is autism gonna get so bad eventually

Post Reply New Topic

I have a problem with people self diagnosing themselves for the wrong reasons.
I have a problem with the it's not really a disability attitude.
It being glamorized in any way or becoming trendy in any way.
I have a problem with under-qualified and unqualified quacks making diagnosis.
Those who hand out diagnosis and scripts like hotcakes.
I don't know why anyone here would argue with me about those, but whatever.
I'm just a kid in middle-school describing his feelings. The idea that I am trying to establish criteria or make a diagnosis of anyone myself is well....idk what that is. Whatever. I will keep my mouth shut.

Last edited by EzraS on 09 Feb 2016, 3:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It's one of the great controversies on this Site: Who is really "truly" autistic? Are people who are extremely high-functioning "truly autistic?" I don't believe we will ever resolve this issue.

I happen to be believe that autism is a "spectrum," and that the range of functioning level is quite, quite broad. Ranging from a person requiring a helmet all the time while being nonverbal--to being a genius engineer.

I still don't believe autism is a "disease of the week." I don't think it's stylish to have autism--except maybe in what may be termed "enlightened/intellectual/academic" circles. Autism, frankly, is thought of as being quite disabling amongst the general public. And Asperger's is thought of as a disorder of lonely people sitting around the computer all day. Not very fashionable, right?

It's a controversy. And it gets people upset sometimes.

It's not your fault, Ezra. It's the "fault," really, of the controversy itself. It's been going on, probably, since the beginning of WrongPlanet.

You have lots of experience with the hassles of autism. Yet you have overcome at least some of them. You would be a good advocate for those who are experiencing what you experienced right now. You could help the people who are beginning to emerge from the autistic darkness--like you emerged from the autistic darkness.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 09 Feb 2016, 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have never been as plugged into this forum enough to be aware this subject is such a hot potato. But yeah I'm not going to start getting into heated arguments with adults and pissing them off and getting my feelings hurt in the process. Thanks for the heads up.

Sometimes, I have found, people get pissed off because they like to get pissed off.

My mother is like that. If she doesn't get pissed off at one thing every day, she feels like she's lost out somehow.

No one is trying to suppress you - actually the opposite. I'm trying to understand exactly what your position is, in an effort to clear up whatever misunderstandings we may have.

For example, you maintain that not all professionals are qualified, and some are quacks (meaning in some cases you would disagree with a person's professional diagnosis). And yet you also claim you would never attempt to disqualify a qualified professional (meaning you would not disagree with anyone's professional diagnosis). To me, these two statements are contradictory, and thus my confusion over what you actually mean.

I think it's perfectly fine to believe that some doctors are quacks, and as a result some people get misdiagnosed. (I would completely agree with you on that point.) But again - own it, and admit that yes you do question some people's professional diagnoses, and feel that the psychiatric profession is overrun with quacks, to a degree that a significant number of people are being misdiagnosed.

If that's your position, I respect it. My own position is that the cases of misdiagnosis are so few as to be insignificant, and are not harming the rest of us in any way. And it's perfectly fine for us to disagree on that point. In the end it's just a matter of opinion, and to thine own self be true.

First off I replied to your post after reading it only once, which means I misread it, because I usually have to reread stuff a few times to get it more or less right. So I had rewritten my reply.



Why contradictory? One is qualified, the other is not. Professional does not equal qualified to me. It just means that's what they do to earn money. Qualified means to me means being fully certified in that field of diagnosis. I would not leave it up to a chiropractor to diagnose whether or not I have skin cancer. Yes he's a professional. Even a qualified professional in his field. But a dermatologist is really the the one that is actually qualified to make a positive or negative diagnosis about skin cancer.



I question unqualified as stated above misdiagnosis and think it's probably being over diagnosed. The same as I think medication is being over prescribed. Especially to those who will do whatever it takes to get what they want. Why else would certain celebrities who die of overdose, be found with umpteen prescription medications?



Ok.

Around here there are very few people that will diagnose adult ASD. They use the gold standard for autism diagnosis, which is the ADOS. Plus they use many other tests, including patient interviews, IQ tests, and parent questionnaires and interviews. It's a multi-step process.

I had a really hard time finding someone in my area, and had to be on a waiting list. The person who diagnosed me has a PhD in psychology, and decades of experience researching and working with those with autism.

I don't know about other places, but I know that many people have said on WP how difficult it is to find someone that is trained in ASD diagnosis.

