TYPES of ASD individuals from a professional source

Post Reply New Topic

I did misread (and I should have known better). I am meh in terms of how many people I socialize with, whether I notice social errors, and whether I care about social errors. I do care about causing people to be unnecessarily upset, but I don't really care if they insist on being upset for no reason (which includes some of my social errors, I think). I don't hate people, I just don't need a lot of people, although I like dealing with people in the context of my hobbies.

Also, this is part of the reason I had trouble working out if I was autistic in the first place - so much black and white thinking. "Symptoms means you can't do something" versus "symptoms mean you have trouble with it." So I tend to see social difficulties as never socializing, which is of course absolutist and inaccurate, so I have to reestablish nuance for my own perceptions on occasion.

As an ESC, I always get the sense I like people, but are clueless dealing with them properly. I was in the high-school when I'd been told that others look at me as a snooty person. This surprised me, since I felt I had no problem with them, except that I could not make contacts with them, apart from a few awkward situations. I always had one or two classmate around me, but never had a real friend among them. I thought of myself as an aloof person, better in some ways then most of the others, but that's all. I didn't mind bullying that much, since a number of them happened because of my awkward behavior I was aware of.

A possible explanation for not having a pronoun learning challenge is that I have a twin sister, and I had to separate myself from her since early age. Her friends, acquaintances helped me to interact with other people. I would have not done it if I was on my own. I had problems with grammar, proper word order, though, especially in verbal form.

They seem to only talk about distractions when describing CSC and more severe conditions. The whole staring around the room and being aloof is totally me. And a stronger fear of change and not social phobia describes me too.
I relate both to CSC and ESC.
I don't worry too much of what people think about me but still feel a bit embarrassed over social blunders. I soon forget about it though and often make the same mistake.
As for pronoun learning challenges...oh you bet. I had some severe learning disabilities in school. I was always behind my peers in basic skills by at least 3 years. Doesn't seem like much but it was in those very early school years.

They pretty much don't deal with that. They have across-the-board expectations of all or nearly all skills being at the same "level" relative to nonautistic people (huge mistake -- autistic people don't work like that), as well as the usual thing where they "read into" certain autistic people as not having certain skills and just put their own ideas onto such autistic people without taking time to consider any other possibilities. I don't find these even remotely helpful in classifying myself, in fact I would be really uncomfortable no matter what category a person put me into. I might or might not later explain exactly why this stuff does't fit me, but for now suffice to say it so thoroughly doesn't (nor does it fit many others I know) that it doesn't even make sense to me why people would consider these categories useful. I really dislike the tendency for nonautistic professionals to look at autistic people from the outside and make wild guesses as to our insides and then use their so-called "expertise" to make it sound like this is real. It also says that the way they've designed them, autistic people never move from one category to another unless they were practically on the border to begin with. Which is just not true at all, even if these categories worked, which they mostly don't.

After a more thorough reading, it seems pretty useful for the purposes that it is intended: To break children up into different groups for learning purposes. It seems better than breaking them up according to diagnosis, especially because it seems that the appropriate diagnosis is often quite subjective. Hopefully, they take a pragmatic approach and just use their standards as a starting point, and not as a final classification.

As a more general classification for people with AS, it seems interesting. I'm a bit puzzled why they associate the classic Aspie traits so strongly with the ESC category. I believe that the WISC individuals will show some of those traits, though perhaps to a lesser extent. I think that I would be classified as a WISC, but with some ESC tendencies.

One thing that I do appreciate is that they recognize that "mild" symptoms can lead to significant dysfunction, because what adults barely recognize can be extremely obvious to children of the same age.

One thing that amuses me is that we now have a classification for trolls and other disruptive attention seekers. They are not trolls. They have RSC.

The WISC description seemed to fit me quite well, but upon further reading I found a lot of traits from the ESC and a couple from the CSC category that fit me.
People tend to relate to me as described in the WISC category, and academically I fit that category best. I am wondering if perhaps I am an ESC who has compensated well by high intelligence, very strong verbal skills (written) and a lot of hard work and determination.



ESC:
Have a range of sensory integration issues (that are prominent when young), which may result in self-stimulatory behaviour (flapping, toe walking, rocking, food sensitivities etc.), depending on the student.
(More prominent now, actually, and I stim for all sorts of reasons.)

Struggle to relate to peers of their own age without facilitation. Seek out interactions with adults.
Weak at tracking what others are talking about and making related comments or asking questions.
Some have odd posture or rigid movements when communicating or sharing space with others.
Weak at reading situational and physical social cues.
Weak at understanding their own and others emotions.
Lack social nuance when compared to their peer group.
Show perseveration in thoughts or interests; may have unusual interests compared to their age matched peers. Given their intense interests, they may develop strong specific skills related to their areas of interest.
Are inefficient at thinking through social perspective taking; usually need extra time to process and respond to social information.
Many are described as have auditory processing deficits or central auditory processing deficits.
Most have significant executive functioning difficulties affecting homework and written expression.
Have anxiety related to how the world works; less social anxiety as they have limited social awareness of how they are perceived. For example, may become stressed if a class that is to end at 3pm is not actually dismissed until 3:03pm.

(I know how I'm perceived; my lack of social anxiety comes from not caring.)

Have poor adaptive functioning skills (parents may call them “smart but clueless”).
Many have weaknesses recognised others' communication intentions and therefore are more likely to not recognise when people may have poor intentions.
Have difficulty paying attention in groups (classroom size) and often even when in relatively small groups (3 or 4 people).

