Losing the Aspergers/Autism explination?

Post Reply New Topic

I still don't understand why you can't just identify as ASD Level 1 instead? it is the same people, same condition, different name.

Exactly.


I've never said I was an expert, I merely stood up for the ones you're biased against, since you may not know the full story. I'm only a student right now, but I will specialize in autism after I graduate.


Yet again, you have to understand how difficult autism can be to diagnose. It's not like there's a blood test. Professionals make mistakes too, but it's not always their fault. If you're referring to people being diagnosed with SAD under the DSM-IV instead of AS, then I can understand why - you prove why the criteria for AS was so terrible in the first place.


What do you mean "was working"? It wasn't working at all. Just because you wanted it to stay because it explains your behaviors doesn't mean it was working overall. It's not just about you or anyone else who only wanted it kept because they liked the term. That's pretty selfish. Diagnoses exist if they're proven to exist. They're renamed or taken out when it's proven that the diagnosis is redundant.


Isn't that the same as you knowing a stigmatized version of what ASD is and how people previously diagnosed with autistic disorder present symptoms? It seems like you're stigmatizing ASD since you want to separate the diagnoses.

Most people on here still use the term "aspie" even if their official diagnosis is ASD, so I'm not sure how you wouldn't have a group to identity with when you literally have most of the people on this forum to identity with.

I am not certain what the term “identify” means in this case.

For me, I personally feel much more comfortable thinking of myself (as I don’t really talk about this with others) as being diagnosed with DSM-IV Asperger’s, which I was, in 2013. I never think of myself as having ASD Level 1. Heck, I am not even certain I understand what “requiring support” means. To me, the concept is incredibly ambiguous.

It is true that the DSM is complete and utter s**t.

Unfortunately.

Sorry, just saw this post today. I'm not sure how I missed it, but thank you for replying with the differences you see between the disorders.

That's not what I was saying. I'm saying if you disagree with psychologists - and autism specialists - being able to diagnose the condition, then it could also be argued that their inability to diagnose it is what caused them to mislabel the condition as a disorder in the first place and that in reality, AS does not exist. Now I don't personally believe that, but that's what your logic says, because you've implied that most, if not all, professionals who fall into the aforementioned categories are incompetent when it comes to diagnosing AS/ASD. I'm not sure if you believe this is due to their own incompetence or due to the DSM, though I'm leaning towards the latter.

The differences you mentioned are untrue though, because they only apply to some people, not all of us. (Hence the autism spectrum.) Those are stereotypes; experts and specialists - whether you think they can diagnose AS or not - are at least able to separate fact from fiction because not only have they spent time on research, but they've spent time with autistic individuals - and likely many many more than you've been around. Their research and sources are backed by facts and observations. What you've stated is what I generally see being said from people who, as you say, "self-identify" as being autism experts or as being extremely knowledgeable about autism in general, yet haven't even studied it (but I'll touch on the subject of that later).


Would you happen to have a source for this? If this were truly the case (and it isn't), then AD and AS would have stayed separate. Autistic people obviously tend to have special interests. That description of AS has never been and never will be true for everyone though. I never did that because I generally knew who I could talk about my special interests with.


Yet again, this is false as well. You're describing someone who would probably have been thought as low functioning (or ASD Level 3), because they are often diagnosed with intellectual disability. (What you mentioned previously about autistic people not being able to communicate verbally also goes along with this.) But there were plenty of autistic people (in this case, meaning diagnosed AD) who were considered MFA/HFA. The defining characteristic of autism, however, is having deficits in social communication. It - and any other characteristics of autism - has/have nothing to do with intelligence level. ID is merely a comorbid condition associated with autism.



Is that last sentence supposed to imply that people who were diagnosed with AD couldn't be successful in fields related to their special interests? If so, you're sorely mistaken. Those diagnosed with AS were stereotyped as being "highly intelligent", but with people being diagnosed as both AS and AD (because of the iffy diagnostic criteria), there really is no way to prove that people with AS were more intelligent (or could function better) than those with AD/HFA. (You do realize AS was considered HFA though, right? That's the reason people with AS were said to have average or above average intelligence.)



