Being half NT - is it possible? If so, I am CONFLICTED.

Post Reply New Topic

But I didn't ask to be diagnosed so in my opinion I'm just making the best of a bad situation by coming here ie finding myself some semblance of support in the absence of any being provided for me

I don't think everyone has to have the same opinion to have the right to be on any forum - surely it's just a place to express your thoughts, whatever they are.

In my opinion, with getting rid of the Aspergers diagnosis I bet far less people will seek a diagnosis as there's more stigma associated with the term 'Autism' than 'Aspergers' in my opinion

Aspergers for many is seen as 'the acceptable face of autism' so to dispense with the label completly will make many people not want to bother. The fact Asperger's Syndrome doesn't include the word 'autism' is a bonus for many so to revert to having just 'an autistic spectrum disorder' is not going to go down well and I bet many will cling to the Aspergers label for dear life!

I'm going to be 'Person formerly diagnosed with Aspergers but now Normal again'
or PFDA-BNNA for short

If only people were just left to be who they are there'd be no need for labels or for professionals to tie themselves up in knots with all the diagnostic labels that they can never agree on anyway!

I haven't read all of the posts of this thread yet because I haven't got time. I read this and thought this summed me up pretty damn well.
Autism is a spectrum and we're all on it. I'm starting to think I may not have enough impairments to qualify for a diagnosis but I class myself as an aspie now. I mean if I can't communicate with people properly and I struggle to understand small talk and "banter" surely I'm an aspie? However I feel I have a fairly good understanding of body language and facial expressions (even if my responses are quite a bit delayed to them). Tbh with you I wouldn't get caught up in trying to define yourself (I've just realised that). I am just me. I'm in a doubting stage at the moment about whether getting a diagnosis would be a good thing. I reckon it could do more harm than good.
anyway - just be you and worry a bit less. That's my advice

Ok - thanks!

Informative replies. thanks.

Being thyself is easy the part; the social confusion part isn't so easy, however.

I'm sort of in the same boat. There are so many things I relate to, and so many traits I have that fit. I just learned the other day that when I was about 3, my parents used to call me "Harvey Wallbanger" between themselves because I'd bang my head on the wall all night, for instance. I have social impairments, sensory issues, etc.

But ... one of the key indicators, including one that's said to define the spectrum, I lack. My theory of mind functions are very good, and always have been. I'm good, very good, at switching perspectives and seeing things from another's angle of view. It comes so naturally to me, I see most people (ie NTs) as impaired in this regard and I often have to keep in mind they can't do it as easily as I can. I was also speaking at a younger age than normal, not later.

But the way I see it, the construct that is AS can be used as a prism to understand difficulties you have and relate to other people struggling with the same issues, whether you have the complete package or not. You don't have to label yourself. I've used other constructs as a lens for self-understanding, too. Meyers-Briggs INTP personality type, or schizoid personality disorder. I don't fully relate to any of these either, but I pull bits and pieces from here and there and use them both to understand myself, and build a narrative about myself so others can understand me.

Yeah. I have no idea what I am, but I do know that I relate to an awful lot on this forum. I may or may not qualify for a diagnosis, but AS/BAP describes my personality traits better than anything else I've seen.

It would be much easier to converse with you if you'd reply to what was actually said. I certainly didn't say or suggest anyone doesn't have the right to be here. I said it's contradictory to use a label for your own benefit and yet say that label has no benefits.



Even without professionals and diagnostic labels, there's still a need for labels. I don't think gay people would be better off without a label. Having a label makes it easier for them to connect with other gay people, to create communities for support.

And, without labels we wouldn't have language.

Labels can be misused, and overused. I've no argument against that idea. But that doesn't mean there aren't benefits as well.

Point taken but there have been far more disadvantages than benfits to the Asperger's Syndrome label as far as I'm concerned!

And I've thought of an exceedingly good reason for me to post about it on here - as a warning to others not to waste time searching for a diagnosis - I've already seen one person saying they'll possibly think again about it so that's good as far as I'm concerned. My life has been f-ked up by it but that doesn't mean I can't help others to avoid the same thing happening.