In school, their weak social radar systems prevent them from efficiently learning in “group think” situations. Consequently, they are much better at concentrating and learning when only required to focus their social attention in a smaller group (eg 1-3 other people). The irony is that we often place these individuals in large group learning environments because their measured IQ/learning ability may test as average or higher.
Some ESCS do learn to attend to the teacher in a classroom, especially when sitting in front of the classroom.
Known to be off-topic, tangential or perseverative in communication.
This group is often celebrated early in development for their incredible honesty, not having flexible enough minds to effectively manage mental manipulation (manipulating others and awareness that others may be manipulating them).
As they age, most are able to learn more about how this process works and may then participate in it, but they are quite delayed in this compared to their peer group. Neurotypical students are able to manage this by 6 years old, but our ESCS may not start to explore it more conceptually until they are in fourth or fifth grade, depending on the student; they may always be weak in discerning this type of information. For example, they may be able to lie on a basic social level when taught that not all facts should be stated aloud (e.g., say something tastes good to make the cook feel okay).
Thus, they are at risk for being easily tricked. Some students trick them for fun.
Most are highly disorganised and tend to over-focus on details
Many struggle to summarise their thoughts or write summary-based information.
With regards to anxiety, most ECS experience anxiety tied to the imperfections of how the world actually works compared to the way they think the world should work. Many struggle with transitions (…). They may become easily confused in dynamic social environments (…).
Persistent anxiety about the complexities of the world can overwhelm them.
Early in development, this group is often able to impress others with their ability to learn basic academics with relatively little guidance.
This group also struggles to relate to their peers in a manner expected of their developmental age and measured IQ. Depending on their personality, some may struggle to figure out how to enter into peer groups and initiate social language and non-verbal communication to actively maintain interaction within the group.
They also tend to be far more naïve than their peer group, not anticipating others' motives.
They are typically slow to leave the home.





CSC:

They are often observed to gaze around the room when more than one person is communicating in a group.
Struggle to maintain attention to another when a person does not relate to them about topics or games that are of interest of them.
Their difficulty with actively attending a group spans their lifetime.

I can see a fair bit of RSC in myself as well.

Yeah, there is a lot of stuff in here that doesn't fit things you've mentioned before (as I mentioned earlier) and I things like focusing on particular learning styles as always effective at certain levels always working stood out to me - like they rule out "learning things by exposure" at a particularly "high functioning*" level and no one beyond that has it, and yet that's not true.

There are other things that stood out to me that I'm blanking on (other than my own inability to fit neatly into a category) that made me think this is an incomplete model. Naturally, I still keep trying to fit myself into it.

* Used for clarity, not agreement.

Last edited by Verdandi on 21 Mar 2011, 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The similarities are even a bit unnerving. It's so rare to see my traits in others that is wholly new. Very strange.

Second opinion? Pfft. I TOLD the psychologist what his opinion was going to be. LOL. Well, maybe not so much told him as presented every shred of evidence I could muster and then invoked Occam's Razor.

SASC here.

>feelsbadman.jpg

Also, keep in mind that this is an unrefined theory, so take it with a grain (or ounce) of salt.

I disagree. They most certainly do talk about this. They talk about individuals fitting in between or at high levels in one and moving to another and they even state that they have seen instances where a CSC grows up and becomes college educated and lives independently, etc... (AKA "beats the odds") That doesNOT take away from the fact that the MAJORITY of the cases they have seen over the past (nearly) two decades of research in the field with this demogrpahic fits into these catagories and that individuals RARELY move from where they are as children. It also doesn't take away the worth of the system for which it is designed which is to help proefessionals and parents to chose the sorts of services and education for their "type" of child and to set realistic expectations for that child's future. Not ever saying that exceptions do not happen but saying that it is not likley is an "okay" thing in my book.

This beats the hell out of ANYTHING I have seen to date on attempts at grouping ASD people including the words Aspergers, HFA, PDD-NOS, etc... and it also beats the hell out of us lumping everyone into one term "ASD" and randomly trying to sort things out. We need some levels of systems and categories...

Okay... so I went to all the trouble of generating lists of bullet-points based on what I read in each (I may have made mistakes in some areas, but I tried my best to do the parts that I understood). The only two that I seem really obviously not to have are WISC and RSC. Oh and I didn't include NSC and SASC because I knew I wasn't either of those.

I bolded the ones I was pretty sure that I fit either now or in the past (since many of them describe school-age stuff). The ones I didn't bold didn't mean I don't fit them, it can also mean that I didn't really understand them, or understand how they pertained to me, at that moment. Sometimes I put a note in brackets and italics [like this]. Anyway, I still found this really... I don't know the word. It split people into groups in a way that just didn't work for me. It didn't allow for having characteristics of different groups, especially if you weren't right on the edge between two of them. It explicitly didn't allow for shifting between different ones either. And it was hard to rate myself in areas where my abilities are constantly shifting, such as having zero receptive language at times, and having existent but challenged receptive language at others. And lots of other things. So I did my best, but I still feel like I and most people I know would not fit a single easy category. I also felt like these were incomplete at understanding certain areas of autism that weren't described at all. They assumed things I didn't think they really had a right to assume about some people. And the thing about bullying was pretty offensive -- for instance when I appeared incredibly unusual and oblivious to bullying, it just made it into a game where the bullies would do things like jump up and down on my hands to see if they could get a response, any response. I think these professionals may see less reported bullying as the same as less bullying. And... yeah. Just not the sort of thing that I like.