I don't think most inexperienced doctors or untrained professionals would necessarily be willing to diagnose autism. I think that a misdiagnosis could be a potential liability for someone like that. I'm guessing that's why there were so few people in my area (a large city) that are even willing to evaluate adults for ASD. Only those with the proper education and experience were willing to do an evaluation, and there aren't many such people around.

Thank you for that clarification - this is excellent, and I agree with you on all of these points.

But I would also add:
- I think under-diagnosis is a problem as well, with people needing help, and not getting it
- I think it's better to err on the side of being supportive, rather than skeptical and dismissive

That's really it. My only motive in arguing over this issue is to promote an attitude of compassion and acceptance here on WP, for those who legitimately fall in the 'under-diagnosed' category, and need our support.

I have two children with asd, and to be honest I really think my son was wrongly diagnosed. I believe there's more cases of autism now for many reasons, one being more is known about the condition.

The 1 and 68 is based on professional diagnosis.

As for my opinion it is the widespeard perception of the socially ackward genious "aspie" and the widespead peception of hordes of aspie wannabees (and we are for the most part talking about aspergers not autism in general) that is causing people to dismiss "real autism" and "real autistics". For every poster who was told they are faking it to make excuses or autism is a fad diagnosis so they don't have it, they are many posters who have been told they are not autistic because they can hold a job or are verbal, or are not like Rain Man.

Again I ask where is the evidence of hordes of aspie wannabees out there?. As far as I can tell it is mostly perception not reality.

Instead of attacking the self diagnosed as group as trendy fakers when they claim proper diagnosis is not available for them why not work for making proper diagnosis available to all age groups and genders?. I do not begrudge the availibilty of proper diagnosis, services and treatments available to young autistics. Although certainly it is still not enough I am glad to see the hard work that made it possible has paid off. I do begrudge the small percentage of posters constantly stereotyping those whose path to recognizing thier autism was different from theirs and those who autism does not seem like "real autism" .

Wannabee autistics could not make things harder then they need to be for autistics without the help of people both autistic and not autistic who publicly proclaim the wannabees represent a significant percentage of people claiming they are autistic

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 09 Feb 2016, 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to be autistic. It's not like it's the same thing as being a genius, or having perfect pitch, or anything else that people would envy. I'm sure that for many of the people I know, if I told them it would only give them one more reason to ridicule me.

I don't personally know anyone besides myself with ASD, but I'm guessing that they probably seem about as weird as I do. I've also never met anyone that seemed to want to have Asperger's or ASD. I'm guessing that most people don't even know what it is.

The concept of autism is known amongst the general population--but it's certainly not the DSM IV-DSM V conception of it.

Basically, when people in the mainstream think of autism, they think of "classic," Kanner-type autism. They also think of savants like Rain Man--who is considered exceedingly high functioning.

If a person knows about Asperger's Syndrome, the person tends not to think that the person is autistic. Aspergians are thought of as nerdy sorts of people who tend to be awkward socially, might be especially proficient in the sciences, and who are probably lonely. Think the characters of "Big Bang Theory."

Agree with all of this except one thing: who on Earth considers the Rain Man to be anything other than "low functioning"? He was low functioning,but had a narrow savant skill. Thats why they called him an "idiot savant".

But I agree that because "aspergers" doesnt have the word "autism" in the name folks dont associate it with the autism spectrum. So there might be the rare poser who "thinks I have aspergers" because its kinda in style. But I dont think that that effects the demographic stats on autism much.

People consider Rain Man to be high-functioning because he can TALK. In fact, he was called "high-functioning" in the film.

When people think of autism, in my experience, they think of kids who are constantly stimming, who withdraw into their own world, and who are nonverbal.

Kim Peek didn't even have autism. They just made the Rain Man character have autism.

When I'd first heard of Asperger's a few years ago, It didn't even cross my mind that I might have it. What I'd heard was that people with Asperger's were always rude, had few emotions, couldn't understand any sarcasm, and had no sense of humor. None of those things apply to me, so I didn't even consider it until I started researching about my extreme sensory defensiveness.

Then my research into my sensory issues led me to researching Asperger's, and I realized that what I had heard about it were only stereotypes. I began to see how much it fit me and explained my problems.

But before I had researched it, Asperger's to me seemed like some sort of weird condition that caused people to behave and think like robots or something. I sure didn't think it seemed like something "cool" to have.

Right. I was talking about the Rain Man character, not Kim Peek.

He had a disorder which involved the absence of (or virtual absence of), I believe, the corpus callosum.

Apparently, later in life, Mr. Peek developed a sense of humor, and desired social interaction. He was certainly proud of his prodigious savant abilities.