Autism as a diagnosis / set of characteristics / identity

Post Reply New Topic

This is something that I noticed in discussions about "a bit autistic". We seem to use the word "autism" in different meanings and this implies different stances about the concept of "a bit autistic".

1. Autism as a diagnosis - one either has the diagnosis or not. It's something objective, in-or-out type. Unfortunately, it depends on external, changing factors - changing diagnostic criteria and differing interpretation of them by particular specialists. The same person can be diagnosed autistic by one specialist and diagnosed with something completely different by another specialist. We need to deal with it as long as DSM and ICD standards rely on interpretations of external symptoms.

2. Autism as a set of characteristics - the autism diagnosis is based on a set of criteria - in DSM5 they are grouped into "social communication deficits" and "rigid, repetitive behaviors" (I don't know why sensory issues are presented as an example of the latter) and levels of required support.
Those characteristics can be present in individuals to different extent and there is some threshold for official diagnosis. However, as one can present them to different extents, in this meaning "being a bit autistic" is perfectly valid for some individuals.

3. Autism as identity - I find this part the most tricky. I believe a group identity (like gender, race, autistic/allistic) is based mainly on shared experience of a group. There is a problem with this - the experience of being an obviously special needs person is quite different from the experience of extensive masking. Here the good old Asperger's may have been useful. However, the terms of sensory issues, meltdown and shutdown seem useful all over the spectrum.

Thanks. It is not easy I am guessing. For example, I could be told I am not on the spectrum... But, is it possible I could often get partial shutdowns if I am not? Umm. Because I my not outwardly display symptoms like OCD because I have trained myself not to do certain things which I once did.
Something I have had for years is a wierd one... in my early 20's my dentist was concerned with my teeth. I had gone from no fillings to all my upper back teeth having fillings in a short period of time. He was asking me questions of diet etc... He believed I was getting acid coming up which was effecting my teeth, and he sent me to see my doctor. I booked an appointment and my doctor said it was some sort of allergy and was one of those things and he wasn't interested... He seemed to imply that it was wrong of my dentist to send me as dentists are not doctors...
Another thing I was having is undigested food coming out when I was nurvous. Was another thing doctors said was some sort of allergy, but for years and years of asking, the doctors surgery never had the funding to send me for an allergy test. I also had stomache acid coming through, which I still get. Nearly all my pants have no material left underneath... I have just gone through a new pair which I have not had for long. Most of my pairs of trousers have similar issues if holes here. If I am going out to a built up area I have to wear either trousers without holes or pants without holes so at least my private quarters remain private...
But acid coming through (Which I have had on and off for many years) is normal for me. I mean... It maynot burn my skin much but just ruins clothes.
I was thinking if it could be an outward trait of autism? I don't think I have outward traits anymore as I have been trained not to have them so I can fit in. For example, I was always bouncing my legs up and down or rubbing my hands together as I spoke and I was called "Golum" years before I saw "Lord of the Rings" on TV. So I had to work to stop doing things like this as soon as others noticed.
Does the acid coming through have anything to do with nurves associated with autism? I have not mentioned it since I changed doctors about three years ago. Maybe I should?

The issue with trying to do that there is too much diversity and too much black/white thinking.

It may not be hard to grasp the concept of widely varying intelligence in a person, but how do you use that in practice?

You may be autistic if you conform to the original and historic description of the aspect of the psyche that was so labeled. These aspects, as originally named, can be found in Aaron Rosanof’s 1921 paper “A Theory of Personality…” along with the other aspects, being Hysteroid, Manic, Paranoid, Depressive and Epileptoid (the latter being an essential strength in those diagnosed with AS, with Autistic and Paranoid being optional). The following description has been lifted from the 1935 Humm and Wadsworth Temperament Scale (which Leo Kanner was familiar with, but I’ve found no indication that Lorna Wing ever was!) which was a general population study of the theory. Autism is another thing.


“The Autistic (= artist; a recent change attribute to PC) component is responsible for shy, sensitive, introspective behaviour. An individual displaying a great deal of the Artist component will be socially sensitive, frequently experiencing some difficulty in expressing their ideas and opinions in face-to face situations. They are imaginative and creative people, who may be subject to reclusive reactions resulting from feelings of difference. The Autistic component includes attributes such as insightfulness, self-consciousness, embarrassment and withdrawal.”


