HFAs also can't do all what LFAs can do

Post Reply New Topic

Let's just drop IQ altogether; I don't think it has much relevance when you're trying to discuss the one diagnosis that's the most likely to mess up measuring IQs and make them meaningless even when they can be measured anyway...

IQ has absolutely nothing to do with high functioning or low functioning within Asperger's. While it may divide AS from Kanner's, the only way to tell if you are high or low functioning is to have a level of adaptive behavior assessment.

I'm getting one done soon. I've been told that you're IQ can be 130 and you can be a low-functioning aspie, or your IQ can be 100 and you can be a high functioning aspie.

You're rated based on what you can actually DO in life, as far as independent living, getting along socially, etc.

Yeah, but even then you can have a really high IQ and still be Kanner's. Sue Rubin was clocked at 133, for example. If she's not Kanner's then nobody is.

So:
Low IQ: Kanner's diagnosis.
Normal or high IQ: Asperger's or Kanner's.

On the other hand, there are some people with MR who really seem more like Aspies than classic autistics--compared to others with the same degree of MR, they have language intact, social interaction impaired, sensory difficulties and stimming, fascination with subjects of interest, maybe talents or learning disabilities or both. Technically it is impossible to diagnose these people with Asperger's, but... I really think they fit in there more than Kanner's, if you're so determined to divide the two categories at all. Here I'm thinking that a "language focused" mind with autistic symptoms fits the Asperger's label better, even with a low IQ.

I think IQ is important insofar as a certain threshold is met in ASDs. A verbal IQ over a certain score (70) is a predictor of a better outcome than one below such (obviously, giving or taking 5 to 10 points probably doesn't mean much, and other subscores will offset the poor verbal ability if they're there, but it's a roundabout way that they came up with that was supported by the studies. O, and it's also age of gaining speech too, with 5 being the threshold). This has been proven. Now, when you get over a certain threshold (IQ over 70 and adequate speech by the age of 5), it doesn't matter, as the outcome relies on far too many variables than just verbal intelligence.

This is where they first got the HFA and LFA thing from (where AS was seen as a milder form of HFA at the time).

Buy anyway, I don't think anyone in the know would dispute that someone with LFA will have a better outcome than someone with HFA/AS. There may be parts here and there that are better for one individual over another, but taken as a whole (my father and I for example), it's already been written.

(As an aside, I developed communicative speech at 4 1/2, and my IQ is 59 now; it probably would have been lower when I was nonverbal. Which makes me moderate functioning. Better outcome than "severe", but not as good as "mild".)

There is no real difference between AS and LFA, let alone AS and HFA... Now before you take this the wrong way, let me explain...

ASDs are all the same, it is like cooking a soup, and only using herbs and spices to give it flavour... Just boiled water, herbs and spices, nothing else. There are hundreds of herbs and spices, and a soup will only have certain herbs and spices. Compare that to an ASD where each individual herb or spice is just one symptom of ASD. There are hundreds of symptoms overall, and which symptoms are in your soup will determine how your ASD affects you, nothing else. So, these aspects get added together, and they really shouldn't have so many classifications of ASD, because they all are the same thing, a bunch of spices, erm... symptoms... mixed together in the water of our life. LFA/HFA/AS/PDD seem to be just a way of describing which preset you are closest to with your blend, and really mean nothing in terms of what a person is capable of.

Basicly, we may look at an LFA as being severe, but that LFA may be better off than an AS who is seen as high functioning, all based on each of their blends of symptoms.

You can actually have mild mental retardation and AS, just as long as the retardation isn't noted in infancy (it's autism then). Mild mental retardation is from 50 to 60 (around 70 is borderline). A couple of well known "bad" people with Asperger's have this (Martin Bryant, and also someone in the UK).

From the ever-present DSM-IV-TR:

IQ is a strange concept. It doesn't seem plausible that you can take one test, administer it to everyone and determine what everyone's potential is based on it. How can it be accurate?
When I was four, I was tested before enrolling in kindergarten and my mom was told I was too young to have an actual number placed on my IQ but that I showed promise.
They were on the right track..dunno if they do this everywhere or if it's standard practice or what.
The only other time I've had something that might have been an IQ test was at the Department of Rehabilition, but they didn't tell me it was an IQ test and there weren't any numbers assigned. They placed grade levels on my abilities based on the results. They said my math was at a seventh grade level, lol, and I believe it.
So, yah, it does get confusing.

It sounds a bit like a semantics discussion, the words are partly determined by history. The identity of the scientists who discovered the conditions and the country where they lived. Another problem is that a lot of autists and aspies do not have a single condition, but other conditions as well. That makes easy identification impossible.


One divider that counts in society is if you can live on yourself and hold a job, or that you live supervised and have a 'special job'. I think it is not THE divider, but it is useful.

I feel it as a divider anyways. A dutch forum I visit sometimes is inhabited by a lot of people in special care or live from government money, their issues are not always relevant for me. There is wisdom to be found there, that is why I am still a member there, but it is not the place I feel at home. Here at WP are a lot of people with jobs or studying and I can identify with them. I recognize the issues on this forum and they matter to me. Sometimes the results do not fit me, but it feels a bit like a home.

It may be a terrible egocentric view. But would people living in special care really be interested in discussions about the issues I deal with. Maybe some say yes as a polite reaction, but would they REALLY care?

I've thought this. I have ASD traits only, they are not severe enough for a diagnosis. However, I have thought on these forums that I have worse problems with some things as a lot of people with diagnosed AS. There used to be a boy at my school who had AS and he was very quiet and seemed in his own world, and he didn't do very well in school. However, I never saw him freak out like I do. He could cope with things far better than I could.

Padium has a good metaphor with the soup. There are so many traits and symptoms caused by ASDs that you can't simply devide people into 'mild/moderate/severe' as you might be able to with something less complex like deafness (correct me if I'm wrong!). Most people fit more or less into one of those catagories although Age1600 (does she post on here any more?) has made many posts saying her problems and abilities are so mixed she doens't really fit into a catagory.

Asterisp - that's not a proper devider because a person might be able to take care of themselves, but not hold a job and probably in a few cases a person can hold a job but not take care of themselves.
I like to learn about people with more severe autism, even though their issues are not relevent to me. I can still identify with some of their traits.

Yes, it's possible to hold a job but not be able to take care of yourself. Off the spectrum, many physically disabled people need aides and hold jobs. On the spectrum, it's possible to have weaknesses in specific areas--like, let's say you're a computer programmer; you're great with code; but the complexities of making dinner or balancing a checkbook are just really difficult for you. That kind of a person would really benefit from living with family--a spouse, parents, etc.--or hiring housekeeper/cook/organizer/etc. type people. Not uncommon.

With MR only, living independently is usually possible to somewhere in the 40s-50s range (mild and some moderate), depending on supports available and the individual person. That's most of the MR population, incidentally, since the numbers of people get less and less as the IQ measurements get lower. Many people with MR will learn to drive, especially if it's a simple route like from home to work, home to the store, etc.; many will get married; most will be literate and able to do enough math to shop, pay bills, and follow recipes; a majority can hold jobs, though some of those will be in sheltered workshops (don't get me started on that--but let's just say somebody who puts in a good day's work, more capably than I could, doesn't deserve $1.50 an hour...). And that's the average. You can't really predict what's going to happen to any given kid based on one childhood IQ test. Anyway, yeah, it's not as grim as people think it is. If it weren't for the prejudice, I really don't think it would be a bad life. You can definitely be happy, anyway, and contribute to the world; and isn't that what counts?