• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

A THEORY ON ASPIEISM. (Random thoughts by Grumpy Cat)

Grumpy Cat

Well-Known Member
I've been thinking a lot about Aspies lately after finding out that the guy nurse that orientated me is a probable Aspie. I had my suspicions from certain things he did and said so I just came out and asked him in which he said that he hadn't actually been diagnosed, but did believe he was one. My new friend that I made at my new work place was telling me about her boyfriend and certain ways he acts that are different from her. Strange, but he too sounded like an Aspie and I asked her outright. Later on she said she asked her boyfriend if he was Aspie so he looked it up and said that he did have a lot of the traits and possibly could be. Which leads me to my theory - Could it be possible that there are tons of more Aspies out there that just don't know they are Aspie (unfamiliar with the condition) and also those that think they have it and haven't been officially diagnosed?

Which makes me wonder something else. Say there are tons of these Aspies out there, how do we know that maybe there could be 50% of people that are possibly Aspies? All Aspies are unique just as all NT's are unique, right? Some Aspies aren't as sensitive to some things (light, pain), can understand sarcasm, have empathy, etc. Same as there are some NT's that have some sensitivities, not much empathy seen (NT men usually), depression, etc.

Which leads me to my question - Since people are all unique and I'll say "on a spectrum", might NT's and Aspies have more in common with each other and Aspies aren't really a minority? And might Aspergers be another way that people are being categorized and made to feel like they are "different" from everyone else when in actuality they are not any different from any other NT walking on the street. Just like you have your extroverted people and your introverted people. I'm NT, but I need my downtime just like some Aspies. I think Psychology is a touchy subject and I think that people are categorized into certain little boxes where their behavior can be looked at and scrutinized so that "doctors" can make some sense out of that person's behavior. When I went to a psychiatrist before, one tried to lump me in as a bipolar when another one said I was clearly not that. Why would I have to be categorized as anything? Maybe I'm just grumpy!

What are your thoughts about this?
 
Suppose this comes down to the notion of "how much do you suffer from your autism?"

Plenty of people don't suffer that much and don't have a lot of struggles. They might still be on the spectrum, since having ASD doesn't equal "suffering".

I don't have issues with my ASD either; but I might struggle when I'm turned loose into the great wide world, hence it's why I got my diagnosis. My peculiarities might even be perceived "personality traits" much like everyone has his/her own set of traits. I, and perhaps others on this forum, just happen to have this configuration of traits that's a bit more incompatible with other people, the educational system and perhaps the jobmarket in general.

I sometimes wonder if autism in general isn't just another pathology, like many other "mental illnesses" but one can wonder if we need to pathologize everything.
 
Which makes me wonder how did they come up with "High Functioning Autism"? I've seen some autistic children and they are really in their own world and not able to even communicate. Do you suppose that the "Psychology Community of Doctors" I'll call them, came up with this diagnosis and went along with it for awhile until they realized that there really isn't a difference among most individuals out in the world and therefore it was stricken from the books and no longer seen as an actual "disability"? That is correct that it is no longer seen as a disability by the Psychology community, is it not?

One thing I'm not trying to do is discredit the problems Aspie's have. I'm just trying to make sense out of all of it because I'm really into psychology and I don't like labels. I'd like to think of my Aspie friend and my possible Aspie co-worker as having their own personalities and not being seen or treated as a defective. Maybe my Aspie friend is just an introvert and likes his solitude while my possible Aspie co-worker just has a strange sense of humor amongst other things.

Would you like to be seen as introverted or quiet, liking your own company instead of others, a logical thinker, and having a lot of interest in certain hobbies instead of being put under a diagnosis of AS? Or maybe I'm wrong and some don't want to not be an Aspie. My thing is that when you categorize someone under a diagnosis that has some negative connotations to others then that person starts believing they are different and inferior when they really aren't leading to more depression. NT's (me) have trouble making friends, I can't stand a loud workplace and that's why I work nights, sometimes I have a hard time reading some people's facial cues and I can't always look everyone in the eyes.

Just some things to ponder that's been on my mind.
 
If you're referring to HFA as no longer being seen as a disablity.. it still is, but just like Asperger's the clumped it all together under a generic autism umbrella. Whether that actually helps people in terms of support, therapy, treatment, and whatever they need, remains to be seen in the future.

