Disorder?

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose death is a difference, probably the most severe ailment too.... Ha.

I don't like to think of AS as a disorder.

As far as I'm concerned there is no definition of the 'perfect', most efficient brain. Or, if there is, the likeliehood of anyone having it is nigh impossible. Therefore we just get billions of people with varying degrees of whatever parameteres you may use to describe the brain. I consider AS to be just one type of setup of the brain, just a more noticable one.

I don't consider it a disorder because it is possible to live a full happy life with it. Sure, there may be a few obstacles, but no more than someone that may have been traumatised in their youth or suffer some other, non-genetic abnormality.

asperger's Syndrome?

but fair enough...

it has caused me sufficient trouble in life to consider it a disorder
but that might be largely due to late discovery

to what extent can trouble be explained through
either AS or ignorance

disease or condition; matter of semantics - i say condition
and yes, i will sitck to disorder

Tallness is not a disorder. However, the extremely tall suffer greatly from joint problems, circulatory problems and susceptibility to accidents (head trauma is one). Tall people often have trouble relating to more typically statured folks and will often form clubs where they can gather to have more relaxed interaction with similar-bodied people.

Tallness is not a disorder. Joint and cardiovascular problems from whatever source are.

Autism is not a disorder. Coordination and communication problems from whatever source are.

Calling autism a disorder to me is like calling all light skinned people defective because of the increased likelihood of sunburn!

I'm in the AS as a disorder camp. It has interfered with my having a normal life to a significant extent. Anyone who wants to engage in sophistry can now demand that I define normal. I'm not going to bother doing that, instead I would direct this discussion to the many angst filled posts at the Members Only and The Haven sub forums. Pervasive Developmental DISORDER is where the spectrum is listed in DSM IV. Some people, on an individual basis, may not be adversely affected by spectrum traits. They are obviously free to define themselves as they see fit.

I think it can sometimes be a disorder and other times not.

I am quite sure I could be diagnosed with AS without having to lie or misrepresent myself in any way. However, I don't even slightly regret my AS traits; I feel that the things I've learned from them are worth the pain and dysfunction.

It is a disorder when it causes failure of function.

Okay, I will get involved, just to say a couple things in response to a couple people:

That's not accurate and it is actually to me a very insulting viewpoint, although obviously the insult is not intentional.

The problem is that the implications of that viewpoint are that if I am severely impaired then I have no choice but to view myself a certain way. This is not accurate.

It also implies that you can tell how impaired someone is by autism by their opinions on it, which is also not accurate. I have watched arguments over the nature of autism for ten years now, and seen arguments from before even that time, and I can say with a lot of confidence based on that that "severity" doesn't cause people's opinions on this.

So it's both misleading (inaccurate) and to some of us insulting (in saying that our viewpoints are determined entirely by our neurological state), although I don't think the insult is intentional, it always seems as if people just haven't thought that part through.



And that is why I hate getting involved in these arguments.



Do you really think that all variation from the norm is "not like it's supposed to be", or do you just think that about some variation from the norm?

Because taking your argument to its logical conclusion, then people ought not to to have talents that exceed a certain level of rarity.

Also, what do you think if everyone in a particular area (big enough to be reasonably self-sufficient) is not configured in the way that you would consider normal for humans, or where the norm is considered wider than it currently is in, say, suburban America? And I'm talking about people who would be considered to have moderate to severe disabilities in modern suburban America, but who are merely considered part of the norm where they do live.

I'm talking about several actual places inhabited by my relatives and the relatives of people I know, too, so don't take this as hypothetical. I'm talking about people who would now and here be diagnosed with dyslexia, intellectual disabilities, autism, Tourette's, AS, etc.

What do you think about conditions that cause both abilities that are not normal and difficulties that are not normal? (Autism is already shown to be one of those.) What about when the abilities and difficulties are two sides of the same coin?

How do you account for the deficits of the so-called "neurotypical" person? There are extreme deficits in important areas, they are (as in autism) the results of things that are advantageous in some ways but cause unavoidable and severe deficits in others, including some that can and do easily lead to death. Are those deficits less real just because they're more normal?

What do you think about the fact that, across a lifetime, just about everyone will experience what you consider a deficiency, and everyone has deficiencies (including extreme ones in important areas) that some other people do not have? How do you call it "not normal" in those circumstances to experience such a thing?

Why do you think that having one sort of person is best? Do you not think that, in a society, there ought to be a variety of different ability patterns, not just one? Do you not think it's advantageous in some way to have a lot of one sort of person, and then smaller numbers (but not a total lack of) of other sorts of people who (taken collectively) do not have some of the deficits of the majority of people, and can thus make up for them?

It seems to me, to go back to mechanical analogies, that to have a society with only one sort of people is like trying to make a complex machine such as a typewriter out of all screws. Screws are important, but they can't be the only thing you've got.

Also, how do you account for your view that autistic people function like normal people with abilities taken away, when this does not match research in the autism field?

None of these questions are about whether I consider something "a disorder or a difference" though, they are just about how your views play out in these various situations. I find the "disorder or difference" argument itself to be tiring and semantic, and to never include my viewpoints as valid on either side.

It's a disorder in the sense that it causes a disturbance within the larger population. Whether it's good or bad is a matter of personal perspective. I've known some people (mostly religious) who seem to think that it's good that they've been stricken with cancer.

The problem with that definition is that homosexuality is also disorderly. Because we live in a heteronormative society, there is a large part of culture which homosexuals are unable to participate in. I personally think it's silly, but I also think it's silly that I live in a culture which lies to make people feel better, spends an enormous amount of money on professional sports, and thinks libraries are boring. Again, it's about perspective.

