they changed it again

Post Reply New Topic

It's kind of more about the precise wording. I don't know, are you meant to interpret the criteria loosely? I always thought it was "all of these statements have to be literally true in the most narrow interpretation thereof" and that kind of makes the difference. Some time after I was diagnosed I went over the criteria to see if I agreed. I don't know what relationships appropriate to my developmental level are right now, but at the time I was looking these over, I definitely had failed, and failed often and hard, to form them. I don't know now, because I have a social life that I consider satisfactory, but which is not typical. Also, for the DSM-V you have to meet all three, whereas for the DSM-IV you only need two.



Some time after I was diagnosed I went over the criteria to see if I agreed. I don't know what relationships appropriate to my developmental level are right now, but at the time I was looking these over, I definitely had failed, and failed often and hard, to form them. I don't know now, because I have a social life that I consider satisfactory, but which is not typical. I also, at that time, hadn't realized I had an instinctive, internally-consistent body language that I used and could read in others.

But even so, it seems like just an overly-bigoted way of saying "doesn't use NT body language" and... I mean, I can't use eye contact to regulate social interaction, for instance. I can't make it. This way gives the impression that they mean not being able to use, or being bad at using, specific behaviors that NTs do, while interacting, to make that interaction work. The DSM-V sounds way more like it means across-the-board can't use body language.



DSM-IV only required that two criteria be met. DSM-V requires all three.



I guess now I think about it it does say "restricted" but other than that it really, really sounds like an overly-formal, rather typicalist description of a special interest. And it basically says that you have an "encompassing preoccupation" rather than saying that your interests are narrow... IDK, it seems like the difference between saying "you have red skin" and "your skin is red." I might well have red skin if I get sunburned or step out of a hot shower. However, my skin is unlikely to be red-- I also have non-red skin, mostly of varying shades of brown. You know?



At the time I was initially going over these criteria, it did. But anyway, I'm sick of this awful criterion anyway. Why? Because whether or not you're impaired is as much a function of your environment as of your skills. It's not my skills that make me non-impaired right now. Well, it is-- someone could be in my situation and impaired because they lacked skills I have... but then, I could be in other situations and be impaired. But for another thing, for the benefit of all [url=http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt146071.html]dandelions (I here use the word where many people would refer to autistics, because I refer to "us" or "people like me" or "my group of people who think in many ways, most more similar to my way of thinking than to the most common" and I do NOT mean "what psychiatry calls autistic")[url], I think we need dandelions to share their experiences, and to be studied as a whole group, regardless of whether or not they've been lucky enough to be in an environment where they aren't impaired. In fact, arguably, unimpaired dandelions are even more important to study, so we can learn why they're unimpaired. Also, it's annoying to try to argue that it's fine to be autistic, but have the definition of autism basically say "it isn't fine to be autistic."



Pass criterion D with flying colors. I actually don't know if I fit criterion E; I have a sneaking suspicion that I don't, depending on your definition of "age-appropriate self-help skills" and "adaptive behavior" and "social interaction." But I couldn't say.

Criterion F... okay, let's look. Schizophrenia requires two or more of: delusions (do not have), hallucinations (do not have), disorganized speech (no more than everyone), grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior (do not have), "negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition" (have this). That's only one where two must be met. Don't need to go over the rest. But criteria for autism...


This is verbatim from the other criteria. Have two.



Do not meet.



Do not meet.



Do not meet.



Do not meet.



Also verbatim.

So it requires six, and I have three.



I do not recall whether or not I even met anyone my own age when I was not yet three. I do not recall being not yet three. I think there were some issues with social interaction when I was three, but I managed to do okay until I was eight. Very young children are very forgiving. So I guess I don't meet this one. I only meet it with the caveat that's in the Asperger's criteria, that the issues might not be an issue at very young ages.

Trying to quote DandelionFireworks' post:

[quote="DandelionFireworks"][quote="aghogday"]I can't disagree with your assessment of yourself, but in terms of the current criteria for Aspergers do you think you meet the current requirements. Based on the things you commented about the DSM V proposed revisions for the Spectrum, do you meet the requirements for the items highlighted below. I can't see how the highlighted criteria are significantly different from the criteria in the DSM V that you didn't think you met.[/quote]

It's kind of more about the precise wording. I don't know, are you meant to interpret the criteria loosely? I always thought it was "all of these statements have to be literally true in the most narrow interpretation thereof" and that kind of makes the difference. Some time after I was diagnosed I went over the criteria to see if I agreed. I don't know what relationships appropriate to my developmental level are right now, but at the time I was looking these over, I definitely had failed, and failed often and hard, to form them. I don't know now, because I have a social life that I consider satisfactory, but which is not typical. Also, for the DSM-V you have to meet all three, whereas for the DSM-IV you only need two.