If you disagree with the DSM-5 criteria, wouldn't you have to at least somewhat agree with the DSM-IV criteria since it at least included AS as a subtype of autism? (Not to mention that the criteria for AS was nearly exactly the same as the criteria for AD.)

There's nothing wrong with identifying as an expert or specialist on a topic if you truly are one though. For example, Robert Hare is considered the expert on psychopathy. I don't know if he considers himself one, but other people surely do. It's not like you often see people claiming to be experts on a topic and then they actually are experts. It's different if they're claiming expert status because they want attention or for people to believe their statements. I think we're all weary of people like that. But we also know how to spot someone who is knowledgeable about a topic versus someone who is simply spewing nonsense (the vaccine controversy with autism comes to mind as a perfect example).

Also, you're misunderstanding the diagnostic criteria. I'll try to explain it the best that I can.

It's possible to have autistic traits, but not actually be autistic. But your example isn't what is considered repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior. In this case, stereotyped behaviors refers to what Kanner originally described. They include many different body movements including, but not limited to, spinning, jumping, hand flapping, twirling objects (or hair), rocking side-to-side, snapping fingers or stomping feet, and even vocal noises. You may also hear them called stims. (Or as one article described: A behavior is defined as stereotypy when it fits the requisite form, which involves repetition, rigidity, and invariance, as well as a tendency to be inappropriate in nature (Turner, 1999).") Repetitive/restricted behaviors (some people call them obsessions) include things like performing the same act over and over (this includes lining up items or watching a fan spin for hours), repeatedly uttering the same phrase (this is known as echolalia and may also be considered a stim), insisting on the same routine/ritual, or "obsessing" over a favorite topic [1].

Dr. Kanner described a boy as:
"But the child’s noises and motions and all of his performances are as monotonously repetitious as are his verbal utterances. There is a marked limitation in the variety of his spontaneous activities. The child’s behavior is governed by an anxiously obsessive desire for the maintenance of sameness that nobody but the child himself may disrupt on rare occasions. Changes of routine, of furniture arrangement, of a pattern, of the order in which everyday acts are carried out, can drive him to despair." (Citation: Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217-250. (pg. 245).)

What you described is actually just chit-chat or small talk. May I ask why you see it as repetitive and stereotyped behavior? Is it that you see it as being repetitive (or I suppose stereotyped too) because a lot of people often ask those same questions or mention those topics?

I've said this in another thread before - professional/clinical definitions differ from colloquial ones. So while our culture may use abnormal as a derogatory term, it's not used that way by professionals. "Abnormal" also means "atypical" (you know how PDD-NOS was called atypical autism?), so it's exactly what it sounds like. When it comes to defining what is abnormal in psychopathology/abnormal psychology, there are actually criteria for determining this. Examples may include distress or disability, maladaptiveness, irrationality, unpredictability, unconventionality and statistical rarity, observer discomfort, and violation of moral and ideal standards. I could describe them in an in-depth manner, but that would take too long, so I'd suggest you just research the topic. The criteria I've quoted have come from Butcher, J. N., Mineka, S., & Hooley, J. M. (2008). Abnormal Psychology (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

(Who says a vast majority of people diagnosed with AS don't care about sports because they were treated badly though? Source? As far as I know, people on here have described themselves as being "clumsy" or just not being athletic and that that's why they're not interested in sports.) Do you have something against just psychologists/psychiatrists/specialists or is it NTs in general? I can't tell. Because there are conditions in the DSM considered abnormal that many NTs are also diagnosed with. And increasingly, those going into the aforementioned fields have actually had previous psychological issues (depression seems to be common) and it seems to be why they want to go into the field.