What you say about your friend might very well be. Maybe he's just a bit "strange" for lack of a better word. But compared to the norm I'm strange as well, and that ultimately comes down to what society wants us to be and how much leeway for being different there is. I've always perceived the idea of being "different" to be "You can be a strange person, but within reason". As it seems there are certain unwritten rules society puts up with and if you go beyond that in a multitude of areas, you don't fit in and the men in white coats come over and diagnose you. No one ever set these things in stone, so it's more a judgment call than anything.

I believe, that many people on this forum actually got a diagnosis for legal reasons. Support for employment, disability income, stuff like that. They could just as well be that introvert loner with narrow interests, without referring to Asperger's at all. But alas, we live in a system that requires everyone to be accountable for everything and thus some end up with a diagnosis.

I personally never perceived a diagnosis as a negative thing. If anything it probably helped me a bit on the way when it came to setting up a support network. But then again, I do believe that without medical documents (or a psych record if you will) you only sound half as credible and getting some form of assistance is a long shot.

What's important to differentiate is when you say "I can't stand a loud workplace and I work at night"... what does it do to you? Does it make you non-functional? Or do you just have a hard time coping with the environment and you go home stressed out? If it's just trying to cope with it (and I'm not saying that that's easy at all) it's only half as bad as being non-functional since that's when you're not a valueable asset to an employer (or in case of education; you underperform signifcantly).
 
Edit: I'm responding to the aspie piece, not the HFA piece, which might be important. --A4H.

Possible...but.

I think of it as being akin to photography's zone system. Black, white, and the shades between. How dark is too dark to go without a label?
  • When you're a nuisance to other people?
  • When they're a nuisance to you?
  • When you have the same problems over and over and you're sick of trying things that don't work?
  • When you can't meet cultural expectations? Familial expectations?
  • When you live with semi-permanent job or income insecurity because work turns out to be all about social skills and the person least able to master them is the one required to specialize in them?
  • When you commit criminal acts?
Traits "distinctly aspie" (hyperfocus, loyalty, task- and results-orientation) get me into trouble repeatedly when I happen to be dealing with people who are pulling their paychecks instead of their weight. There's a whole cascade of problems that can come down on the "one not like the others" in that scenario. When I start laying out my data, the fireworks fly, because the data doesn't lie. And I don't have the social skills to manage the scenario. "C'mon, people, it's just data." I get motives I never imagined imputed to me, usually in raised voices.

Would you like to be seen as introverted or quiet, liking your own company instead of others, a logical thinker, and having a lot of interest in certain hobbies instead of being put under a diagnosis of AS?

I spent most of my life thinking I was thought of as someone who had "quirks" but the herd mentality takes over when the budget cuts come. The people who aren't like the others get budgets balanced on their backs, and employers don't like people who don't "fit in."

If you're hypersensitive or overloaded, you're just being a diva, a drama queen, or "doing it for the attention." Yes, even as adults. If you can't feel my pain, how much do I have to suffer before I'm believed? Burnt popcorn at 2:30pm? Jackhammer outside? I'm down until I can relocate. Required movie on safety showing actual injuries? I threw up.

There should be something more for a response for me than "it's hard to be you. Too bad." Or the presumption that I'm making it all up.

If there's a word for it, there's something to combat the need to dismiss difference as insignificant when difference really does matter.

IMHO, as always.
 
If you're referring to HFA as no longer being seen as a disablity.. it still is, but just like Asperger's the clumped it all together under a generic autism umbrella. Whether that actually helps people in terms of support, therapy, treatment, and whatever they need, remains to be seen in the future.

What you say about your friend might very well be. Maybe he's just a bit "strange" for lack of a better word. But compared to the norm I'm strange as well, and that ultimately comes down to what society wants us to be and how much leeway for being different there is. I've always perceived the idea of being "different" to be "You can be a strange person, but within reason". As it seems there are certain unwritten rules society puts up with and if you go beyond that in a multitude of areas, you don't fit in and the men in white coats come over and diagnose you. No one ever set these things in stone, so it's more a judgment call than anything.

I believe, that many people on this forum actually got a diagnosis for legal reasons. Support for employment, disability income, stuff like that. They could just as well be that introvert loner with narrow interests, without referring to Asperger's at all. But alas, we live in a system that requires everyone to be accountable for everything and thus some end up with a diagnosis.

