Has anyone attempted to divide Aspergers into subtypes?

Post Reply New Topic

zukenkerl....do not even bother to go there wizz meee zees morning, honey.......

ah...but if we could meet face to face......

back to the bible belt......

and if yo uare such a fan of guantanamo -- go check in.....

whoopie....there is a show on the Bush dynasty on sunday morning tv here in OZ.....better rush.... do not want to miss my heroes........

ps. obama could be a little too right for my liking but at least he will redeem the US in the eyes of those of us around the worls who consider the last 8 years of its leadership as farcical and ignorant and totally simplistic in both sentiment and outcomes.
(and yeah, i know all about 9/11 - my uncle was there. so do not bother to give me a lecture on the evils of terrorism....)

pps. david hicks david hicks david hicks.....

Lorna Wing wrote about four ASD subtypes in her book The Autistic Spectrum: A Guide for Parents and Professionals -- the aloof group, the passive group, the "active but odd" group, and the over-formal, stilted group. If I remember correctly, she states that people with ASDs often fall into more than one of these categories. But you'll probably have to get hold of a copy of the book if you want to read up on it. I don't know if it's available online anywhere.

I really can't understand how or why anybody would want to divide a continuim up into component parts or pieces to begin with. It just doesn't compute but this is about the 10th such thread I've seen on the subject.

I liked the types video.

I've been studying George S. Patton lately, and he seems like the Morrissey type, and doesn't fit the other types.

Someone with AS that I know personally fits the Warhol type perfectly, and again, none of the other types.

However, I fit Einstein, and Carroll types accurately. So I guess the distinct categories fall down there.

Still, this is the sort of thing that the OP was suggesting.

That most people with AS can be such a varied bunch, I think, is down to the fact that our senses (and sensitivities) have a different mix. This holds true if you believe that our senses include Facial Identification, and Social Awareness (on top of touch, taste etc).

A fair amount of what I see presented in this thread is difference in personality, rather than difference in AS type.

Oh yes, and finding a *cause* for AS would probably answer the question of subtypes...

This is quite funny, because I seem to fit into all 4 of these groups! Maybe not all at the same time, sometimes this was at different times in my life. (For instance, I´ve gotten over the "stilted, over formal" thing, but I was that at one time....) I guess I´ve "done it all"!

In addition, when I read Tony Attwood´s book, he mentioned 4 different coping strategies that the AS child may use. Once again, I had used all 4 (at varying points in my life), and even had a 5th coping strategy that I could have written and told him about.

I think if there were categories of AS, we´d probably fall into varying categories too...I think it may be hard to categorize, there are so many individual traits that come with varying combinations in each individual person. But who knows?

Is it possible that the desire to make lists is an AS trait?...

I guess I'm the Einstein type (though my IQ doesn't show it, and I suck at math..

I think there's still a lot of study remaining to better get a handle on AS and autism in general. When I can remember that in the late 70s that autism was a 'new, hot' field for people to get into.

Time gives you perspective, I guess...

ALONENESS.topic.iii

I AM FLABBERGASTED

i truly am;

some of you know i have been experiencing some trouble lately, me regular ET suddenly, and desperately needing to communicate, MYHOME@WP the preferable option

some of you have also seen me return for a day and half now, after over a week's very limited access and no posting (but for a new membership obliolockedout) in order to support Greentea's wonderful interview initiative, which i strongly support within a setting as laid out in my post on Greentea's interview-poll thread;
i would kindly beg to refer: [noteeditlink]

as i found myself in total shock; right when i had finally started writing as i find i need to
(i am experimenting with form at the moment, in order to find expression not just of opinion but me & how my tought works (if only for the purpose of self-exploration: i need to make visible ot cannot learn))
- i knew i had not been quite ready yet, but i could not leave Millie's call unanswered

posting, meanwhile was only done PM'ing Seb via WP, and only at all possible at mum's inapt computer;
i suddenly find myself at similar trouble but luckily still online on same now new pc;
Sebbie is aiding me onto Ubuntu (which may be newspeak southafrican for: "humanity to all" i have been lead to gather - Seb disagrees, but he is young and learns quickly)(he may get me into occasional trouble, but i know it will be worth it, and i am learning fast, me too).
But i do all my writing on the proviso that i find myself at Sebbie's beck&call.

meanwhile, it was all so traumatic that i have considered not returning at all; but YOU LOT, for better or worse, have happened to BE my life, for since slightly over a year now - HOW then (not) to return??? especially while, offcoursed, saving some grace in apologetically eating humble pie -
after such a noisy entrance, promising... well, whatever


@ DISGRACEFUL: WELCOME to WP!
some impressive 2nd posting that:
i was planning to get back to your first post, and still will;
oh, and you are not that new to WP, i checked!

