Isn't Everyone A Little Bit Autistic ?

Post Reply New Topic

No.

Oraq, it’s a real shame about the test, but maybe it’ll reappear (why else keep those pages up ?)?
As for the article (ah, I should have looked for the date) such compilations are fine as far as obtaining references to check out, but you really need to go back to the original, before putting any faith in the claims. I found recently that, just after severe illness in 2006, I had a whole gaggle of e-mail conflabs with people agreeing with me that « autism » was in use long before Kanner’s papers, and they all had the habit of writing autism/autistic, which seems intended to support the idea that they are interchangeable. Up till then, though, the consensus was that it was Kanner who first coined the label “autism”. In my (admittedly, less than extensive) reading of Bleulers works, I found « autistic » easily enough, but don’t recall him using « autism », nor do I recall seeing it in Romanoff’s 1921 paper (you, and anyone else who is interested, should get yourselves a secure copy of this, before it disappears, or gets modified, as did the H & W Temperament Scale; who owns that, I wonder?).

This could be due to my memories being badly affected by the illness, and getting access with this public service I’m using is often difficult, so I won’t be rechecking any time soon, so maybe you should? In the meantime, I’ll continue to hold that Kanner was familiar with H & W, and borrowed from « autistic » to create « autism » which should apply only to those who seemed strongly autistic, the inherent differences which make interacting with others difficult, being exacerbated by low IQ (in which case what they need is a special education of what « normals » expect, from them, and of the existence an use of non verbal communication, and not aversion therapies like ABA!). This is neat, credible and testable, if only researchers would make use of the psychometric test available. That they won’t is akin to surgeons refusing to use a particular make of scalpels, on the grounds that they cut too precisely!

None of those dysfunctions that Wing relabeled so, have ever been associated with the autistic aspect of the psyche, so her actions had no scientific merit whatsoever! Calling the crock of crud she created a « spectrum » is a complete joke, and I struggle to understand how her papers got any credibility.

Here’s another twist; I read that Asperger stated he came across « autistic » in Bleuler’s writing, and may not have been aware of the epileptoid aspect, or his pathology may well have been labeled epiletoid/autistic, making it more relevant to aspies, who are far more numerous than plain autistics like myself (just three people post an NA result {one having since recanted} from the earlier online test; I’ll see if I can dig up some of the readouts).

Out of time; I pulled this from the Humm Guide

Component Reliability coefficient Mean = 0.86
N 0.86
H 0.85
M 0.92
D 0.97
A 0.87
P 0.88
E 0.67

Most of the test-retest reliability coefficients were above or extremely close to .70, suggesting satisfactory levels of reliability.
Chandler & Macleod Study
In 1969, Chandler & Macleod undertook an independent study of test-retest reliability on a group of 50 male participants (21 years of age and over) with a time interval between testing ranging from two days to ten years. The following results were obtained:
Component Reliability coefficient Mean = 0.72
N 0.65
H 0.85
M 0.90
D 0.71
A 0.74
P 0.78
E 0.43

As noted above, the number of factors contributing to measurement error affects the size of a reliability coefficient. One of these factors is time. In the previous study, the time period between administrations of the Humm was only three or more months, thus introducing only a small amount of measurement error. In contrast, the time period

I came across this while looking through some old e-mails (most of which I'd forgotten about) which may be of interest.



• Humm Guide Index cic.doc
• Humm Guide Introduction cic.doc
• Humm Guide Development cic.doc
• Humm Guide Reliability cic.doc
• Humm Guide Validity cic.doc
• Humm Guide Conceptualisation cic.doc
• Humm Guide Interpretation cic.doc
• Humm Guide Contriutors cic.doc

Hi Gwyn

I should have expected an Aspie to identify that we have missed a small number of relevant combinations in our setup. The combinations referred to are very infrequent because the primary motives of each component are difficult to integrate in an individual in the normal population. See the
attached material for a more detailed review of the H and A and you will appreciate the mental reconciliation problems. A high HA has a lot of conflict. Happy reading
• HA.doc

HI Gwyn

We have developed Management guides for the key components and to give you some insights into our thinking I have attached the ones for H and A.As you rightly pointed out Hs have no perception of the thought patterns of the A as they think their own attitudes are usual. Whilst not true opposites the effect is the same. How valuable would it have been for your bosses to have had these insights into your temperament

The basis for the Autistic component postulated by Humm back in the 1930s had its roots in Rosanoff's psychiatric classifications.(hence the naming of the other emotional components as Hysteroid ,Manic ,Depressive ,Paranoid and Epileptoid The theory went that individuals in the general population exhibited the same characteristics tempered by degree and the application of self control, which is where the last component, the Normal came from.
Hence a person could be a high A (with one or two other components also high) and with high or low self control. My thinking is that the primary components are probably genetic with the N being the result of child rearing practices 30+ years as a psychologist has not altered my opinion. Accordingly Aspergers could be tested for using the Humm.