[quote]Asperger’s Disorder
A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

[b](1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction[/b]

(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level[/quote]

Some time after I was diagnosed I went over the criteria to see if I agreed. I don't know what relationships appropriate to my developmental level are right now, but at the time I was looking these over, I definitely had failed, and failed often and hard, to form them. I don't know now, because I have a social life that I consider satisfactory, but which is not typical. I also, at that time, hadn't realized I had an instinctive, internally-consistent body language that I used and could read in others.

But even so, it seems like just an overly-bigoted way of saying "doesn't use NT body language" and... I mean, I can't use eye contact to regulate social interaction, for instance. I can't make it. This way gives the impression that they mean not being able to use, or being bad at using, specific behaviors that NTs do, while interacting, to make that interaction work. The DSM-V sounds way more like it means across-the-board can't use body language.

[quote][b](3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)[/b]

[b](4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity[/b][/quote]

DSM-IV only required that two criteria be met. DSM-V requires all three.

[quote]B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus[/quote]

I guess now I think about it it does say "restricted" but other than that it really, really sounds like an overly-formal, rather typicalist description of a special interest. And it basically says that you have an "encompassing preoccupation" rather than saying that your interests are narrow... IDK, it seems like the difference between saying "you have red skin" and "your skin is red." I might well have red skin if I get sunburned or step out of a hot shower. However, my skin is unlikely to be red-- I also have non-red skin, mostly of varying shades of brown. You know?

[quote](2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals

(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)

(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

[b]C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.[/b][/quote]

At the time I was initially going over these criteria, it did. But anyway, I'm sick of this awful criterion anyway. Why? Because whether or not you're impaired is as much a function of your environment as of your skills. It's not my skills that make me non-impaired right now. Well, it is-- someone could be in my situation and impaired because they lacked skills I have... but then, I could be in other situations and be impaired. But for another thing, for the benefit of all [url=http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt146071.html]dandelions (I here use the word where many people would refer to autistics, because I refer to "us" or "people like me" or "my group of people who think in many ways, most more similar to my way of thinking than to the most common" and I do NOT mean "what psychiatry calls autistic")[url], I think we need dandelions to share their experiences, and to be studied as a whole group, regardless of whether or not they've been lucky enough to be in an environment where they aren't impaired. In fact, arguably, unimpaired dandelions are even more important to study, so we can learn why they're unimpaired. Also, it's annoying to try to argue that it's fine to be autistic, but have the definition of autism basically say "it isn't fine to be autistic."

[quote]D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years).

E. 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.

F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.[/quote]

Pass criterion D with flying colors. I actually don't know if I fit criterion E; I have a sneaking suspicion that I don't, depending on your definition of "age-appropriate self-help skills" and "adaptive behavior" and "social interaction." But I couldn't say.

Criterion F... okay, let's look. Schizophrenia requires two or more of: delusions (do not have), hallucinations (do not have), disorganized speech (no more than everyone), grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior (do not have), "negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition" (have this). That's only one where two must be met. Don't need to go over the rest. But criteria for autism...

[quote](I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity[/quote]
This is verbatim from the other criteria. Have two.

[quote](B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)[/quote]

Do not meet.

[quote] 2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others[/quote]

Do not meet.

[quote] 3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language[/quote]

Do not meet.

[quote] 4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level[/quote]

Do not meet.

[quote](C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects[/quote]

Also verbatim.

So it requires six, and I have three.

[quote](II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(A) social interaction
(B) language as used in social communication
(C) symbolic or imaginative play[/quote]

I do not recall whether or not I even met anyone my own age when I was not yet three. I do not recall being not yet three. I think there were some issues with social interaction when I was three, but I managed to do okay until I was eight. Very young children are very forgiving. So I guess I don't meet this one. I only meet it with the caveat that's in the Asperger's criteria, that the issues might not be an issue at very young ages.[/quote]

Last edited by Verdandi on 30 Jan 2011, 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

EDIT: Yeah, V has it, or most of it, I can't tell if there's anything missing. Thanks, Verdandi.

Last edited by DandelionFireworks on 30 Jan 2011, 3:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

EDIT: Looks like Verdandi managed it already. I finally managed to figure out I could post the first part by itself... I'll check if V got everything.

Last edited by DandelionFireworks on 30 Jan 2011, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's something in the BBCode that's rendering the post invisible. I tried disabling and quoting your post and it shows.

Edit: Nevermind, I see you made it work. I wonder what the problem was.

No, I only got the first half. I couldn't get it all at once. Maybe the problem is the length. Or maybe it's in the second half. Maybe I used too many quote tags. I'd test that, but I don't want to clutter up this thread any further.

D. Symptoms together limit and impair everyday functioning.


Not met. Definitely causes some bad things, but also some good things. I happen to be in a good environment right now, one where I can use my strengths to my advantage but don't have to do things I'm not capable of.