So here's what I came up with:

WISC (Weak Interactive Social Communicator)

* May appear typical at first glance
* Subtly awkward and odd
* Highly aware that they have thoughts about people and people have thoughts about them
* Understand each person has his or her own unique perspective of the world
* Lack perception of subtleties of social cues
* Neurologically less attuned to others' facial expressions, body stance, and gestures
* As the nuanced demands of social communication increase with age, so does the discrepancy in how [the person] is perceived by peer group
* Normal to way above normal verbal language skills
* Normal to way above normal cognition
* Did not have a language delay
* Can pay attention in a classroom but far more rigid and subtly more literal
* Executive functioning issues that make written expression and organizational skills more difficult regardless of brightness
* Attempt to work in groups but miss subtle cues of how to relate to peers when teacher is not leader with mixed success
* Clearly get along with some peers and in some situations better than others
* Will not always stand out as pervasively making social errors
* Make enough errors for peer group to single them out
* Prefer attention of adults and may seek them out as often as possible (even during recess and lunch)
* May be more focused on surviving the moment by focusing on own thoughts and expression of ideas than thinking about how people think about them
* If extroverted, appear egocentric/monopolize conversations; if introverted, withdraw from group communication (even if they crave acceptance from others)
* After the interaction they recognize they've been rejected or treated poorly by peers
* In upper elementary school and beyond, can be keenly aware they're doing something wrong socially but can't define what it is
* Significant peer rejection
* By end of elementary school, typically aware they're not well accepted by peers without understanding what it is they may be doing/saying that's perceived as awkward
* Highly targeted by bullies because peers perceive them to be somewhat NT but just enough different to make fun of
* Peers don't understand they have a true social learning disability
* Adults see them as charming and engaging with adults, failing to see the peer group would not see them this way
* Teaching and counseling professionals often consider them "NT enough", see they may be doing adequately to exceptionally on academic tests, and conclude they have no real social learning issues
* Tend to pass most standardized social language/pragmatic tests
* Peers are able to see social differences with little effort
* Parents report children talk to them about feeling rejected and disconnected
* Concerns may be dismissed by professionals because adults find student so easy to talk to
* Especially by middle school and beyond, no single adult monitoring how they function throughout the school day
* Aware of how they're treated therefore high risk for social anxiety, OCD, and depression by upper elementary school and beyond
* Mental health treatment may be critical by pre-teen/teen years
* More significant to subtle history of sensory-based challenges
* Almost always able to explain basic social rules even when young but can't apply them easily in the moment
* Able to pass Theory of Mind tasks, but weak empathizers and low in understanding of how intentions being read by their peers
* May struggle to read communication nuances to intuit others' subtle communicative intentions
* Adult may notice "mild" social issues, but on standardized tests the person tends to excel at demonstrating social knowledge
* Many have executive function challenges that may cause them to be less productive at completing schoolwork
* Often fail to qualify services because tend to be bright and IEP team says their problems are too "mild" (but problems are not mild according to peers, only when compared to people with more severe challenges)
* May find it very difficult to sustain a job or marriage
* Solid to extremely good language users
* Keen academic intelligence
* Demonstrate many other talents such as music, arts, athletics
* Can be voracious learners
* Can be confused by subtle abstract language and indirect communication
* Some do have academic issues, mostly related to executive functioning and social-emotional coping
* Some may have dysgraphia
* Difficulty organizing ideas, sorting related details, or considering the reader's interpretation while also focusing on grammar and punctuation (yet when each is tested independently they perform well)
* Poor organizational skills and need more assistance to turn in and complete homework
* Other learning disabilities such as trouble with abstract math and dyslexia
* Peers unkind because perceived as mostly "NT-looking"
* The group most at risk for persistent bullying, teasing, and trickery, from childhood to adulthood
* If they talk too much, may be perceived as know-it-all or show-off
* May state their thoughts about another person without fully realizing how that person is feeling
* Anxiety and depression
* Higher level of social radar allows them to tune into negative thoughts others have of them without recognizing which social competencies they lack to contribute to that perception
* Weak in fully understanding the depth and complexity of social emotional concepts, such as making and keeping friends, maintaining marriage, etc.
* Prognosis can be quite good but also fragile
* Best prognosis for transitioning into adult world and fulfilling expectations related to intellectual achievement, getting a job, finding a life partner etc.
* Greatest risk of not having a safety net if unable to succeed
* Achievement-oriented and bright but may struggle to do their work independently because of organizational issues
* Ill-prepared and overwhelmed by having to assume responsibility not only for work but also sleep schedule, hygiene, meal planning, budgeting, completing homework on time, developing peer relations, dating, and coping with their own sexual needs
* Many who are perceived at one level as "successful" as adults ultimately seek counseling or are told they need it for lack of nuance-based social emotional connection with others
* Others have made choices in careers and partners that allow them a very stable, happy life but seek counseling to understand why they had so many problems as children or at other times in the past

ESC (Emerging Social Communicator)
[Note: All of these may apply also to CSC but in more extreme ways]

