Wake up people! There is no such thing as Aspergers.

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, so let's say Asperger's doesn't exist. Isn't it obvious someone with these "personality traits" would sometimes need special services?

Well, thank you for not mocking my post. These are not even my ideas, though I've clearly adopted them. I realise I came on a bit strong at the beginning of this thread but I guess I felt I wanted to state things as strongly as possible as an opening.

It seems you are almost willing to concede the point that to some extent, the fact that someone is labeled with Aspergers will be arbitrary i.e. not quite a car, not quite having aspergers).

But a lot of people here seem to thinks its a brain condition (though I'm not aware of brain testing like you'd test for HIV) How can you sort of but not quite have Aspergers if its a biological condition, or just barely have it?

The article I quoted argued that people have clusters of personality traits. if we view things like that, there's all sorts of different people on this forum with all sorts of different personalities that have, to some extent, been arbitrarily lumped together as having aspergers.

Some were labeled schizoids instead. Some were labeled avoidant personality. Some were just labeled "nerds" (i.e. socially awckward but not to the extent of aspergers). Some were labeled introverts.

Some were eccentric.

Some are "classic aspergers" cases. Some don't meet the classic description (I.e. don't go on and on about things like trains) but were told they have it and its a "continuum" so don't worry about the details.

the more you look at it, the more one comes to the conclusions that "experts" are lumping a whole bunch of different people together in arbitrary ways.

Or as david burns admits, a whole bunch of people stroked their beards and took a vote. then, even worse, a whole bunch of people made up their own interpretation of what the stroked bear folks said on.

I'm not saying people don;t have traits that we associate with aspergers, bu there is no binary state of a condition that is properly referred to as aspergers, its made up.

Actually, I support the OP. Please, hear me out.

If I'm not mistaken, the OP is making the point that really we are all just normal people with nothing wrong with us. Ergo, why must we separate ourselves using labels?

We are normal people, actually. Normal has no definition when describing people. Everybody is different, and the majority here are just somewhat more different than most. There is nothing 'wrong' with us, as each of us are generally perfectly healthy.

As for labels, not one of us created this label, we only match its description. We choose to recognise that fact or not. Again, this choice is not an act of separation, only a logical choice of fact acceptance.

So yes, I agree with the OP. My only question is 'What was his point?'

To dispel the label argument properly, I'm going to remove any labels I have. I will no longer be human, no longer be male, no longer be an adult, no longer be alive, no longer be free, awake, philosophical, bored, Pikan, a jobseeker, introverted, loving, trying, or intelligent. These are all labels that can be used to describe me. What would a diagnosis do but add one more?

With or without labels, I am me. Labels only define me, they don't change me. Why fight against them?

((((hugs))))

~Loving Light~

Wow... Somebody really needs to brush up on his psychology.

EVERY psychological disorder is that way. Not just AS. They are all described as, "This many from this list; at this intensity; causing significant dysfunction and/or distress".

And yes, that includes obviously real things like schizophrenia and alcoholism.

Psychology isn't a hard science; it never has been and it probably won't be for a long time to come. Just because the distinctions are often fuzzy, the lab tests either not yet invented or not diagnostic, and the differential diagnoses difficult, doesn't mean that psychological diagnoses are "not real".

There is some "hard evidence"; brain scans of autistics (including Asperger autistics) are different from the norm. You can't use those brain scans to diagnose yet, though. The differences in the brain scans are definitely there, but they aren't easy enough to categorize--that is, they're just as fuzzy as the behavioral checklists are. You can say, "Well, this group, on average, differs from the norm in this particular way," but you can't pick an individual out of that group and say, "Yup, he has Asperger's," or "Nope, this one's typical." From person to person, autism is different.

Many of us love certainty... but rejecting something categorically because it is uncertain is not the right reaction to the reality that many things are indeterminate; they work on sliding scales instead of fitting into neat little boxes. Psychology never claimed to be a hard science.

You rarely get a blood test for a cold or the flu but a doctor can still say you have it. sure both those sicknesses have cells that can be looked at under a microscope and brain scans can show abnormalities in Aspies but you don't need to do the test to say it's there

LOL I can't help but laugh at you.

Of course. I said earlier in the thread its a useful way to get the powerful people in society to give you help you need.

