My new essay about Asperger's Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

I rewrote my essay on Asperger's Syndrome, which is now about 5 pages long.

** Rejection and Asperger's Syndrome **

I touch on rejection and how it literally causes Asperger's Syndrome (see my analysis) and give an overview of the stereotype associated with us, providing rational justification of certain cognitive differences, including black-and-white thinking.

When I'm finished with the essay, I'm going to try to send it to WrongPlanet -- that is, if you like it enough.

I know I had AS before I started being rejected.

Great essay-very detailed. But, I have to agree with previous poster that Aspergers is not something that developes. Maybe a person has it but the symptoms are not as apparent, more subtle Then upon further rejection and build up of stress, too many expectations, the child displays a full blown case of it? I don't know.

Regardless, it is developmental and life long. The problem with many adults is that they lack the evidence to show that they had AS as a child. Therefore, they do not receive the diagnosis.

I do think the brain is wired this way and it is a state of being rather than something one catches or comes down with.

I didn't see your essay leaning too heavily in that direction anyway, despite you setting up the argument in the first paragraph.

You go through the criteria and reveal the fallacies in each, probing the underlying motivations. This is more the emphasis in the essay. Maybe you could simply tweak your thesis?

Nice job. What are you planning on doing with essay?

equinn

Can we comment on single points?

I'm not sure if you want to talk about AS in general or just about certain types of AS; in general it is a need for routines, not a preference, which fulfils this criteria. And there are people, including me, who dislike routines but have a neurological need for them. I for example like chaotic things, but I cannot perceive changes fast enough, interpret and understand them as other people because my brain doesn't do it.

But you are also correct in saying that it can be different as some people with ASDs do have a preference but not an immediate or strong need for routines and sameness. It depends on the ASD of the person and the current American criteria for Asperger's leave it open whether a person has a need or not for routines.

I just read this one paragraph so far. As the caption caught my interest.

It looks great. Let me know when you are satisfied that it's complete and I will post it as an article on the front page.

Although people are born with aspergers, many of the stereotypical traits do develop over time. For example, its a myth that shyness is a symptom of AS. Shyness results from ridicule and rejection when an aspie attempts and fails to interact socially. Its like, how many times do you have to stick your finger in a flame before you stop doing that?

Take that Cho guy that shot up Virginia Tech and killed all those people for example. I am 99% certain he had AS. What he did was undeniably wrong in every respect, but it was the result of years of pent up frustration. For example, shortly before he went nuts, he asked a girl out on a date and got arrested because of it. His videos show a very angry and frustrated person. He was not insane and was clearly not hearing voices. He was simply driven to the breaking point and beyond. I did think it was awesome that when the students arranged a memorial for those that were killed that they made a reef for him as well.

I do think rejection has an effect. But to say that it causes Asperger's is to deny the innate traits or to say that those traits aren't part of Asperger's. I don't have the answer to how innate factors and environment come together to bring a person to fit the diagnostic criteria for Asperger's. But, from what I've read, I think it's quite clear that there are innate factors and that social factors alone do not cause Asperger's. (And that would be the American intensifying use of quite. )

As I said prior, you misinterpret the criteria from the DSM-IV-TR. The criteria themselves are useless without being applied to the expanded text [which explains how they manifest], and how one must behave in order to meet each one. The way the criteria are abused is by people taking it at face value.

There's so many errors within the text ("psychopathy" means personality disorder), and other points of no concern (the way Asperger's is pronounced).

What do they look for in your past to get diagnosed? I am just wondering..

same criteria from the DSM IV, I believe. Why would it change.

stimming
inflexibility
fixation or special interest
apparent one-sidedness or theory of mind
high verbal, possible
articulate

and so on and so forth

Thank you, Alex.

To clarify my thesis, I'm not saying that everyone who has AS has it because they were rejected, but that rejection causes you to fulfill two criteria from the first set (A) right off the bat, and if you find a special hobby (that the clinician decides is "abnormal" in focus) then you have Asperger's Syndrome.

You're right. I added "in some cases" to that paragraph.



I didn't know they had a DSM-IV-TR. Is the expanded text included in the manual?

I know they have a diagnostic guidebook out there.



It would help me if you told me what they were.



Fair enough, but it especially applies to antisocial or amoral behavior. And these aren't the kind of prejudices we need to burden people with when they're rejected.



Actually, it does concern some of us.

We have two options. We can either make a big deal out of it and change the label, attracting attention to the motive for changing it ("ass burger"), or leave it the way it is and put generations of children at risk for being bullied on the playground.

I even find it suspicious that Asperger wrote about autistic psychopathy so soon before Hitler died. Did Hitler speak English? Was it his death wish that some remnant of his racial prejudice be left behind? Please don't be mad at me; I just want to make sure nothing terribly bad happens to such a beautiful group of people.