Some of you may recall the Chandler & Macleod on line test which was developed from the H &W, as an aid to recruiters, and I took the full industrial test in 1981, which pronounced me very strongly Autistic (I was average in every other category, which is unusual; most people have two or more strengths) and High Normalising (a measure of how well one can adapt to the culture one they find themselves in). The on line test used to give letters, to indicate one’s strengths (I got an NA) which most people found very helpful (most diagnosed AS posted AE combinations, but a significant minority were PEs, which should be a very different character; for instance, Paranoids like to be in charge of things, Autistics don’t) then Kevin Macleod (then executive, and grandson of one of the founders) after months of enthusiastic discussions, stopped responding to my – mails, and shortly thereafter left the company. The on line test was withdrawn, to reappear months later without the letter scores, shortly to be withdrawn permanently (but the page is still there on C&Ms site). At the very least, this should tell you that some very powerful interests don’t want you to know this historical stuff!


Past experience tells me that most of you don’t want to know, and would rather believe that Lorna Wing, having completely misunderstood what Kanner published, then wrongly applied the autism label to a dozen or so unrelated disorders, dumped them in the same “waste basket” category, and somehow created a “spectrum”! It is not; it is a crock of crud from which no good will ever come, but if you can’t entertain that understanding, then I can’t help you!

“You might be confusing my trying to understand Aaron Rosanof’s paper with Mona’s reference to Bleuler. Or maybe you just quoted the wrong person by mistake.

But since you brought it up if I am understanding you correctly in your opinion Autistic is a personality type Autism is a faux label for a series of disorders.”
I really don’t know who coined the term autistic, but it was in widespread use a century ago, when Rosanoff gave us his take on it, along with those other aspects of the psyche that determine our overall personalities. Bleuler’s use of it to label a phase of schizophrenia is a little different, of course, and I cannot demonstrate that his understanding does not have primacy, but I think not, because, as far as I’m aware, he made no use of hysteroid et al, which appear to have been understood to be a complete package, perhaps in another theory of personality that predates Rosanoff’s?
I wish I had the means to explore these origins, but this public service I’m currently using is very limited.
Bear in mind that Rosanoff’s paper was clinically inclined (and he didn’t even try to hide his distaste for autistics) but the follow up Humm and Wadsworth Temperament Scale has more relevance for the general population (which includes all autistics, including the more than 50% that autism researchers ignore; a strange way to do science!). Back in 1935, I would think they were more familiar with these origins, and I note that nobody who used these labels felt any need to dwell on them, as if they were familiar to everyone. It’s a puzzle then, that they have since been near buried?
As for autism, that was what Kanner considered to apply to autistic kids with low IQ (which seems to me explanation enough, and shows that they and their carers could be best helped with a special education, concentrating on our different expectations and outlooks. There’ also the probable relevance of the normalizing that the Chandler and Macleod test measures (and Kanner’s subjects did have awful parents!).
The problem really started when Lorna Wing, apparently ignorant of the historical meaning(s) of autistic, deemed autism and autistic to be interchangeable, and, for reason not apparent, started using autism to lable unrelated disorders, leaving us with this ridiculous “spectrum” of “autisms” which a no scientific merit whatsoever. It beats me why anyone ever took her seriously, let alone deem her the greatest authority which she has done nothing but derail!

ASP,

I’m sure I’ve been through this before, but I’ll give it another shot. You’ve read about autistic, as a label for one of the various aspects of the psyche that determine our overall personalities, but you persist in thinking of it as a defect; why is that? As much as the trees and the stars, autistics have every right to be what they are, regardless that they may seem “a bit strange” from others’ point of view. As reported from the full length Chandler and Macleod psychometric test (which I took in 1981; I don’t remember being stigmatised by it) I am one such.

Like High Lama in the previous post, “I would consider being direct and getting to the point to be social skills”, and this pussyfooting around that so many others need, are just compensatory mechanisms for over delicate egos, that are incapable of being honest, firstly about their own importance, and consequently with others! There are many such examples which, when viewed rationally, are just personal preferences.

With a MENSA level IQ, and, back in my twenties, the capacity of my short term memory was reportedly more than 2 ½ times the average, so should I consider myself ret*d? What about physically incapable, when I became de facto chief instructor of my college karate club?

If you check out my posts, especially in threads like Tick tock tachyon, or Relativity Cobblers, you’ll see I’m very much my own man, and assured of my own worth. Having, through severe illness, experienced the lack of imagination and disinterest in reading or solving puzzles that is the usual lot of most “normal” people, I can assure you I have no desire to be “cured”, and have never ever wanted to be anyone other than who I am, so why should I accept I have autism?

My condition no doubt biases my preferences, but the progression of the autistic described by Rosanoff, H&W, and subsequently C&M has at least the merit of being consistent, and, even better, it can be objectively measured, as opposed to other forms of diagnosis, which amount to little better than guesswork!