* Awkwardly engaged
* Issues may not be apparent without verbally relating to the person for a few minutes
* Likely to evolve into a less extreme presentation as individual gets older
* Social presentation represents what people classically think of as HFA or AS, but some initially diagnosed with ADHD
* May be put into a group with WISCs because of similar levels of cognition or language, but ESC will lag behind others in group
* Greater need for basic social lessons
* IQ related intelligence measures span from intellectually challenged to bright, gifted for verbal or performance IQ or both
* Have a weak social radar system, not highly in tune with what is happening around them from a social situational perspective
* Socially aloof [Sometimes, but usually passive.]
* Have a range of sensory integration issues (that are prominent even when young)
* Self-stimulatory behavior (flapping, toe walking, rocking, food sensitivities, etc.)
* History of language learning delay or disorder
* Usually desire social interaction, but struggle to relate to peers of their own age without facilitation
* Seeks out interactions with adults
* Some have an unusual tone of voice or a loud voice
* Weak at tracking what others are taking about and making related comments or asking questions
* Odd postures or rigid movements when communicating or sharing space with others
* Weak at reading situational and physical social cues (facial, gestural, tonal, etc.)
* Weak at understanding their own and others' emotions
* Lack social nuance when compared to peer group
* Show perseveration in thoughts or interests; may have unusual interests compared to age matched peers (may develop strong specific skills in these areas)
* Inefficient at thinking through social perspective taking
* Usually need extra time to process and respond to social information
* Most likely to fail early theory of mind tests when in preschool/early elementary school, but may pass them as they get older
* Most if not all are delayed in joint attention
* Many are weak in development of pronouns in preschool and early elementary school
* More literal and rigid interpretation of spoken and written language, likely to impact ability to interpret reading of literature
* Many have auditory processing deficits/CAPD
* Most have significant executive functioning difficulties affecting homework and written expression
* Anxiety related to how the world works, less social anxiety
* Weak at critical thinking and problem solving required for 4th/5th grade and beyond
* Poor self-awareness of how they're being perceived
* Poor adaptive functioning skills
* Strong scientific visual learning strengths (but may not have this)
* Enjoy slapstick humor (irony and sarcasm harder to grasp, but older students may develop knack for it)
* Motivated to do well when given behavioral systems and cognitive explanation
* Weaknesses recognizing others' communication intentions and more likely to not recognize when people may have poor intentions (e.g. weak comprehension of stranger danger)
* Have difficulty paying attention in groups (classroom size) and often even in relatively small groups (3 or 4 people)
* Difficulty adapting to social behavior of peers
* Tend to stand out from the group as socially unusual or awkward
* Early strong characteristics always present and observable in preschool and early elementary school
* Early years, often lack natural development of joint attention and require intervention to understand others have thoughts different from their own
* Intensity of symptoms may gradually be minimized with therapeutic intervention combined with maturity, so by middle or high school may appear to have much milder symptoms (parents and professionals mistakenly then think the person is no longer autistic at all)
* More rigid cognitive patterns and weak theory of mind persist as weak compared to overall intellectual level
* Face extra burdens as they get into upper elementary school and beyond because weak critical thinking and social problem solving
* Sensory-seeking or less attentive when overwhelmed or placed in large group environments
* Weak social radar systems prevent efficient learning in "group think" situations
* Much better at concentrating and learning when only required to focus social attention in a smaller group (1-3 other people)
* Often placed in large group situations because measured IQ/learning ability may test as average or higher [In childhood]
* Lack understanding of how to modulate behavior in a group -- results in talking out of turn, talking for an extended length of time, inability to work well in peer based groups
* Often enjoys being around others
* Off-topic, tangential, or perseverative in communication, but still enjoy communicating with a variety of listeners
* Very good sense of humor
* In spite of stereotypes as "anti-social", many actively seek social connection with one or two people (often enjoy befriending others who function much like themselves)
* Often celebrated early in development for incredible honesty
* Tend to struggle with "stranger danger" when young because they don't understand others may try to manipulate them, so at risk for being easily tricked
* Some students trick them for fun and others can trick them in ways that put them in danger -- this continues to adulthood
* Stand out as "awkward and odd", but have limited self-awareness
* Peer group is far more forgiving of their differences than for SASC and WISC
* Friendship clubs and mentoring programs usually ideally designed for them
* May not realize social hierarchy of playground/school so only want to be friends with peer groups that are not a natural fit for their social ability
* Lack of knowledge about social dynamics of the group, may think they're being included when others laugh around them or make comments
* Always has issues with being overly literal [When I can get to 'literal' at all, which is difficult.]
* Process language as a surface structure without realizing most language requires social inferencing to determine intended message
* Most are able to learn how to decode written language well and comprehend factual information
* Difficult to comprehend literature or social nuance of classroom, sarcasm
* Very weak narrative language, verbal or written
* Some have artful ability to convey their own thoughts in writing based on their own interests and perspective if they're able to create written work free from others' guidelines and expectations
* Most are highly disorganized and over-focus on details and lack conceptual thinking
* Many struggle to summarize thoughts or write summary-based information (book reviews), etc.
* Most need extensive assistance to understand the myriad of social and work expectations delivered each school day
* Most ESCs experience anxiety tied to imperfections of how the world actually works compared to the way they think the world should work
* Struggle with transitions, understanding what may be next on their schedule, or why schedule may need to change any given day
* Easily confused in dynamic social environments, which may lead to emotional or sensory dysregulation
* Does not have severe social anxiety
* Persistent anxiety about complexities of the world can overwhelm them, especially in preschool and elementary school, but may calm a bit with age and maturity (yet still pronounced compared to NSC peers)
* Difficult to find employment without assistance given weak interview skills
* Can be highly productive and successful workers
* Work peers will continue to notice their more obvious social, critical thinking and problem solving weaknesses and provide them with extra assistance or mentoring, without feeling insulted by their lack of nuanced social emotional sensitivity
* If they can find employment, likely to be employed for a long time
* In adulthood, continue to struggle to learn social nuance and sophistication and still seem a bit awkward and odd to NT work and community peers
* More obvious lack of understanding may be helpful because others are more likely to be forgiving of social errors when they know the person can't help it
* Real lack of social critical thinking, struggle with jobs that require personal problem solving
* Best when engaging in tasks where they work around others but aren't required to interact dynamically with others as part of their job description -- many are excellent scientists, computer programmers, horticulturalists, animal scientists, etc.
* Some intellectually very gifted, others may have borderline verbal intelligence
* Many have stronger visual learning than auditory processing
* Many excellent text decoders and can read (decode) early in development
* Do best academically in early years of school when attention to detail makes them strong rote learners
* Can excel as they age in areas related to interests
* Higher level or solid ESCs can become wonderful students as devoted to following routines, which include studying
* If born to a temperament or encouraged to develop a pattern of engaging in hard work and tenacity, may become quite successful at meeting academic course requirements, even if unable to fully understand the work
* Many high level adult ESCs who live most of their life achieving different university degrees
* May be good at studying information but not as able to apply it outside the classroom, and, when unable to find employment, return to university to seek another degree - this subgroup can excel at learning in a structured environment
* Early in development, often can impress others with ability to learn basic academics with relatively little guidance (e.g. learning to decode text independently before 5 years old)
* Many run into more complicated learning problems as approach curriculum of nine and ten year olds (when critical thinking and problem solving are used to participate in curriculum)
* Reading comprehension of literature, fiction, greeting cards, ads, etc. continues to be difficult throughout lifetime
* Very focused on interests and find comfort in familiarity, able to enjoy and excel in jobs or careers that may seem redundant to others
* Easier groups to formally assess because they have verbal language skills by the time they are in elementary school but more likely to score poorly on tests of pragmatic language and problem solving
* Easier to document social awkwardness because they tend to lack social chameleon-like behavior
* Tend to be more formal or polite in all social situations
* More literal in language and non-verbal cues
* Struggling to keep abreast of the growing critical thinking demands of academic topics that require social thinking, such as reading comprehension, written expression and abstract ideas conveyed in middle and high school social studies lessons
* Comprehend more fact based information
* Struggle to interpret information based on predicting what people are thinking and feeling
* Many struggle with tackling grade level curriculum in middle and high school even if test scores in given subject (such as reading comprehension) indicate they are functioning at grade level
* Struggles to relate to peers in a manner expected of developmental age and measured IQ
* Some struggle to figure out how to enter into peer groups and initiate social language and non-verbal communication to actively maintain interaction within the group
* Others with more assertive personalities may barge into peer groups and dominate the conversation without realizing they are out of step with peers
* Tend to be far more naive than peer group, not anticipating others motives, making them more susceptible to being tricked or bullied without knowing it's happening to them
* Weak self-awareness of social ability
* Live with guided independence across adult years
* Slow to leave the home due to naive understanding of the world and limited social and adaptive development, which slows but does not eliminate their march towards independence
* Many live independently but have a trusted team of adults to help when dealing with social critical thinking and significant social critical thinking and significant changes in routine (for instance, a 32-year-old with AS lived in own apartment, prepared own meals, maintained hygiene, took bus around community, paid bills, maintained job, and kept apartment relatively clean, but when life changes occurred he needed parents to problem solve)

