Evidently, many with AS have average to below (but within the range of normal) intelligence. The fact is many without AS fit the list you describe, and many with AS do not. You are describing a bunch of superficial traits, not AS.

Perhaps that was the "lay person" summary explained to you. Otherwise you might wish to consider consulting with another physician.
Then everything is doubtful because everything is relative.
What has shame got to do with it that is not a matter of how you choose to valuate biological dysfunction? Should people with asthma be ashamed because they have asthma?

The way I do it is not normal. I doubt that it is subjective, but would posit that it is relative. Humans are socially flexible creatures who if typically functioning acquire normal (relative to their social/cultural context) physical mannerisms that "fit" with their wider social/cultural group in meaningful way. Failure to do this resulting in uncontrollable and obvious physical motorisms is not subjective, it's relative.

It says plenty about the fact that there will be species typical competencies to facilitate this social cooperative aspect, and that a lack of such will impair those who manifest the lack, resulting in a relative disadvantage due to deviation from species typical competencies.

Then this is an instance where appearances are deceiving. I cannot understand why you would think I am saying anything about 'right'. Having or not having AS is not right or wrong, it just is or is not.
To be clear, I doubt the norm for humans is to live free from disability/ill health for all of one's life. On the contrary, I would be very surprised if long term or very significant dysfunction in one or more functions at one or more times in one's life were not in fact the norm. Perhaps this is why I do not understand the moral valuations that others seem to attach to biological dysfunction.

Neither do I, and I again am confused as to how this is less than clear from my earlier comments. A deviation from one's specie's typical condition, is only ever an impairment when it results in relative (to individuals within the range of typical for this trait) disadvantage.


I am confused as to how you would arrive at the view that I would dispute dysfunction in normal people. I think that any human who lives a long life without physical dysfunction is probably very atypical.

Last edited by pandd on 20 Mar 2009, 9:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

Yeah, well, easy to explain. I don't have a personality that is like AS. I'm the extrovert type. I have the form of hf AS that is indeed just autism without low IQ and without a lack of early speech.



I guess I have a totally different perspective on this. Which is probably why I disagree so much, I think.

So, if I were a professional and you listed that stuff, then I would never diagnose you with AS on the basis of all that.

If you told me that, I'd think, well, could be AS, could not be AS, I've yet to see evidence and will remain open-minded about the issue. I'd think it could be everything including personality that makes you be like that. It doesn't say even once that you're unable to do anything.

(Edit: Not meaning to say you and probably 2/3 of WP don't have AS. Not my form of AS maybe, but some other form or else everybody wouldn't be here!
But I'm really alienated by diagnosing someone like that and without asking for why they have these obvious symptoms.)

If you were voice would indeed me monotone, you'd not be able to read out loud or talk differently. It doesn't say why you're not staring anybody in the eye. I mean one could be you shy, traumatised, lazy, grown up differently, weak, trying to be intentionally rude, have bad eye-sight and so on. That are all reasons to not look others in the eye. It doesn't say why you don't have friends. It doesn't say why you have social difficulties or why you have problems with relationships.

The same list could be used to diagnose you with, say, BPD, APD, AD(H)D, depression (probably more).

That happened to me almost.

I talked about all of these things to give the professional a general first idea and without asking me for why these things are like that and without figuring out why I had difficulties she thought that just sounded typical for BPD. She just filled in the blanks in a way that she thought would be right without trying to get to the basis of my problems. Lack of eye contact - must be shyness. Trouble with relationships - can only mean emotional instability. Not being able to talk sometimes - the patient can and is just lying to the professional.

Last edited by Sora on 20 Mar 2009, 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

What causes someone's "impairment" to become a disadvantage/disability compared to a neighbour depends on whether their gifts are recognised/valued/respected, and whether society can manage without those capacities, which is why it is so worrying that so many people diagnosed with AS now also suffer from depression, anxiety, insomnia, lethargy/inertia/fatigue, "brain-fog"/loss of cognitive function, ( including poor memory, poor executive function ), hyperactivity/irritability/hyperreactivity, frequent overload, general incapacity.

These are not symptoms of AS. They are illness, and are turning people with AS into so much "dead weight" for society, ( relatively, taking our "impairment" into account ). Unfortunately people with AS do seem to be particularly sensitive to their environment, whether food , other chemical, or sensory, and the environment may be making us so ill that we can no longer make up for any inherent "impairments" we might have with our talents/special gifts, and introduce, as people with AS have in the past, changes to society.

PS. All of the above symptoms of illness can be the result of food-intolerance and other dietary factors. The older you get the longer it takes to retrieve full functioning.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Mar 2009, 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

About the communication problems, quitness, shyness, etc.

- Problems in non-verbal communication are not a necessary condition for a diagnosis of AS

- Problems in verbal communication are not even an "official" symptom of AS

- An individual who is only "quite and/or shy" could be (eventually) considered as having "failure do developr peer relathionships" and "lack of emotional or social reciprocity"; add to this one item of the "restricted interests" chapter, and you have a diagnosis of AS

- At least if we take the the DSM at the letter, probably someone with relevant comunication problems wil have classical autism, not Aspergers. Why? If you have a severe communication problem, much probably you will have "marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors...", " failure to develop peer relationships..." and "lack of social or emotional reciprocity" (3 symptoms). But it is almost certain that you will have also one "qualitative impairments in communication" item. Join to these at least 1 restricted interest item, and you have at least 5 symptoms (only one behind the 6 needed for a diagnosis of autism)

Shy and quiet people do not fulfil the explanation of that criterion which says that people with AS who are even interested in other people unless they have another disorder.

