What is Asperger’s Syndrome?

Post Reply New Topic

After rereading your message, AsPartOfMe,, I have to rethink what I wrote about looking at the difference between lower/higher functioning autism as sidestepping. I now see that looking at it in this way could also be a tool or metaphor for understanding how data processing is working within oneself.

When I was on here a few years ago I always felt I would have to write a book to be able to communicate with you, possibly due to my own inability to communicate, so just make it longer...and longer....and even then did not know if you would understand, plus I did not have the book writing capacity or time.

This said, some things can only be touched on by approaching sideways,

You wrote: "High functioning actually means Autism without intellectual disabilty not how well the autistic can function in society. It is not a literal term, one can tell NT’s made it up."

By my understanding,both of these comments are literal, but in different ways. You would just need to know the definition of the term that is being applied, but I do get what you are saying. Also I think both of these definitions are in some way lacking, in that they are functional in understanding one thing, how well a person can function, as if a person has less intellectual ability he can probably function better--either definition kind of works, up to a point, and may have some kind of functional value in terms of making a diagnosis, but neither definition loosens the knot of a human being's individual conundrum in such a way that there is a possibility of untying it, (imo), so in this sense it could be said that present way autism is being defined by modern psychology is too literal, but in order to make money off of something, or even talk about it, for that matter, it is necessary to define what it is. I do think higher and lower functioning autism should not be in the same category, but---just speculating-- there may be, even probably has to be, another reason besides the ones we can readily think of why the categorization was changed in the DSM---some common characteristic of both---and if so, what could that be?

p.s. To QuantumChemist, I just read your question as I was about to post this. Special interests could be defined as a disorder if it impairs social functioning; however I do not think collecting trains--speaking literally (definitively) or metaphorically, however you define it-- so there is some kind of bug here which might be interesting to look at.

To Isabella, I am going to respond to your messages in a separate. Have to call the hospital now and talk to several people, though, and do many things, as my bf who had a stroke may be transferred to a different hospital today.

It should be noted that Asperger's had a threshold IQ of 70.

A person could be mildly intellectually-disabled, and still have Asperger's under the DSM-IV.

To some psychologists, having an IQ of 70 was considered "high-functioning."

In the "real world," a person with an IQ of 70 MIGHT have considerable difficult becoming independent. The obstacles are definitely greater for a person with that sort of IQ and commensurate functioning abilities.

Hence, even within the Asperger's "label," "functioning" varied widely.

So, it’s not the oddness of an interest that makes the having of that interest an AS trait. Rather it’s (as IsabellaLinton says) the obsessive intensity with which that interest is pursued. So an interest in poisons is odd but not anything which might be called a ‘disorder’ unless it was pursued obsessively. And IsabellaLinton’s interest in the Brontës is not at all odd in and of itself. It’s only the obsessive way it is pursued which might make us think of it as a disorder. So then there are two questions.

First question (somewhat rhetorical). Like QuantumChemist says: “At what point does a special interest/hobby cross over into a disorder?”. As previously mentioned, the obsessive training schedule of a sportsperson is not considered a disorder. Also, religious devotees are as obsessive as IsabellaLinton, except maybe they have one book instead of seven. And they are not considered as having a disorder.

Second question. Even if an intensely pursued interest “crosses over into a disorder”, why AS? Why not OCD? If you had an obsessive interest (what used to be called ‘monomania’) it would be treated as an OCD, wouldn’t it? AS is something different surely. You can have AS even though you don’t have the trait of having an obsessive interest, can’t you?

I get the impression that the idea with AS is that the traits that constitute it are ones which, due to the intensity to which they are displayed, result in “significant difficulties with social interaction”. Not just any traits, only certain ones. Traits like: “having highly-focussed interests” or “having a routine”. Is that a fair summary of AS?

Let me give examples from my own experience. Sometimes when I am talking to people (employers for example) and they are being evasive and dissembling (if not downright mendacious). When I try to pin them down and get them to be straight with me they accuse me of having “communication difficulties” and AS (or of being “on the spectrum”). Certainly it’s true that my desire for them to be straight is stronger (more intense) than most people’s. Other people just ignore it but I don’t. But then it’s like I’m being told that I am somehow incapable of appreciating the subtleties of communication. Which is nonsense. I am perfectly capable of doing that. They are just using that as an excuse to justify them being evasive.

Similarly, I really hate small talk. And that is often a cue for people to suggest I have AS. And I think: no I just don’t like small talk. I think it is superficial and doesn’t result in any worthwhile communication. I don’t have any problems with people who do like it. It’s a matter of taste. But I rather resent being treated as if I have ‘disorder’ just because of my tastes.

I put all this kind of thing into the same category as something like: somebody suggests I deliberately omit something from my tax return to reduce my liability. And I say: no, I insist on paying the full amount of tax I am liable to pay. And they look at me as if to say: you are so inflexible and rigid!