Challenged Social Communicator (CSC)

* Highly distracted in unstructured social situations but more capable in highly structured situations
* Tend to be easily recognized by obvious social learning challenges from very early age
* Exhibit many if not all the features of the ESC but more extreme characteristics
* Usually overwhelmed in unstructured social contexts because of very weak social radar system
* Detail focused, missing the gestalt
* Severe context blindness -- weakness socially but helps them attend more actively to details the NSC may not have noticed
* Often highly focused on area of interests while having limited social attention span
* Often gaze around room when more than one person is communicating in a group and have extremely limited attention in a classroom setting
* Sometimes described as "aloof", still demonstrate interest when interacting with others but struggle to maintain attention to another when a person does not relate to them about topics or games that are of interest to them
* Struggles tremendously to attend and learn in overwhelming group environments throughout entire lifetime
* May be sensory-seeking when feeling overwhelmed
* Extensive sensory regulation challenges
* Anxiety centered exclusively on changes in world including routines, people, environment, etc.
* Do not experience social anxiety
* Not only have history of expressive and receptive language challenges, these challenges continue across lifetime
* Lack the ability to develop sophisticated linguistic structures
* Lack the ability to comprehend complex abstract reasoning
* All of these students have difficulty both acquiring accurate and rapid use of pronouns in conversational speech, and with most if not all learned language through the early use of echolalia
* Some form of echolalia may continue into adulthood
* Development of joint attention markedly reduced
* Clearly fails basic two Theory of Mind tests at 4-6 years old but will persist in struggling tremendously with these concepts across a lifetime
* Concept of mental manipulation may be able to be taught to them cognitively/conceptually to some extent with direct and intensive teaching as they move into upper elementary and middle school if they have near normal intelligence, but extremely weak in applying this knowledge fluidly in less structured situations
* More severe weaknesses than others in recognizing stranger danger
* Lacking abstract language-based reasoning
* Tendency to over-focus on details
* Struggle tremendously with inference and prediction
* Very weak in socially based critical thinking and problem solving
* Struggle to discern reality from fiction in childhood and even adolescence
* Perspective taking needs to be actively taught
* Often able to learn with direct instruction how to understand others' perspectives while playing games
* Common not to be able to properly whisper to another or know how to hide their cards
* Good at decoding factual text
* Can also be good with math calculations
* Many excel at reading decoding and can quickly do basic math problems
* Commonplace to lack ability to comprehend inferential information such as that conveyed through math word problems, etc.
* As curriculum becomes more inferentially based, struggle tremendously to complete schoolwork independently
* Spoken and written expression difficult compared to NSC peers
* Struggle tremendously with narrative language
* Peers and adults intuitively determine they have trouble conveying a message accurately ad will use 20 questions to try and figure out what they're trying to communicate
* Awareness of time passage and sense of urgency often very difficult
* When given tasks, they struggle to appear to others as if motivated to do the task because they approach it slowly and often unfocused as they move through it
* Not accidental learners -- don't absorb new learning simply from being exposed to new experiences
* Have to be explicitly taught concepts related to social learning and social skills
* Limited to no self-awareness
* Can't perceive what others are thinking about them
* Peer group are quick to see they're atypical and more forgiving of differences than they are for SASC, RSC, and WISC
* May do well in specific work environment
* Struggle throughout life with change
* Extreme focus on details without ability to understand how those details connect to form conceptual thinking to learn new skills or complete task
* Must relearn all steps of a task if required to do the same task in a new environment
* Generalization of learning difficult
* Once employed in a predictable/routine job, tend to keep it
* Most comfortable adhering to a schedule
* Once they're taught how to use a system of transportation to move around community, usually punctual and can learn to be more and more efficient in productivity
* Lack basic social problem solving, but adults in community become familiar with them and often look out for them
* Most have splinter skills in academic skills, such as ability to decode or remember and state factual information
* Visual learning strengths over auditory processing (but not universal)
* Concrete thinkers
* Crave/need structure for best performance
* Finds comfort in routine and predictability
* May do very well in jobs based in redundancy and routines[
* Often interesting, delightful personalities with own unique preferences, not only in activities but in who they choose to spend time with
* Interesting view of the world
* Excellent sense of humor
* Although the world can seem overwhelming, once strong treatment programs are in place, can enjoy achieving success and feeling proud of accomplishments
* Score poorly on most if not all social language tests and tests of problem solving
* Expressive and receptive language learning issues
* Tests of adaptive functioning typically show strong deficits in social and communication areas, if not other areas as well
* Qualifying for treatment is not typically the problem, the more difficult consideration becomes determining which treatments should be utilized at different times in their development to help them function as independently as possible
* Placing in full-inclusion to have them strictly learn curriculum of age group will not provide them with the functional adaptive skills they need for navigating adulthood
* Lack of social understanding obvious to peer group which helps them rally support from others
* School age peers and adults are likely to lend support without being told to do so
* Tendency to over-focus on facts
* Lack of conceptualizing makes them much more difficult to teach
* Will not transfer idea that math lessons to count money have anything to do with using money in the community
* Virtually all need paraprofessionals and later job coaches to help them acquire basic understanding of how to participate in specific situations
* May require significant guidance throughout adult years
* More successful CSC can live with guarded independence throughout adult years, meaning they may live in apartment or group home and follow their routines independently, once learned
* Need to be actively monitored because they may not realize when a problem may be arising
* Able to learn skills to become employed in a variety of highly structured and routine-based jobs
* Do not benefit or excel in university programs focused on academic performance
* Tend to be more hands-on leaners
* Don't easily apply information from one context to the next

