Page 8 of 9 [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Where do you stand on the issue?
pro-cure, I'm on the spectrum 14%  14%  [ 9 ]
anti-cure, I'm on the spectrum 61%  61%  [ 39 ]
pro-cure, I'm an NT parent of an ASD child 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
anti-cure, I'm a NT parent of an ASD child 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
other 23%  23%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 64

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

19 Nov 2011, 5:06 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Critical_reception

Wikipedia wrote:
A number of articles have surveyed the use of Gardner's ideas and conclude that there is little to no academically substantiated evidence that his ideas work in practice. Steven A. Stahl found that most of the previous studies which claimed to show positive results had major flaws:
Among others, Marie Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research. {I discuss Carbo because she publishes extensively on her model and is very prominent in the workshop circuit...} But given the overwhelmingly negative findings in the published research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I thought it would be interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out of 17 studies she had cited, only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations and 13 of these came out of one university—St. John’s University in New York, Carbo’s alma mater. None of these had been in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked closely at the dissertations and other materials, I found that 13 of the 17 studies that supposedly support her claim had to do with learning styles based on something other than modality.


You are advocating pseudoscience.

The fact is that you tried to say about intelligence, and then motor skills, and then went back and talked about kinesthetic intelligence because it stopped ou making a clearly bigotry driven assertion that aspies are less able to do team sports than normal sports. And all your switches are wrong.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,604

19 Nov 2011, 3:22 pm

Gedrene wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Critical_reception

Wikipedia wrote:
A number of articles have surveyed the use of Gardner's ideas and conclude that there is little to no academically substantiated evidence that his ideas work in practice. Steven A. Stahl found that most of the previous studies which claimed to show positive results had major flaws:
Among others, Marie Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research. {I discuss Carbo because she publishes extensively on her model and is very prominent in the workshop circuit...} But given the overwhelmingly negative findings in the published research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I thought it would be interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out of 17 studies she had cited, only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations and 13 of these came out of one university—St. John’s University in New York, Carbo’s alma mater. None of these had been in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked closely at the dissertations and other materials, I found that 13 of the 17 studies that supposedly support her claim had to do with learning styles based on something other than modality.


You are advocating pseudoscience.

The fact is that you tried to say about intelligence, and then motor skills, and then went back and talked about kinesthetic intelligence because it stopped ou making a clearly bigotry driven assertion that aspies are less able to do team sports than normal sports. And all your switches are wrong.


I didn't suggest there was a way to measure an IQ quotient for Kinesthetic intelligence.

This is the complaint some have against the theory of multiple intelligence, however many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.

from the same article you quote from:


Quote:
The theory has been met with mixed responses. Traditional intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different tasks and aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts. Nevertheless many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.[1]



Quote:
Other multiple intelligences that have been identified in the same article that you are quoting are logical-mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, and music intelligence.


A criticism for IQ tests used on autistic children is that they measure linguistic intelligence rather than non-verbal fluid intelligence measured by other testing measures, in which they do much better. A theory now that is proposed in the field of autism research, is that Autistic individuals cannot be accessed properly with tests now used by psychologists that rely on linguistic/verbal intelligence measures.

Temple Grandhin's argument is that some people with autism have higher levels of visual-spatial intelligence than linguistic or verbal intelligence.

There are actual studies in children with Aspergers that show a difference in the Cerebellum of those children, the area of the brain that impacts Kinesthetic Intelligence/Motor Skills Abilities. Call it motor skills ability if you want to instead of kinesthetic intelligence, but it has clearly been identified as a clinical feature of Aspergers/Autism that individuals with autism and aspergers have problems with motor skills, which result in deficits in coordination, fine motor skills, and posture, and profeciency in these skills are required in team sports as well as individual sports. Fortunately they can be improved, with proper physical education.

And again, just because this doesn't apply to you or your friends, doesn't mean it isn't applicable to the majority of other individuals with autism/aspergers. The ICD 10 diagnostic manual, used in Europe, includes motor skills difficulties in it's definition of Aspergers as a usually occuring issue in those diagnosed with Aspergers. It is not considered a co-morbid condition of Aspergers it is considered a clinical feature of aspergers.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

19 Nov 2011, 4:12 pm

aghogday wrote:
I didn't suggest there was a way to measure an IQ quotient for Kinesthetic intelligence.
Not what I was saying. What I was saying is that Kinesthetic intelligence is a pseudoscientific concept.

aghogday wrote:
This is the complaint some have against the theory of multiple intelligence, however many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.
No. For starters the concept is not practice in any major part of the american education system. It was completely ignored in the no child left behind programme.

It is heavily criticized by a battery of scientists for various reasons including this one:
Wiki wrote:
One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence"; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood and instead uses the word "intelligence" whenever other people have traditionally used words like "ability". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg (1983, 1991), Eysenck (1994), and Scarr (1985).


It is the pet theory of a Howard Gardner and nothing else

aghogday wrote:
Autistic individuals cannot be accessed properly with tests now used by psychologists that rely on linguistic/verbal intelligence measures.
That is a misrepresentation of the word intelligence with ability. Intelligence is only to do strctly with mental capacity, and this theory of multiple intelligences is simply taking the idea of the ability to do things and mixing it up with intelligence. There is no such thing as verbal intelligence. Intelligence is only a factor of the ability to abstract, formulate ideas and express them. Not being able to express ideas may be because o less actual intelligence or it may be because of motor issues with the mouth.

aghogday wrote:
call it motor skills ability if you want to instead of kinesthetic intelligence

That's because it is obviously what is being talked about.

aghogday wrote:
which result in deficits in coordination, fine motor skills, and posture,

All three can be improved through constant practice, repetition and so forth in many more case than would be believed. Posture in my case improved after my dad made a point of trying to improve it. My coordination improved because I was pressured to be good, and so I got much better. There are many who have issues, but they are seperate issues from me, not simply less severe ones.

