Social communications disorder..is it on the spectrum?

Post Reply New Topic

I used to think i had aspergers, till i heard a new thing in the DSM 5 called social communications disorder is what i might have. I have a question, is it still considered on the spectrum? Because i really dont feel like a NT at all. Can any of my well read aspie friends give me some info on this, much appreciated.

I think that, if we adopt the DSM-5 terminology, only makes sense to consider "Autistic Spectrum Disorder" as being "on the spectrum" - if all spectrum was merged in one condition, these mean that other conditions are not in the spectrum.

I think that NT/"neurotipical" was one of the worst words ever invented - it was clearly created with the meaning of "not-autistic", but its literal meaning is "normal"; the two meanings tend to conflate, creating the illusion that "not-autistic = being normal". I suppose that, even if we look only to "neuro-a-tipically" people, autism spectrum is still a minority (ADHD, psychisis/schizoprenia spectrum, giftedness, mental retardation, etc., have all higher estimated prevalences than ASD)

TPE2, regarding your thoughts on "NT" or "normal" versus somebody on the spectrum, I think the word "normal" has to be viewed in a context of relativity. For example, if the context is schizophrenia, then even though I am on the spectrum, I would be considered normal since I don't suffer from schizophrenia. Nor can I see where "normal" denotes any kind of value judgment. Rather, it is used simply to describe difference.

No it's not on the spectrum. They made it a separate condition.

http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Librar ... -5-TOC.pdf

In the dsm-5 is classified as a "Communication Disorder"

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd ... f854708918

In the (every-day changing) beta version of the ICD-11, will be classified as a "Disorder of Speech and Language"

Well said. I hardly ever use the term ''normal'' when describing NTs, and I don't use the term ''NT'' as another way of saying ''any person who does not have Autism or Asperger's''. Some people may say ''normal people'' for quickness when talking about AS vs neurotypicality (if that's a word?), but they don't necessarily mean it literally.

In that context, when we are talking about diseases or conditions and we say normal people, we mean people without that condition or disease. So we would be the normal people if they were discussing schizophrenia or whatever. Since symptoms tend to overlap so if schizophrenia was being discussed and it also sounded like ASD issues, then you can assume they mean most people without a problem that causes them those issues.

Joe and League Girl, I agree with both of you. I must say I used to use "normal" to designate the difference between us and NT's. I have started to use "NT" though in an effort to fit in around here.

What I fail completely to understand is why so many people seem to object to the use of "normal". It's as if it's some kind of offense against common decency when in actuality "normal" helps us to understand and convey important distinctions. The Orwellian destruction of language, and hence the inability to convey important ideas, strikes me as particularly ominous.

Some of my earliest recollections are of my parents telling me I wasn't normal. They were right; I'm not normal, even if they weren't very nice about it. But my abnormality is something I've become comfortable with. I might as well be since it's something I have to deal with every day.

I do not use NT to mean 'non-autistic'. When I say NT, I am meaning someone who does not have any neurodevelopmental differences.

If you have schizophrenia, you're not NT.

If you have Down Syndrome, you're not NT.

If you have any developmental disability, learning disability or other neurobiological condition, you're not NT.

I've actually heard far more people grumping about NT supposedly meaning 'non-autistic' than people actually using it that way.

That doesn't make sense. Just because we happen to be talking about schizophrenia does not change the meaning of normal.

Normal is normal, whether we're comparing them to schizohprenics, ADHDers, autistics, etc.

Incidentally, in my usage normal is more restrictive than NT. NT requires your brain be normal - you can be NT and be missing a limb, for example. Whereas normal refers to typical functioning in every body system.

Ettina, here is part of the Merriam Webster's definition of normal, and the part I was making reference to:

a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
free from mental disorder :

Since schizophrenia would definitely be a deviation a "type, standard, or regular pattern", as well as a "mental disorder", I'm not sure why you think my statement doesn't make sense. Not having any of these conditions, or mental disorders, is the norm. Therefore, anything deviating from that norm is abnormal.

Schizophrenia is abnormal. So is being on the autism spectrum. You suggested that, if the topic of conversation was schizophrenia, it would make sense to call an autistic person 'normal'.

Ettina, it depends on whether "normal" is used in relative or absolute terms. If we are discussing schizophrenia, I am normal within that context because I do not have schizophrenia. If the context is about ASD's, then I am abnormal.

Here is another example to illustrate my point: In the context of your average Haitian, I am rich. In the context of your average hedge fund manager, I am not. But in either case, my absolute wealth is the same.

In both cases, when either term is employed, the first question that should come to mind is "rich" or "normal" compared to what?

I agree strongly with this.

But the way I see it, the word ''normal'' is usually used subjectively. I was on a training course the other day (something related to what I do at work) and it was about Dementia. It was very interesting, and the tutor was telling us the differences between the behaviour of someone with Dementia and people without Dementia in certain situations, and he repeatedly used the term ''normal people'' for ''people without Dementia''. It wasn't any point in him keep saying, ''well, people who haven't got [list of all psychological and mental health issues imaginable], only people who have [list of all psychological issues that can be mild in some people like AS] may react like normal people...'' We'd of been there all day and all night otherwise. He was just generalizing between behaviours of people with Dementia and people without Dementia in general.

Trying to stay on my first question, i have another question.. Why is Social communications disorder not on the spectrum, and im not sure if it was made clear if those with SCD are NT? Another question would be what are the differences in the ways those with Social communications disorder are treated and those who have asperger's syndrome? We used to be one and the same, and now after the DSM 5 we are no longer the same because we do not have stereotyped and repetitive behaviors.

And by saying i dont feel NT, is because i truly think my brain is wired differently to those who define themselves as NT, i feel alot closer to a person who defines themself as an Aspie.

Very close to the spectrum.

Social communication disorder is being considered as a diagnosis for people who have, basically, a learning disability in the area of communication, especially nonverbal communication, but no other symptoms of autism.

I just hope it won't be used as a synonym for "Asperger's". Many Aspies have mild social problems and severe problems in other areas, and it'd be ridiculous to pretend otherwise.