SCSC (Severely Challenged Social Communicator)

* Inattentive and internally distracted [That is how people describe my appearance]
* Singularly focused on internal thoughts and sensory input [That is how people describe my appearance]
* Conversely limited or at times unaware of social and situational demands imposed by people in context
* Some have strong islets of intelligence (talented artist, math calculation skills, complete puzzles, navigational abilities on a computer) that are not predicted by low adaptive behavior, or communication, or general cognitive skills
* Learn best in a highly predictable environment
* May learn core rote concepts related to academic skills (math facts, reading decoding)
* Some are excellent text decoders and are able to follow written fact-based visual schedules into adulthood
* Many considered to be friendly at times and enjoy company of others, meaning they sit near others and stay calm while engage in tasks of interests or routines they've been trained to complete
* Small percentage may have unusual strengths and referred to as savants given their other patterns of learning weaknesses (At least, this is how the guy who diagnosed me referred to me. It's not how I consider myself, but others sometimes do still.)
* Very weak to extremely weak social radar
* Not naturally attentive to those around them, particularly in complex environment
* Will not benefit from educational environments where several students are grouped together to learn
* Do their best learning in uncluttered 1:1 environment with active sensory regulation treatments to help brain and body learn to focus together
* Severe issues learning and working as part of group
* Struggle to self-regulate in a group
* If teacher talks to another, this individual may become inattentive or angry
* Severe language impairments [For most of my life, sometimes despite appearances. Also still, without great effort. Especially receptive.]
* Intellectual impairments
* Many are non-verbal or minimally verbal
* If language is developing, almost always includes a high percentage of echoed speech
* May have spontaneous communication at the word level
* Limited syntactical development
* Extreme sensory integration challenges
* Intense demands for processing sensory information in specific ways
* Often engaged in repetitive patterns related to the sensory world (flipping string, flapping arms, rocking bodies, pacing, etc.)
* All have challenges in Theory of Mind, but some may have more insight as they age than we can measure
* They may have strong preferences for who they want to be with and who they want to avoid
* Lack social knowledge/sophistication to initiate and sustain friendships or even basic politeness measures to relate to peers consistently
* Virtually ignored by school bullies as the SCSC is often too spaced out to even notice the negative intentions of the peer
* Very, very literal with related weak to severely weak auditory processing skills
* Limited to being able to follow one-to-two step commands
* Reading comprehension limited to simple instructions or specified facts (Through most of my life up till close to adulthood.)
* Struggles greatly with written expression
* Some can learn basic handwriting skills but have difficulty applying these skills to write more than basic wants, needs, or directions
* Appear disorganized in managing information from greater environment
* Can be very skilled at tuning into their own environment and routine
* Distressed if routine is modified or organized materials changed without their participation in the process
* Some are quite self-injurious or prone to physical violence involving others
* Much better learners in areas of specific focus or interest
* Struggle to learn information that is not part of that focus or routine
* Learn best when activities they engage in are visual, concrete, and have a logical progression they can be taught to follow
* Benefit from intensive interventions to encourage more functional communication systems, whether based on the use of verbal speech and language, augmentative communication, and/or sign language
* Difficult to assess for potential for abstract thought, such as Theory of Mind, because they have significant if not severe receptive and expressive language difficulties
* Difficult to use formalized tests that require any aspect of back and forth social interaction (which is the test paradigm for most social language/language based testing) because SCSC struggles to understand how to participate in these contexts
* Best assessments are those that observe the SCSC participating in a series of functional tasks and determining what types of information help them to learn e.g. verbal, visual, physical cues, etc.
* Continue to learn throughout lives and will make gains when compared to their own level and rate of learning
* Highly dependent on adult support and will remain dependent on caregivers to help with decision making, emotional regulation management, and changes in routines

