Should Asperger be reclassified

Post Reply New Topic

A right/left divide makes sense to me, but it's still the same cause of the condition: some parts of the brain highly developed, some connections underdeveloped.

Whatever you want to call it, there are definitely different types of autism that I don't see as having anything to do with severity. I would have to make some kind of 3-d ven diagram to connect traits to make appropriate sub-types, but as a huge generalization for which everyone will have an exception, I could make at least two groups that sort of reflect right and left brain.

Type 1: verbal (mentally, not necessarily out loud), comes across as rigid, difficulty visualizing, will only read short blasts of factual information, singular focus of interest, deals with sensory overload by running or yelling about it, gets frustrated that other people don't live up to their standards, co-morbid with alexithymia, NVLD, narcissism.

Type 2: internally visual, comes across as scattered, difficulty processing words, highly emotionally empathetic, likes to read fiction, many interests but quirky, deals with sensory overload by internalizing it, wants to be social but can't communicate well enough to have friends, co-morbid with dyslexia, ADHD, anxiety.

I think having it called level 1 autism is more usefull for people with more severe aspergers

Aspergers and schizoid personality are nothing alike, and are impossible to confuse. And should not be lumped together.

If you wanna lump aspergers with something else then that something else would be "level one autism". In fact most folks who would have been diagnosed as "aspergers" a few years ago are now already diagnosed with "level one autism with no speech delay" today since aspergers was removed from the DSM.

I think it would be good to have autism subtypes defined by traits. But if that happens certain people will still object to being labeled autistic because they are ableist, the fear stigmatization from ableists, or both. Ableism and fear should not determine how we classify autism subtypes or “autisms”.



The United Stares based DSM manual is used in many countries outside of the United States. The ICD is used in many countries outside of the United States. In the UK from what I understand both manuals are used.

The newest version of the ICD also takes out Aspergers but each member country has until 2022 to approve of the latest version of that manual.

Further adding to the confusion is the widespread assumption that these manuals are rules. They are not, they are guidelines, Clinicians usually do not lose their license to practice for failing to follow the guidelines. For example there have been many posters here diagnosed with “high functioning autism”. “High functioning autism” is not a diagnoses in any manual I am aware of.

In short the diagnosis labeling issue is a clusterf**** .

My first diagnoses was autistic spectrum disorder and then I was placed with Asperger's by the same doctor. I see the ASD diagnoses as a temporary diagnoses until he figured out what diagnoses to give me.

Were you first diagnosed under DSM 4 or under DSM 5? It seems weird in both cases. If you were first diagnosed under DSM 4, then there were no ASD diagnosis in DSM 4. If you were first diagnosed under DSM 5, then Asperger isn't there in DSM 5. So its weird how you "first" got the DSM 5 diagnosis and "after that" a DSM 4 diagnosis. How is it possible?

Right now, under DSM 5, the "autism spectrum" is the official name for it, so maybe they are just being super formal and telling you the exact thing they were diagnosed with.

But then again, you might ask the following question: "how can you have a spectrum if you have one single diagnosis". Or you can also ask "how can you have autism spectrum if you don't have autism". I mean, in DSM 5, there are no "autism" diagnosis, yet there is "autism spectrum", so it makes no sense.

However, in the DSM 4 context, "autism spectrum" makes a lot more sense. In the DSM 4 there was, indeed, "autism" diagnosis (well, it was "autistic disorder", but thats close enough) and then there were some other diagnoses -- such as Asperger -- that were part of that "spectrum". So it makes sense. Sure, they didn't have "autism spectrum" as a formal label, but it made sense to use that term in the informal discussion, given the labels they did have. But then they just stupidly took that informal term and copied it into the formal diagnosis category in DSM 5, and now in the DSM 5 context it doesn't make sense any more. Thats one of the reasons why I, personally, like DSM 4 better.

It was under the DSM 4 and the ASD label was his way of saying I am somewhere on it but don't fit into either autistic disorder or Asperger's disorder box. I don't know why it couldn't be PDD-NOS. That is what it was basically then.

Thats like saying "if you break the arm or if you break the leg its part of the same condition: one of your limbs works fine and the other one isn't". I mean, different hemispheres of a brain have different functions, so the fact that its different hemispheres that are affected makes it different conditions.



The fact that it doesn't have to do with severity doesn't negate my point since I can always allow for some people with Asperger to be more severely affected than some people with autism. The only part that is related to severety is that you won't find anyone with Asperger that is mentally ret*d, but you will find such people with autism. That, however, doesn't negate the possibility that -- among high functioning ones -- you might have people with autism that are better off than people with Asperger.

And the reason you won't find anyone with Asperger that is mentally ret*d is not because Asperger is "defined" by severety, but rather because of "empirical fact" that it doesn't happen. So lets define Asperger as left hemisphere being stronger than right, and define autism as the opposite to that. But then we make an "observation" that we dont find anyone mentally ret*d with Asperger. It didn't have to be this way, just an observation.

Now, I realize that the DSM 4 diagnostic criteria didn't approach it this way but we don't have to approach it the exact way DSM 4 did. So the above is a more scientifically sound way of re-introducing Asperger.



Well, maybe instead of calling it Type 1 and Type 2, call one of them autism and the other one Asperger.

What do you mean they are nothing alike? To me, they look A LOT alike: both have to do with social withdrawal and introversion.

Earlier today I ran across this video of a psychology lecture from a UCLA autism-related symposium a little after the DSM5 came out. I don't remember the speaker's exact credentials, but I remember she seemed very well informed on the discussion surrounding the decision to combine the diagnoses. In particular, in this video she talks about how under DSM-IV criteria there was significant variation in how different professionals diagnosed the different spectrum developmental disorders, and how this played a significant role in the decision to combine them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTPj-G3eu4

This has made my situation finally make sense to me. I was diagnosed (UK) two years ago as ASD most closely

fitting Asperger's but apart from a pamphlet on autism was given no help/guidance/information. I've learnt

everything from WP including that it's now all autism. Whenever I've interacted with anyone in the NHS and

mentioned my autism they have reacted with silence, this has been very upsetting. This has been about

twelve people, mostly doctors. I don't know what their facial expressions are saying, obviously. I had thought

they might think I was exaggerating for sympathy and that they did not know it was all called autism now, but

I didn't want to use the Asperger name since it is offensive to some people (understandably so). Now it turns

out I was wrong so I feel stupid.

I don't mean that to sound like I blame WP, the NHS should have given me proper information or referred me to

an autism group, or at least sent me the Asperger leaflet, or even corrected me, embarrassing, but more helpful

in the long run.

I doubt you've got it wrong. Although the ICD-10 is ostensibly the diagnostic manual used in the UK, which manual is actually used in clinical settings varies a lot and is mostly down to preference. So right now (at least until the ICD-11 comes into affect) you can be diagnosed with ASD or Aspergers in the UK, it just depends where you live and what the diagnostic service/psychologist chooses the use.

I'm diagnosed (through the NHS) with ASD using the criteria from the DSM-V. I too got a leaflet about Aspergers (because that's what it would have been and it's still useful information) but all my other paperwork (letter stating my diagnosis, diagnostic report etc, all of which was also sent to my GP to be put on my medical records) says ASD.

Do you think your doctor has read it?

Right, and in this way some people with ASD could also develop co-occurring schizoid PD on top of ASD.


However, ASD is assumed to be an underlying condition that you were born with, whose manifestations may get more subtle as you mature -- whereas Schizoid is a PD -- so it's highly unlikely that they would ever get combined in the DSM.

That is still true.