The Impossibility of Defining Autism

Post Reply New Topic

I've been thinking a lot (too much) about what precisely Autism is. Even though my ASD has improved dramatically, virtually to the point of being 'normal', I'm the kind of person that needs to know exactly what was 'wrong' with him before I can move on.

As its new years eve, however, I've decided to resolve this by accepting that I never will know precisely what Autism is - and nor will anyone else.

The problem with everyone who tries to define Autism is that they're making the mistake of thinking of Autism as something that's very precise in its nature (like the extreme male brain theory), or something that can be identified by a fairly small number of characteristics, e.g. the classic diagnostic criteria. In fact, I believe the complete opposite is true. Let me explain:

Basically, the brain is responsible for 3 seperate things:

1 - Physical functions (movement, senses, etc.)

2 - Intelligence (which can be measured by an IQ test)

3 - Everything else (essentially those 'skills' that are unquantifiable, but necessary to function successfully, e.g. maturity, common sense, concentration, calmness, social interaction and many more).

Essentially, one could argue that if an individual is not physically disabled due to brain impairment, and his/her IQ is unimpaired, but other life skills, such as the ones I've listed above, are significantly underdeveloped, due to impairments in certain areas of the brain, then the individual in question can be considered Autistic. 'Clever' theories such as the extreme male brain, and rigid diagnostic critieria (which don't apply to many Aspies) are pointless and damaging. The other limitation of the extreme male brain theory is that it views Autism as something that's fixed and unimprovable (i.e. how can you make your brain more 'female'?), when we know that many Autistic people do improve as the underdeveloped parts of their Autistic brain gradually develop.

In effect, Autism is like non-psychotic mental illness in the sense that it's a victim of overanalysis. Even in 2010 psychologists insists on pigeon-holeing mentally ill people, e.g. he's got depression, she's got generalized anxiety, he's got post-traumatic stress, etc., when, in fact, all non-psychotic mental illnesses are merely manifestations of the same thing: extreme stress.

One last point: do Autistics have special gifts? The answer, I believe, is yes and no. Yes, Autistic people can be extremely intelligent and gifted, and it's incredibly frustrating that we often can't realize our potential because of our disability, but I don't believe that Autistic people, collectively, are gifted in a way that NTs aren't (despite what some people on WP claim). An Autistic person can be a creative genius, but so can an NT, and most Autistic people have unremarkable IQ levels. WP creates the false impression, I believe, that Autistics are all unfulfilled geniuses simply because most people on here represent the more intelligent and creative end of the Autistic spectrum.

Anyway, feel free to tear my theory to shreds.

And Happy New Year to everyone on WP.

Hello,

i also wonder if autism is really something manifest, maybe rather an unusual development of the brain such that some other parts are not understood as fast as by others.

One question to you: What and how did you improve your skills so that you are now pretty normal?

thanks,
anton

OBVIOUSLY!



CLOSE, VERY CLOSE! First of all, the main aspect that MUST be affected in all autistics is SOCIAL! And it must be due to a lack of ability in translating various non verbal things. So a person with torettes might lack social ability simply because of the cussing, and they would NOT be autistic.

ALSO, would you be surprised if I told you that women had male hormones? It's TRUE! They have TESTOSTERONE! Not as much as men, but they DO!

How about that men NEED estrogen? It's TRUE! AGAIN, they don't have as much as women, HECK, if a man gets too much testosterone, a special enzyme converts it to estrogen! ALSO, Estrogen is what basically sets the bone at maturity, and is one reason why women are generally shorter. FAT can make estrogen!

So the idea of a woman having a "male brain" does NOT mean that it is male, or that she is any less female. It speaks to the idea that normal females may add subtle meaning, work around issues in a certain way, and IMPLY things in a way that men and autistics have a hard time understanding. After all, the social aspect of the brain IS more a FEMALE characteristic.



Yeah, and those illnesses are ALSO not autism.



You're certainly right there, right down to the fact that WP EXCLUDES most of the worst.

The idea of male and female brains used in this context is not scientifically supported.

It is not clear just what IQ tests measure.

ruveyn

I would break the nervous system's function into five characteristics:

1. Voluntary movements - This is motor skill and coordination. Your ability to decide to move your body in such a way and accurately do so.

2. Involuntary movements - This is what keeps your heart beating, your digestive system digesting, etc. It's also responsible for your reflexes and fight or flight responses.

3. Cognition - I think that this is what you're trying to define as intelligence. It is the process of logical thought.

4. Intuition - This is the package of feelings and emotions that was responsible for keeping man alive through the years.

5. Perception - These are your senses, the windows through which you view the world around you.

I see what you mean. In some people, autism changes. In others it might not vary much from childhood to adulthood. I can't explain it. Can anyone?
For me, it's changed dramatically. Maybe not as dramatically as in some other cases, but dramatically enough for me! I understand things I thought were impossible to grasp. Things are less scrambled and easier to interpret. Part of what helped me was having part of the day to recuperate. When I was spending eight + hours a day in school understanding certain concepts seemed impossible. My mind spent a good portion of the day in silent protest, resenting that I had to be there for so many hours. When I started going to college and could make my own schedule, things started making sense and were easier to grasp, then. Over stimulation makes meanings more obscure.
It's extraordinary how much the transfer from public school to college affected my GPA. It went from failing to 3.6 or something like that!

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 31 Dec 2010, 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

An IQ test measures the ability to complete IQ tests...

Then how do you explain the many autistic people who excel at reading social cues but are thought not to be able to because they are unable to reproduce them and unable to communicate well enough to say what they know?