The author I quoted implied the same:




If we really want to take the idea to its conclusion, isn't Aspergers another way of saying "person behaves in a way society doesn't approve of as normal?

Whether the OP, (by the way, does that mean original poster? ), intended to post this merely to be inflammatory, it's an interesting but ultimately useless way of thinking.

We're human beings. We live in a societies. Even people who are "aloof" from their culture are paradoxically apart of it through the very facts that led to their exile.

There's a sociologist, whose name I can't remember, who has studied social behavior in primates, including humans, I think...and he has a number, 150 to be exact, that is basically the magic number. After a group of individuals grows larger than that, individuals either split into separate groups and compete for resources or create a hierarchy within that ultimately leads to just that, a pecking order and abuse.

In small groups if one's basic, physical living needs are met, people tend to care more about each other. Not "love" necessarily, but if you know your neighbor and don't feel superior/inferior to him/her and really have no material need to compare oneself, then it is easier, at least according to the theory, to get along and even ensure that the wellbeing of oneself + the group continues.

I care more about someone I know when I hear that something has happened to them. Even if I don't like a person, I'm still more interested in the news of the community when said person is actually in my community. If they're in my immediate family or a close friend, I tend to be even more interested.

To the contrary, however, although I can vaguely and intellectually relate to problems, joys, sorrows, etc. that happen to individuals across town, across the country, on the other side of the world, I can't and don't really "care" in a meaningful way, as compared to people and experiences more meaningfully accessible. The suffering of a person in a Tsunami in India, for example, is much more abstract, despite my own experience of having been in natural disasters. I don't "know" this person and more so, it's highly unlikely that I will get the opportunity to know them. So, I can't really "feel" for them.
Now, I don't mean that I wish for bad things to happen to people. But like it or not, I am also, as is everyone, competing for resources in an extremely competitive world, where many individuals needs are not met.
We're well past 150 now. And people and other beings seem to get intrinsically sucked into this hierarchy, even if as victims of it, rather than victors.

The whole debate of whether it's a "real" disease, disorder, state.....reminds me of the arguments for and against God and religion. Who cares? ! !! It's not going away. Those that believe do. Those that don't, don't. Fence-sitters will either take a post or fall off. The belief itself serves a person, is an extremely longstanding human behavior, and whether the behavior/ belief system(s) themselves are beneficial in the long run, they exist now. Things that have a use tend to reproduce themselves, things that have no purpose or are too detrimental, tend to die out. However, one feels personally about anything is not a true measure of usefulness of any characteristic in the long view of Life.

Furthermore, there were things that we only discovered in recent human history, that heretofore, could not be seen. The absence of one sense, "sight" does not mean the absence of existence of evidence. Just the absence of one means of proving something, at worst. Feelings are "tangible". I can't pick up sadness. I can't buy happiness in a store. But they are nonetheless, real.

Most, if not, all diseases are probably social constructs, if one wants to phrase it that way. Even physical ones. Humans backs hurt because we walk upright. Should we start walking like Apes? Maybe apes have problems that we don't and vice versa. To live in the world as a part of an extremely large entity, that some scientists are now beginning to think is a giant organism in itself, rather than separate, living entities, living on a sort of indifferent ball of gas, means that the very act of existence, even in it's most intimate, besides the lonely number of one, the sometimes even lonelier number of 2, is to create a social construct. To imagine, to think, to feel, to create, to communicate, necessarily entails hurting others, being hurt, misunderstanding, reparations, withdrawal, bonding, positing oneself in relation to another, labeling, etc.

Besides, the analysis of psychiatry, is most likely unprovable, in the sense of even if there is verifiable date to the veracity of the claim, one would be hard pressed to get all but a few, and I do mean a few, to believe such a thing. And it also suffers from a "recency bias." Which is something being talked about now in America's and the world's current recession/depression. This is what I mean, when I say that one has to look at all human behavior. And that a hundred, even two hundred years are nothing compared to our total existence.

Ultimately, as other's have said, it matters not. People are still having difficulty relating to their own selves and others on this planet. If having a name, however uncool, which is subjective anyhow, helps people to live in our short lives, then so what. If not having a name, helps, doesn't, or is neutral, so what. We all have experiences. If we can even learn to connect in ways that are meaningful for ourselves and others, if we wish, and not do too much harm, then it really doesn't matter if it's made up.