NOTE i have little easy researching capabilities at hand, just glad to be on WP, not gonna wiki for a while; can do this by heart anyway; but i NEEDED the right terminology:

fact being fact, just being totally autistic about that &
sorry to any offended party hereinabove, but .., among all
RL-WP.experts on all matters autism in this thread alone,
your's is the one correct 64Kbit answer: and
yes, this is actually what the OP is asking


@ garywww & each ALISON among us
i do beg your pardon, gary, for what i am about to write to you, but i have been reading your stuff and know you can take it;
personalizing this makes it easier for me to get my point across; and it is worth the transgression, in my honest opinion.

*hums melodically*, then [voice Elvis Costello]:
Alison, i know this world is killing you...
o Alison, my aim is true, ... my aim is true...

I quoted you (and not, gratefully, Disgraceful),
because your take on this matter is very acutely phrased, quite clear, thus not easily misunderstood, and

representative of the attitude of a great many posters on this otherwise wonderful forum;
actually, i am glad WP is as is & NOT otherwise,
as these differences of opinion (of fact),

these attitudes
(such as your's,
echoed by ShadesOfMe, I am always sadly touched by noticing, as i have always been very fond of ShadesOffMe)
towards the furthering of simple knowledge,

when brought to light with such clarity,

can ultimately only serve to improve knowledge,
of fact and fiction, of wisdom and openness,
of wise acceptance of fact;
and of reserved scepsis in consideration of hypothesis.

@Shades, privately:
you got me worried lately, what happened to the signature a couple of months ago? (always found it so cute!); but: more to the point: where has the sad remainder of said signature gone? are you in personal strife? i do worry!

Dear Disgraceful,
WP is home to humanyties, but not as many attitudes - of which there are by definition less than there would be individuals. Of course, people come in types; sciences are built on it, and everybody knows that the lable never matches the individual. (Whether one acts upon one's knowledge rather than professional standing is another matter altogether.)


Labeling, generally, is an essential requirement of even identifying things to discuss, let alone understand them.
No autism, simply, without the word autism.
No discussion without words to discuss, garyww would still be living in the middle ages...

In the scientific debate on autism,
actively being joined by an increasing number of HFAs,

THERE IS NOTHING

AS IMPORTANT AS the question of

AUTISTIC feno-TYPOLOGY


I opened to say i am flabbergasted, i meant to be merely amazed. But couldn't, for this LornaWing-typology exists in the debate since a long time (cant have been as early as 1956, could you check please, disgraced?).

Actually, LW stated only the first three types,
the overly formal type an additon by i think Utah Frith
(if so, 1994) i'll happily sit corrected...

I read all of this within the first month upon my official dx, so march/april last year. I had spent the five weeks ahead of diagnostics consciously avoiding the official literature and restricting myself to a WP diet only; this site hold so much expertise, that i cannot believe nobody picked up on Lorna Wing.

This is the basic stuff, kids. This is Autism, class 1, second semester. Shame on all! But, the other posters in this thread have turned it fascinating, meanwhile;
and if anyone would like me to, I would be happy to check back regularly and delve into individual stuff. It really is all highly informative!

In the debate, i am sure the original intention was to discrimimate (neutral word, NO QUALITY JUDGMENT) between seperate (groups of) autistic subjects.

It could be said, historically, that the ALOOF type is the original type, extreme cases as described by Leo Kanner

(himself not unlikely an aspie, unwittingly! clearly, it takes one to know one; but that does not mean that one can know to be one oneself)

i 'know' of at least one WP representative of the Aloof type, who will not mind (mehopes) being mentioned: danielishisname

it would be easy to (always tentatively) find many of any other type on WP

however, some have astutely remarked how they have a hard time labeling themselves, me too

and me, not only for being spoiled for choice, but also for not getting the correct one, decided that i did, emotionally, indeed feel most akin to the aloof type&description,

oh, and most importantly: emotionally,
the Aloof example PICTURE was so very recognizable

SOMEBODY PLEASE GET THE PICS: check Uta Frith.
all pics were very aptly telling


but obviously i must be beyond even the stilted type, if anything i am not formal at all

so how could that be...?