aghogday wrote:
And again, just because this doesn't apply to you or your friends, doesn't mean it isn't applicable to the majority of other individuals with autism/aspergers.
You keep trying to implicate me in ignoring other's issues, when in fact it is you who are simply being too far reaching in how hard it is to overturn the issues, how many it effects. Everything is about increasing the likelihood of your chosen group's utility, even if it means ignoring common sense facts. When I point out the facts of the matter there is always the accusation of black and white thinking, explicit or implicit. The constant bolding stinks of desparation.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,604

19 Nov 2011, 5:21 pm

Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
I didn't suggest there was a way to measure an IQ quotient for Kinesthetic intelligence.
Not what I was saying. What I was saying is that Kinesthetic intelligence is a pseudoscientific concept.

aghogday wrote:
This is the complaint some have against the theory of multiple intelligence, however many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.
No. For starters the concept is not practice in any major part of the american education system. It was completely ignored in the no child left behind programme.

It is heavily criticized by a battery of scientists for various reasons including this one:
Wiki wrote:
One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence"; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood and instead uses the word "intelligence" whenever other people have traditionally used words like "ability". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg (1983, 1991), Eysenck (1994), and Scarr (1985).


It is the pet theory of a Howard Gardner and nothing else

aghogday wrote:
Autistic individuals cannot be accessed properly with tests now used by psychologists that rely on linguistic/verbal intelligence measures.
That is a misrepresentation of the word intelligence with ability. Intelligence is only to do strctly with mental capacity, and this theory of multiple intelligences is simply taking the idea of the ability to do things and mixing it up with intelligence. There is no such thing as verbal intelligence. Intelligence is only a factor of the ability to abstract, formulate ideas and express them. Not being able to express ideas may be because o less actual intelligence or it may be because of motor issues with the mouth.

aghogday wrote:
call it motor skills ability if you want to instead of kinesthetic intelligence

That's because it is obviously what is being talked about.

aghogday wrote:
which result in deficits in coordination, fine motor skills, and posture,

All three can be improved through constant practice, repetition and so forth in many more case than would be believed. Posture in my case improved after my dad made a point of trying to improve it. My coordination improved because I was pressured to be good, and so I got much better. There are many who have issues, but they are seperate issues from me, not simply less severe ones.

aghogday wrote:
And again, just because this doesn't apply to you or your friends, doesn't mean it isn't applicable to the majority of other individuals with autism/aspergers.
You keep trying to implicate me in ignoring other's issues, when in fact it is you who are simply being too far reaching in how hard it is to overturn the issues, how many it effects. Everything is about increasing the likelihood of your chosen group's utility, even if it means ignoring common sense facts. When I point out the facts of the matter there is always the accusation of black and white thinking, explicit or implicit. The constant bolding stinks of desparation.


The only proof you have provided that motor skill problems are not a clinical feature of autism/aspergers, is anecdotal evidence that you and your friends don't have the clinical feature in Aspergers of motor skills problems, I'm not trying to implicate you and your friends in anything, this though is the only anecdotal evidence that you offered to support your opinion that motor skills were not a clinical feature of autism/aspergers You stated it was a co-morbid condition, which it is not, it is a clinical feature.

If you can provide real evidence, that is not just anecdotal evidence from a few people, from a third party source, I will consider the validity of your opinion.

The ICD10 lists it in their definition of Aspergers and it has been well known in clinical practice since 1995. I think these folks have a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical features after dealing with thousands of individuals with autism, than you and your understanding from a few of your friends and yourself.

Yes, the abilities can be improved, and not all people with autism or aspergers have the issue, but it is a common issue that is a clinical feature of autism/aspergers.

I stated that many educatioalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory of multiple intelligences.

You attempt to refute this quote that was included from the same article you present, with the fact that multiple intelligences were not included in the "no child left behind program".

Quote:
The theory has been met with mixed responses. Traditional intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different tasks and aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts. Nevertheless many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.[1]


Not everyone agrees with this theory but as per your own evidence quoted from Wiki many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.

Just because some people don't support the theory does not mean that others do and your own article makes it clear that many educationlists do support it.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

19 Nov 2011, 5:41 pm

aghogday wrote:
The only proof you have provided that motor skill problems are not a clinical feature of autism/aspergers,
Again, you are lying about what I said. I said that such a deficit would be called moto skills, not kinesthetic intelligence or whatever pseudoscience and high redefinition was being blabbered about. I NEVER said that no autistic suffers no motor skill problems.

This is an accusation worthy of reprimand.

aghogday wrote:
If you can provide real evidence, that is not just anecdotal evidence, from a third party source, and I will consider the validity of your opinion
This coming from a person who either simply reports that there is evidence or says that a scientific evidence is correct despite massive flaws in methodology.

aghogday wrote:
I stated that many educatioalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory of multiple intelligences.
And I say that it's a foolish idea because of many good reasons showing it was a lie and a pet theory of one man and a creche of people who do not have any scientific credence.
Gedrene wrote:
No. For starters the concept is not practice in any major part of the american education system. It was completely ignored in the no child left behind programme.

It is heavily criticized by a battery of scientists for various reasons including this one:
Wiki wrote:
One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence"; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood and instead uses the word "intelligence" whenever other people have traditionally used words like "ability". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg (1983, 1991), Eysenck (1994), and Scarr (1985).


T say that it is wrong because many people support it is argumentum ad numerum., another logical fallacy.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,604

19 Nov 2011, 7:05 pm

Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The only proof you have provided that motor skill problems are not a clinical feature of autism/aspergers,
Again, you are lying about what I said. I said that such a deficit would be called moto skills, not kinesthetic intelligence or whatever pseudoscience and high redefinition was being blabbered about. I NEVER said that no autistic suffers no motor skill problems.