The universe is a construct to some. I could be an illusion, to even "myself" for all I know. "Cogito, ergo, sum." And this too, shall pass.

What the OP is trying to say is that the testing for Asperger's is very subjective, and is highly dependant on what the diagnosing psychologist defines as "socially abnormal behaviour".

Think about this:

My ex-boyfriend and I both fit the AS criteria in childhood.

He is still withdrawn, doesn't like going out or socializing, is very stubborn when asked to do something outside his comfort zone (which is very narrow), and he would rather play video games all day than search for a job.

I attend University, have been employed, like to interact with people in moderation (I prefer only one new person at a time), and don't mind my personal routine being disrupted (just as long as the general plan isn't shot to hell, and I know what's going on).

People consider me to be "normal", and the same people consider my ex-boyfriend to be "abnormal". Even though my private behaviour is AS-like, and I was a textbook case in childhood; I have learned to 'fit in' in society, and according to people who didn't know me in childhood and most psychologists, I don't have AS. Once the outward behaviour starts conforming, the person no longer 'has AS'; even according to professionals. That's what is meant by "a socially-constructed disorder".

Just like the concept of "race". "Race" might be visible, but it is still widely acknowledged as being socially constructed. This is due to the fact that people of minority races who behaved more like the dominant race were often treated better than the people of the dominant race who behaved like the minority race. The concept of race is more about cultural factors than physical factors.

It's nice to see you've discovered a new book. Now do you have any original ideas?
*throws some troll food*
Eat up, precious.

Dude, I quoted psychiatrist Dr. David D. Burns, md and JAMES E. MADDUX, Professor and Associate
Chair for Graduate Studies, Department of Psychology, George Mason University. Please don't pretend I'm making this stuff up myself. If you think I've misinterpreted what they are saying thats another story, feel free to explain how, but i don't think i have.




As an empirical question, if you've labeled a group of people having Aspergers, scanned them, and found that their brains were different, I suppose its possible that you haven't invented a good enough scan, but isn't it also possible that your original assumption that these people can be clumped together was wrong?

You (or a large amount of psychology) are sort of begging the question.

I mean, granted Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, but I just wandered over there and is says



All this gibberish about having this and that and traits of that disorder but not this one, it reminds me of the old story of philosophers getting together debating the number of teeth on a horse.

Awful lot of defenders of mainstream psychology here.

Your research is less than comprehensive.
Abnormalities in both visual acuity and audio processing have been found in studies. In both studies, autistic people with both Kanner and Aspergers type autism were shown to cluster together, and to be outside the range of normal (as measured by the controls who all clustered together within the range of normal in the exact same tests).

That in my view is biological evidence, and fairly compelling evidence at that.

Keep in mind that the inability to directly observe something does not mean it is not there. Did HIV not exist until we saw it? If so, what was causing the instances of AIDS that led us to look for then observe HIV?

Going on and on about trains is not a diagnostic criteria.

Gender is another social construct, it has great utility and power-potential (both positive and destructive) and it does reference underlying realities. All human comprehension is socially effected and socially mediated. That does not mean there is not a real reality.

You would have had a better chance at making a valid point if you had phrased your question differently as very few people here actually put much stock into labels which is why you haven't had many replies to the thread.

One or two psychologists or psychiatrists who have different perspectives isn't exactly a preponderance of evidence that autism and Asperger's don't exist. It's interesting food for thought, perhaps, but not much more. There are many more neurologists, neuropsychologists, and psychiatrists whose research indicates the existence of autism spectrum disorders.

In my case, I also have NVLD which is caused by right hemisphere brain damage and damage to the white matter. NVLD and Aspergers have very similar symptoms, not to mention a high probability of co-morbidity. My sensory issues are definitely not personality quirks, nor is my inability to understand nonverbal communication.

As has already been pointed out, this thread highlights the main problem with psychology. It's all in the head.

If a person were to start talking to his hands about the weather, and went round tapping people on the shoulder as a pastime, that person may be 'normal'. There's no evidence that he's off-kilter, only opinion.

The same guy might believe he is Donald Duck, and feel the urge to kill people and shout hello at every tree he sees. Same applies.

Psychology has no rules, only guides. There is no clearly marked box that each neurological condition fits into.

((((hugs))))

~LL~

Don't you have homework to do, or a test to study for?