Quote:
If you trust the DSM-IV definition of aspergers blindly, a lot of social misfit NTs would fit and a lot of aspies wouldnt, especially the older ones cause they tend to be a bit social.
The DSM-IV, ICD-10, and Gillberg's criteria doesn't even consider ToM defecits or central coherence...
1 in 150 seems awfully high a number. However, Inventor estimates the number is probably around 1 in 50; his estimate does match up with Baron Simon Cohens AQ test and 2% of those scoring a 32 or higher and roughly 2/3 of that 2% meeting the threshold DSM-IV criteria for AS/HFA, while leaving the tally unnaccounted for sufficiently to include individuals with AS/HFA that would score below a 32.
But that then begs the question, is the criteria psychiatrists use to conclude AS/HFA wrong? A therapist that my friend knows told him that I fit the criteria(and he told me this), yet I don't have anything that could be considered 'impaired' to such a degree that I would require assistance to survive! Some individuals who are diagnosed as HFA/AS have to feel that way. But does that mean these individuals aren't HFA/AS then?
At least PET scans are scientific. Observation along with an account of family history, OTOH, isn't.