Isn't Everyone A Little Bit Autistic ?

Post Reply New Topic

I hear OCD misused a lot.

It gets on my nerves when the terms are thrown about lightly when a lot of these conditions cause serious problems for a lot of people. It’s different if you actually think that you might have the diagnosis.

Current diagnostic criteria for autism are based on "required support level" - this can change in one's life a lot for various reasons. Here is a whole topic about wildly fluctuating functioning: viewtopic.php?t=377413

Does this mean one can be in-and-out autistic?

No, not everybody is autistic.

My testing score of 28 puts me in an in-between category. However, I do have some of the characteristics: intense special interests, social awkwardness (although this has vastly diminished with greater opportunities), occasional clumsiness and anxiety. I think the anxiety is worse than the Asperger's itself.

Luckily, one of my special interests, pets, is something a lot of people can relate to. A lot of people here, and the friends I have made through my various activities, have pets.

Is it? I can't see that in the DSM V criteria for ASD - is that ICD criteria ? EDIT: Found it

I wasn't given a level - I've been robbed

( I was assessed using the Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders with additional elements of The Royal College of Psychiatrists Diagnostic Interview Guide for the Assessment of Adults with ASD , both were used to aid the assessor using ICD 10 and DSM IV criteria. )



Not for me , I got a life sentence

My point was - there is such thing as "a little bit autistic" (or, say, partial experience of autism) but it definitely does not apply to "everyone".

Is that a fact ?

As existence of the BAP people is confirmed by various studies, we know that there are people with measurably significant autistic traits - but not significant enough for a diagnosis of any disorder.
I think this group can be named "a little bit autistic".

I read somewhere that all men are a little autistic, but I don't think it was meant literally to trivialise autism itself.

I also read that all kids have ADHD, all old people are senile, and all women have Bipolar.

But again it's not to be taken literally. But sometimes even some jokes aren't funny. I have a good sense of humour, but whenever I read things online like "NT syndrome" with exaggerated and stereotyped 'symptoms', I seem to get really annoyed about it, even if it is not meant to be taken seriously.

Diagnostically it's a threshold, so by that standard you either are or you aren't.
If you meet the criteria for being diagnosed "on the spectrum", you can have greater or lesser traits in multiple areas, but you have to meet the criteria. If you're sub-clinical, you can be allistic with autistic traits, but that's not the same as being "a little bit Autistic". Similarly it's probably fair to say 50(ish)% of the planet is not "a little bit pregnant" just because they have the requisite equipment.

On the other hand, the phrase may also be:
A. A way of saying "You and I aren't so different" without intending to be dismissive/condescending.
B. A way of downplaying the legitimacy of the Autism diagnosis, especially for those of us who don't necessarily present in glaringly apparent ways.

I think comparing "a bit autistic" to "a bit pregnant" is misleading - there is no "pregancy spectrum".

I find the "if you don't meet the criteria for official diagonsis, then you're allistic" dismissive towards those who struggle because of their autistic traits - but not consistently and visibly enough to meet the threshold of "clinically significant".

It's especially dangerous when such a sub-threshold person experiences a burnout - as they "have always been NT", they will likely get misdiagnosed with some mental condition and wrongly treated for it.

On similar lines, when I went to the doctors to ask to be referred, it took me about two years to ask, but last rime I took my Mu so I wouldn't ask something else instead... I have to go at tangents to trick my brain to stop it from going into mindblank... (Which it does if I am very nurvous at a doctors as it feels like a life or death type of situation).
I started by explaining that I have faceblindness and the doctor (A lady I had not seen before) said "So?" which was really off putting, as sometimes just having faceblindness can be quite an issue in itself which I would almost class as a dissability, when one can't find the people one is expecting to meet, or when one messes up a college course because for many months to a year one has not realized one has handed in course work to the wrong lecturers and had things marked wrong... (Why I lost heart in the course and just went through the motions from there on).
The "So?" remark almost took me into a mind blank mode... Luckily I saw my Mum there and was able to recalibrate my thoughts and get to the point, but then she very directly said "Symptoms?" and I did go into mindblank mode, and my Mum started off with a possible symptom and I gave another one, maybe tow... Not a lot to go on... but fortunately the referral team she sent the information to have decided they are going to see me...
For me it is more a case of "Do I have the condition or am I imagining it?" as sometimes I think it is all in the mind if that makes sense?
Anyaay... Can't think why I was replying now... So back over to you lot to continue the conversation!

Fair enough... I really couldn't find a truly fitting analog, but meant to compare them both as having a distinct threshold.


If someone has Autistic traits to a strong enough degree that they struggle in life, they need to be positively diagnosed somehow. That should not be considered sub-clinical.
Maybe there should be another recognized "band" on the spectrum where one doesn't meet multiple criteria, but nonetheless has known challenges (or challenge). They may still be considered outside the Autism classification, but do need an applicable diagnosis (if it helps).

All cats have Asperger syndrome and all dogs are ADHD. This isn't actually true, either, because I have known very social cats and very laid-back dogs.

Pregnancy does not have a threshold - it has a yes-or-no, objectively verifiable qualification - a fetus inside. One can be pregnant without any other accompanying conditions like morning sickness, swelling feet or changes in apetite.

If there is this kind of a qualitative factor underlying the autism spectrum, it hasn't been discovered yet so it has not been included in the diagnostic criteria.
If it turned out to exist, would it be possible for some people to have it without strong symptoms associated with autism diagnosis today?

The knowledge the humanity has on autism is far from complete and the language is very imperfect. Would that "non-autistic" person "become" autistic at burnout? Or would it be just surfacing of somenthing that has always been there but not prominent enough to get attention?

For me this raises the question of whether a categorical "Yes you fit"/"No you don't" approach is best or using a sliding scale from very autistic to no signs of autism ,with points in between , is best.

I think a sliding scale system seems much more in line with reality than a hard yes/no. It is actually probably a combination of multiple sliding scales.