The people who seem happiest on here are those who know their difficulties and seek to learn more about them but don't seek to have them set in stone via a diagnosis, as they know they are fluid, some can be overcome or mitigated for and that a lot of the time they are just an example of the variety of humankind which anyone, autistic or not might be susceptible to.

Can't you see that this diagnosing/medicalising thing isn't going to stop until every human on the planet has some kind of nonsensical diagnosis that they can then be sold medication for?That's half the point of the DSM-IV/V - an exercise in creating new conditions for the drugs companies to sell their wares for! I'd love to know how many people on the DSM committee have links to drugs companies in fact - a fair few I'll bet!

There are no "drugs" to treat Aspergers Syndrome.

And some of us do, in fact, require a diagnosis. Just because you do not does not mean the rest of us don't. I have a DX. My life is not "f-ed up."



No, we're not.

To have "autism," one needs to have impairments.

If every introvert who feels uncomfortable around people calls themselves "autistic" then the label becomes absolutely meaningless.

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 23 Apr 2012, 1:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

When I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome the psychiatrist prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for me to take ie he said this would help me to deal with the paranoia and anxiety I was experiencing ie having diagnosed me with Asperger's Syndrome he prescribed treatment for the problems I was having as a result of having a syndrome of behaviour that was defined by the 'professionals' as Aspergers. It's exceedingly common for people on the autistic spectrum to be prescribed anti-psychotics.

These drugs - Risperidone and then Seroquel did not help me at all - they completely messed with my brain and I still have side effets from them in the form of tarditive dyskinesia (involuntary movements), despite coming off them in 2004 as I'd realised how dangerous they were.

So to say there are no drugs pushed as 'treatment' for Aspergers/ASD is naive in the extreme.

The whole concept of treating what are in effect logical reactions to living in a hostile society is flawed obviously but that doesn't negate the fact that treatment was given.

Try asking how many people on this forum are on some kind of medication - I bet far more are than aren't. They are being medicated into some kind of sedation so that they can cope with/accept the way society treats them ie badly!

The idea that to have Autism one needs to have impairments is ludicrous! With regard to the autistic spectrum it's only the extent to which society doesn't accept how a person is that makes any aspect of their behaviour an impairment. If a person doesn't get on with others he might make a bad teacher but he might make a brilliant lighthouse keeper so where's the impairment when he's in the lighthouse? It's all directly related to the environment the person is in at any one time and the people they are having to interact with.

Who is defining where the exact cut-off point is in terms of what is an impairment and what is just human variety?

I think you'll find there's a hell of a lot of introverts who feel awkward around people who DO define themselves as Asperger and for that reason the diagnosis IS meaningless - I totally agree! Where exactly is the cut-off point between 'normal person who is very introverted and as a result never learned appropriate social skills to enable them to interact successfully with the average person' and Asperger's Syndrome? There isn't one in my opinion - it's the same thing!

Can you also tell me exactly what your diagnosis is and what you see as the benefits of the diagnosis?

Autism is a spectrum and we are all on it! A spectrum is something that deviates from completely normal to completely abnormal. This is what I got taught by a psychiatrist so I imagine it is correct. So people who are normal still are on the spectrum (at one polar end of it).
Considering that I'd probably say that almost everyone has some aspie traits and may not even fit in the completely 100 percent normal polar end. Then there are people who would not meet criteria for any diagnosis but are still definitely a little bit off normal because they have traits.
So yeah - the spectrum includes everyone.

Autism is part of a spectrum that everyone is on. We can say (if we choose to define it that way) that autism is a spectrum that includes more than just those diagnosable with an autistic disorder. But if we expand the spectrum further to everyone, then autism is simply one part of the spectrum. I think it's a useful and accurate viewpoint. But "Autism is a spectrum and we are all on it" makes it sound like everyone is autistic, which is not a useful point of view.