Page 2 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

kruger4
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 264

02 Jan 2011, 8:03 pm

antonblock wrote:
i want to add something:

I wondered since my teen years, how i know if a girl likes me or not, it was comletely mysterious to me. I always tried to figure out of her behavior. Now at the age of 29 i found out, that the eyes play a very important role, and that it is used oftenly to tell someone some interest in him or her.

And i must do it consciously, the others seem to have intuition for that, maybe i do it also automatically when i trained it more.

I was completely shocked that i found out that soo late. Maybe female aspies for example learn this earlier, but why do they learn eye contact earlier? Maybe someone can remember?


So how do you tell if she's interested?



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

02 Jan 2011, 8:28 pm

StuartN wrote:
This is one reason why an objective physical or biological measurement would be so useful.

To answer your question, I would guess that 4:1 is in the middle of most credible large-scale studies at the moment. I would love to see if large-scale population studies using an objective measure brought that ratio down.


The scientific data being derived from essentially two populations - one that is typically diagnosed and one that is typically underdiagnosed. It seems like the data would reinforce itself a bit.



menintights
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 895

02 Jan 2011, 8:37 pm

antonblock wrote:
I was completely shocked that i found out that soo late. Maybe female aspies for example learn this earlier, but why do they learn eye contact earlier? Maybe someone can remember?


I learned about eye contact at the age of 13, and it was only because my mother was reproaching my 14-year-old brother for not looking people in the eye when he shook their hands. Back then I just assumed girls weren't supposed to look anyone in the eye, though, so I didn't really make any eye contact with anyone until I went to college.



Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

02 Jan 2011, 8:45 pm

Cicely wrote:
In my case, there were several different reasons. One, I was very well-behaved at both home and school, and I was successful academically.


Yep. Unable to socialise+good academically+not disruptive = gifted + shy, apparently. If you're not causing problems for other people, noone thinks that you could possibly have a problem.

menintights wrote:
antonblock wrote:
I was completely shocked that i found out that soo late. Maybe female aspies for example learn this earlier, but why do they learn eye contact earlier? Maybe someone can remember?


I learned eye contact at the age of 13, and it was only because my mother was reproaching my 14-year-old brother for not looking people in the eye when he shook their hands.


I learned from 2 main things: one of my friends yelled at me about it when I was 10, and I read a book where a character thought that another character was trustworthy because he looked her in the eye when they spoke.
Before then I hadn't realised that it was important, and I was amazed that you could gain people's trust simply by looking at their eyes; I'd always assumed that building trust was a long process based on watching a person's behaviour.


_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

02 Jan 2011, 8:55 pm

Who_Am_I wrote:
Yep. Unable to socialise+good academically+not disruptive = gifted + shy, apparently. If you're not causing problems for other people, noone thinks that you could possibly have a problem.

Let's say someone is a bit shy but otherwise is considered to be gifted and not causing problems for anyone. Is that enough to be diagnosed?



gRinchY
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 4
Location: Worthing

02 Jan 2011, 9:00 pm

there are no male members of my family who have autism, whereas I have aspegers and my youngest sister has ADHD.
I did read somewhere autism is more common in males, and every other person I have met with autism has been male.


_________________
x gRinchY x


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

03 Jan 2011, 1:12 am

aspi-rant wrote:
Bethie wrote:
I would imagine it might be a sex-linked trait-
it lies on the X chromosome,
so males, having only one X, are more likely to develop it than females,
who would have to have it on both Xes.


flawed logic....

more men (XY) than women (XX) are found....

thus...

it should mostly be bound to the Y-chromosome.... not the X!

only males have the Y-chromosome... remember? ;-)

if it was bound to the X-chromosome... woman should have doubled their chances of having autism....


I don't think you understand the genetics involved...