Anyway, what separates an interest from an autistic person's special interest is the intensity (and sometimes often the subject of the interest as well), as you quoted and mentioned earlier as something those diagnosed with AS do. So apparently you do at least agree with the criteria somewhat, since you acknowledged that as a symptom of AS. Memorizing scores would not be abnormal in intensity unless the person spent hours on that topic, the way you mentioned with aspies being able to talk about their special interests. I've seen some on here describe their special interests as being a 24/7 thing; for some, it's of the utmost importance and nothing else can top it. You can see how that intensity is abnormal, right? Here's a thread where people actually discuss the topic of what makes a special interest abnormal. Here's a document that's pretty interesting and goes a bit more in-depth on the topic by including case studies. And if you need another example, I would consider this post to be a perfect one.



No, that's completely different. Hopefully the information I provided to you about stims answers this question of yours.

Honestly, I only see bias in your post though, because as I mentioned before, it seems like you're either against all professionals in general or against all NTs. I would assume you dislike the ICD as well then. I just don't understand how someone who is against the DSM can agree with a disorder it previously listed without therefore agreeing with the DSM (even if you disagree on some concepts, like the diagnostic criteria).

I've already said that the DSM isn't perfect because it isn't. I just don't understand people criticizing it while also agreeing with the disorders they've been diagnosed with from it. I also don't understand why some people criticize it when they don't have the experience to really do so. (And I'm not saying any of the aforementioned or following even applies to you, it's just what I've noticed with a lot of people who have opinions similar to yours.)

To give you an example of what I mean so that that does not sound offensive (because it's not meant to be): one thing I disagree with the DSM-5 about has to do with the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). It includes a sentence that people often use to imply that ASPD is the same as psychopathy and sociopathy, which isn't necessarily true. Many many people that I've come in contact with seem to believe this misconception. (I should probably note that I have a thing - kind of a compulsion - about not allowing misconceptions about topics I'm interested in being spread. If I seem obsessive in my posts, that's probably why.) I disagree with the inclusion of that sentence and them not including the specifier for ASPD (it's "ASPD with psychopathic traits"). Now this is actually included at the end of the DSM in an alternative model for personality disorders, though people who argue ASPD is the same as sociopathy and psychopathy never acknowledge this. It's likely that most of these people don't even have a background with the topic and that they haven't even read the DSM.

My stance on the issue and what I always tell people is simply that it's not possible to determine whether they're the same at this time, and that if those who have spent years studying this topic (aka the experts/specialists/professionals or whatever you want to call them) aren't sure what's true because more research is still being done, how on earth are essentially laypeople going to know - for sure without a doubt - this information? (Because yes, I've actually seen people try to insist how "right" they were on the topic and how wrong the article writer was.) Even if professionals aren't perfect, their opinion does mean a lot when backed up by research and/or scientific consensus. And of course everyone's entitled to an opinion, but there also seems to be a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. If most people researched topics - and I don't mean just using google or articles written by people who don't have experience with the topic - before commenting on them, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen. That's why I believe informed opinions are better. I've just never understood how people could be so opinionated about topics that they essentially didn't even know about or understand completely because many tend to be extremely complicated (the psychopathy/sociopathy debate is a perfect example). Maybe I'm seeing it wrong or something, I don't know. But I hope I answered/cleared up any questions you may have had.

Can you define MFA?
I can rarely find any definition about it, as the "official" defining factor between low functioning and high functioning is presence or absense of intellectual disability, but how to define MFA (does the M mean "middle"?).
I do agree that LFA are two disabilities.

I guess I mean 'identify' as in accept that the new diagnosis is valid. I also prefer and identify as aspergers (even though I was diagnosed as ASD), the reason the new system doesn't bother me is because I can see there is no significant difference between AS and ASD1 they are completely interchangeable, where as the OP is convinced that his condition has been removed from existence when it hasn't it has just changed names.

FWIW – I recently had the opportunity to participate in an autism research experiment. This was the second experiment that I participated in (it involved using EEG to measure brain activity of individuals with HFA/Asperger’s during a series of social interactions). The first experiment involved eye tracking (which was also really cool).