This is an accusation worthy of reprimand.

aghogday wrote:
If you can provide real evidence, that is not just anecdotal evidence, from a third party source, and I will consider the validity of your opinion
This coming from a person who either simply reports that there is evidence or says that a scientific evidence is correct despite massive flaws in methodology.

aghogday wrote:
I stated that many educatioalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory of multiple intelligences.
And I say that it's a foolish idea because of many good reasons showing it was a lie and a pet theory of one man and a creche of people who do not have any scientific credence.
Gedrene wrote:
No. For starters the concept is not practice in any major part of the american education system. It was completely ignored in the no child left behind programme.

It is heavily criticized by a battery of scientists for various reasons including this one:
Wiki wrote:
One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence"; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood and instead uses the word "intelligence" whenever other people have traditionally used words like "ability". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg (1983, 1991), Eysenck (1994), and Scarr (1985).


T say that it is wrong because many people support it is argumentum ad numerum., another logical fallacy.


You already asserted in another post that motor skills among the other features that I listed as clinical features of aspergers from a third part resource, could only be co-morbids associated with low functioning autism.

My opposition is to your denial that motor skill problems are clinical features of aspergers. As quoted below you suggested that the motor skill issues among other issues, that I quoted from a reputable third part resource, could only be co-morbids in low functioning autism. I never suggested that you said they were not associated with autism in anyway.

Gedrene Wrote:

Quote:
Pff, here we go. Shadow accusations once more. You don't even know what special interests I have, never mind whether I have any. I had speech delay, supposedly, until 3 years of age and then raced ahead during my primary school years. I had no interest in other people's petty games that you vaunt as meaning we have deficits and I most certainly never took interest on sociability for its own sake. My own element has always been with other people with this asperger's diagnosis, most of which do not have fine motor skill issues.


aghogday wrote:

Quote:
Problems with fine motor control, clumsiness, and posture, are not co-morbids with autism and aspergers, they are actual clinical features of Autism and Aspergers that are usually part of the disorder in people with a diagnosis.


Gedrene wrote:

Quote:
And a sign of ironically very clumsy work on the behalf of clinicians with no understanding of the actual core autism diagnosis, which is:
- communication difficulties
-a lack of social interest
-poor grasp of irrelevant communicative features such as analogy
-strong personal interests.

To say anything else is autism one is talking about low functioning autism not aspergers, and even then it's clear that it's a comorbidity


I'm not suggesting that most educationalists in the Education system uses the theory of multiple intelligences, but the article you referenced clearly states that many educationalists support the theory and use it in a practical manner. You did not include the evidence in your responses back to me, but it is clearly stated in your article.

That is no evidence about whether the theory is right or wrong, it is just evidence presented by the article you presented that many educationalists see merit in the theory and use it in the education system.

The theory of kinesthetic intelligence is commonly understood in the field of Exercise physiology. I've known about it since the 80's.

Anyway, that part doesn't really matter, I made a reference to it, because it is a commonly understood theory, and problems in motor skills among individuals with Aspergers is a clinical feature usually seen in aspergers. That's what we've been disagreeing on, you suggested it could only be a co-morbid in low functioning autism.

And again, the only evidence, that I can see that you have provided so far, is that it is not a clinical feature of Aspergers, is your comment about the element of Aspergers folks you know most of which don't have issues with fine motor control.

If that wasn't evidence, then I guess you have no evidence at all, not even anecdotal evidence, to provide that motor skills issues are not a clinical feature of Aspergers.

I've already provided evidence from the ICD10 that defines motor skills issues as a characteristic of Aspergers in their definition of the condition.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,034
Location: The Hoosac tunnel

19 Nov 2011, 7:32 pm

aghogday wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The only proof you have provided that motor skill problems are not a clinical feature of autism/aspergers,
Again, you are lying about what I said. I said that such a deficit would be called moto skills, not kinesthetic intelligence or whatever pseudoscience and high redefinition was being blabbered about. I NEVER said that no autistic suffers no motor skill problems.

This is an accusation worthy of reprimand.

aghogday wrote:
If you can provide real evidence, that is not just anecdotal evidence, from a third party source, and I will consider the validity of your opinion
This coming from a person who either simply reports that there is evidence or says that a scientific evidence is correct despite massive flaws in methodology.

aghogday wrote:
I stated that many educatioalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory of multiple intelligences.
And I say that it's a foolish idea because of many good reasons showing it was a lie and a pet theory of one man and a creche of people who do not have any scientific credence.
Gedrene wrote:
No. For starters the concept is not practice in any major part of the american education system. It was completely ignored in the no child left behind programme.

It is heavily criticized by a battery of scientists for various reasons including this one:
Wiki wrote:
One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence"; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood and instead uses the word "intelligence" whenever other people have traditionally used words like "ability". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg (1983, 1991), Eysenck (1994), and Scarr (1985).


T say that it is wrong because many people support it is argumentum ad numerum., another logical fallacy.


You already asserted in another post that motor skills among the other features that I listed as clinical features of aspergers from a third part resource, could only be co-morbids associated with low functioning autism.

My opposition is to your denial that motor skill problems are clinical features of aspergers. As quoted below you suggested that the motor skill issues among other issues, that I quoted from a reputable third part resource, could only be co-morbids in low functioning autism. I never suggested that you said they were not associated with autism in anyway.

Gedrene Wrote:

Quote:
Pff, here we go. Shadow accusations once more. You don't even know what special interests I have, never mind whether I have any. I had speech delay, supposedly, until 3 years of age and then raced ahead during my primary school years. I had no interest in other people's petty games that you vaunt as meaning we have deficits and I most certainly never took interest on sociability for its own sake. My own element has always been with other people with this asperger's diagnosis, most of which do not have fine motor skill issues.


aghogday wrote:

Quote:
Problems with fine motor control, clumsiness, and posture, are not co-morbids with autism and aspergers, they are actual clinical features of Autism and Aspergers that are usually part of the disorder in people with a diagnosis.