I personally never perceived a diagnosis as a negative thing. If anything it probably helped me a bit on the way when it came to setting up a support network. But then again, I do believe that without medical documents (or a psych record if you will) you only sound half as credible and getting some form of assistance is a long shot.

What's important to differentiate is when you say "I can't stand a loud workplace and I work at night"... what does it do to you? Does it make you non-functional? Or do you just have a hard time coping with the environment and you go home stressed out? If it's just trying to cope with it (and I'm not saying that that's easy at all) it's only half as bad as being non-functional since that's when you're not a valueable asset to an employer (or in case of education; you underperform signifcantly).



(taking a coughing break during exercising)

Well, let me think about that day work thing. What I remember was one specific time when call lights were going off, a bed alarm was going off, people at the nurses desk were talking and I was next to two doctors talking.i just couldn't think anymore and felt a panic attack starting and I just had to get out of there so I went quickly to the restroom and stayed until the call lights and the bed alarm were answered and tended to then I came back out. What happens at night isn't as bad because the stimulus of the lights and doctors and other staff is cut off. Sometimes I will retreat to the restroom (usually at the beginning of a shift) if there are a lot of call lights, telephones and IV alarms going off. Then we also have these cell phones where anyone can get us including family and patients at any given time and I will actually get mad if I can't focus and do my job properly. I can only do about two tasks at a time then I get overwhelmed. I would only do dayshift out of necessity and I wouldn't be working to my full potential and certainly wouldn't be happy.
 
Last edited:
I am enjoying this thread. It is actually a very good question and I have wondered this from time to time myself. Dr. Grandin's book "The Autistic Mind" actually discusses the possibility of eliminating the label-based model of psychiatry, in favor of treating each individual based on their unique profile of needs and abilities.

Sorry not to contribute more to this discussion just now. Have a massive sinus headache so I hope this much is coherent...
 
I've been thinking a lot about Aspies lately after finding out that the guy nurse that orientated me is a probable Aspie. I had my suspicions from certain things he did and said so I just came out and asked him in which he said that he hadn't actually been diagnosed, but did believe he was one. My new friend that I made at my new work place was telling me about her boyfriend and certain ways he acts that are different from her. Strange, but he too sounded like an Aspie and I asked her outright. Later on she said she asked her boyfriend if he was Aspie so he looked it up and said that he did have a lot of the traits and possibly could be. Which leads me to my theory - Could it be possible that there are tons of more Aspies out there that just don't know they are Aspie (unfamiliar with the condition) and also those that think they have it and haven't been officially diagnosed?

Which makes me wonder something else. Say there are tons of these Aspies out there, how do we know that maybe there could be 50% of people that are possibly Aspies? All Aspies are unique just as all NT's are unique, right? Some Aspies aren't as sensitive to some things (light, pain), can understand sarcasm, have empathy, etc. Same as there are some NT's that have some sensitivities, not much empathy seen (NT men usually), depression, etc.

Which leads me to my question - Since people are all unique and I'll say "on a spectrum", might NT's and Aspies have more in common with each other and Aspies aren't really a minority? And might Aspergers be another way that people are being categorized and made to feel like they are "different" from everyone else when in actuality they are not any different from any other NT walking on the street. Just like you have your extroverted people and your introverted people. I'm NT, but I need my downtime just like some Aspies. I think Psychology is a touchy subject and I think that people are categorized into certain little boxes where their behavior can be looked at and scrutinized so that "doctors" can make some sense out of that person's behavior. When I went to a psychiatrist before, one tried to lump me in as a bipolar when another one said I was clearly not that. Why would I have to be categorized as anything? Maybe I'm just grumpy!

What are your thoughts about this?

Yours is an example of observational selection bias. Aspies are on your mind, so interactions with and conversations about potential aspies are more likely to be noticed and remembered. They appear more common, even when they aren't.

Autism affects about 1.5 percent of the US population (1 in 68). (To put that number in perspective, 1.5 percent is almost three times higher than the proportion of people who travel by bicycle in the US. Do you find it unusual to see a bicyclist or two on the road on any given day?) Someone who works around lots of people can expect to encounter several people with ASD each week.

