Opinions on the new diagnostic criteria in the DSM-V?

Post Reply New Topic

I always think of the little professor when I think of the as stereotype. I know someone who is the adult version of this stereotype. His talking goes on and on and on. I say like one word for hundred words that he says. From my perspective of below average speaking ability, he is hyper verbal, moar moar moar so than most nts. I have met a couple of hyper verbal people lately, hyper verbal as in verry merry berry large amount and fluidity and prowess of speaking. They seem to have tendencies to take things eggstremely literally, moar moar moar than I do. But they don't seem to have problems communicating their thoughts in ways that make sense to others. It's just that the thoughts come out in a much larger volume of words.

He does talk about autism, but it's more a specific sub-set or stereotype related to autism--the highly verbal, socially clumsy, normal-intelligence, usually male or masculine, unusual-interest, socially anxious group. The Asperger's stereotype, in other words. For people who match his narrow definition of "Asperger's", his ideas are relevant, but they don't really cover a lot of the things that people on the autism spectrum (including those diagnosed with Asperger syndrome) have to deal with. I can't really blame him, since autism is such a huge topic and those with autism are so diverse. I just don't like the way that the "Asperger's" label has gotten associated with this stereotypical Asperger's case which doesn't actually exist too often in reality. For those who are actually close to the stereotype, it works great... not so much for the rest of us.

But this is coming from somebody who is frustrated at the stereotype in general, because it means I have to spend a lot of time correcting assumptions. I've even had to convince somebody that it was possible for me to dislike prime numbers. Apparently Aspies are supposed to like them. I just find them awkward.

Another as stereotype is eggstreme intj personality type.

Maybe merging existing ASD diagnoses into one umbrella diagnosis wasn't a good idea after all in its current proposed form. Many subtypes may exist besides the NVLD-ish AS stereotype under the new ASD diagnosis. The verbose, little professor may experience just as much struggle in the social department as any other "high functioning" people on the autism spectrum, with or without special interests, with or without significant sensory issues. I wonder if NVLD alone could be covered by specific LD diagnoses in the new DSM.

Just as before, I'd suggest naming some subtypes of autism in the new DSM. The above discussion about the NVLD-ish subtype strongly indicates that different treatments for different subtypes are essential. Of course the diagnosis can be the same, but there are so many differences in severity and how the disorder manifests itself that even if we know that there are substantial differences on individual level we should seek solutions to help people to understand different subtypes, including professionals, who, like you probably already know, are often not far from the layperson. For better efficiency it would be advisable to retain some parts of the structure of the old DSM, not only for convenience, but to help understanding. You have to keep in mind that not all professionals and not all bureaucrats are experts on ASD (to say the least). In practice, AS could be divided into two subtypes (normal to high IQ HFA or SHFA and AS), and autism could be divided into several specific subtypes taken from research (Rett, Fragile-X, Angelman, etc.). The proposed severity levels are otherwise OK, because they tell nothing about individual traits, the primary function of the descriptions is to determine the quantity and quality of the help needed, not creating rigid categories.

If the subtypes couldn't be included then it would be advisable that somewhere in the new DSM a provision would be made that individual traits, such as social subtypes (aloofness, passive, active but odd), verbosity, IQ profile, etc. should be recorded and included in the diagnosis. Some of it may be pointing towards a subtype which should also be noted.

One comment I have is that I might now be able to qualify for disability, if I ever chose to try that route. (my state does not consider AS to be a disability)