Gedrene wrote:

Quote:
And a sign of ironically very clumsy work on the behalf of clinicians with no understanding of the actual core autism diagnosis, which is:
- communication difficulties
-a lack of social interest
-poor grasp of irrelevant communicative features such as analogy
-strong personal interests.

To say anything else is autism one is talking about low functioning autism not aspergers, and even then it's clear that it's a comorbidity


I'm not suggesting that most educationalists in the Education system uses the theory of multiple intelligences, but the article you referenced clearly states that many educationalists support the theory and use it in a practical manner. You did not include the evidence in your responses back to me, but it is clearly stated in your article.

That is no evidence about whether the theory is right or wrong, it is just evidence presented by the article you presented that many educationalists see merit in the theory and use it in the education system.

The theory of kinesthetic intelligence is commonly understood in the field of Exercise physiology. I've known about it since the 80's.

Anyway, that part doesn't really matter, I made a reference to it, because it is a commonly understood theory, and problems in motor skills among individuals with Aspergers is a clinical feature usually seen in aspergers. That's what we've been disagreeing on, you suggested it could only be a co-morbid in low functioning autism.

And again, the only evidence, that I can see that you have provided so far, is that it is not a clinical feature of Aspergers, is your comment about the element of Aspergers folks you know most of which don't have issues with fine motor control.

If that wasn't evidence, then I guess you have no evidence at all, not even anecdotal evidence, to provide that motor skills issues are not a clinical feature of Aspergers.

I've already provided evidence from the ICD10 that defines motor skills issues as a characteristic of Aspergers in their definition of the condition.
aghogday is right about fine motor delay


_________________
Interesting and off beat news stories


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

20 Nov 2011, 4:47 am

vermontsavant wrote:
aghogday is right about fine motor delay
I never said fine motor delay wasn't a problem for autistics. I said that it isn't called kinesthetic intelligence because that's a made-up load of rubbish.



Last edited by Gedrene on 20 Nov 2011, 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

20 Nov 2011, 5:12 am

aghogday wrote:
You already asserted in another post that motor skills among the other features that I listed as clinical features of aspergers from a third part resource, could only be co-morbids associated with low functioning autism.
Misrepresentation of what I said. What I say is that autism is a junk taxon of various different issues all lumped together, and whilst motor skills are a problem for autistics the fact is that they are not similar to me in this way.

My motor skills were remedied in the same way most children improve their motor skills, through effort. It therefore was no medical issue.

Gedrene wrote:
My own element has always been with other people with this asperger's diagnosis, most of which do not have fine motor skill issues
Fantastic. You misread what I said. I said most and aspergers. That doesn't mean all and It doesn't mean all kinds of autistics.

aghogday wrote:
I'm not suggesting that most educationalists in the Education system uses the theory of multiple intelligences, but the article you referenced clearly states that many educationalists support the theory and use it in a practical manner.
A lie. it is not used widely by educationalists anywhere. Many isn't one institution in Boston. And as for the many part:

Gedrene wrote:
No. For starters the concept is not practice in any major part of the american education system. It was completely ignorred in the no child left behind programme.

And then I give explanations why the seven intelligences idea is bumpkis which is what really matters.

aghogday wrote:
That's what we've been disagreeing on, you suggested it could only be a co-morbid in low functioning autism.
Well the fact is that it is a comorbidity and moreover something that can be improved to naught in aspies. Most people with aspergers only have communication and social deficits etc etc. Deficient motor skills is a sign of lower functioning, but of course they may very well be called aspies. It's interesting that you don't use the DSM IV characteristics.

The only motor involed thing on the DSM IV is stereotypy, stimming. That is not reduced motor skills. That's unusual behaviour.

aghogday wrote:
I've already provided evidence from the ICD10 that defines motor skills issues as a characteristic of Aspergers in their definition of the condition.
issues doesn't mean deficiency. Also what issues exactly? Deficiency means incapability.

aghogday wrote:
The only proof you have provided that motor skill problems are not a clinical feature of autism/aspergers,
it's clear that you have tried to confuse things from the start by amalgamating autism and aspergers as if no spectrum ever existed and as if some people didn't have lower functioning issues whereas I only said that motor deficiency are not part of the asperger's diagnosis which they are not. Stimming is not a deficiency. it is unusual behaviour. Some may do, but they are co-morbid.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,604

20 Nov 2011, 3:23 pm

Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
You already asserted in another post that motor skills among the other features that I listed as clinical features of aspergers from a third part resource, could only be co-morbids associated with low functioning autism.
Misrepresentation of what I said. What I say is that autism is a junk taxon of various different issues all lumped together, and whilst motor skills are a problem for autistics the fact is that they are not similar to me in this way.

My motor skills were remedied in the same way most children improve their motor skills, through effort. It therefore was no medical issue.

Gedrene wrote:
My own element has always been with other people with this asperger's diagnosis, most of which do not have fine motor skill issues
Fantastic. You misread what I said. I said most and aspergers. That doesn't mean all and It doesn't mean all kinds of autistics.

aghogday wrote:
I'm not suggesting that most educationalists in the Education system uses the theory of multiple intelligences, but the article you referenced clearly states that many educationalists support the theory and use it in a practical manner.
A lie. it is not used widely by educationalists anywhere. Many isn't one institution in Boston. And as for the many part:

Gedrene wrote:
No. For starters the concept is not practice in any major part of the american education system. It was completely ignorred in the no child left behind programme.