Your comments about the great scientists are spot on. Most seem to be high As -strong self belief, feelings of difference, imagination, creative mind, visual, stubborn but introspective, and I could go on.
The problem is the disconnect with others such as shyness, personal
sensitivity, aloofness, being things rather than people focused.

I would want my research lab full of them, except that not all ideas are practical and how would they communicate.
Obviously better with participative v autocratic managers.

Your comments on IQ are all OK. The srd dev. for the tests we use is 10, not 15 as in the UK so your scores put you close to top 1% in all areas. We do not score over top 1% so all comments such as an IQ of 175 are meaningless to me.

Your comment re visual(read abstract ) IQ are also relevant and a skilled interpreter would pick that up Not clear on your historic references as time will show that the brain is hard wired, just like the rest of our bodies, but will I be around to see the
puzzle solved. See www.brainresource.com

With the online assessment system I have developed we can test anywhere in the world, but I am not sure of the market. Also medicos and psychiatrists are fickle re the "not invented here" issues.
Great to talk with you. By the way the other really creative style is M,(like me). Cheers, Kevin Chandler
Director

I think it's very good video.

Not just people who fit the BAP, but also people who have an ASD diagnosis (but have not yet studied the subject of ASD enough to be aware of the wide variety of different presentations of autism) can misunderstand and dismiss another autistic person's experience because it may be very different from their own.

Sometimes this kind of misunderstanding happens here on WP.

No.

But...

My stepdad has a mind which in the 90s would have likely been diagnosed as an Asperger's one. He's in his 70s and almost retired.

We go to neurodiversity things because of me. He's found a sort of an 'explanation' for his way of thinking through it. He doesn't want to go to the doctor and ask 'do I have high functioning autism' - he doesn't see the point at this stage in his life. And it is a form of thinking with positives and negatives, to diagnose it as something at this stage in his life would be potentially stigmatising him for no reason.

I think it isn't offensive for him to say 'I'm likely autistic' so long as he says 'likely' or 'possibly' or 'traits which are typically seen as neurodiverse' (he's pedantic enough to say that last one) not go around claiming to have diagnosed autism.

In a young person, and I include middle aged people with a work life potentially ahead of them in this, in the UK - if someone is seeing as many autistic traits in themselves as he is in himself, I think they ought to go and see the doctor about it so they can get a diagnosis and potentially help navigating an NT world. However, I don't really see what that consists of in adulthood, I didn't receive help about my autism in the workplace, just stigma.

So no, not everyone does but some people have autistic traits and it's better to trust their autistic family members and themselves on this than strangers who don't know them and just take offense at the very notion of it.

gwynfryn, you've convinced me (this is fascinating stuff) and I wish I had the time, but it looks like you've given me a retirement project to look forward to! I don't suppose a couple of years delay will make much difference?

One thing puzzles me; being so pally with Kevin Macleod, can't you persuade him to make the online test available, again?

The more I read and learn, the more I am convinced that the answer is 'yes'.

I think we can make a differentiation between OP's question, to which I would answer 'yes', and a secondary question:

Are some people far enough on one end of the autistic spectrum such that they deserve special attention and accommodation?

I think the answer to that is also yes!

I don't agree at all that admitting there is a wide spectrum trivializes anyone's experiences. On the contrary, I think framing it accurately can help people who are more neurotypical empathize and may play a key role in 'raising awareness' so to speak.

I didn't read the whole thread but saw the last couple responses. I will say that borderline cases exist. If ASD people can go from high functioning and slip into low functioning when under stress or overwhelmed and go from being verbal to non verbal, why not go from "normal" to autism when that person is stressed or overwhelmed? They will need support too and it's not like "Oh, you only have some symptoms but you are okay." It's not black and white.

