So I'm confused about autism...

Post Reply New Topic

I understand how you can claim that someone either is or is not autistic based on whether they meet the behavioral diagnostic criteria. I also understand how you can claim that autism is lifelong. How can you claim both? What if you "grow out" of autistic symptoms that, at one point, would have been diagnosable but no longer are?

How can you claim that autism is definitively an neurologically architectural difference? Studies have shown that many, but not all, with autism have different "brain architecture." Inversely, some without autism have the "autistic brain architecture."

How can we use the term "neurotypical" with a straight face, when we can't really definitively or reliably prove that autism is a neurological difference?

Could you please back up your statements?

I can only speak for myself when I say I will never grow out of being autistic. It's impossible to think,feel, sense things the same as a normal person would. I can never get rid of some of the problems such as auditory hearing or impaired emotions.But what I can do is to improve myself in other areas such as learning to communicate better and reducing my anxiety. Having autism/aspergers is confusing because only an autistic person could truly tell you how their life is and how it effects them. It's like a bird teaching a duck how to fly high in the sky.

Yeah I agree with Age. I grown out of some behaviours but I'm autistic. I don't think anyone can truly recover from all their symptoms. Once they get under enough stress their symptoms come back.

About outcome and behavioural criteria: the concept of autism is still evolving and the current behavioural criteria were written before any of the recent empirical evidence concerning autism.

Studies show many different brain regions implicated in autism. Autism has many etiologies, and not everyone diagnosed autistic will have the same neurological differences or to the same extent; individual studies need to be read within the broader context because autism is a complex syndrome. Different etiological mechanisms can give rise to very similar behavioural and cognitive differences that can result in an autism diagnosis. Something that also needs to be kept in mind is that the studies are limited by current technology to an extent, so some differences are not detectable except perhaps through autopsy. There is plenty of evidence for the association of autism with neurological differences. These differences are measured with respect to control groups matched on such things as age, sex and IQ. When a particular neurological difference is found between the autism and control groups that is statistically significantly, that is evidence for just one mechanism operating in autism. Other studies reveal other mechanisms.

about Autism hope this helps
fiddlerpianist it explains it more about Autism

As we get older, there's more room to move. The underlying disorder remains the same, but behaviour has more sensitivity to it and better choices for getting around the breaks.

The way someone's brain works is just the way it is. Sure, you can work around certain things, and you might even be able to train yourself to act in a more "acceptable" way.... But that doesn't mean that the underlying tendencies aren't still present in your brain's structure... It just means that you've found a way to work through it.

For example.... I try not to talk as much about whatever obsession i have at the time.. Not because i'm any less obsessive, or that it's any less natural to me to want to talk about whatever my obsession may be at the time... It's just that i've learned that other people don't like hearing about the same things over and over, so i try to catch myself and stop talking when i realize that i've been going on about the same thing for too long. My brain's still completely the same... I'm just using things i've learned about the way other people interact to try and modify some of my behaviors slightly. If i get A LOT better at this, it's possible that someday i might not display the whole "talks on and on about their special interest" symptom(unlikely, however).. But that's certainly not going to mean that i don't have a special interest or the underlying urge to want to talk about it any less.. I'd just be working around all that.

The behavioral diagnostic criteria is a grouping of the outward expressions of autism - behaviors. It's how psychologist (and other people) identify autistics.
Like people here said, an autistic will always be autistic. An autistic can learn and change but they will still be autistic. It's not something you "grow out" of, since it's hard wired (which has been proven).
Autism an integral, intrinsic, and unchangeable part of a person's personality/soul and it affects every aspect of a person existence - identity, awareness, perspectives, perceptions, interpretations, views, thoughts, emotions, sensations, responses, behavior, experiences, abilities and needs.

If someone changes and doesn't fit the diagnostic criteria psychologists (and other people) can say s/he's not autistic but that doesn't make him/her not autistic. It just mean his/her outward behaviors don't match the diagnostic criteria.
Also there's PDD-NOS: a diagnosis for people who are well-described by the PDD/autistic spectrum label, but cannot be categorized by any other disorder (autism or Asperger),

There was a recent thread about this:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt103325.html

In short, I wouldn't say it has been proven. It perhaps has been demonstrated. There is a huge difference. Unless you can cite something that shows that it has been proven?