(I know how to explain it. It's two things mostly. One, many current theories of autism revolve around what can be tested in people with enough language to discuss what they perceive. And then it's just assumed that those who can't discuss it are more extreme versions of the majority of autistic people who can discuss it. Two, theories of autism have always had a few different sides to them and to who gets diagnosed. You have the theories that come out of true observation of real traits, and the theories that come from false explanations and faulty observations. And you have autistic people who were diagnosed because they fit the theories and autistic people who were diagnosed because they look like they fit the theories whether or not they do. Like it or not there's nothing simple about autism theories.)

As for what all autistic people have in common, there's one theory that it's not a deficit at all but a skill. Not the kind of skill described in the original post -- like skill at math or anything else nonautistic people can do too. Something on a much more basic neurological level. And I'm likely to get this wrong somewhat in my explanation. But it's something like, being able sometimes, when necessary to separate direct perception from "higher order" functions. There are people who believe something like that is the elusive "core trait" all others spring from. It's already known that if there's a core trait at all it cannot be social because a lack of social skills doesn't explain the many nonsocial aspects of autism.

I don't know if it's even possible for there to be a core trait. But if there is, it's going to be a basic neurological cognitive or perceptual trait. Not something vague and "less basic" like social skills. (What I mean by basic is... something closer to brain function, like very specific cognitive perceptual or motor skills. Not something far removed from basic brain function like social skills, writing, athleticism, etc.)

I'm not sure because by that definition, that would make every patient with mental disease who passes criteria 1 and 2, autistic? Maybe I'm misinterpreting you.

Firstly as someone who used to suffer from Tourette's I'd like to point out that not all of us swear. I never had a swearing tic.

Secondly, what exactly is "social"? What aspects of cognition and perception come together to determine whether or not someone can be socially aware or have social skills? Socializing and taking in social information are really complex if you think about it. Is there really a part of the brain that wouldn't be involved at all? Plus, there's the simple fact that people who think similarly understand each other faster and better. If your brain is just different from the norm then growing up you'd have a harder time connecting to those around you and so would have a harder time socializing and picking up social skills.

You might want to check out my thread where I hypothesize that "brain difference" itself causes autism, not a specific one but any difference or set of differences if the brain is different to a great enough extent.

I believe ASD improves in almost every relatively mild case, albeit to different degrees, i.e. some people experience dramatic improvement, others more moderate. I'd be surprised if there was anyone on WP who's 40+, and who's ASD was never worse than relatively mild, who hasn't improved at all since they were a teenager. I believe Autism is caused by the underdevelopment of certain areas of the brain, though these areas do develop in Autistics, albeit more gradually. This is why emotionally we're behind our biological age. I also think it helps if you're a more extroverted Aspie, as I am. I've never been shy or reclusive, it's just that I didn't always know what was appropriate to say in the past. As I matured emotionally I became more tactful, etc. As an extrovert, however, I didn't have to acquire social confidence, if you see what I mean.

Actually between about 1/3 and 1/6 of autistic people show loss of abilities starting in adolescence according to outcome studies I've read. I certainly fall in that category by standard views anyway. (I also have the parkinsonlike movement disorder sometimes known as "autistic catatonia", which is progressive and can occur within all known categories of autism. It causes an intensification of some autistic traits, motor only being the most obvious.)

Not mental disease, no; Autism isn't a disease. The point I'm trying to make is that if an individual is born able-bodied, and with an unimpaired IQ, but their brain is underdeveloped (but not diseased) in any way that significantly impedes their ability to function successfully relative to their age, e.g. emotional immaturity, poor common sense, poor social skills, etc., then they should be considered Autistic. I don't accept the current diagnostic criteria; it's too rigid and restrictive. Even if an extroverted and popular individual ONLY suffers from significant emotional immaturity, relative to his/her biological age, and that immaturity is the result of cerebral underdevelopment, and not some psychological trauma or the result of a difficult upbringing, then he/she should be considered Autistic, and treated accordingly. If they're not to be considered Autistic, because of the current criteria, then how should they be considered and treated? They can't just be told to "grow up" if their brain is underdeveloped.

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know much about this subject, so I have to be careful what I say here. The question is: are you physically disabled? If you are then this isn't really Autism we're talking about it's a physical problem. If you're not physically disabled per se, then it meets the broad definition of Autism in my OP, i.e. that Autism is an umbrella condition that incorporates any underdevelopment of the brain that impedes an able bodied individual with an unimpaired IQ.

Yes you're right that some Autistic people get worse, but these are generally individuals with more severe Autism, or more atypical cases (like yours?). The typical Aspie on WP - someone with a fairly high IQ and relatively mild Aspergers - does generally get better.

I can't find it on Google now but there was a study carried out of hundreds of Autistics over several decades. Those with the mildest ASD and the highest intelligence almost always improved.

And can you try to clarify your 'core trait' idea, maybe with real life examples? It sounds interesting, but I'm not quite following you.

I've read your thread. Obviously the Autistic brain is 'different', but the point is it's NOT (despite what some people on WP might claim) 'different' in any useful way. Therefore, what you call 'different' is just a tactful way of saying impaired.

And 2ukenkerl - social is NOT the main aspect that must be affected in Autistics. This is the kind of rigid thinking that we need to get away from. It IS possible to be an extroverted, popular, child and have fairly significant ASD - I've been there! I was outgoing, people liked me (albeit as a clownish figure), but I was severely emotionally immature, with very poor common sense, and this eventually brought me down.