Why is As/HFA seen to be more ret*d than bipolar ppl?

Post Reply New Topic

Why is As/HFA seen to be more ret*d than bipolar ppl?

If someone with Bi Polar is underdeveloped mentally and having an IQ of 70 to 85 then they would be just as ret*d in their mental growth as someone with Asperger's Syndrome or High Functioning Autism that is underdeveloped mentally and having an IQ of 70 to 85.

Unless you were using the word 'ret*d' to mean less desirable a condition to have?

Merle

Maybe because bi-polar is a mental illness and HFA/AS is more of a neurological difference. I never thought of it as ret*d, even before I considered myself on the spectrum. I also dont hear people calling autistic folks "ret*d". I cant speak for anyone else though. Is this a common misconception?

I think they mean "seen by outsiders/others" to be more LIKE being "ret*d"- meaning mistaken for "ret*d".

I have to agree with some others on here that it probably has to do with the nature of each issue, Bi-Polar Disorder is more of a mood thing while AS is a neurlogical processing thing- and ignorant people think that means "ret*d"

I meant unliked aliens whose condition is less desirable, not the IQ level. On another note, who has higher average IQ, aspies or bipolars?

I don't care for the word, ret*d. I also don't think that it should be used, here at WP, in the context that you've just used it in, because the majority of us, were wrongfully taunted and called that word, during our childhoods.

I dress like The Kinks did in the 60s. Do you think that makes me undesirable? You're two generations apart from me, so maybe I have no business asking you that question.

Aspies. If someone with every single trait of Asperger's were to get a 69 or lower on an IQ test, he couldn't be diagnosed with Asperger's and would instead be called PDD-NOS. If someone with every single trait of bipolar disorder tested at 69, he'd still be diagnosed bipolar. Naturally, when you take the lower range out, the average increases... It's an artifact of how they describe Asperger's.

People do get upset when you say "ret*d". But come on, guys, let's look at what the OP meant--that is, "Why do autistic people seem more obviously strange; why are they more easily rejected, than bipolar people?" Which is a valid question. And besides, "mentally ret*d" is still a valid diagnosis, despite the stigma. (Take note, though, villette: Don't use "ret*d" in any sense other than the medical term; people consider it quite offensive. You may actually get in trouble for saying "mental retardation" instead of "cognitive disability" or "developmental delay"... I am drifting more toward the "safer" terms lately, not because I think "mentally ret*d" is an intrinsically bad thing to say, but because people misinterpret my using it as a sign that I have something against people with that diagnosis. Which is actually what just happened to you on this topic...)

The answer, I think, is that people are judged by how they interact with others; and autism directly affects social interaction. Bipolar affects it only peripherally, because mood affects social interaction. So it is easy to underestimate an autistic person's skills if you make the assumption, as many people do, that said autistic person is as bad at everything as they are at socializing. Most autistic people are only about as good at socializing as people with mental retardation are at doing schoolwork (which is primarily what an IQ test measures); so people who don't know any better will make the assumption that our social skills are at the same level as everything else we can do. It's like assuming a dyslexic person is horrible at math because he can't read well (usually an inaccurate assumption).

Neurotypicals, generally, have all their skills hovering around the same level, and because they're the largest group of people, they've learned to make the assumption that other people are more or less like them. Naturally, that assumption breaks down when it comes to autistics: See low social skills; assume low everything-else. Or the opposite: See good academic skills or some sort of talent; assume everything else is at that level too (overestimating somebody's skills can mean they don't get the help they need, or they get pushed too hard, or they get told they're not trying hard enough--just as bad as being underestimated).

It can get very frustrating if you "look ret*d", because they underestimate you pretty badly. It's probably just as frustrating for people who actually are mentally ret*d, because the idea that they can never learn or can never have talents is just as inaccurate for them as it is for people with autism. For that matter, MR itself isn't all that well-defined a thing, because they are a great deal more likely than neurotypicals to have a lot of scattered skills--I have a friend whose daughter is developmentally delayed but learned to read at age four, for example; and about half of savants are developmentally delayed... most of the rest are autistic... savant syndrome, of course, being the extreme expression of skills at very different levels.

What's the "same level"? From a purely computational standpoint, all human beings, with the possible exception of EXTREME savants, are absolutely amazing at facial recognition compared to straightforward computation. Even the aspies who have "trouble" recognizing faces, and also have incredible math skills, are still carrying out orders of magnitude more computation with faces. It's more an issue of NTs defining the standards than being well-rounded themselves.