(Tangential note: In statistics, if we notice a pattern in a data set, we can form a testable hypothesis based on that pattern. However, in order to test that hypothesis, we must obtain a new sample of data. We always ask the questions prior to observing the data.)

If we assume your hypothesis of 50 percent of the population having AS, and further assume that aspies are not less likely to seek psychological assessment or treatment than the population at large, then we would expect at least 50 percent of people who visit psychologists to be diagnosed with AS/ASD. (With such prevalence, it would be a characteristic worthy of notation, but not something that would be "diagnosed.") It would be something psychologists would automatically look for. That isn't happening.

Over the next several decades, the proportion of the population recognized as having ASD will likely increase. AS did not make it into the DSM until the mid 1990s, so many aspies were not diagnosed during childhood, when such a diagnosis is typically most likely. Moving forward, fewer kids are likely to fall through the cracks. However, aspies will most likely remain a small minority.
 
Yours is an example of observational selection bias. Aspies are on your mind, so interactions with and conversations about potential aspies are more likely to be noticed and remembered. They appear more common, even when they aren't.

Autism affects about 1.5 percent of the US population (1 in 68). (To put that number in perspective, 1.5 percent is almost three times higher than the proportion of people who travel by bicycle in the US. Do you find it unusual to see a bicyclist or two on the road on any given day?) Someone who works around lots of people can expect to encounter several people with ASD each week.

(Tangential note: In statistics, if we notice a pattern in a data set, we can form a testable hypothesis based on that pattern. However, in order to test that hypothesis, we must obtain a new sample of data. We always ask the questions prior to observing the data.)

If we assume your hypothesis of 50 percent of the population having AS, and further assume that aspies are not less likely to seek psychological assessment or treatment than the population at large, then we would expect at least 50 percent of people who visit psychologists to be diagnosed with AS/ASD. (With such prevalence, it would be a characteristic worthy of notation, but not something that would be "diagnosed.") It would be something psychologists would automatically look for. That isn't happening.

Over the next several decades, the proportion of the population recognized as having ASD will likely increase. AS did not make it into the DSM until the mid 1990s, so many aspies were not diagnosed during childhood, when such a diagnosis is typically most likely. Moving forward, fewer kids are likely to fall through the cracks. However, aspies will most likely remain a small minority.

I don't believe it's because Aspies are on my mind, I think it's rather that I know what to look for now. Most psychologists probably aren't really looking for AS unless they specialize in it. What probably will happen is the person will be grouped under "anxiety" or "depression" which a lot of Aspies on this site have. You can't really treat AS, can you? But you can treat anxiety and depression and therefore keep a patient and get paid. That's why I don't think people are being diagnosed properly and there are more Aspies out there than we know.

I've read on some threads that AS has been changed in the DSM book. Is the change acknowledging it more or dismissing it more?
 
I don't believe it's because Aspies are on my mind, I think it's rather that I know what to look for now. Most psychologists probably aren't really looking for AS unless they specialize in it. What probably will happen is the person will be grouped under "anxiety" or "depression" which a lot of Aspies on this site have. You can't really treat AS, can you? But you can treat anxiety and depression and therefore keep a patient and get paid. That's why I don't think people are being diagnosed properly and there are more Aspies out there than we know.

I've read on some threads that AS has been changed in the DSM book. Is the change acknowledging it more or dismissing it more?
You said in your post you've been thinking a lot about aspies. Without a proper sampling method, observational selection bias is exceedingly likely.

AS may not be curable, or even something most aspies would want cured, but that doesn't mean many aspies don't utilize the services of a therapist, so an AS diagnosis does little to risk the financial wellbeing of psychologists. In fact, since depression and anxiety are commonly treated with drugs, it is not in a psychologists best financial interest to make such diagnoses in place of an ASD diagnosis (if we are to assume that medical professionals are in it only for the money).

The change (removal) of AS in the DSM was recognition that it AS is part of the autism spectrum, not a separate disorder. AS is gone from the DSM for the same reason that the brontosaurus is gone from paleontology.
 
You said in your post you've been thinking a lot about aspies. Without a proper sampling method, observational selection bias is exceedingly likely.

