What Do You See As The Scope Of The Spectrum?

Post Reply New Topic

For the short time I was going to counselling in relation to my, at the time, newly discovered ASD, I was repeatedly infuriated by the councillor's insistence that everyone is somewhere on the spectrum and it is only a question of degrees. Having finally discovered that there really was something to explain things and that it had a name, it felt very dismissive to be told this. I disagree entirely at a fundamental level with this idea as it renders the term autism effectively meaningless. I proposed that, while it can be said that any particular trait may exist to some degree or none amongst the general population, there is clearly something fundamentally different about people who meet the diagnostic criteria. The term autistic spectrum is meant in the sense that there is variation between those who have the condition but not in the 'everyone is a bit autistic sense that she used.

I did try to get this across but I think I was coming up against the old communication difficulties as she didn't seem to be getting it at all.

Do people agree with me? Have you come up against this kind of misunderstanding and did it infuriate you as much as it did me?

Cheers

Nope, I dont have problems with the theory, that autism is simply a very extreme reference of normal humanity. Most of it seems as well logic to me. As example the most of our social interaction is done by the front part of our brain. If that thing is super-duper connected it basicaly means, that it is able to instinctively work with hundred of informations at once. Giving the brain owner the possibility to be what is called to be "very sensitive to other people emotions". In reality its simply a brain that is easily recognizing minimal changes of voice, body posutre, face mimics, ... at once, leading to a good knowledge what the opposites feeling right now are, and what the opposites needs are. Additional, because of it being that easy for that brain, doing so isnt exhausting for the brain owner.

Now slowly reduce the amount of connection between the synapses and lower the capacity of the synpasis linkes to work undisturbed by lowering the amount of protective material along that links, that keeps the links from bothering each other, when they communicate with electric signals. Reduce it to an normal amount and you have a normal person, that might not get every clue when not concentrating on an situation, and who must at some point at least "force" his brain to spend attention on something, so its a bit of work for it and after some hours of tons of social interactions it has a feeling of either luckyness because of the social interaction it enjoyed, but as well a bit of tireness. So that typical feeling as it is described in films, when people leave parties, are happily talking about the experiences they made, but are happy as well to go to bed now.

And now reduce the instinctive brain capacity to an lower then normal amount into the extreme. You get a person whose brain instinctively only becomes very few social clues, and that so must force by will its brain to actively spend attention on things that other gain passively. Sitting in the grass, getting apples right into your hand is easy. While actively forcing your body to move around and climb on the trees to get the apples exhaust you. You still miss tons of informations other people get and so have more often misunderstandings. To receive that part of information you get, you must actively use your brain, which exhausts you after doing so, after an certain amount of time. Being physical exhausted f***s up your life, so you dont like to be like that, and so instinctively avoid situations that cause you this exhaustion. Worser and lesser connections between brain synapsis, means as well less tolerance to disturbances. If your datastream is huge as a big river, a little stone in it is no recognizable disturbance. If you hardly manage to get a small little pipe full of water running, then the little stone disturbs you massively and makes the necessary work to socialize even much harder, and exhausts you even more...

Scientific researches already have proven that there is no specific autism gen. There have been many gens found that can play a part for autism, that each cause specific little issues, causing the individual to have more or less "autism specific" problems. And if these genes are affected in an amount, that pushes you cross the border of "normal capabilities" so that you are in an extreme area, then this gathering of symptoms simply is what we call autistic syndroms.

Dont see anything bad about it or feel offended by that. Just as people have more or less good feet in all variations. If you simply gather an amount of bad feet symptoms, that it enables you to do normal walking, you are generally being called "walking-disabled". (Dont know the right english medical term for it, but there will be one.)

A very good post Schneekugel. This is what it is. I think that as research progresses into these things we will gain a clearer sense of what causes autism. I can conceive that the concept of autism will itself break up into a series of separate diagnosis but at the same time these separate diagnoses will still form part of a continuum or spectrum.

Thanks for the replies. I might not be making my point very clear I think, sorry.

I totally agree that specific traits exist on a universal spectrum and everone, for instance, has some degree of difficulty (even if tiny and rare) reading faces or with motor skills etc. However IMHO those of us with ASDs are clearly more than just regular people who coincidentally share a few weaknesses. There is an apparent total pervasive difference in the way the brain works. This has now even been seen in brain scans when compared with NTs. I cannot speak for anyone else but I grew up undiagnosed but acutely aware of not being like other people to the point of thinking of myself at times as not quite human - nonsense of course but it's important to mention because it is likely why I feel it so important to have the definate difference vindicated since I have spent years trying to tell myself I am imaging it.