To cut through the intellectualizing and answer the question: When Autism is depicted in the media, particularly on television, the examples given (until quite recently at least) are almost invariably of children who are nonverbal, uncommunicative, often physically combative and appear to be intellectually impaired. Most viewers associate this with what they know or think they know of Downs Syndrome, which for several decades was the definition of 'mentally ret*d'.

More realistic depictions and examples of Autism (both low and high functioning) are beginning to appear in the media, but that original impression, that Autism and Downs Syndrome are virtually identical is going to take a while to overcome. Especially with an organization like Autism Speaks telling everyone that Autistic family members are an 'expensive burden' and a 'humiliation'.

Bipolar Disorder has never been associated in the popular imagination with 'retardation', so people don't leap to the assumption that someone with Bipolar Disorder is intellectually impaired.

Last edited by Willard on 09 Apr 2010, 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bi-polar is not linked to mental retardation (it's just a mental illness rather than a neurodevelopmental disorder). AS and HFA are on the autism spectrum which ranges from mentally ret*d to top IQs.

Well, put it like this, then: NTs have roughly the same configuration of skills, and these skill levels tend to be around human average. Neurodiverse peoples' skills differ wildly from each other, from person to person. That means that if it's an NT looking at another NT, they can assume that this person has skill levels about similar to their own, maybe a little higher or lower in general. They can't make that prediction about a neurodiverse individual; but they do it anyway, and that's where the fallacies start.

Nether are ret*d Villette, and using ret*d is very offensive,

I couldn't have said it better, myself.

Callista,

According to the DSM-IV, approxiamately 75% of children with Autistic disorder (excluding AS) function at the mentally ret*d range. The DSM-IV was published in 1994 and the percentage is now significantly lower according to general professional consensus. I've heard conflicting claims in regards to the exact percentage, but I believe it's 25% or maybe even lower. I'm a bit confused though...are they factoring in AS now (and as you said, an AS diagnosis cannot be given if someone scores 69 or lower on an IQ test) and claiming 25% (or whatever) of children with ANY autistic spectrum disorder function at the MR level? Or are they still specifically referring to those with Autistic disorder itself...aka...early infantile/childhood/Kanner's autism?


In other words...are there any reliable stats in terms of the percentage of children with Kanner's autism who function at the MR level? I suppose I should be careful with my terms here since enough people with IQ scores above 70 seem to FUNCTION at the mentally ret*d level (I personally believe i'm among them). So to put this as accurately as I can...what is the general consensus insofar as the percentage of people with Kanner's autism who are TRULY MR is concerned?

If there is such a consensus and you're aware of it.....do you agree with it?

No reliable stats. All I know is that people diagnosed with Asperger's specifically tend to be above average both because the lower range has been artificially removed and because Asperger's includes the "intelligent" stereotype (so the functional cutoff isn't necessarily 69, but more like 85, because psychologists are more likely to misdiagnose Asperger's as PDD-NOS when there is a low-average IQ measurement.)

So it is more like, "Above-average people are more likely to receive an Asperger's diagnosis," rather than there being anything intrinsically about the Asperger's thinking style that makes you better at IQ tests.

I don't think the stats on autism spectrum disorders exist yet; well, more properly, they exist, but there's very little consensus. I've seen figures anywhere from 10% to 95%, and a lot of that has to do with how you define "autistic spectrum disorder", what ages you use, and how you do the testing. IQs are practically irrelevant for us anyway; measuring such a variable sort of intelligence with one number is pretty laughable.

Now, if you want to use a more concrete criterion, like "adaptive skills delay", then the numbers start being more consistent; about 90% or so of the autism spectrum has this sort of delay (if you don't count social skills, which is by definition 100%). The presence of the adaptive skills delay seems to be unrelated to the IQ score (at least above the severe range); I've even seen a report that stated that in the average-and-higher range, IQ didn't predict who was were more likely to have more trouble taking care of themselves. Doesn't surprise me; IQ doesn't measure self-care skills, and if you're going to scatter your strengths around, having most of them fall on academics can leave practical skills behind. I felt a little better about my own adaptive skill delays when I read about that, because it meant at least somebody was acknowledging that "smart" autistics can have problems too, and looking into how it happens and why.

Why one kind of skill makes you "smart" and another kind doesn't, somehow, is still a mystery to me...