(Aside. By the way, another thing I really hate is group conversations, which includes forum threads like this. They often degenerate into a heap of unrelated remarks made by people and just thrown into a heap. Which isn’t conducive to any communication and understanding of each other. Or (what I really really really hate) is when people just start off-topic conversations among themselves (as they have done in this thread). Like they are just ignoring what I asked. Which is very rude. I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to expect all posts to relate directly and clearly to what I am asking. But again, when I say all this kind of stuff, I am accused of having something wrong with me.)

From the DSM-5, autism includes:
Section B: Restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities.
Example: Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g, strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests).

--
Please note the example above is only one example, from a list of four given examples in the DSM-5, Section B. The person must show evidence of 2 out of 4 of the given examples.

There is no mention of special, odd or unusual interests in the DSM-5, phrases that we often hear associated with autism and words that you seem to question. "Special interest" is often used colloquially to mean a "narrow", "personal" or "intense" interest, but it doesn't mean that an autistic person's interests are unusual or odd by their topic. It's the intensity and the repetition or perseveration of an interest (however mainstream) that matters.

I might add that my interest is academic and that I did study Brontë Literature, 19th Century British Literature, and English Literature as a whole, with Distinction. I do read and enjoy many other authors, but I hold the Brontës especially dear and continue to conduct research. I don't think this matters to your original question, but I just wanted you to know that my study would be on the same level as an autistic scientist pursuing engineering, computers or lab work (accepted stereotypes of autism). It isn't a random interest that I developed "just for fun".

Wow Isabella, great response!

To the op, my passion is social science, so speaking from a social science perspective, maybe some people are jealous of some other people who are, in short, smarter than themselves, and some of these smarter people who do not have particularly advanced social skills such as me, maybe, ,tend to inappropriately kind of shove their special interests down other people's throats in certain social situations and even jump into a group and try to be the leader when they have not yet developed leadership qualities, and then these so-called normal people, because of their own animal aggression, (which, by the way, autistic people have also) label these other probably smarter people as weird and, like a pack of dogs going after prey, shun, them or attack them. Simple as pie, though we can extrapolate about the nature of pie from the perspective of being pie makes (if we are). Imo it is necessary to look at how groups organize to lead to the survival of the species, and how different kinds of genetic traits originally played into that. Human beings are basically the same, but conditions have radically changed now, so on some level, things are going wacky.

Interesting train comment:

To the op.I'm not sure anyone here or anywhere (thiugh maybe someone somewhere) said exactly that having a special interest is in itself a disorder, though if it takes over ones life to the degree it can impair functioning, it could be. I think it is more often looked at as a kind of characteristic of a syndrome, and it might be helpful to look at the word syndrome. So, taking this one characteristic out of context and trying to compare it to someone such as a football player who is not being characterized as having such a syndrome is maybe a form of literalism, but if you want an answer then keep hammering away at the same point, and I think this could bring us closer to finding an answer.

My train message was more pointing to how the human mind/brain frames around context and other people may respond to that and make a larger social framing and then that kind of can take over, putting people or oneself inside a kind of circle that is not so easy to get out of. I know it is kind of hard to see how it could be relevant to this topic, but I think it is.

***So, to the op, I think you are asking the right question. I was getting here, but just like to take my time, and this way it is possible to factor in and lay the ground for understanding certain points that may be made later. I have thought a lot over the years, especially the last year or two, about the implications and ramifications of "special interest" as applied to autistic brain function. I think more than having this or that kind of special interest, which many people, autistic or not do have, the key to autistic special interest is the ability of an increased focus and also the drive to individually self express from that angle (which imo is an inherited trait). Maybe if we look at it in this way, it will be more helpful.

So the idea is that “intense pursuit of an interest” on its own is not sufficient for a diagnosis of the ‘disorder’ of AS. But if you put that with other traits (as listed in the DSM), which, equally, on their own, are not sufficient for a diagnosis. Then, collectively, this is sufficient for a diagnosis? This means that a collection of non-‘disorder’ traits constitute a ‘disorder’?

Anyway I think this thread is wearing out (forgive the pun) and I feel like I am being boring (saying the same things over and over again). Until I get a concrete descriptive account of someone with AS, with a full description of all their actual particular ‘symptoms’. And not just generic abstract descriptions. Until I get this I can’t progress further. And I haven’t been able to find such descriptive account online anywhere.

DSM-5 is so very abstract, it reads like it’s been written by a machine. Yes OK, “highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity”. But how (much) abnormal?


I know IsabellaLinton has described her situation somewhat but not in enough detail for me to judge. And a decent respect for her privacy forbids me from asking her for more details. So I will just have to continue searching online. Or wait for someone to post a link to an example here.

Other than that I hereby declare this thread as finished. (Assuming I’m allowed to do that which I’m probably not.)