OK. end rant

Yes, we are very definitely different no matter how continuous the spectrum appears from a global perspective. Along the spectrum there will be definite bumps or lurches or fault lines that indicate definite categories of person of whatever description. I don't think psychology/science has quite pinned the spectrum and its undulations. You are out there somewhere so its not about if you are on the spectrum but more about its manifestation in your own being. No psychological (or other) definitions rule book will change your intrinsic being.

There is also a common trend with realisation of ASD in oneself as follows:
1) Uncertainty leading to formal diagnosis
2) Diagnosis
3) Analysis and questioning of the meaning of the diagnosis
4) Surrender. I am what I am call me what you want I don't care and I know what I need to know about myself.

I agree with that brain scans argument and know of it. But brains are as well connected differently in every person. There is a kind of brain patter linking that is "normal", that still doesnt mean that 100% of these peoples brain synapsis are linked in "normal" way, but simply the most percentage of it.

There is as well scientific research that show that many typical artists, seem to be the middlething between normal and autists. The typical autistic "focusing and fascination on an SI, being able to think about an certain topic and loose yourself within it for ours, being more interested into these topics then into general socializing" is something that some artists show as well. Just like there is in german an saying that means that a real good artist, always has as well an bit of "madness/non normality". Brainscan showed as well similarities with brains of some artists with those of autists, as example that they react much more to disturbances then "normal" people. Doesnt mean that everyone being an artist or musician has this treats, but some of them have simply a much more then professional fascination into their work. Their social capabilities are simply not that totally bad, that you would think of them as autistic or to have "weird" behavior when socializing, but they already have that need to "flee the overwhelming world" buy focusing into their "fascination area" that makes them feel more comfortable. So they are not totally horrible at socializing as we are. But its already enduring enough, that dreaming 10 hours about an colour combination for a certain picture is much more fun for them, then a party.

I think when that brain scans will become a standarized test for autism, then there will be as well people that are in the middle of diagnosis criteria, just as you have that right now with the actual diagnosis criteria as well.

Ironically I suppose the reason I am so hung up on this is because of my ASD binary and rigid thinking. However, to use a clumsy example, you wouldn't say that everyone is a little bit epelictic or a little bit diabetic - these are clear conditions which people either have or do not have and those who do might exist on a spectrum of severity.

Given that thousands of genes are implicated in the autistic spectrum disorders and that the expression of autistic traits is very likely the result of complex epigenetic factors, the physical basis for autism is bound to be complicated.

It seems to me that as the underlying genes and epigenetic factors are analyzed, it will become clear that there are distinct, measurable autistic genetic traits that define the spectrum and also that the spectrum is very diverse (things we already know, but with unknown eitiologies)--when these become metrics--testable data available to doctors, educators and therapists, that will be the spectrum.

This knowledge will enable parents, teachers, and therapists to help young autistics make the most of their talents and abilities, while minimizing the negative impacts of their social deficits. The question will no longer be "what are you"--with the idea that this label will then determine pedagogical and therapeutic approaches--but "how can we help you to be your best, given your mix of traits."

The idea that the doctor defines the disorder based on how well you are managing to cope with it is crazy. You could not imagine a situation in which they would define Oscar Pistorius as having normal healthy legs based on his Olympic performance, but this is what diagnosticians are expected to do with autism today. This muddies the concept of the spectrum greatly, because it clearly extends far outside the range that can be diagnosed with current criteria.

At some point, the absurdity of current practices will give way to the weight of testable evidence and the answer to the OPs questions will become clear: autism is a range of traits. Everyone is not somewhere on the spectrum. Many people have a few traits, often beneficial to the practice of the arts and sciences. Many others have none of the traits. Some have most or all of them. At least, this is the picture that I expect to see emerge from the research over the next decade.

I'm in agreement with the OP, in that I find "Everyone's on a spectrum" comments quite infuriating.

Look at it this way. Would it be acceptable to reply to a severely autistic person who was expressing the extreme difficulties they were having and say "Everyones on a spectrum". No, it certainly would not be. Because it sounds dismissive, patronizing and displays a very shallow understanding of their issues.

Whether the statement is true or not is completely irrelevent. The fact is, its an inappropriate response to someone who is in distress.

Another example:
Person A: "I have been thinking of committing suicide for a while now"
Person B: "The colour of the sky is blue.

Person B has made a true statement, which is also completely inappropriate.