And then I give explanations why the seven intelligences idea is bumpkis which is what really matters.

aghogday wrote:
That's what we've been disagreeing on, you suggested it could only be a co-morbid in low functioning autism.
Well the fact is that it is a comorbidity and moreover something that can be improved to naught in aspies. Most people with aspergers only have communication and social deficits etc etc. Deficient motor skills is a sign of lower functioning, but of course they may very well be called aspies. It's interesting that you don't use the DSM IV characteristics.

The only motor involed thing on the DSM IV is stereotypy, stimming. That is not reduced motor skills. That's unusual behaviour.

aghogday wrote:
I've already provided evidence from the ICD10 that defines motor skills issues as a characteristic of Aspergers in their definition of the condition.
issues doesn't mean deficiency. Also what issues exactly? Deficiency means incapability.

aghogday wrote:
The only proof you have provided that motor skill problems are not a clinical feature of autism/aspergers,
it's clear that you have tried to confuse things from the start by amalgamating autism and aspergers as if no spectrum ever existed and as if some people didn't have lower functioning issues whereas I only said that motor deficiency are not part of the asperger's diagnosis which they are not. Stimming is not a deficiency. it is unusual behaviour. Some may do, but they are co-morbid.


Motor clumsiness, is actually what is in the ICD10 and the Gilberg diagnositic criteria for Aspergers commonly used in the UK where you live. There is no source that lists motor skills clumsiness, problems, deficits, issues or whatever synomym one may choose to use for motor skills problems that are a feature/diagnostic criteria of Aspergers, as a co-morbid condition, it is either listed as a feature, or part of the diagnostic criteria in two widely used criteria used to diagnose Aspergers.

Deficits can be from mild to severe, there is no definition of deficit or deficiency that states it means incapability.


http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/7/4/310.full

Quote:
Gillberg's (1991) diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome
Social impairments

Narrow interests

Repetitive routines

Speech and language peculiarities

Non-verbal communication problems

Motor clumsiness


I've provided three third party sources now that list motor skills problems as either a diagnostic criteria or clinical feature of Aspergers, Lord from 1995, ICD10, and Gilberg Diagnostic Criteria. Per the linked Article Hans Asperger himself described the individuals that he termed as having the condition to have motor skills problems in 50 to 90 percent of individuals and found it hard to take part in team sports..

Quote:
In 1944 Hans Asperger described a condition he termed autistic psychopathy, characterised by problems in social integration and non-verbal communication associated with idiosyncratic verbal communication and an egocentric preoccupation with unusual and circumscribed interests. Patients with this condition had difficulties with empathy and intuition and had a tendency to intellectualisation. They were also clumsy (50–90% had motor coordination problems), found it hard to take part in team sports and exhibited behavioural difficulties including aggression and being victims of bullying. Asperger did not provide diagnostic criteria for this condition and it remained obscure until a review article by Lorna Wing in 1981.


You on the other hand have presented an opinion that motor skills is a co-morbid condition of Autism, with absolutely no third party sources to back up your individual opinion. No, Motor skills problems is not a co-morbid with Aspergers it is a clinical feature of Aspergers, that two widely used diagnostic tools still use to diagnosis Aspergers with.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the assertion that motor skills problems are a clinical feature of Aspergers/Autism and still used as a diagnostic criteria of Aspergers, there are no available reputable sources that state that motor skills problems are a co-morbid with either autism or aspergers. If you can find any source, please provide it, otherwise I am listening to one person's opinion that Motor skills problems are a co-morbid condition of low functioning autism.

Here is the actual quote from the reference you provided that criticized multiple intelligence, that also states that many educationalists support it. If you are calling it a lie, than the rest of your referenced article is in question as well.

Quote:
The theory has been met with mixed responses. Traditional intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different tasks and aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts. Nevertheless many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.[1]


These are the facts in the article you presented; if you call them a lie, I don't trust any of the other facts either.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

20 Nov 2011, 3:39 pm

aghogday wrote:
Motor clumsiness, is actually what is in the ICD10 and the Gilberg diagnositic criteria for Aspergers commonly used in the UK where you live.
No, that diagnostic is for autism and aspergers. You are mixing things up. The ICD 10 uses this system where they are referred to together in the same diagnostics sheet. As you will see they say a delay or lack in speech, but as you have already said yourself and as can be seen in the DSM IV a delay in speech is not medically significant in asperger's.
http://www.niccy.org/uploaded_docs/Aspe ... ndix_1.pdf

aghogday wrote:
Deficits can be from mild to severe, there is no definition of deficit or deficiency that states it means incapability.
This is not apples and oranges. This is cox and royal gala. If someone has a deficit the fact is that they are incapable of having motor skills equal to that of people without deficits.

aghogday wrote:
Gillberg's (1991) diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome
The 1991 should give it away. Furthermore clumsiness doesn't mean deficit. A lot of people can be clumsy. Clumsy doesn't mean medically significant ataxia.

aghogday wrote:
You on the other hand have presented an opinion that motor skills is a co-morbid condition of Autism, with absolutely no third party sources to back up your individual opinion
I am sorry but saying that something is an opinion doewsn't discard whether it is right or not. Nothing like cheap lawyer's tricks to disprove what could be correct. Not that it matters when the fact I am asserting is that motor deficicncy is a lower-functioning trait, although some aspies may very well have it.

Furthermore I think the DSM IV clearly states only repetitive and stereotyped movements as a sign of asperger's, whilst it is the autism page that talks about motor skills deficits.