X-linked recessive traits are expressed in all heterogametics, but are only expressed in those homogametics that are homozygous for the recessive allele. For example, an X-linked recessive allele in humans causes hemophilia. Hemophilia is much more common in males than females because males are hemizygous - they only have one copy of the gene in question - and therefore express the trait when they inherit one mutant allele. In contrast, a female must inherit two mutant alleles, a less frequent event since the mutant allele is rare in the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_linkage


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


quesonrias
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 309

03 Jan 2011, 1:43 am

antonblock wrote:
i want to add something:

I wondered since my teen years, how i know if a girl likes me or not, it was comletely mysterious to me. I always tried to figure out of her behavior. Now at the age of 29 i found out, that the eyes play a very important role, and that it is used oftenly to tell someone some interest in him or her.

And i must do it consciously, the others seem to have intuition for that, maybe i do it also automatically when i trained it more.

I was completely shocked that i found out that soo late. Maybe female aspies for example learn this earlier, but why do they learn eye contact earlier? Maybe someone can remember?


I learned to be conscious of making eye contact when I was about 6 or 7 because someone told me it's not polite to ignore people. That in order to be polite, it's important to make eye contact with others. I can vividly remember when I started forcing myself to make eye contact with teachers as I met them in the halls at school.

As for learning how to read eyes, that's different. Eye contact is nothing more than meeting someone's gaze and holding it for a few moments. Reading someone's eyes is more about studying the way that they are holding them and the way the rest of their face is posed in order to understand what emotion they are exhibiting. I do not do this very well. In order for me to read someone, I have to see their posture, watch their movements and gestures, and usually hear the words they are saying and/or the tone they are using.


_________________
If I tell you I'm unique, and you say, "Yeah, we all are," you've missed the whole point.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RAADS-R: 187.0
Language: 15.0 • Social Relatedness: 81.0 • Sensory/Motor: 52.0 • Circumscribed Interests: 40.0

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 165 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Morgana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,524
Location: Hamburg, Germany

03 Jan 2011, 3:59 pm

antonblock wrote:
i want to add something:

I wondered since my teen years, how i know if a girl likes me or not, it was comletely mysterious to me. I always tried to figure out of her behavior. Now at the age of 29 i found out, that the eyes play a very important role, and that it is used oftenly to tell someone some interest in him or her.

And i must do it consciously, the others seem to have intuition for that, maybe i do it also automatically when i trained it more.

I was completely shocked that i found out that soo late. Maybe female aspies for example learn this earlier, but why do they learn eye contact earlier? Maybe someone can remember?


quesonrias wrote:
I learned to be conscious of making eye contact when I was about 6 or 7 because someone told me it's not polite to ignore people. That in order to be polite, it's important to make eye contact with others. I can vividly remember when I started forcing myself to make eye contact with teachers as I met them in the halls at school.


I first started making eye contact in my late teens. I kept reading that it was important- in terms of job search, dating, etc.- to "act confident", and to "look people in the eye". As these two things were always written together, I assumed that eye contact was important only in proving to people that I was "confident"....it never occurred to me that there may be any other reason at all for making eye contact! But as "showing my confidence" seemed so important in our society, I worked on it.

I didn´t learn that eye contact was important for other reasons, like reading expressions or showing romantic interest, until I was about 30. (So, yeah, females can learn these things just as late as male Aspies! I don´t think things are really any easier for girls and women, just different). I did kind of see that women in movies flirted with their eyes, but I thought that was just the movies....exaggerated.....so I never applied that to my life, I would have felt contrived. But I guess it was easier for me to look at faces in movies, and therefore didn´t notice how people act in real life....or maybe it´s just more subtle in life, so I don´t pick it up as well? I realize I went through most of my dating life- (not that I ever went on many dates, ha ha)- not understanding, at all, the importance of body language and facial signals. I was only listening to words.

And my theory as to why fewer girls get diagnosed: Hans Asperger only studied boys, so what we know about AS comes mostly from the 34 boys he studied. Although I do believe the internal traits of AS are essentially the same in both men and women, people who are non-autistic can get stuck in stereotypes. So therefore, if they see a certain pattern in several boys- like, for instance, they are "aggressive", or they "like numbers"- people tend to think of these stereotypes as being important, and maybe lose the big picture. If a girl has the core AS traits but presents a little differently- for instance, being quiet and passive, or interested in emotions and psychology- then people who think of AS as a series of personality stereotypes may not pick up on her AS. I read recently that some of the experts on AS admitted that when it comes to girls, they "don´t really know what they´re looking for". Based on what I´ve read, it sounds like it´s almost a given that girls are under diagnosed....although, there may be a genetic factor as well, I don´t know.


