The Impossibility of Defining Autism

Post Reply New Topic

Yep, I know. Unfortunately, quite often SUPPOSED != DOES

For example; I have the mathematical abilities of a table-lamp so would score very badly on a test involving maths. But with one involving determining the missing pattern in a sequence (logic) I would score very well.
I write much better than I can speak - certainly in face-to-face situations - and enjoy playing with worms. (there's a small joke in there ) So, I would likely score well on a written test involving vocabulary.

On the tests I've tried I have high scores, although I always take the results with a large pinch of salt.
But whether any test which might contain a bias one way or the other towards logic or maths could give a meaningful, general indication of my capabilities or abilities is, to me, doubtful.
So the term "IQ test", without many further qualifications and details, is almost meaningless.

I fully agree. And I emphasized SUPPOSED to indicate that it wasn't necessarily true. In retrospect, that may not seem as clear as I thought.

Aspergers SPECIFICALLY, well, let's go to the DSM "(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood."

Of course, kanner's is closer to what you said. Still, I did NOT say primarily social. I said that they all have that component. Kanner's has traditionally been seen as primarily anything but social, even though it has a social component. Though that HAS become less true with HFA! And YEAH, the social component is partially mental, although it is accepted fact that the brain does consist of parts that work together towards a goal. If a part is missing, other parts must try to compensate, and things don't work as well.

Further, women, especially one with REAL communication problem, like you, may not notice it. After all, if it were so easy to notice, we could compensate on the fly and not have the problem. Men have a hard enough time just understanding women. I swear, if all the females went to a special school, I would think they have special classes, etc... and want to go there just to better understand things. Most women don't even seem to realize that they DO think differently.

Steve

The thing about the "cognitive development" thing in the Asperger diagnosis is it just says that there isn't a delay. And "cognitive development" is generally taken to mean that the person doesn't have an intellectual disability, it doesn't mean every possible form of atypical cognitive development (and not all cognitive development differences are delays, or "clinically significant delays", either). That's one problem with reading the DSM too literally. Basically that criterion is usually taken to mean "this person has an IQ of 70 or above." (Or very close to 70, if below it.) Which leaves plenty of room for other cognitive differences. And many clinicians totally disregard the part about "delays in self-help", because most people who'd otherwise be diagnosed with Asperger's have delays in self-help to at least some degree.

Anyway I was talking about autism as a whole -- "Asperger", "Kanner", PDDNOS, etc. (Never mind that some of Kanner's patients would now be diagnosed with Asperger's, and possibly vice-versa, go figure.) There's several different atypical cognitive patterns that can crop up. These are both patterns of strength and weakness. Not just weakness. (And to be clear, again it's not something like "reading literature" or "doing calculus", it's more like "performing a certain way on certain specific cognitive tests".) As one example of a common cognitive pattern, a large number of autistic people are very good at the "block design" test, as well as that... argh I can't remember what it's called. It's the test where they have a drawing of something, and you have to find a particular shape within that drawing. Neither of those can be explained by social problems. (And they're widely-tested enough that yes, it can be said that autism can convey cognitive strengths. If it couldn't, there wouldn't be such widespread patterns of being extremely good at these tasks. Not universal, but definitely there.)

And I do know that I have social issues. It's just that... how to describe, I'm coming up against the same communication problems again.

For instance, just one example of the thorniness of the idea... there are people in the world that I have zero social problems with. If I had some kind of universal social deficit, that wouldn't happen. Those people happen to be a lot like me, so we can easily understand and predict each other's motivations, emotions, and reactions. If I simply had no theory of mind, or universally low empathy, this would not be possible. So let's just take one example, my friend Anne. Anne and I can understand each other probably as perfectly as is possible for two human beings to do so, which isn't perfect, but is pretty darn accurate. But Anne and I both have trouble understanding people who are very different from us, be they autistic or nonautistic. And people who are very different from us have trouble understanding us, whether they are autistic or nonautistic. So in that case it seems to be a two-way street. We have social problems, but they come from having a different kind of way of relating to the world, than the people we have social problems with. And additionally -- those nonautistic people who are very different from us? They have social problems with us. They may even have more social problems with us than we have with them, if only because there are more of them in the world than there are of us, so we're likely to have met and had to work something out about people like them, and they are not likely to have met and had to work something out about people like us. So in those sorts of cases, either all people involved have social deficits, or none of us do and the social problems are caused by the interface between us and people very unlike us. Possibly both, in a way -- it's a rare person who doesn't have the social deficit of having serious trouble socially with people different than them. And that particular social deficit creates difficulties at the interface between people like me and people very different from me.

Again, that's not to say that I, or Anne, don't have social trouble with some autistic people, particularly ones who are extremely different from us. It's not that all autistic people understand all other autistic people. It's more like, many autistic people find understanding those autistic people most like them much easier than they understand nonautistic people. And that would not be possible if all autistic people simply had a deficit in theory of mind and empathy. If I had a universal deficit in theory of mind and empathy I would not be able to understand Anne as well as I do. We've never really even had a fight. We've just had very minor misunderstandings. Our way of interacting with each other can be highly atypical for our age in some ways (we're very much into "parallel play" and that kind of thing when we can manage it, or "joint perseveration", or simply sitting seemingly not interacting at all and resonating with each other in ways I've never really even heard described about friendships at any age), and the sort of friendship we form may not be (to some people) a "real/appropriate friendship" just because we interact differently, but we do interact and we do it in a way that works for us and is highly meaningful to us, and that's all that matters to us.

That's only one example, and the easiest example to write about, that I can find regarding how just calling it "bad social skills" misses a lot.

Hi Dandelion-

I was just using the term "normal" to mean non-autistic. I realize that no one is NORMAL. Everyone has their quirks and things that they are good at or not so good at.

As far as my son's "issues"----I just didn't feel like describing them all. But, I do not mean that all of his issues are "bad" They are just different than what I was prepared for. He definitely still has difficulties maintaining a back and forth conversation. He has difficulty staying quiet in class when he is supposed to be doing his work, (which I understand he is only 5) He has very few interests (doesn't really play with toys) so he has trouble learning to entertain himself. I adore my son, but I am learning to adapt to the idea that he is "different" Not bad, just different.

As far as mysterious, I didn't mean that as a bad description. Maybe I could have used the word "fascinating" Either way, I didn't mean it as a bad thing.

Sorry if I offended you with anything I wrote. That wasn't my intent at all. I was just agreeing that autism is very complex.

Okay. Not offended; I am kind of on a hair trigger with things that sound like the same myths and stereotypes and typicalism that I hear a lot. But I get it.

The thing is that it affects each person who has the condition in a different way.