Also fact is that most of what you say is not third party sourced either to begin with.

aghogday wrote:
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the assertion that motor skills problems are a clinical feature of Aspergers/Autism
And now we are trying to fog the definition between aspergers where deficits are not typical and autism where they are more typical once again. This is a cheap trick.

aghogday wrote:
Nevertheless many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.
it links us to one teaching school in boston or the north-east. The fact remains that much of the United Sates does not subscribe to the pseudoscientific redefinition of the word intelligence to mean ability.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,604

20 Nov 2011, 4:52 pm

Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Motor clumsiness, is actually what is in the ICD10 and the Gilberg diagnositic criteria for Aspergers commonly used in the UK where you live.
No, that diagnostic is for autism and aspergers. You are mixing things up. The ICD 10 uses this system where they are referred to together in the same diagnostics sheet. As you will see they say a delay or lack in speech, but as you have already said yourself and as can be seen in the DSM IV a delay in speech is not medically significant in asperger's.
http://www.niccy.org/uploaded_docs/Aspe ... ndix_1.pdf

aghogday wrote:
Deficits can be from mild to severe, there is no definition of deficit or deficiency that states it means incapability.
This is not apples and oranges. This is cox and royal gala. If someone has a deficit the fact is that they are incapable of having motor skills equal to that of people without deficits.

aghogday wrote:
Gillberg's (1991) diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome
The 1991 should give it away. Furthermore clumsiness doesn't mean deficit. A lot of people can be clumsy. Clumsy doesn't mean medically significant ataxia.

aghogday wrote:
You on the other hand have presented an opinion that motor skills is a co-morbid condition of Autism, with absolutely no third party sources to back up your individual opinion
I am sorry but saying that something is an opinion doewsn't discard whether it is right or not. Nothing like cheap lawyer's tricks to disprove what could be correct. Not that it matters when the fact I am asserting is that motor deficicncy is a lower-functioning trait, although some aspies may very well have it.

Furthermore I think the DSM IV clearly states only repetitive and stereotyped movements as a sign of asperger's, whilst it is the autism page that talks about motor skills deficits.

Also fact is that most of what you say is not third party sourced either to begin with.

aghogday wrote:
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the assertion that motor skills problems are a clinical feature of Aspergers/Autism
And now we are trying to fog the definition between aspergers where deficits are not typical and autism where they are more typical once again. This is a cheap trick.

aghogday wrote:
Nevertheless many educationalists support the practical value of the approaches suggested by the theory.
it links us to one teaching school in boston or the north-east. The fact remains that much of the United Sates does not subscribe to the pseudoscientific redefinition of the word intelligence to mean ability.


I'm not confused at all the only point I was making is that in the ICD 10 motor clumsiness is included in the diagnostic criteria (a) in the ICD10. It is obviously not a necessary diagnostic criteria for Aspergers, otherwise those people without motor skills problems with this part of the diagnositic criteria would not gain a diagnosis, but it is clearly a part of the overall diagnostic criteria for Aspergers syndrome as stated here in section (a) of the ICD-10 from your reference.

Apparently you may not have scrolled down far enough on your reference to get to the diagnostic criteria for aspergers syndrome. In the definition of Aspergers it talks about some elements being common, but the actual diagnostic criteria, clearly defines exactly what the diagnostic criteria for asperger's syndrome is in the ICD=10.

Quote:
Diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome taken from ICD-10
([Diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome taken from ICD-10
(a) There is no clinically significant general delay in spoken or receptive language or
cognitive development. Diagnosis requires that single words should have developed by
2 years of age or earlier and that communicative phrases be used by 3 years of age or
earlier. Self-help skills, adaptive behaviour and curiosity about the environment during
the first 3 years should be at a level consistent with normal intellectual development.
However, motor milestones may be somewhat delayed and motor clumsiness is usual
(although not a necessary diagnostic feature). Isolated special skills, often related to
abnormal preoccupations, are common, but are not required for diagnosis.
(b) There are qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal social interaction (criteria as for
autism).
(c) The individual exhibits an unusual intense, circumscribed interest of restricted,
repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behaviour interests and activities (criteria as for
autism; however, it would be less usual for these to include either motor mannerisms or
preoccupations with part-objects or non-functional elements of play materials).
(d) The disorder is not attributable to other varieties of pervasive developmental
disorder; simple schizophrenia schizotypal disorder; obsessive-compulsive disorder;
anakastic personality disorder; reactive and disinhibited attachment disorders of
childhood.


This statement doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote:
If someone has a deficit the fact is that they are incapable of having motor skills equal to that of people without deficits


If someone has any kind of deficit they have a deficit. If they by any way shape or form find a way to overcome that deficit they no longer necessarily have an observable deficit. This doesn't mean that the deficit never existed, or that the underlying physiological cause of the deficit does not exist, it just means it was successfully accommodated.

Never the less, the majority of people diagnosed with Aspergers have observable motor skills problems, that are clinical features/part of the diagnostic criteria; that's a fact, and illustrated in both the ICD 10 and gilberg criteria. It's also a fact illustrated by Asperger himself, and Lord from 1995, in the clinical features, reference that I provided earlier in the thread.

Anything observed lower than normal is a deficit, and in these majority of individuals diagnosed with Aspergers that do indeed have motor skills problems that are lower that what is normally seen in individuals, meaning they do have some degree of a deficit/impairment/problem with motor skills.

The bottom line is this: Motor skills problems/deficits are a usual clinical feature/diagnostic criteria in Aspergers. If you like anecdotal facts better than the actual resources that I and you have provided now that you provided the actual diagnostic guidelines for Aspergers from the ICD10, do a search here on the many different posts where people with aspergers have talked about their motor skills deficits.

There are whole thread where people illustrate the handwriting problems they have as a result of deficits in fine motor skills. People talk about problems with coordination, clumsiness, playing team sports. All the stuff we have been talking about here.

I have sourced Lord, Asperger, ICD10 and Gilberg criteria, all with third party sources available in this thread. You just provided another reference from the ICD10 that proves my point.