_________________
"death is the road to awe"


websister
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jun 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 165
Location: Canada

03 Jan 2011, 10:08 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
Yep. Unable to socialise+good academically+not disruptive = gifted + shy, apparently. If you're not causing problems for other people, noone thinks that you could possibly have a problem.

Let's say someone is a bit shy but otherwise is considered to be gifted and not causing problems for anyone. Is that enough to be diagnosed?


While it can help provide a reason that some Aspies are overlooked, it is definitely not enough to base a diagnosis on for either gender.



gRinchY
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 4
Location: Worthing

03 Jan 2011, 10:13 pm

boys are said to be easier to diagnose, for anything not just AS. plus the gene is meant to be carried from the father's side of the family more often than the mothers, don't know if that makes any difference though.


_________________
x gRinchY x


quesonrias
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 309

03 Jan 2011, 10:26 pm

For me personally, I can add that I was attuned to being a "good" person, so if I heard that there was something I should to in order to be more polite or engage people better, I figured out a way to incorporate it into my habits. When I talk to people about the fact that I could be Aspie, they generally tend to bring up the fact that I speak in front of crowds, and I am charming in small groups. What they don't see is the internal anxiety that doing these things causes because I've learned to mask it all. They also do not realize that I do tend to limit the amount of time that I spend doing these things so that the fact that I am completely faking it does not come out.


_________________
If I tell you I'm unique, and you say, "Yeah, we all are," you've missed the whole point.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RAADS-R: 187.0
Language: 15.0 • Social Relatedness: 81.0 • Sensory/Motor: 52.0 • Circumscribed Interests: 40.0

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 165 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Rain_Bird
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 347

05 Jan 2011, 12:07 am

I think it's mostly due to the fact that autism and Asperger's are thought of as only affecting males, so doctors don't really look for it in females as much. Also, girls are better at hiding their symptoms and difficulties, and some of the Aspie traits, such as shyness, are seen as more acceptable in girls.

Here's an article on the topic: Girls with Asperger's Syndrome



aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

05 Jan 2011, 10:26 am

ruveyn wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
Bethie wrote:
I would imagine it might be a sex-linked trait-
it lies on the X chromosome,
so males, having only one X, are more likely to develop it than females,
who would have to have it on both Xes.


flawed logic....

more men (XY) than women (XX) are found....

thus...

it should mostly be bound to the Y-chromosome.... not the X!

only males have the Y-chromosome... remember? ;-)

if it was bound to the X-chromosome... woman should have doubled their chances of having autism....


Not true. If the factor on the X chromosome is recessive (assuming it exists at all) then the Y chromosome could leave it uncovered and it would assert itself in all males where the X from the mother has the recessive gene.

ruveyn


having should have said: "carrying"

sorry for that.


and


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Yep. Males have the shorter chromosome and may be more susceptible to what's on the right lower leg of the X.
That could mean males are vulnerable to whatever is occurring on certain parts of the X while females have a greater chance of the lower right leg of their second X mitigating the first.




if it were bound to the X-chromosome... men could never pass autism to their sons, because men don't give a X-chromosome to their sons..........



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

05 Jan 2011, 12:08 pm

aspi-rant wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Yep. Males have the shorter chromosome and may be more susceptible to what's on the right lower leg of the X.
That could mean males are vulnerable to whatever is occurring on certain parts of the X while females have a greater chance of the lower right leg of their second X mitigating the first.


if it were bound to the X-chromosome... men could never pass autism to their sons, because men don't give a X-chromosome to their sons..........


I think one possible genetic cause that accounts for 15% of (known) cases is linked to the X chromosome. Since autism likely has numerous genetic and possibly epigenetic etiologies, it's all too easy to pick one under the assumption that it is the only cause (not that I think ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo was doing that).