Aspergers subtypes -- The "Structure-Dependent" Ch

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

zette
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,241
Location: California

24 Jun 2012, 3:45 pm

I thought this series of articles describing different ways that AS presents in children might be helpful to those who are in the process of getting an evaluation or have recently gotten an AS diagnosis.

The Structure-Dependent Aspergers Child

Quote:
Having a set of rules to follow on a day-to-day basis is the most important issue for an Aspergers (High-Functioning Autism) child who is “structure-dependent.” Once this child has a list of DOs and DONTs to follow, there tends to be few concerns except in areas where the parent has not yet established rules, in which case the structure-dependent youngster becomes confused.

Any environment (e.g., home, classroom) where there is lax structure will be a difficult one for the structured-dependent youngster. This child needs rules in order to function and will probably create his own set of rules if parents and teachers don't provide them, which may create problems since the child’s rules will probably not match the adult’s expectations.



lostgirl1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,425
Location: Ontario, Canada

24 Jun 2012, 7:07 pm

This was definitely me as a child.



annotated_alice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 770
Location: Canada

25 Jun 2012, 12:51 pm

The "acting in" type would be a fairly accurate description of my sons.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 23,751
Location: Pacific Northwest

25 Jun 2012, 1:18 pm

That was so me when I was a kid. My mother told me I needed rules as a kid or else everything feel too chaotic and I would have behavior problems and be tense. I have like anxiety inside me.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


MjrMajorMajor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,915

28 Jun 2012, 11:46 am

I can relate to the "acting in", my son is more of an "acting out". I wonder if the latter is more prevalent in boys?



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419

03 Jul 2012, 9:48 pm

League_Girl wrote:
That was so me when I was a kid. My mother told me I needed rules as a kid or else everything feel too chaotic and I would have behavior problems and be tense. I have like anxiety inside me.


How are you able to just follow the rules without knowing the reasoning behind them and have them logically dissected. When I don't know the reasoning I will become very rigid and stubborn.

I would've asked your mother why do rules bring order to chaos? I would ask her does chaos truthfully exist or is it actually order but order the human mind cannot detect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Imagine a butterfly flapping its wings and indirectly causing a tornado in Tokyo, Japan. This is because events happen that come from the butterfly's flapping accumlate and progress over many years and centuries which is represented by orders of magnitude. I would drive my folks crazy with this line of questioning.

I wrote this a while back
"Let's say a person buys crack cocaine. He uses it and dumps the baggie on the floor. It has crack residue. A child who is a curious sort will go and see this baggie. This child is a genius by the way. The child sees it, examines it, and thinks nothing of it for 20-25 years. This prodigiy has a PHd now and is working on a cure for cancer. He remembers the baggie he saw with the residue. It gives him an idea in what direction to go to find a cure for cancer. His idea leads to a cure for cancer 10 years later. Without him seeing this baggie more than likely he would not have had the idea.

We had a negative input that led to a positive outcome.

Why are drugs and drug use always negative if there is a possibility it could lead to this? If this person who dropped the baggie was not a crack addict and did not abuse and use crack more than likely cancer would not be cured.

It is possible that the prodigy could've came up with the idea in a different way. Does this mean that wrong can become right and right can become wrong? In a program if we obtain the accurate output we want through the code that is developed and the code is as efficient as could be what would be wrong with the code? What is the error in the programming code? Think of society and existence as one big gigantic program and if you manipulate the variables and the inputs you can influence the outputs and outcomes in a positive or negative way." These are the type of things I would ask your mother.

If breaking the law such as this type of law could save lives why wouldn't one break the law?



Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,552

04 Jul 2012, 9:00 am

Quote:
If he experiences behavioral problems at school AND at home, then he is not a structure-dependent youngster.


Not necessarily true. If the teacher isn't clear about rules, these kids may act out. Also, they might act out in unstructured setting like recess.



postcards57
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 343
Location: Canada

06 Jul 2012, 3:40 pm

Cube Demon wrote:

Quote:
I wrote this a while back
"Let's say a person buys crack cocaine. He uses it and dumps the baggie on the floor. It has crack residue. A child who is a curious sort will go and see this baggie. This child is a genius by the way. The child sees it, examines it, and thinks nothing of it for 20-25 years. This prodigiy has a PHd now and is working on a cure for cancer. He remembers the baggie he saw with the residue. It gives him an idea in what direction to go to find a cure for cancer. His idea leads to a cure for cancer 10 years later. Without him seeing this baggie more than likely he would not have had the idea.

We had a negative input that led to a positive outcome.

Why are drugs and drug use always negative if there is a possibility it could lead to this? If this person who dropped the baggie was not a crack addict and did not abuse and use crack more than likely cancer would not be cured.

It is possible that the prodigy could've came up with the idea in a different way. Does this mean that wrong can become right and right can become wrong? In a program if we obtain the accurate output we want through the code that is developed and the code is as efficient as could be what would be wrong with the code? What is the error in the programming code? Think of society and existence as one big gigantic program and if you manipulate the variables and the inputs you can influence the outputs and outcomes in a positive or negative way." These are the type of things I would ask your mother.

If breaking the law such as this type of law could save lives why wouldn't one break the law?