The internet is a huge resource, if you can google any reputable source that states that motor skills problems are co-morbids with autism or aspergers, I will be shocked. What you will find is it is a common part, or clinical feature of Aspergers. I have heard no one but you suggest that it is a co-morbid condition associated with autism or aspergers.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

20 Nov 2011, 5:15 pm

aghogday wrote:
the only point I was making is that in the ICD 10 motor clumsiness is included in the diagnostic criteria
You said motor clumsiness, and given how you tried to talk about it as if it proved your point that motor deficiency was part of the asperger's diagnosis it was an attempt to try and prove it using the ICD10 and Gillberg diagnostics as can be evidenced with this quote when you try and stuff it all under one roof:
aghogday wrote:
There is no source that lists motor skills clumsiness, problems, deficits, issues or whatever


aghogday wrote:
However, motor milestones may be somewhat delayed and motor clumsiness is usual
Urgh :/ Again you try to ignore what I say.
Gedrene wrote:
No, that diagnostic is for autism and aspergers. You are mixing things up. The ICD 10 uses this system where they are referred to together in the same diagnostics sheet. As you will see they say a delay or lack in speech, but as you have already said yourself and as can be seen in the DSM IV a delay in speech is not medically significant in asperger's.


aghogday wrote:
If someone has any kind of deficit they have a deficit.
Tautology. I never said otherwise anyway so a pointless tautology. My point was a response to this incorrent statement:
aghogday wrote:
there is no definition of deficit or deficiency that states it means incapability

I am sorry but deficit means incapable to be as good as someone else. So you're wrong. And you ignored it:
Gedrene wrote:
If someone has a deficit the fact is that they are incapable of having motor skills equal to that of people without deficits


ahogday wrote:
I have sourced Lord, Asperger, ICD10 and Gilberg criteria, all with third party sources available in this thread. You just provided another reference from the ICD10 that proves my point.
A series of lies. I sourced the ICD10, referred to Gillberg and used the DSM IV.

You said that the ICD10 said aspies have motor skill deficits. I corrected you by saying that the ICD10 diagnostic sheet puts autism and aspergers under the same umbrella and the DSM IV says that only stimming is in the asperger's diagnosis and motor skills deficits not included.

You said that Gillberg said that 'motor clumsiness' was part of asperger's, when actually it was just clumsiness. Motor clumsiness was just an obvious attempt on your part to use the diagnosis by somehow binding together the term motor deficit (which you had been referring to forever beforehand) and clumsiness (what it actually said).

Your attempt to try and link up asperger's and deficits in motor skills again was by referring to Hans Asperger's original 1944 paper, when the differences between aspergers and autism were by no means established at all.

I did not prove any truth at all. All that was proved was that you weren't paying attention. A sign of a certain autism characteristic peeking through maybe?

aghogday wrote:
If you like anecdotal facts better than the actual resources
An anecdotal fact is still a fact. To say that anecdotal evidence not presented in an over-offcialized form is worth less is a clear sign of argument from authority.
Furthermore I used the DSM IV and corrected your use of the ICD10 and gillberg resources.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Nov 2011, 7:13 pm

yet my motor skills are not impaired enough not to be able to snowboard a glacier, in reality does the theoretical differences really matter that much?

i experience small involuntary lockups when overwhelmed and i have a tendency to lose ballance when a sharp balance change is in order where my brother does not (then again he teaches surfing, snowboarded as long as me and competes on a national level(surfing))

then again i dont know if its fine motor control or not, i have a lot harder time at writing than i would like with frequent mistypes (usually wrongly hit keys or wrong muscle sequencing, typing the letters in another order than i intended)


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,604

20 Nov 2011, 9:27 pm

Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
the only point I was making is that in the ICD 10 motor clumsiness is included in the diagnostic criteria



Gedrene Wrote:

Quote:
You said motor clumsiness, and given how you tried to talk about it as if it proved your point that motor deficiency was part of the asperger's diagnosis it was an attempt to try and prove it using the ICD10 and Gillberg diagnostics as can be evidenced with this quote when you try and stuff it all under one roof:


aghogday wrote:
There is no source that lists motor skills clumsiness, problems, deficits, issues or whatever


Aghogday wrote:

Full context of what I said was:

Quote:
Motor clumsiness, is actually what is in the ICD10 and the Gilberg diagnositic criteria for Aspergers commonly used in the UK where you live. There is no source that lists motor skills clumsiness, problems, deficits, issues or whatever synomym one may choose to use for motor skills problems that are a feature/diagnostic criteria of Aspergers, as a co-morbid condition, it is either listed as a feature, or part of the diagnostic criteria in two widely used criteria used to diagnose Aspergers.


aghogday wrote:
However, motor milestones may be somewhat delayed and motor clumsiness is usual
Urgh :/ Again you try to ignore what I say.
Gedrene wrote:
No, that diagnostic is for autism and aspergers. You are mixing things up. The ICD 10 uses this system where they are referred to together in the same diagnostics sheet. As you will see they say a delay or lack in speech, but as you have already said yourself and as can be seen in the DSM IV a delay in speech is not medically significant in asperger's.


Aghogday wrote:
I'm not ignoring anything, you again seem to be missing what the ICD10 states from the very reference you provided, maybe you missed it again, but the full diagnostic criteria for Aspergers which includes motor skills delays and motor clumsiness is in the ICD10 diagnostic criteria under section A from the Aspergers Diagnosis in the ICD10; you are reading what it says in the definition of Aspergers apparently, where it states the two conditions are related, but nowhere in the ICD10 does it suggest that speech delay is part of Aspergers. The full diagnostic from the ICD10 is included below:


Quote:
Diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome taken from ICD-10
(a) There is no clinically significant general delay in spoken or receptive language or
cognitive development
. Diagnosis requires that single words should have developed by
2 years of age or earlier and that communicative phrases be used by 3 years of age or
earlier. Self-help skills, adaptive behaviour and curiosity about the environment during
the first 3 years should be at a level consistent with normal intellectual development.
However, motor milestones may be somewhat delayed and motor clumsiness is usual (although not a necessary diagnostic feature). Isolated special skills, often related to
abnormal preoccupations, are common, but are not required for diagnosis.
(b) There are qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal social interaction (criteria as for
autism).
(c) The individual exhibits an unusual intense, circumscribed interest of restricted,
repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behaviour interests and activities (criteria as for
autism; however, it would be less usual for these to include either motor mannerisms or
preoccupations with part-objects or non-functional elements of play materials).
(d) The disorder is not attributable to other varieties of pervasive developmental
disorder; simple schizophrenia schizotypal disorder; obsessive-compulsive disorder;
anakastic personality disorder; reactive and disinhibited attachment disorders of
childhood.


aghogday wrote:
If someone has any kind of deficit they have a deficit.