I think a doctor will only make the autism diagnoses if they need it for support. If let's say they have ADHD traits, anxiety, OCD traits and aspie traits, but they need more help with anxiety and OCD and ADHD, they won't make the autism diagnoses but make the others because of how impairing they are even if they didn't have enough for a OCD or ADHD diagnoses.

I think if you have a borderline case of autism, you will have a tougher time getting diagnosed but I bet if you were dealing with anxiety and having a rough time, you are more likely to get diagnosed I would say. I speak from experience here and it might depend on the doctor you go to.

Oraq, I’m very glad someone gets it; I might as well not have pointed to the prior art, as far as most readers are concerned (like the two last posters on this thread).

It’s something like 18 years since I started to suspect something wasn’t right about the way these subjects are presented, and gave it my best shot to persuade others, but all I got was my computer and mail box hacked, and be inundated by trolls, and none of the site administrators lifted a finger to stop them. Then I lost a lot of my smarts to PVCF, and had to give up. Here I am again (my Dreams of Totty appeal didn’t work out anywhere like I’d hoped, but we’ll go back there; you started quit a train of thought with your suggestion) and I find people are still far more likely to uncritically suck up the establishment lies, than to make the effort to back track through history to get at the truth, so no, waiting a couple of years won’t make any difference. In fact it would be a good thing if you came back at such periods, to remind people that “autism” and “autistic” are two different things, and had specific meaning before Lorna Wing in her ignorance, mish mashed the two together.

As for persuading Kevin Macleod, the thing is that, after enthusiastic exchanges of e-mails by the dozen, he then stopped responding, and shortly afterwards left the company (his successor has never responded)! It rather looks like C&M were leaned on, but as to how, and by whom, your guess is as good as mine. With offices in a hundred countries, it’s hard to imagine who could so influence such a large company...
Here’s another mystery: I’m pretty sure I made copies of quite a lot of the C&M on line test printouts, but, try as I might, I now cannot find them (hacked again?)! At length I did track down the following, so try it out for size?

[An individual with this temperament style has many of the attributes of successful research scientists, capable of producing original ideas, committed to their projects and creative in their thinking. Essentially they are "experts" who do not relate readily and easily to others and they strive to achieve their personal goals, using their own capabilities rather than utilising team synergy. They thoroughly enjoy working on their creative projects and, at times, can become so immersed in the process that the actual goal becomes clouded.

They will strive for idealistic perfection and, when another person (in authority) seeks to impose pragmatic limitations on them, they do not willingly or easily accept the constraints. They possess a degree of self-management that helps to damp down automatic reactions to pressure, so they don't immediately reject the suggestion, especially if it is put in a rational and factual manner. However, it will be apparent that they do not invite critical contributions, and, in fact, open and easy communication with others is difficult. They are by no means rigid in their own thinking and, where they have free rein, they can readily visualise new approaches. It is only when they feel these changes are being externally imposed that stubborn, passive resistance will result.

It will be apparent from the above comment that their preferred work situation is one where they have a completely unambiguous project in front of them, where their freedom and/or constraints have been clearly identified, where methods have been agreed upon, and they now feel free to go on ahead in search of their results. They don't "need" other people around them for social contact or support and will, in fact, have difficulty in delegating activities. Ideally, therefore, they should have the opportunity to achieve their goals utilising personal resources rather than having to control or co-ordinate the activities of others.

Their particular style sees them self-contained, happy to work in isolation, not rejecting social contact out of hand but, "putting up with it" rather than enjoying it. They will communicate with competent people who know what they are doing, but explaining matters to the uninitiated is a chore. They will generally fulfill social obligations, but out of a sense of duty, rather than expected pleasure. It is typical that, having successfully completed their project, they would prefer to generate an academic submission or a detailed documentation of the results than communicate their findings in face-to-face situations and they would particularly dislike having to be the public presenter.

Summary:

An individual with this temperament style is a quiet achiever who likes to get immersed in creative projects and focus totally on the success of the assignment. They love detail and analysis and will follow through on any task to completion. They are ideally suited to roles such as: Engineer(electrical, civil, marine etc.); Designer; Architect; Veterinarian; Research Scientist; Chemist; Dentist; Laboratory Worker; Surveyor; Tradesperson…]

gwynfryn, that's a pretty good fit, in a lose sort of way (as is the description of artist/autistic; are they the same thing?). The one bit I'm not comfortable is the resistance to input bit. I will let them know if I think they've got it wrong, but I know who gives the orders. Example, when working on a particular solution (usually inherited from another) and somebody suggest a better one, I've always gone along with them, without hesitation, so I think your piece is overly negative. There's something missing too; whenever I found someone was struggling with a technical issue, I was always happy to help them out. Shouldn't that get a mention, if this is a workplace assessment (as I suspect)?