In any event, during this recent experiment, I met two individuals diagnosed with Asperger's. Each person “presented themselves” entirely differently. One babbled away non-stop on just about anything. The other was very quiet and reserved.

Diagnostic criteria may not define how a person sees themself, but it is all too often the case that others who do not have condition x will view those who do in the light of the diagnostic criteria. 'Consensus' within science is irrelevant because what the majority happen to believe to be true does not make it so, because that is not how the truth is determined in the first place. If something requires a consensus to be accepted, then it is not science; it is politics (like 'global warming').



Well, no. If having autism is just a matter of degree, then any Tom, Dick and Harry can claim they are autistic because they, for example, don't like 'small talk' or only understand literal language, even if they don't have any of the other 'symptoms'. I guess that's why Jerry Seinfeld decided he had autism, and why it has become so 'trendy' lately. If there really is a 'spectrum', then we are ALL autistic, and the term loses all meaning.

I guess the basic difference I have with the view of most, like Jezebel, is that I do not accept the idea of a spectrum. 'Low-functioning autism' is what I would simply call autism. What others call 'high-functioning autism' does not appear to me to be autism at all. It has been said, and it is almost certainly true, that if a person has autism when they are very young they will have it for the rest of their lives; it is not something that someone can 'cure' or otherwise overcome, but with A.S. that's not the case. Progress can be made towards adapting one's thinking and behaviour in order to better cope with the demands of living as the majority (ex. force oneself to concentrate on what the other person is saying in a conversation, look them in the eye etc, and to make a deliberate and determined effort to go beyond one's comfort zone).

To be honest, I've mainly seen it used on here, though I've seen it occasionally being used on other sites. I have no idea what the official criteria was used for giving the label, but I know people have said that they were told they were "moderately/medium functioning" (or what I would assume would now equate to ASD level 2). KingdomOfRats explained it pretty well in this thread. It really seems like people who were given this label displayed both "low functioning" and "high functioning" traits. I know that over recent years (I believe it started with the publication of the DSM-IV), the ID diagnosis was changed in the sense that it wasn't automatically given based on IQ score. Part of the criteria involved significant impairment with adaptive behaviors and self-help/self-care skills, so maybe these people did not fully meet the criteria for the diagnosis?


That's interesting. That's exactly why I didn't like how people came to stereotypee those of us diagnosed with AS as all exhibiting the "normal" symptoms. I certainly presented myself differently; along with being female, that's probably why my diagnosis was missed early on.


Generally, I would probably agree with you about being weary about scientific opinion (especially on some really sensitive topics where people like to bring it up, like abortion). However, in this case, scientific opinion does hold quite a bit of weight when the opinion has been formed from research showing that the differences found in autistic individuals weren't enough to constitute actually having separate diagnoses because they simply represented the idea of having an autism spectrum. Now I completely agree that people often see people diagnosed with conditions by the diagnostic criteria - that's what I was actually saying above about the AS diagnosis and all of the stereotypes surrounding it.


Wait, what? People can claim whatever they like, but that doesn't make it true.
In reality, most disorders can be considered to be on a spectrum based on severity of symptoms. For example, bipolar disorder is also considered a spectrum disorder. The spectrum simply represents the differences displayed among those diagnosed though. It goes off the premise that people display the same (or similar) symptoms, but present them differently. That's all it means and you know it's true because as I mentioned before, even every person diagnosed with AS presented their symptoms differently (which is similar to how girls are said to present them differently). Generally speaking, people who merely have traits of disorders (because most of us likely have traits of other disorders - just not enough of them to be diagnosed) aren't represented on the spectrum. Most people seem to define the autism spectrum from low functioning to high functioning, though others may also include people who are thought of as having BAP. Diagnostically speaking though, only those diagnosed with autism are considered on the spectrum as of now. But other people have different views about this so it's all pretty blurry.