It's very well said! This should go into a FAQ about Asperger!

If you recall Aspergers Syndrome is a syndrome not a disorder.

pdd-nos (is pervasive developmental disorder)

AS is higher level, less of a disorder and more of a syndrome.

whatever that means--I don't know. don't feel like looking it up either.

'Syndrome' and 'disorder' aren't necessarily different, as Asperger's Syndrome is called a disorder on the DSM.

NOUN:
Syndrome:
A group of symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition.

A complex of symptoms indicating the existence of an undesirable condition or quality.
A distinctive or characteristic pattern of behavior: the syndrome of conspicuous consumption in wealthy suburbs.


okay--same same

Not intentional. If it was insulting, I of course apologise for the wording!

But I don't think it is not accurate, nevertheless. Currently this is exactly how it works in most places. I repeated the view point of many professionals that practise this idea of diagnosing.

Like, in order to apply for disability here, you must call yourself disabled. If you try to sort it out with government, they just won't care for an opinion on how you see yourself.

They demand that you see yourself and word your application a certain way. Which is, to many, utterly humiliating. But either you fit yourself in the scale for that moment or government will just sort you out and hinder you to get the services you try to apply for.

The same with unemployment and pretty much everything else that somehow intrudes in someone's personal life.

And of course, people without an idea of autism also frequently point out that 'he who looks almost normal' has 'no disorder has he?', while another person who is perceived as 'so not normal' is the one who is automatically assumed to be 'disordered for sure'.

On the same line, it also applies for shyness, or such basic emotions as happiness and sadness. If others think you must be sad, then they demand that you feel sad indeed.

Whether someone personally adopts this idea for themselves or whether this idea is actually objectively accurate I left open for discussion.

Pretty much for the very idea you pointed out if I understand you correctly. Two perfectly similar people can differ in opinion and idea of self very much. That's always been a mystery to me, why one's like this and the other like that and why we're not all robots who turn out exactly the same, but I try to just accept it like that.

But, well, yes, currently people decide over how impaired we are. I know I didn't have a say in what my medical report said on me. I nearly didn't get it, they kinda talked over my head as if I weren't there most of the time.

But until I have wealth, influence and power, I don't dare disagree with how impaired and unable and ill services see me. I'll try to look as impaired and unable and ill these people think I definitely must feel when I have the troubles that I have.

Although that relationship is certainly not a causal one outside the heads of people. But they have the power to enforce it and make it true and accurate.

All the unemployed people here also must admit in front of a stranger/government that they can't feed their children, that they feel miserable and are on the brink of sanity.

If they just say 'we'll manage and we're strong, but we need more money' they can leave again and find some money elsewhere.

I voted disorder and then regretted it. Wish I could change my vote.

"Is autism a disorder" or "there is nothing wrong with any autistic person" isn't really what I was arguing. I was talking about "communicative deficiency" and that you can't just define the communicative problems as on one side only, especially if some of the following three points are true:

1. There can be total communicative failure in a group in which there is no person who is defined as having autism or a communicative disability. (And no one tries to define them as communicatively disabled because of this failure.)

2. Only some people have trouble understanding (and successfully passing words/ideas to) the person who is defined as having a communicative disability.

3. The difficulty occurs only in one or a couple of areas (writing, hearing, speaking, signing, gesturing) but there is good communication in some other area.


I have two friends who absolutely cannot understand each other (despite being NTs who speak the same language), but they both understand me. Am I communicatively deficient when I can communicate adequately with both?

If my mother can't speak in front of large groups under any circumstances, is she communicatively deficient? What if she can write a report with the same information and e-mail it to everyone, even though she can't speak it? Would it be different if she were autistic?

Do you think an illiterate man who can speak well is communicatively disabled because one way of communicating is closed to him? Or is he only communicatively disabled if he's also blind and unable ever to read normal books? Or is it only spoken word deficits that you are willing to call communication deficiency?

If an autistic person is in fact unable to communicate in any way (and we assume that there is no one alive who could communicate with her), is that a deficiency because she is autistic or because she herself has a communicative disability? If she can't hear, is that also because she's autistic, or do we need an expert to first tell everyone that autistic people cannot hear? And if that actually is true for 20-80% of autitics, can we redefine hearing autistics as not autistic, or are they lying or lacking insight when they claim to be able to hear?

If we found an alien who could not speak or understand anything we said or did, but he is a great and nuanced speaker on his home planet, is he objectively disabled because he is not at home?


I am not trying to talk about everyone, because I am sure there are people (autistic and NT) who really do have communicative disorders, and I don't want to define away someone's experience. I don't want to go into whether anything else is disorder or if autism is disorder, because I haven't thought enough about it. Also, I haven't yet read comments, so I apologize if I retalk what someone else has said or seem to be ignoring someone else's points.

Everyone has something interfering with their lives at some time. Sometimes it is called disorder (homosexuality, diabetes, anxiety), sometimes it is called personality (stubborn, self-sabotage, shyness), sometimes it is called environment or society (parents, unfair laws, bullying).

It does not follow that "I have trouble and therefore I am disordered" although it is one possible reason. Being gay "interferes with having a normal life to a significant extent" depending on what it is you expect from a normal life, where you live, who you live around, and your personality. Nearly every message board has angst-filled posts about people's suffering, because people suffer. Significant interference is necessary but not sufficient to prove disorder. And being adversely affected by traits that match a diagnosis does not mean by itself that the problems you have are inside you (or inside you alone).