I just found this in an old thread, which also sorta fits:

The AE style person is easily distinguished by their commitment to technical accuracy and their complete absorption in their work. They are project-minded people, eager to ensure that all the details are in place. Completing a task to perfection is often more important to them than working within deadlines and, in their enthusiasm for perfecting specifics, they can find it difficult to formulate broader plans. Their focus on technical perfection can make them a valuable asset to an organisation, providing an alternative perspective to more commercially expedient approaches, although their commitment to high quality results can mean that the time taken or the procedures followed must be carefully considered in light of economic realities. They are frequently idealistic, imaginative and creative in their thinking processes.

These people are stimulated by opportunities to employ their creative talents and are more likely to enjoy being the sole operator, rather than having to fit in with team requirements. They are non-antagonistic as far as other people are concerned, but have a little difficulty in including others in their thoughts and their activities. Because they like to "do their own thing", they can become quickly irritated by interference in their area of work. This irritation is usually clearly visible to those around them, particularly if changes of plan or changes in project requirements are thrust upon them. When they are subjected to situations that upset them they will tend to cope by burying themselves in their work and shutting out what is going on around them.

The work situation they like best is one where they are given the space to work to their own high standards, rather than feeling they are under externally imposed time pressures. They prefer not to be disturbed or pulled away to attend to requests from others. Colleagues can sometimes find their preference for working alone difficult to understand and it could therefore at times be important for the AE style of person to consciously set aside times to interact with colleagues, to ensure that they do not convey the impression that they are antisocial or even hostile. They could also find it helpful to explain to colleagues that when they are engrossed in their work, they see attempts by others at social interaction more as irritants than as friendly gestures and, when they are placed under pressure, they are likely to avoid social situations, often coming across as aloof or irritable without meaning to.

They enjoy a work situation where they have the opportunity to work on finite projects, where outcomes are tangible and their own responsibilities are personally challenging but clearly defined. It is very important (for their enjoyment of their work and their ability to give of their best) for project requirements and realistic time frames to be agreed upon at the outset. They appreciate managers who are considerate and respectful of their skills, who recognise their excellent intentions and commitment to quality, who trust them in their work and show quiet recognition and appreciation of their efforts and accomplishments.

They generally view their social life as their own business, and do not appreciate being pressured by invitations to "join in", much preferring to generate friendships over time with people of a similar nature. For them, comfortable friendships often develop slowly over shared involvement in mutually interesting projects.

If someone is an avid reader but bad at spelling and prone to common errors and another person can barely spell C-A-T and D-O-G, are they both illiterate? Or are neither illiterate since both can spell and read (albeit to vastly different degrees)?

At some point a measuring stick is needed, or the definitions become pedantic or extremely blurred. No, most people are NOT Autistic. Those of us who are have to live under their non-autistic yolk.

And it works the other way: how many threads have been started here by people claiming they're only a "teeny tiny bit, just a little, very mildly autistic," and then give a laundry list of just how autistic they really are?

Well done on finding that, but why didn’t you look for a NAE readout, which would be more relevant in your case. If you can find it again, you should also check out NAD and DAE, or better yet, why not post on that thread to bring it to the top? It has probably been buried for years, and should have much which is of interest to today’s users.

As for your other comments, bear in mind that its aim is the average Autistic (or whatever) to which what’s stated may usually apply. It’s a bit much to expect a five minute test to apply to any individual, as we’re all unique.

There’s also the subjectivity of the author, with regard to whether a thing is a defect, or a difference, which can cause some dissonance. An example; nearly all of these readouts speak of our “social difficulties”, but on those rare occasions I’ve met other Autistics (recognised by hindsight) we got along immediately, without any of the pecking order baloney, or evasive speech, so how is that defective? The difficulties only arise when trying to interact with other types, but those who, say, think body language should fill in any gaps in their less-than-honest verbal communication, will always see as a defect, our disinterest in body language, or our preference for plain speaking.

That is an excellent video. Thank you so much for posting it.