People with milder forms of autism struggle as adults

Post Reply New Topic

As of the article, it states that intervention doesn't do much of anything for people who're already able to adapt due to intelligence (well duh); it says that they're really no better off than those who are intellectually disabled who are taught the things that come naturally to those with normal intelligence. The outcome of people diagnosed now and those diagnosed 10 years ago isn't going to change, as the criteria are the same, which means it'll be picking up the same people.

Same people, same disorder.

How many successful adults do you think have been tested for autism?

It does not matter how many have been tested for autism. There is no reason to assume that the undiagnosed population is particularly different from the diagnosed population. If such a population as you propose could possibly exist, it would be impossible for it not to be reflected in existing statistics.

That makes no sense. You can't extrapolate from an unknown population. There is no reason to assume anything. What numbers do you think are relevant here?

But that is not extrapolating from an unknown population, but from a known population - that of autistic people. There is no reason to even postulate that a population for which there is no evidence actually exists in the first place.

The reason is that successful autistics are less likely to be diagnosed. That is enough reason for me to want to obtain actual evidence rather than extrapolating from diagnosed autistics - a completely different population.

Since most autistics are diagnosed as children - well before they could possibly be successful - your premise seems flawed.

If a "successful" person with autism meets the criteria for an ASD, then there you go. You can be severely socially disabled but still a computer genius who earns a zillion dollars a year, but who has no success at relationships due to said social disability. This person can be seen as a "success" (but also a "failure"). You go to a doctor to see why you're having these relationship problems.... ASD.

I know a successful person with an ASD, but again, "success" is in the eyes of the beholder [and its rays of petrification].

kfisherx (Karla Fisher) fits this to at least some extent.

That's begging the question. Most autistics now are diagnosed as children, which is why we need to wait for them to grow up. We can't know about current or past rates of successful autistics without testing those directly.



Exactly. We have good reason to believe that only adults who believe themselves to be unsuccessful get diagnosed.

No, it's not begging the question. My point is that most autistics are diagnosed as children, which means that almost inevitably, the people you're trying to propose exist outside the diagnostic apparatus would have had to overlap with the diagnosed population. The criteria you are suggesting as to why they weren't diagnosed wouldn't have happened at that point because they're not old enough to be "successful." If they are really so capable that they would never ever be diagnosed then they're not autistic in the first place.

What I have been trying to say over and over and over again is that statistically speaking, the scenario you have proposed is impossible. There is no way diagnostic patterns would so neatly and precisely cut them out of the picture.

There is no rational reason to dismiss current demographics because they don't explicitly include everyone.

The debate seems to be a bit heated, but let’s get back this much:

The Norwegian article from where all this debate originated was concerning people with PDD-NOS - not people with Asperger’s.

Secondly the 2009 European study mentioned in the article found that although all 122 people in the study had normal IQs, only 40 percent were employed at the time. 40 % is not very much considering the normal IQs, but it’s still more than some of the numbers people here have brought up. Would the number be higher if not looking only at the status quo? Surely. And how does the age distribution of participants relate to the amount of people in the working life?

Thirdly statistics or data in itself doesn’t equal truth. If indicator X appears to occur at same time as Y, that doesn’t still automatically mean Y is the result of X or vice versa. Plus autism in itself is a triad of symptoms. And on top of that you get your life history, personality, lack of support and so on. Some, like me, can work very well. Maybe they have less cognitive problems and better coping mechanisms or maybe they just got that first chance – and that door opening pushed the next door automatically open like a domino effect.

Verdandi you referred to your own definition of success as objective measures. I on the other hand think such a definition can only live in the subjective domain – therefore statistics are only statistics. I could have become a scientist, but I didn't. And it wasn't my autism that stopped me. It was paradigms, doctrines, competition, scientific borders... But I do think it is important to look at these indicators and to think possible solutions. More support, more first chances, more accommodated services and working opportunities are surely needed. In Kanner’s study on autism 2 of the 11 participants did manage later to get a higher education, job and an independent life. Some made it already back then and the reasons for that vary probably a lot, but even Kanner stated in his follow up study, that with more support others could have gone further too.

Last edited by VisInsita on 30 Mar 2012, 8:20 am, edited 3 times in total.

I totally agree!

I myself have nearly finished my uni degree, have held jobs before that were very stable and live in a student house. Fairly successfull according to most. On the other hand, I experience severe anxiety if I talk to people further than the 'hello, nice weather' talk unless they are my closest relatives, have no friends, freak out because I have to take a bus and sit besides someone and go mute because I wore the wrong clothes. Still successfull in life?

I do agree that a lot of kids and teens growing up today who were diagnosed earlier often are allowed to use their AS as a crutch. Obviously, AS can be a major hinderance in life, and there are many who are unable to "succeed" in a neurotypical sense of the word because of the AS. It is a disability, after all. But it really bugs me HOW many accommodations AS youth gets nowadays and HOW early they start getting said accommodations. I wasn't diagnosed until college, so I had to struggle my whole life. Yes, I wish that I could have had some accommodations and more awareness when I was a kid, but overall, I'm glad I grew up when I did.

I was forced to have to learn how to adapt to the struggles AS causes, and I have overcome many obstacles because I was pushed to try the things that were hard for me. Some of these things are things I am simply unable to accomplish, but many are things I was able to do despite them being hard. What I see in today's AS youth is a problem- they are often given accommodations and permission to get out of assignments from the get-go. Like, writing essays is hard for most of us, but is it really fair to anyone if the AS kid simply doesn't have to TRY? Accommodations for a disability are, of course, essential in some areas, but the bottom line is that we AS individuals are in the minority. We live in an NT world, and we DO need to learn how to live in that NT world. I feel that today's generation just gets to coast by and never gets prepared for the REAL world. There isn't an "IEP" in college or in the workforce...

Going by the criteria laid out in this thread, I am fairly successful from an ASD point of view. I have a full-time job and a long term relationship that's scheduled to become a marriage in a few months. We own a new car, put $550 a week into savings, vacation once or twice a year, and own a modest stock portfolio. I moved out of my parent's house at the fairly reasonable age of 24 and have lived independently ever since.

My IQ has been tested ("officially") in the upper 140s on two occasions, once at age 6 or so and again at age 16 or 17. I do think my intelligence has been integral to whatever success I have achieved, but not in the typical sense that it has enabled me to complete advanced degrees and obtain a high paying job. I am a high school dropout who works a fairly menial job and only makes about half of what my fiancee does. But my intelligence and related characteristics, such as sense of humor, etc. are what enables me to have the relationship with my fiancee that I do. And without her, my life looks very different.

As far as how successful high functioning autistics can be expected to be...I can see both sides of the argument, but I'm a strong believer in the idea that a large number of Aspies lead less successful lives because of their diagnosis and cognizance of it. Of course, I don't think EVERY Aspie would've done better without a diagnosis, but I think it's undeniable that MANY would've been better off without it.

"If they are really so capable that they would never ever be diagnosed then they're not autistic in the first place."

This is begging the question. The proportion who are successful and aren't diagnosed is precisely the question.

I sympathise with the study but I can think of examples where future rates of 'success', which will become measurable, wouldn't reflect current or past rates (diagnosis leading to a dependent underclass, old style UK grammar schools being accidentally pro-AS).