C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D and C are essentially the same question. D is a requirement for the DSMV proposed revision for Autism and C is a requirement for the DSMIV Asperger Diagnosis. If you meet the requirements for C which is my understanding of your last post this would meet the requirements of D. C defines the different aspects of what is commonly considered to be everyday functioning. D is a simple general statement that covers all of the details in C.

I can't argue the fact that you understand your non-standard methods of communication and you do not believe this is an impairment or deficit in your ability to understand it. But as you stated the NT's don't understand this non-standard method of communication, this is what can be technically considered as an impairment or deficit in communication. Not in your oneway understanding, but the two way understanding.

The fact that "NT's" do not understand your non-standard communication methods could be considered enough of a limit and impairment to your everyday functioning to meet C and D, even if you never see an NT person.

By the way, I also have lost long posts in the past. I also copy my text, as suggested by Vernandi, before I click preview or submit to work around this problem.

Sorry, Dandelion Fireworks, I did not read any of your new posts or Vernandi's before my post went in. It looks like you already clarified most of what I was asking about here. I am also having issues with my posts that are consuming some time.

In response to your latest post about the wording of the criteria in DSMV; in my opinion the criteria for the most part is worded to encompass a range of many symptoms; I can see how they might be confusing if taken literally. For example, someone could interpret a limitation in everyday functioning to mean the inability to work, etc.

I believe it is written in a way that everyone that was previously diagnosed with Aspergers can fit in. In my opinion your own personal assessment that you presented in the first post fits the three social/communication criteria, but I can see where you were interpreting the criteria differently than I did.

I can see where the sensory criteria might be a limiting factor for new diagnoses, but it covers such a wide range of sensory experiences that many people could probably relate, subjectively, to at least a part of it. I don't see how most, if any of it, could be objectively measured beyond what is self reported.

Perhaps criteria that were written in the vernacular and weren't positively dripping with bias wouldn't have this problem. Anyway, even if you just assume that I meet the criteria in the DSM-V that sound similar to the ones in the DSM-IV that I meet, I still don't meet the DSM-V criteria. I have to not just have atypical body language, but also fail to interact or form friendships. But I've managed those things, finally, by doing them nonstandard ways with odd people. Part of this is dropping my facade to such an extent that I create a new one. (And then intentionally taking it even farther in that direction...) And that new facade is "absolutely bonkers, but in a hilarious and awesome way." It's so easy to maintain this one that I can keep it up for hours on end (before and after which there must be breaks) without it tiring me out like most socializing does.

DSM criteria are primarily written for medical professionals to interpret, so the terminology is supposed to draw upon their training to identify these traits, rather than simply be interpreted at face value. This makes the DSM a bit inaccessible to everyone else.

Also, as you point out the language is biased and vernacular, which makes it worse. Honestly, I don't have a lot of love for the way the medical profession pathologizes behavior and people, and consequently ignores those people having assumed they've been mapped out and are thus understood.

It doesn't say you have to fail to interact or form friendships. The imaginative play part addresses children. The part that would apply to you is difficulties adjusting behavior to suit different social contexts in making friends. You've finally been successful in doing it in nonstandard ways with odd people, that include a new facade that is "absolutely bonkers", with necessary breaks (this adjustment in behavior in itself sounds a little like a three ring circus,no judgement here, been there done that; is it a difficult adjustment? You've figured it out and can maintain it, but it sounds like a complex adjustment), but what about the different social contexts with people that aren't considered odd. Would it be difficult in a social context that included "normal" people? Is this a limiting factor. If so, I think you could meet the criteria.

Just because you have to make some interesting adjustments doing something doesn't make you any less of a person. Like you we all do our best to find ways to adjust and be happy as we can. The adjustments you make can be considered more difficult than what is required for the "norm". I've made some interesting social adjustments in my life; many times they were hilarious and I had no idea why. I may of been a clown and didn't know it, but at least a few people got some laughs out of my efforts.

Last edited by aghogday on 30 Jan 2011, 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's actually way less than I make it sound. (Most of the time I don't do the whole thing, anyway. Most of my interactions are at school, where I do a toned-down version that's essentially 99% honest and natural. For one particular friend it's more like 50% natural and honest, 30% intentionally taking the brakes off my stimming, 25% saying what's on my mind even when it's crazy, 5% actual "bonkers facade.") It's not very draining at all.

And yeah, other types of interaction are terrifying. All sorts of them require my "normal" facade (which can fail catastrophically and actually has a horrible failure rate, not to mention being draining). Some are still rather easy, but others...

Yes, this is the kind of stuff I did all of my life, analyzing it and adjusting it with conscious effort. It was actually more effort as I got older because the variety of people I came into contact with at work became increasingly challenging and made me even more aware of my differences.

After I came to understand all of this, I asked some of the "normal" people I knew in my life how they dealt with it, and many said hmm I never really thought about it much. I thought to myself, I wonder what that's like.