There are two ways to approach this problem, either with its own merits.

First:
essentially, from within above point of view from distinctive typology, with a view to improve diagnostic procedure,

MORE feno-types need to be considered

(on personal theoretical ground, i would not stop at five, i will come up with a number five, but i will be looking for a total of six fenotypes) and why not right here:

-type no. 5:
the (unawares) 'passively acting', chameleonic type,

mostly female, non-technically oriented > linguistically minded rather, physical autistic extreme traits rather than symptoms, just eccentric loner,

- type no. 6: ... NN (yet)


Second:
as many have noted, there appears to be some ambiguity, likely depending on whether one attempts to lable oneself logically, honestly, neutrally from a (DSMish) point of view of 'diagnostic' self-aware selfobservation of behavioural instances as seen from without; or whether the attempt to lable occur on emotional recognition

as remarked, i felt most akin with the aloof type, and indeed, as verbose as i may be, and may more than him feel a need to com-municate, i am presently answering a long felt almost physical need to ex-press much rather than experience, receive, otherfolk

mayby as if i need to be felt rather than feel for myself

i am passive, always been, lack initiative, lack creative energy (it seemed, for 52 years), but within the the unavoidably required social rituals that are life, i am actually noted for being outgoing!

i am the night porter at the *** hotel, the first to welcome with great fuss and attentiveness and making feel at ease and open eye for the needs of the lost stranger guest,
and the last one the stranger will ever get to truly know

i have captained cricket teams, i (a late comer) find and train and coach newcomers, i coached the ladies to a championship, i have umpired officially, with succes, at national level, and i was never NEVER an autistic overly formal stickler to the rulebook, players loved playing under my rule, because i was much FAIRER than the rulebook could ever be

so, formal, yes, can be, but very self-mockingly so and can very easily turn that off as show and 'perform' myself as authentically as i may be able to experience my emotion (the basic one anger, which leaves little room for openness, so maybe my aloofness is psychotraumatically secondary and not primarily neurologically indused)

thus: i am type no 5 (or even 6)

AND STILL:

the most autistic of words, of exact choice of word, in autism has always been the first one:
an autist may be lonely at times, but so is every individual,
an autist's loneliness may be different from what normal people seem to call lonely, but

no individual other then ANY autist does ALLWAYS feel
ALONE

based on that, one might actually assume this implies loneliness is an UN-autistic phenomenon

and indeed: do i basically NEED, DESIRE, WANT
real life human contact

this is where danielishisname consistently states NO

and, apart from being male thus still more and more often outwardly oriented than any or most girls, aside therefore any need for sexual touch of togetherness, even the act of coming together has never invoked in me a feeling of connectedness, or even anything that might resemble a dissolution of this mental aloneness

on the contrary, i think sex mirrors severalled loneliness, and can to me and my partner only be (highly) valuable if on the acceptance of that emotional insight - if so, sex can be quite emotional on either side, but still, apart

i am not a talker in bed, cannot, need to concentrate


In conclusion,

1. it is very important to label and search for more and improved typology; without it i would have never been recognized for the autist i am, and this applies to every single late life diagnosis on this forum, gary, likely even you
this purtains to the detection of yet unnoticed&unnoticeable autism

2. emotionally, i believe, i 'feel':
A. above typology scientifically to be as valid as presently possible (similar to my take of the DSN, which, sorry Millie, MUST be the one diagnostic tool of reference, simply because it IS)

B. above typology to be applicable to any individual case of autism: inasmuch that:

- aloof:
every autist has aloofness (aloneness) at the core,
basically: not bothered; capable of surprise at mere existence of othermind
young Temple Grandin certainly comes close

- aloof+passive:
translates as passive at core but socially open, aware (not necessarily socially self-reflectively aware): maybe emotionally surprised at being found different; able to retreat in self for sufficient emotional survival
Rainman does come to mind

- aloof+passive+oddly-active:
still aloof at core, but with social needs, not mere social openness, oddly-active is logical, as it is counter-deepcorenature, odd follows from unacquainted (this is a very fragile personality with little emotional defense from bullying) Mr. BEAN!

