Rekkr wrote:
The way you tell the difference between a geek and an aspie is by the symtoms. If the geek has aspie symptoms, they are an aspie most likely. If they don't, then they are just a geek.
It depends a lot on what criteria you apply.
According to DSM-IV it's not much of a stretch. Geeks essentially get a free pass on DSM-IV section B-1 (abnormally intense preoccupation or interest). Sections D through F are tests for other, more serious disabilities, so the geeks are on the same footing as everyone else. All that leaves is sections A and C, which deal with "qualitative", "marked" or "clinically significant" impairment to socialization. What exactly do those terms mean? Does the criteria apply only to innate skills, or should we disqualify people who have learned to work around their impairments? Interestingly enough, the other common traits people keep mentioning on this site (impaired verbal communication, enhanced sensitivities, etc.) aren't even listed criteria.
Gillberg's Criteria, on the other hand, requires a much lower functioning (more autistic) level and in some cases directly contradict the DSM-IV list. For example, Gillberg requires motor dyspraxia AND verbal communication problems AND non-verbal communication problems. Very few geeks would be diagnosed with AS under that set of impairments.
Roger Meyer's list is the most comprehensive, and yet the least restrictive I've seen. His is more of an "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck then it's a duck" approach. Rather than worrying about the degree to which specific diagnostic criteria can be observed, he lists the typical effects of AS and infers the diagnosis from the degree to which those effects are found.
According to Gillberg, I have no business being on this board. The DSM-IV criteria are vague enough to create a grey area where I may or may not have AS. When I read Meyer's list I feel like someone's been recording my every waking moment....
14 Feb 2005, 7:03 pm