RSC (Resistant Social Communicator)

* Insisters and arguers
* Say they're not interested in others but are class clowns or seek out people to complain to about how no one understands them
* Attention seekers by getting people to attend to their inappropriate actions but then acting like they didn't want the attention
* Do not blend well into a group because they make the group be "all about them" and take great silent delight when receiving the full attention of the group (negative or positive)
* When encouraged to work at blending into the group, tend to argue and resist, making offensive statements to adults and peers alike
* Often say "I don't care how I make people think and feel"
* Understanding of social thinking and related social skills is delayed, with a lack of understanding of basic social concepts
* Attempts to take over the group may be due to a lack of understanding of group dynamics
* Fair social radar system in that they are not well tuned into how other people feel about them
* Think in black-and-white terms ("that person likes me" or "that person doesn't like me") without understanding the subtleties of the mind or the shifting impression we can make on people in a day that builds into our social emotional memory
* Does not efficiently make connection between how they behaved yesterday impacting how people treat them today or tomorrow
* Understand how they want to be perceived and think they *are* perceived this way
* Often perceive themselves to be bright and greatly misunderstood
* They believe their intentions are good, and when others don't regard them with high esteem it proves to them that others are village idiots and jerks
* Openly defiant and often demeaning to others who don't agree with their line of thinking
* When they do connect positively with another, they can be very sweet to them for a short period of time
* May also have a good sense of humor with regard to what they find funny and believe everyone else enjoys the same jokes or comments as them
* May tend to become more exuberant with humor but don't understand people may not be laughing with them
* When others laugh out of nervousness or discomfort, it confirms in their mind that they are really funny, perpetuating their use of humor at the wrong time/people/place
* More literal in interpretations of social situations, reading comprehension, etc. than peers
* Incredibly rigid in thinking, insisting other people follow rules they believe should be the rules
* When they don't follow their own rules, they shrug it off as their weakness
* Many have insisted on pure honesty from others but then are often caught lying themselves
* Many but not all have other learning disabilities but often measure intellectually as solid if not bright in overall full scale IQ
* Younger children likely to be somewhat slower to pass basic Theory of Mind tasks
* Some may have a specific language learning disability
* By the time they are in middle school they can be quite manipulative
* Very good at lying but have difficulty understanding when others lie to them
* Naive without realizing it, easily taken advantage of by peers
* Do things to try and fit in with desired social group without realizing they are being used by their peers
* Most of their friendships are not deep
* May have one or two childhood friends who have stuck by them into adolescence
* Most don't form new friendships as they age that are not cyberspace-based
* Often diagnosed as behaviorally/emotionally disturbed
* Well-known in office of school disciplinarian
* Some become school phobic in upper middle school or high school
* By high school at the latest, virtually all have commingled anxieties or depression as they often face peer rejection and have difficult relationships with parents
* When counseling help is offered, they may seek isolation and avoid working on relationships stating "I don't care"
* They try to make people (including professionals) feel like fools in their presence
* Many have normal to way above normal verbal intelligence
* Often very good at fact-based learning as well as talents in art, computers, or sports, but have difficulty being a team player
* Ability to use humor can be quite clever when at the right time and place
* Most are perceived as good language users and are especially skilled at arguing
* May not perceive themselves as argumentative and appear to think if they just keep explaining something, the other person will eventually get it
* Can lash out at others in a blaming and condescending tone
* Wear out their teachers, parents, and siblings
* Don't appear to have a lot of social anxiety because that would require a more tuned social radar system
* Face serious mental health challenges because they face so much rejection
* Weak flexible thinking
* Relatively weak abstracting
* Poor problem solving
* Highly disorganized
* Appear to be somewhat sluggish or limited in their understanding of the nuanced fine lines that define our different emotions
* Tend to be more black and white thinkers with regards to reading or interpreting others' emotions
* Don't project others' emotions effectively nor do they effectively regulate own emotions to stay emotionally in step with others
* Often seen as highly emotional and reactive and may be diagnosed with ODD or bipolar
* Many have undiagnosed sensory integration challenges
* Can become very dysfunctional adults filled with anger and blame
* In adulthood end up on the doorstep of the psychiatry community, but medication doesn't soften their edges when relating to others
* Unemployed
* Rejected from families
* If they receive treatment and acknowledge they have a social emotional learning disability, their prognosis is more like the WISC
* Many need extra guidance with critical thinking and understanding others' complex otiose into adult years (much like the ESC).

Yeah, but they basically (and very explicitly) say that most people will never change from one category to another, and that really the only time people change is when they were really on the edge between them to begin with. And the "lower" the category is, the more they make assumptions about the person's abilities and comprehension of the world. Yes, they talk about exceptions, but that doesn't really change the fact that they actually think this applies to most people. I've known a lot of autistic people and virtually all of them are more complex than this thing acknowledges.