So, assuming they have thus far gone undiagnosed in their lives, how do you know if they are autistic if they no longer have any diagnosable outward traits?

Where is autism officially defined a something other than the traits that are listed in the criteria? If you use the criteria to diagnose, how can you say that you still have the condition if you would no longer meet the criteria? That's circular reasoning.

Besides, even ifyou were drilled into not displaying any autistic behavior, even if you were under stress, it would still not mean that you process information and stimuli the same way as NTs do. It is easily assumed that if you don't behav elike an autistic, you must not neurologically process information like an autistic. This is simply not ture. Behavior can be altered through drilling. Information processing cannot. The neurological perspective on autism and the psychiatric/behavioral one are just different. Because the neurological underpinnings of autism hav enot yet been completely figured out, it's hard to focus on it like something entirely neurological, so that's why it's still being diagnosed on the basis of behaviors.

Interestingly, APA is considering adding a diagnosis to DSM-V for people who have "recovered" from autism. That is obviously a behavioral recovery, not a neurological one, since that cannot be shown (unless and until it can be clealry shown through neuro testing that behavior therapy for autistics alters the brain).

Autism is ascertained in terms of behavior.

We are our brains.

Our behavior is determined by our brain-state.

We don't understand the human brain very well at all.

I don't see the problem here.

I would suggest reading chapter five of Autism: The Facts titled, The Brain.

Also from the "hard-wired" thread:

So there's no real way to tell if you have "neurological autism" as opposed to simply "behavioral autism." If there's a neurological difference, it has yet to be absolutely proven.

Even so, if we actually have neurological autism for life, yet we function or behave NT enough to get by, why does it need to be called anything? Isn't the point of autism to identify behaviors which cause problems? To expand out the application of the term seems like the wrong thing to do.

If you have neurological autism without behavioral autism, isn't it simply enough to describe you as "different" and not autistic? Why is it not simply like a Meyers-Briggs Neuroprocessing Test or something like it? Something more seemingly "harmless."

By the way, I don't have a problem with a stigma over the term autism. I'm just trying to figure this all out.

If you read what ChangelingGirl wrote about the APA, this shows they are considering that there would be some use in including a category for those who no longer reach the diagnostic threshold, rather than leaving them with their current diagnosis/label.



For those who would never have been diagnosable, there is the broad autism phenotype category. This is not considered a disorder.

Exactly.

And just because someone doesn't have diagnosable autism, doesn't mean that they're absolutely NT. Geeks and engineers (most of 'em, anyways) are aspies without a dysfunction. Same thought patterns, etc, but no major dysfunction that would cause them to be diagnosed with a mental disorder for it. (Of course, change their environment, and they might be. Surrounded by other geeks, they might not have too many problems, but plunk them down in the middle of more typical people, and they might go completely insane. Or take over. lol)

You could just call it sub-clinical autism, I guess.

There's also a population of people who score fairly high on both the aspie and NT portions of the aspie quiz. Kris and my mother both took it, and they both got over 100 (maybe one of 'em got 97 on one of them.. I don't remember exactly.. but still high) on both the aspie and NT sides of the test.

So is autism defined by the neurology (which we can't really describe other than something which causes symptoms), or is it the developmental disability?

Here is how the Center for Disease Control defines it:

This makes it sound like the development impairment is the primary reason for the classification, which I agree with. What is the point of diagnosis something as a clinical condition if it is not causing problems? Not that the CDC is the be-all, end-all of organizations. But it at least gives an idea of what most people consider an ASD to be, I would think. If we are talking about autism being something the cause as well as the symptoms, I would argue that we are re-defining the very meaning of autism. We're better off calling it Neurology B, or something.

And this is the problem with using a term like "neurotypical" when compared with AS. One can be completely neurotypical yet meet the criteria for Asperger Syndrome. Conversely one can show no signs of ASD or any mental difference at any point in their life yet still have an atypical neurology. The point is that having "Neurology B" does not necessarily lead to autistic developmental disabilities.

If we use the CDC's definition, you can have "Neurology B" for life, but your autism may come and go. You can't say, "Autism is for life" and then turn around and say that the only way to diagnose an ASD is via the current diagnostic criteria which are based on behaviors. It logically makes no sense.


For the record, I scored in the low AS range (around 130) and very low in the NT range (around 70). I think the Quiz falls apart when you get a score like this, though.