DSM-V: Proposed Severity Scale for Autism Spectrum Disorder

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds pretty arbitrary. What if it was more straightforward: 'Difficulty with the nonverbal and unstated aspects of communication, to sufficient enough degree where social goals and/or career goals are hindered. Support of family and friends and informed co-workers can make a big difference. For a diagnosis of Asperger's / Autism Spectrum, needs to have been present since childhood.'

That is, why not put support front and center?

As an example unrelated to autism, when Dr. Renee Richards was transitioning from a male body to a female body, where she felt she should be all along. She was a very meticulous and careful eye surgeon. Other doctors would recommend her and tell patients, 'Dr. Raskind' looks a little different, but 'he' is very, very good. And the vast majority of patients accepted this. In learning about autism, I have become more accepting of all kinds of human differences. And I hope you are also open to this.

I think this may be because they are very focused on keeping the DSM listing ONLY those symptoms which are readily observable either by someone who knows the person or by the psychologist. They do not like relying on internal experiences because those cannot be observed.

I like the way the levels are focusing partly on the amount of support needed--this would still mean that depending on how well you can take advantage of your supports, you could still be more or less impaired in general.

I don't think I meant internal experiences so much as the focus on assistance to appear more neurotypical (am I reading the assistance criteria correctly) as opposed to assistance to be more functional.

I agree that focusing on needed support is an interesting take, I am just not sure about the kind of support described.

I would still love to see the expanded material they're using for the clinical trials.

I like the idea of reminding ourselves what a person might be able to accomplish with just a little bit of support. Or a medium amount of support, and nothing wrong with that.

And at the same time, this might be a good point to mention Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates, Jane Austen, Gary Numan, and many, many more people. http://www.asperger-syndrome.me.uk/people.htm So much so that we're at risk of a second stereotype, a hard either-or: a person on the Autism speaking is either nonspeaking or else high-achieving. No, not necessarily the case. All kinds of people on the spectrum achieve medium levels of success, and we need to high-light this. And people at medium levels of success who want to come out of the closet, there are doing us a favor by expanding our social range. (Coming out of the closet remains a personal choice.)

Then there's a question, how independently function, really, are most people. Take for example a guy or gal, neurotypical who's bright and sociable, and is a doctor who runs a high-powered pathology practice. Well, this guy has clerical help, and probably one or two very talented people who help with all the nettlesome insurance, checking and paying bills, and everything else involved in keeping a busy office running. This guy has colleagues he can call upon for help and emotional support. A family behind him who understands his busy schedule, etc, etc. Dry cleaners that work with him, a car mechanic that accepts his busy schedule and maybe cuts the guy some slack, maybe picks up or drops off the car (because the guy is a doctor).

In other words, I don't want 'independently-functioning' just to be another phrase for normal. That, if someone depends on others in a 'normal' way, that is 'independently-functioning,' whereas if someone depends on others in a different way, that is somehow bad.

Why should nonspeaking and high-achieving be opposites?

They shouldn't be. Just this is the way the human mind often works. For example, about twenty years ago at a Mensa discussion group (I had a high enough SAT score which emphatically is not an intelligence test. And there probably is not one single number that measures 'intelligence' anyway.) And a guy who was at the discussion group was a nurse and he said, Indian doctors, they're either terrible or else they're Ghandhi. And it later occurred to me, this guy had set up an either-or and no conceivable set of facts can convince him otherwise. He meets an Indian doctor and he's going to put him in either category A or category B.

Last edited by AardvarkGoodSwimmer on 15 Mar 2011, 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Most things in society require speaking to get by easily; speaking for oneself. Not being able to speak is very limiting from a societal viewpoint. I wish people didn't have to talk for me so much. I wish talking only existed in books and through the computer, and real life could happen in some wordless, mutual understanding between everything where words were hardly needed.

I have a nasal voice. That combined with the fact that I am 5'5" and that I like to talk about intellectual topics, some people stereotype me as gay or as weird. (There's not a thing wrong with being gay. There's not a thing wrong with being weird.)

About fifteen years ago, when I was going to take the bus to Taco Cabana for lunch and then to the mall to shop for Christmas, I decided to try an experiment. I would not talk. I would write on a pad. Esp at Taco Cabana, they can't quite get my order right. I would ask for a bean and cheese burrito, please add lettuce and tomato. And it seemed like they often got it wrong. Maybe the fact that I was asking for anything outside normal, regardless of content.

Anyway, I wrote down my order at Taco Cabana. I was treated respectfully there. I was treated neutrally at the Mall.

"A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across contexts, not accounted for by general developmental delays, and manifest by all 3 of the following: . . . " [emphasis added]
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/P ... px?rid=94#

Uh?

Come again