Yes, we do need systems and categories, but these are not it. These are just glorified functioning levels. The systems and categories that would be most useful are ones that deal, in detail, with several things that this barely touches:

* How the person experiences themselves and the world around them. This is more qualitative than quantitative and contains a lot of information that this thing doesn't even close to get into.
* What sort of systems the person uses to understand and process information, think about things, and respond to the world
* Long-term and short-term "systems shifts" and "permanent forfeits" made by the person
* Degree of rigidity vs. fluidity of the person's abilities

And a bunch of other stuff. The things described in the scale I just spent hours reading about, would put people in the same real categories, into totally different categories. And that is my measure by which I judge any and all systems of categorizing autistic people -- does it put people who experience the world the same, into different categories, and put people who experience the world very differently, into the same categories. If so, then it's of limited use as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm not the type of person who just decides that since a category system is the best I've seen, then it's a good thing because we need categories. I don't think this is actually the best I've seen, though. Donna Williams had a system I found much more interesting, where she basically analyzed different difficulties autistic people had, and then put them into categories such as problems of control, problems of tolerance, and problems of connection, and went into a great amount of detail describing what those things meant. It's still not something I absolutely love, but it gets much closer to the heart of things than things like this paper do. (You can read that system in Autism: An Inside-Out Approach if you're interested.) I appreciate category systems that actually get into the real mechanics of how the autistic person functions and experiences the world, instead of into... I don't even know what to call categories like these ones, but they rely on a combination of superficial observations, and wild-ass guesses (distressingly common ones, but still wild guesses) about what's going on inside the person to make them function that way. But they don't get into the genuine mechanics of how we work, nor do they get into how we truly experience the world. And so I don't trust them. "We should have categories" doesn't mean "We should have these categories".

Oh and the other really fun thing, is that, as someone else described (I don't remember who), they ruled out "learning things by exposure" at one of the more "high functioning" levels (let's face it, these are essentially functioning levels), and assume that everyone "below" that level learns best by having people teach them in a very explicit manner in a very controlled environment. And while I learn better in that sort of environment than in a regular school environment, it totally misses the fact that explicit teaching is terrible for me and that I can pretty much only learn things (that stick long-term) "accidentally" (and this is not just true of me, but of many autistic people, and often the "more autistic" a person is thought to be, the more true it is). And so, this would be a terrible way to judge how I best learn and how best to teach me, as well as the many autistic people (it's been studied, this is not only common but extremely common) who do better with "accidental" learning than with explicit teaching. But of course acknowledging that would leave the professionals who come up with this stuff in a very awkward position with regard to the school system, because it pretty much means all school systems are going to be really bad for a large number of autistic people. And I don't think that's a conclusion they want to come to, because it would mean having to critique things they're not in a position to want to critique about the world.

Oh I think there was one other classification system that, while not my favorite, I greatly preferred to this one. It was, of all things, in an ABA book, I think. And designed to give an assessment of an autistic person's abilities to do things in a number of different areas. It basically involved rating a person from 1 to 5 on a bunch of different skills, with long descriptions of what each number meant. And then when you look at everything in combination it gives a decent approximation of a person's skill levels. Not perfect, but better than this thing, because it at least gives different levels for each area.

But again my favorite classification systems involve lumping together everyone who has certain combinations of tendencies in how they experience and relate to the world and life in general, and similar strategies in handling functioning in various ways. Because in those classification systems, it doesn't matter what "level" a person is functioning at (or even whether they have a single overall "level" at all), it matters only whether they're actually similar to each other on a qualitative level. I dislike pretty much all classification systems that are concerned solely with things like "functioning levels", and thus lump together people who have virtually nothing in common while separating people who could have the whole world in common in many ways.

And yet another observation: They talked a lot about "being literal" and "being concrete", but they don't talk at all about people who have trouble even getting to literal meaning, nor do they show much awareness of the fact that there's a level much more concrete than the things they're likely to call concrete. (That's the level I mostly see the world from, so I hate seeing it brushed over and overlooked like this.) They usually mean "concrete" as in "the person understands things like 'cat' better than things like 'inquisitiveness'", but they never look at how abstract a concept "cat" is overall or what may lay beneath the layer of words. (And how that differs from practically anything they have a concept for in this classification system.)

So if I had to "choose just one", based on what I managed to bold, it'd be CSC but with strong elements of both SCSC and ESC and very occasionally WISC. But I don't like it. Another person who said the same thing could be totally different from me in nearly all important ways, and that's why I don't like things like this.

It seems you are looking for better descriptions of autism itself and these categories don't address that. These categorizations are more geared towards what needs to happen for an autistic to navigate through school into adulthood. The categorizations you are talking about are critical, but it seems at some point, educators and service providers have to be able to categorize based on some measure of outward functioning. This paper at least moves in the direction of learning, perception and processing differences among people of the same apparent function level.

I see two sets of questions, even if they are deeply linked. Grossly speaking, functional level is a question like "Can I keep a job?", whereas your points address "Why can one autistic of a similar outward presentation as another not keep a job while the other can?". Both need to be addressed. The second question is related to the formulation of correct first principles. This is absolutely essential in developing appropriate skills training. With erroneous first principles, there can't be any truly valid interventions. But the education system can't wait for the perfect set of first principles to arrive. It must do something NOW. So we end up with these partially effective categorizations that hopefully improve on the previous iterations.

I suspect that what will happen is as the first principles are more clearly determined, that the categorizations of the type in this paper will be refined to reflect the better foundational knowledge. I see one as a bottom up approach and the other as a top down. As long as people are willing to adapt to new information, the will eventually meet in the middle.