I'm not sure how to respond to this, Cube Demon. It seems to me that you are taking one slim possibility and carrying it to an extreme. We need to consider the likelihood of one outcome rather than another. Yes, there is a minute possibility that the cocaine residue would lead to the discovery of cancer, because everything is possible. However, it is unlikely. There is a greater possibility that 1) a cure for cancer would have nothing to do with that baggie and/or 2) a child (or even an adult) would be harmed by injecting some of the cocaine residue. So we make rules to prevent some of the situations which are more likely to cause harm than benefit.



postcards57
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 343
Location: Canada

06 Jul 2012, 3:45 pm

Quote:
Reply with quote
Quote:
If he experiences behavioral problems at school AND at home, then he is not a structure-dependent youngster.


Not necessarily true. If the teacher isn't clear about rules, these kids may act out. Also, they might act out in unstructured setting like recess.


Absolutely. The structure of school is actually quite loose. A lot of things happen unpredictably and arbitrarily. There might not be time to finish one task so it is postponed, the teacher is absent and there is a substitute, a child gets in trouble one day for doing something and another one does the same thing the next day without being punished....

And home settings can be more or less structured and predictable. I find that there is an element of security that promotes resilience to change. If my dd knows she is going to get supper, and trusts me to make something she'll eat, she doesn't get upset if it isn't ready on time. But if she is at school and can't go out for "lunch recess" there is drama, because she doesn't feel as safe or secure in that setting.

J.



InThisTogether
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,812
Location: USA

06 Jul 2012, 9:29 pm

Quote:
Having a set of rules to follow on a day-to-day basis is the most important issue for an Aspergers (High-Functioning Autism) child who is “structure-dependent.” Once this child has a list of DOs and DONTs to follow, there tends to be few concerns except in areas where the parent has not yet established rules, in which case the structure-dependent youngster becomes confused.


This is definitely my daughter. As long as she knows what to expect and things go as expected, you will hardly see any issues at all. But if she is in an unfamiliar environment and doesn't know what to do or if something unexpected happens that violates her expectations of what should happen, she appears at least twice as autistic as she usually does. It doesn't even matter if she doesn't like the rules or if things don't go "her way" as long as she expects that it is going to happen that way. One time after a epic fail of a birthday party, my son even commented "Well, mom, I guess we didn't come up with enough rules."



SanityTheorist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,106
Location: The Akuma Afterglow

07 Jul 2012, 7:34 am

Definitely an acting-in child...especially since it mentions common perfectionism and need for emotional expression to bne taught. My mentor helped me find that, not my father. Music has been very powerful to me ever since.


_________________
My music at: http://www.youtube.com/user/SanityTheorist5/videos

Currently working on getting in a studio to record my solo album 40+ tracks written.

Chatroom nicks: MetalFluttershy/MetalTwilight/SanityTheorist


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419

07 Jul 2012, 12:17 pm

postcards57 wrote:
Cube Demon wrote:
Quote:
I wrote this a while back
"Let's say a person buys crack cocaine. He uses it and dumps the baggie on the floor. It has crack residue. A child who is a curious sort will go and see this baggie. This child is a genius by the way. The child sees it, examines it, and thinks nothing of it for 20-25 years. This prodigiy has a PHd now and is working on a cure for cancer. He remembers the baggie he saw with the residue. It gives him an idea in what direction to go to find a cure for cancer. His idea leads to a cure for cancer 10 years later. Without him seeing this baggie more than likely he would not have had the idea.

We had a negative input that led to a positive outcome.

Why are drugs and drug use always negative if there is a possibility it could lead to this? If this person who dropped the baggie was not a crack addict and did not abuse and use crack more than likely cancer would not be cured.

It is possible that the prodigy could've came up with the idea in a different way. Does this mean that wrong can become right and right can become wrong? In a program if we obtain the accurate output we want through the code that is developed and the code is as efficient as could be what would be wrong with the code? What is the error in the programming code? Think of society and existence as one big gigantic program and if you manipulate the variables and the inputs you can influence the outputs and outcomes in a positive or negative way." These are the type of things I would ask your mother.

If breaking the law such as this type of law could save lives why wouldn't one break the law?


I'm not sure how to respond to this, Cube Demon. It seems to me that you are taking one slim possibility and carrying it to an extreme. We need to consider the likelihood of one outcome rather than another. Yes, there is a minute possibility that the cocaine residue would lead to the discovery of cancer, because everything is possible. However, it is unlikely. There is a greater possibility that 1) a cure for cancer would have nothing to do with that baggie and/or 2) a child (or even an adult) would be harmed by injecting some of the cocaine residue. So we make rules to prevent some of the situations which are more likely to cause harm than benefit.


Maybe this will help a bit.

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

Let's say I throw a small pebble across a pond. What do you see? One second after, you see a ripple effect. Maybe a few seconds later you see a whole bunch of frogs jump. One male frog meets another female frog. For hundreds of years inbreeding ocurrs. A certain gene is produced decades later which leads to a general cure for all viruses. What would've happened if I never threw this pebble? It may have been this gene never was produced and this cure for viruses would not be discovered.

Certain things may seem innocuous now but as the years (100s,1000s,tens of thousands, millions) go by and as the order of magnitude increases the changes may have an exponential effect. From this theory, I am asking why are wrong and negative things that are considered wrong and negative always considered wrong and negative?

The thing is it could cause immediate harm but it could do major good as the orders of magnitude truly increases. What is the correct resolution to this? When I look at it long term and the overall bigger picture certain things that can seem negative could turn out to be positive. Again, I don't understand. I wish conservative and family value types could answer this as well. I need major help with this connumdrum.