Also:



If a person is really autistic-like/AS-like but doesn't meet the above exactly it doesn't mean they're normal (if they're really abnormal) for they might have

or even


Both exclude the diagnosis of AS in the ICD-10.

To be fair, the ICD unlike the DSM says about AS that the following is demanded



Maybe the key to diagnosing a more homogeneous group of those with AS would be using the ICD and not the DSM that the Americans are so fond of for whatever reason...

Diagnostic triad topic

This discussion is getting clearer, at least to me. Are the diagnostic criteria (social, imaginative, communication) affecting daily life?

In my case, yes.

Socially I suck. I do not respond to others and their needs.

I do not understand non-verbal communication. My communication is limited to written/literal interaction. Not good enough, according to employers.

I do not understand empathy/imagination/multitasking.

All these three (I put multitasking with imagination because a person must be able to see what has to be done, backtrack, pick up where one has left off and the value of the task) impact on how I can function in the workplace. Even my children say that I do not understand their needs, though i make a concerted effort. In some areas I shine (helping them with school work) but I suck in others (understanding their concerns/illnesses).

I cannot work as a PSW because I lack empathy. I cannot multitask. I am slow physically. I can understand the role of the PSW theoretically but not in practice. Thus I am incompetent and my employment is terminated. I am a PSW on paper. I cannot do the actual work, though I am trained as such. I wish I could do it. The pay is good. I have no money for retraining, and I am ineligible for retraining in another discipline, according to Social services, though I am contesting this. In the meantime, I and my kids barely exist on Disability payments.

This is how Asperger Syndrome affects me. It is definitely an impairment. I knew this even before I was diagnosed/labeled by a professional.

That is it.

AFAIC, this post has nailed it. Questioning the existence or inexistence of AS is well and good, for we truly need to be educated about the unreality and social roots of both label and dysfunction..i.e., we need to be thoroughly aware of the part social control and medical voo-doo played in the construction of our disorder and in assigning us a life of misery....just because they felt like it [constituting a gross misusage of their power]. There is no getting around it: We absolutely must see how deception and the twisting of facts has been used to disadvantage us, to discriminate against us... This is truly an abomination; how can it be viewed otherwise?

But we needn't stop there. The next step will take a great deal longer than simply arriving at the above realizations. It will take time, energy, organization and commitment. The next step is--What are we going to do about this situation? What are our options? Looking historically at what women, minorities and groups who've been similarly marginalized--like the gay/lesbian community--have had to do to demand fair treatment...gives us come clues about what we need to get done.......if we give a damn about the quality of our lives..

There is no real reason why any group of people need be discriminated against, disrespected, undervalued, treated with hostility and impatience, and psychologically tortured. There is no reason why inhumane treatment of certain marginalized groups should be socially sanctioned. It is our prerogative and birthright as human beings--to reject and abolish such treatment!! As Ouinon has consistently and effectively argued--we are not significantly different from any other group of people who've been historically marginalized because it was temporarily inconvenient for society to treat them with dignity and respect. Because we have been given a label and because we do suffer unnecessary invalidation....the situation needs be addressed, remedied..... and then we can move on with our lives.

But this moving on...isn't something that will take place without a battle. Even if we make massive strides this year and next, we will still be following in the wake of the gay community....as they have diligently persevered in organizing, mobilizing, and making demands....which could no longer be ignored by the status quo in charge. They have decided what they want and need, and feel entitled to these things. Similarly, our specific demands will require extremely well thought out and skillful articulation.

Collectively, the gay community has keep up with their crying, screaming, ranting, debates and demands....until they were duly heard and actions taken to address their issues. Without organization, mobilization, endurance and commitment they would have utterly failed. And even before that, they had to comprehend at its very roots--the injustice and maltreatment they should not have ever had to contend with. But their battle is hardly won, and ours hasn't even begun. Even with taking this thread and other recent ones into account....our battle has barely just begun........The time to wake up and respond effectively--to being marginalized and discriminated against--appears to be NOW.

It seems the AS community has not quite reached that point and I am wondering what, indeed, it will take to get us to wake up and act in our own behalf. This thread and others have been extremely useful toward that end.

Yes I know there are autism activists. What I'm talking about is a general awakening of the AS community. We're dozing off....some of us, we're barely alive...others of us, we're already angry enough to start turning over tables and expelling the voo-doo priests who've ruined our lives....But...

What we really need is a general uprising--organized, enlightened and disciplined-- not just a few advocates acting heroically on our behalf. We should tolerate no longer the outrage, the victimization and the exile.

We can do this.

Last edited by alba on 20 Mar 2009, 12:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think the French revolution showed that change born out of anger and fuelled by anger isn't exactly the way to go if one wants to achieve something more beyond just destroying what's given.