If they've been able to completely overcome their AS, isn't it possible they were misdiagnosed? Most of us on here will tell you that it's not something we can get over because for us, it is a lifelong condition too. The other thing is, yet again, people previously diagnosed with autistic disorder have been able to "adapt" in ways too (for example, learn better social skills and making eye contact). As I mentioned before, the criteria for AS/AD under the DSM-IV is one of the reasons we really cannot make secure statements about the differences between people who were diagnosed with AS and AD. So many people either had their diagnoses changed or were given a diagnosis they technically did not meet the criteria for. Even so, yet again, AS has always been considered a form of "high functioning" autism.

Yes, I can force myself to concentrate, make eye contact and go out of my comfort zone. Then I'm a complete freaking basket case. How does this help with the demands of living? Whose demands are we meeting? As usual, it's about what looks 'normal' and acceptable for society, not what's helpful for the individual. This is why the suicide rate is so high amongst people with Aspergers. There's always that underlying message that you're not ok. It's always the person with AS who's seen as not making the effort to fit in. In truth, they're killing themselves.

If SAD was diagnosed as a comorbid. Great. If the SAD was found but Autism was missed then the root cause of the SAD was likely missed

Yes it hard to diagnose. But that is the field you are choosing to go into. That is what you will be paid to get right. If you are not confident in your ability to get it right don’t take the position. If the psychology field does not have the information to make an Autism Spectrum diagnosis, they should not be giving out a diagnosis.


No I don’t want to separate it, As I have written multiple times I favor Aspergers as a subcategory of Autism. I you look at my signature “autism” is bolded. Why would I do that I if thought they were separate conditions? I bolded it because “Apies” are stigmatized as elitists or Aspie supremacists who identify that way because they do not want to be associated with autistics. Should I have to do that for this reason? No. In the real world it’s necessary at this point because some Aspies following the DSM IV separating the two did have supremacists attitudes and it was used to successfully tarnished the name.


“ASD Level 1” is just a number , “Aspergers-Autism” honors the person who found the condition and said the positive things quoted in my signature. It is pretty damm condescending for all of you to tell me how you think I should identify just because you can’t relate to my experiences.

I don’t have statistics but let’s say for arguments sake that out of all the people that did not like the change prior to it happening, 50% now agree it is actually ok, another 45% still do not like it but have resigned themselves to accepting the new name, and 5% are like me, outliers who are still having problems with the change. Since as you keep on mentioning the diagnostic criteria is similar what is the problem with renaming ASD Level 1 to Aspergers-Autism? For 95% the name change won’t mean much, thus won’t be harmful, but for the outliers this could be really helpful, so why the opposition to making the my proposed change? I get the feeling that people are offended by people creating an identity out a diagnosis. I don’t get it.

I've come across this claim many times before, along with the claim that the unemployment rate is also extremely high (somewhere above 50%), neither of which really surprises me in the least if only because they are issues I have unfortunately had first-hand experience with (suicide attempt in 1984, extremely patchy work history & now unemployed again). However, I have been searching for reliable statistics regarding these issues and how and why autistics and those with A.S. are so disproportionatelly affected by them, but so far with no luck (the 'Autism Speaks' website perhaps?). There doesn't seem to be anything I can find that lends credence to the idea that the unemployment and suicide rates are well above average (that's not to say I don't believe they are, but...).

Probably above average for both.

I doubt, though, that 80% of people with HFA and (formerly) Asperger's are unemployed.

But you started a thread about it...

Anyway, I don't understand this. It's just a word. If I start calling the colour blue "orange", does blue lose its identity? Well, no. The colour still looks the same. In my native language, there actually is no "blue"- there's a word for "dark blue" and a word for "light blue" (like how in English "red" and "pink" are different, even though pink is actually light red)...but it really doesn't matter because light blue and dark blue exist regardless of how you call them. Not meaning to be condescending but I don't understand what is the big deal about the word and your identity.

I understand that Asperger's honoured the guy's name and you liked him so you think it should... but what does that have to with your "identity"? You're not him (are you? ).