Gedrene Wrote:
Quote:
Tautology. I never said otherwise anyway so a pointless tautology. My point was a response to this incorrent statement:
Quote:

aghogday wrote:
there is no definition of deficit or deficiency that states it means incapability


Gedrene Wrote:
Quote:
I am sorry but deficit means incapable to be as good as someone else. So you're wrong. And you ignored it:
Quote:
Gedrene wrote:
If someone has a deficit the fact is that they are incapable of having motor skills equal to that of people without deficits


Aghogday Wrote:


Full context of what I said:

Quote:
If someone has any kind of deficit they have a deficit. If they by any way shape or form find a way to overcome that deficit they no longer necessarily have an observable deficit. This doesn't mean that the deficit never existed, or that the underlying physiological cause of the deficit does not exist, it just means it was successfully accommodated.

Never the less, the majority of people diagnosed with Aspergers have observable motor skills problems, that are clinical features/part of the diagnostic criteria; that's a fact, and illustrated in both the ICD 10 and gilberg criteria. It's also a fact illustrated by Asperger himself, and Lord from 1995, in the clinical features, reference that I provided earlier in the thread.


Aghogday Wrote:
Quote:
Having a deficit does not mean someone is incapable of having normal function, or incapable of being good as someone else, it just means they have an impairment in functioning.

A person could have a deficit in arm function from an accident and later improve the function and no longer be seen as having a deficit in arm function. There is no definition of "deficit" that suggests that a person with a deficit is incapable of normal functioning or is incapable of being as good as someone else. Some people do overcome deficits in functioning.


http://medical.yourdictionary.com/deficit

deficit medical definition

noun
1.A lack or deficiency of a substance.
2.A lack or impairment in mental or physical functioning.


Aghogday Wrote:

Quote:
I have sourced Lord, Asperger, ICD10 and Gilberg criteria, all with third party sources available in this thread. You just provided another reference from the ICD10 that proves my point.


Gedrene wrote:

Quote:
A series of lies. I sourced the ICD10, referred to Gillberg and used the DSM IV.



Aghogday wrote:

Quote:
The only link you provided was to the ICD10, which helped proved my point that motor skills problems are part of the criteria, in the diagnostic criteria of Aspergers; you referred to the gilberg criteria and made a reference to what you thought the DSMV said, but you didn't provide any actual links to sources or quote any information from either.of these sources. You made an inaccurate statement that the Gilberg criteria didn't say motor clumsiness, only clumsiness, but I already provided a source which I provide here again that clearly shows it says motor clumsiness


Gedrene wrote:

Quote:
You said that the ICD10 said aspies have motor skill deficits. I corrected you by saying that the ICD10 diagnostic sheet puts autism and aspergers under the same umbrella and the DSM IV says that only stimming is in the asperger's diagnosis and motor skills deficits not included.

You said that Gillberg said that 'motor clumsiness' was part of asperger's, when actually it was just clumsiness. Motor clumsiness was just an obvious attempt on your part to use the diagnosis by somehow binding together the term motor deficit (which you had been referring to forever beforehand) and clumsiness (what it actually said)


Aghogday Wrote:
Quote:
I provided a link and the criteria which does say Motor clumsiness is a criteria in the gilberg


http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/7/4/310.full

Quote:

Gillberg's (1991) diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome
Social impairments

Narrow interests

Repetitive routines

Speech and language peculiarities

Non-verbal communication problems

Motor clumsiness


aghogday wrote:

Quote:
You already asserted in another post that motor skills among the other features that I listed as clinical features of aspergers from a third part resource, could only be co-morbids associated with low functioning autism.


Gedrene wrote:
Quote:
Misrepresentation of what I said. What I say is that autism is a junk taxon of various different issues all lumped together, and whilst motor skills are a problem for autistics the fact is that they are not similar to me in this way.

My motor skills were remedied in the same way most children improve their motor skills, through effort. It therefore was no medical issue.


Aghogday Wrote:
Quote:
Here is what I said and you said in response again:


aghogday wrote:

Quote:

Problems with fine motor control, clumsiness, and posture, are not co-morbids with autism and aspergers, they are actual clinical features of Autism and Aspergers that are usually part of the disorder in people with a diagnosis.



Gedrene wrote:

Quote:
And a sign of ironically very clumsy work on the behalf of clinicians with no understanding of the actual core autism diagnosis, which is:
- communication difficulties
-a lack of social interest
-poor grasp of irrelevant communicative features such as analogy
-strong personal interests.

To say anything else is autism one is talking about low functioning autism not aspergers, and even then it's clear that it's a comorbidity



Aghogday Wrote:
Quote:
This is my argument that it is clear that motor skills problems are a clinical feature/diagnostic criteria usually seen in Aspergers not a co-morbid condition in Aspergers. Hans Aspergers identified it first in 1944, 50 years before the diagnosis appeared. And the motor skills problems continue to be identified in the Gilberg and ICD 10 Diagnostic Criteria for the actual disorder of Aspergers. The Quotes from the references that prove this are in this post, clearly identified above.