- aloof+passive+oddly-active+rigidlyformal
even more open, and to an extent successfully so, the pedantic professor, the bythebook-annoying-umpire, &c, any eccentric (if you can afford it); can achieve independent living, providing correctly socially set-up and networked; risk of 'social disappearance' and dropping out; may very well go undiagnozed
Many Jacques Tati characters, Peter Sellers (Being There)

- aloof+passive+oddly-activeOvercome/Available)+ ((un)awares?) chameleonic 'passivacting'

this type can be predicted to be a good flat character actor, teacher and many more, but (to my mind) still incapable of truly creative functionality
creativity will be fully based on differentness of take on waht is already available: re-arranging, re-productive originality; when on the linguistic side, this type will provide great satire (think Monty Python here)

or how about BLACKADDER, or Gregory HOUSE (or shoud they rather go to type 6; that would leave Woody Allen for a possible 5

will this do for a first answer to the OP?

I have the "Crazy Cat Lady" subtype.

Seriously, though, traits I possess include:

1. Good memory, especially for words, dates and places
2. More sympathetic to animals than to people
3. Special interests
4. No delays in language
5. Comparatively weak in math, but no math disability
6. Tendency to be clumsy and to do embarrassingly stupid things

Your tagline says it all!

I don't have an agenda. There ARE some things I would LIKE, though, like standards committees DOING THEIR JOBS! To REFINE and BETTER define standards.

ANSI has the SAME problems. I once saw them try to define a language in a way where it would just cease to be. EVERY program, written in that language, would fail on the newer compilers. Luckily, calmer heads prevailed.

NOW, the DSM(and others), refined a type of autism that basically didn't fit, and moved it into another class. That is GOOD! It comes under REFINE! If they FAILED to refine it, and create the new section, people wouldn't be diagnosed, or treated as if they had less ability than they had, and it would have clouded up the whole idea of a diagnosis. They failed to BETTER define standards though, so it was clouded and now they want to get rid of it ENTIRELY. That is NOT good.

If the DSM defined it properly, everyone would have a diagnosis that could explain them, get appropriate treatment, not be subjected to undue fears/problems, etc... Defining them as one thing will mean that costs/problems will go up, diagnosis may drop, etc.... The only REAL beneficiary is the psychiatrist that will have an easier time diagnosing.

BTW I would ALSO like it if people REALLY could decide from ALL political candidates! The Electoral college is a TOTAL FARSE! It MADE SENSE earlier when they were better educated and better informed, but now it is GARBAGE! We should have a prioritizing system where ALL can select from the candidates, rather than the current system. For those that don't know, the current system is:

1.Candidates are voted on based on a PRIMARY by mostly the party members.
2.Hopefully, the winning candidates select a vice president.
3.They then vote a SECOND time for their states electors pledging support for their NEW choice.
4.The states electors then vote, according to state rules, for the president.
5.It is also rigged so only 2 parties generally have a chance of winning.

It would ALSO be nice if politicians were not exempt from telling the truth(There are ACTUALLY laws saying some fraud laws don't apply to them!), and that such laws were always enforced.

Well, I am basically a DOG person myself but, other than the dates(Which I might APPROXIMATE), I match the above traits! BTW, for the record, some animals, that I have been more sympathetic to, HAVE been cats, so I don't have any problem with them. I just wish some house cats weren't so devious/sneaky.

I saw a list of types that was a list of celebrity names (celebrities who obviously don't have it). Are you a Spielberg Aspie?

I don't see how Spielberg has it. How could you and be involved in such a social industry with that much sensory input all the f*****g time?

Are you a Morrissey Aspie?

I'd put Morrissey as more of a schizoid than anything.

Then I think Einstein was one, obviously, and also Bill Gates.

One of the problems that makes autism so unique is that is no 'one' or even'multiples' of types so in effect each and every individual would need a unique set of defining criteria which simply isn't possible.

I'm making this a new post rather than an edit just because it's going to be sooo long.

Anyway, yeah. There is something with the celebrity names.

This site

and

This old topic

Maybe the video got to the celeb names eventually. I don't watch videos because I hate how slowly they scroll.

From the site, I don't see how Spielberg even fits. Extroverted? Sociable? Well, maybe there's still the sensory issues/language issues, but they don't say that in the description.

The only celebrity on that list who actually is confirmed to be AS is Nicholls, although I'd say Lewis Carroll probably was (especially if you look at what he wrote) and maybe Andy Warhol, although I think Warhol had other issues, too. From that, I'd say although I identify with Morrissey, their description for him is just plain wrong. Out of their criteria, I'm more like a "Carroll" but I'm not passive. It's just that I don't care about friendships when it comes to my interests.

Meyers-Briggs classifications (for example; Im INTP_

And what are those, pray tell?