AS may not be curable, or even something most aspies would want cured, but that doesn't mean many aspies don't utilize the services of a therapist, so an AS diagnosis does little to risk the financial wellbeing of psychologists. In fact, since depression and anxiety are commonly treated with drugs, it is not in a psychologists best financial interest to make such diagnoses in place of an ASD diagnosis (if we are to assume that medical professionals are in it only for the money).

The change (removal) of AS in the DSM was recognition that it AS is part of the autism spectrum, not a separate disorder. AS is gone from the DSM for the same reason that the brontosaurus is gone from paleontology.

What I am saying is that most people who should be diagnosed as AS are probably seeing a therapist under an anxiety or depression diagnosis. If a therapist diagnosed AS, how is the therapist going to treat that? When you go to a therapist or doctor, one has to be placed under a diagnosis so that insurance will cover it. Most therapists don't specialize in AS and therefore aren't looking for it and that's why I believe a lot of people who actually have AS are being put under another diagnosis and therefore throwing the numbers off of how many people actually have AS. And if you think I'm having observational selection bias with as few people as I talk to in a week (get out 2-3 days a week) then I can see how a therapist would be reluctant to diagnose AS instead of something else.

It doesn't appear that the change of Aspergers in the DSM is a benefit to Aspies. It appears to me that they are trying to phase out Aspergers and make it seem less important. Some kids with autism are really bad off and that's why HFA shouldn't be lumped in with the autism group.

Autism spectrum diagnoses: The DSM-5 eliminates Asperger’s and PDD-NOS.
 
Last edited:
You said in your post you've been thinking a lot about aspies. Without a proper sampling method, observational selection bias is exceedingly likely.
Oh my god, Jaywalker, I love how you talk. (seriously and without any trace of irony)

Anyway, I think Grumpycat, that while you're right that a lot of cases of AS, especially in adults, are currently missed, Jaywalker is not ignoring this fact: he is simply saying that the 50/50 ratio you proposed is not very likely, and that when we know what to look for, we notice those things more.

Did you know that there is a portion of the population that believes street lights turn off just for them? I know this because I noticed the street lights. It seemed, for awhile, that every time I went out and was going by a street light, just that light would dim! So I looked it up. Apparently street lights are going out all the time (further complicated by the fact that they go on and off before they go off for good). The thing is, we don't notice the ones that aren't in front of us. So it seems like it is only happening when we are there. And your whole life, you don't notice it, but once you start looking for it, you see it all the time.

ETA: I think this is slightly different from the kind of bias Jaywalker is talking about, but similar. You didn't know what to look for before, but now you notice the aspies, and now that you do, it seems like they are there whenever you go out. But how many have you really mentioned? Three (including your friend)? Out of how many people you encounter? And there is always the possibility that you attract aspies or something. I mean, I often find myself in situations with more aspies, but I think that's because like attracts like, or I end up working at places that suit me (and thus others that are similar to me), etc.

It could also be that we're all taking you way too literally and you just mean that there are more aspies than people realize, and we agree on that point. (/ETA)

But yes, I agree that some people function well enough that they have never thought to seek diagnosis, and the labels and boxes, as you put it, do not suit everyone. It is a spectrum, and our labels aren't able to reflect that. However, it is a real spectrum with a neurological basis. You might be interested in Tony Attwoods re-description of AS not as a syndrome but as just a different way of thinking/being in the world: The Discovery of "Aspie" Criteria

As for the DSM, yes, it is all about insurance and money. Although the researchers who proposed the change may have genuinely felt that 'spectrum' was a more accurate description, in the end, the nature of the DSM is to determine who qualifies for assistance and who doesn't, and if people can use the idea of 'spectrum' to save money, they will. The pilot studies for the DSM-V had varying results. Some indicated that it would significantly reduce the number of ASD diagnoses, particularly for those who were previously diagnosed as AS or PDD-NOS and had high IQ. Other studies showed no change, and the DSM people point to these to say that they are not trying to lower the number of autism diagnoses. I'm not sure how they decided this. Maybe they had a good reason to believe those results.
 
Last edited:
I agree, there could be loads more aspies out there that just don't know they're aspies. I may have been young enough to have theoretically had a chance to get diagnosed back in the 1990's when i was a kid, but they were still so new to it back then. I swear they must've only diagnosed little boys and at that, boys that obviously had problems at school and at home due to it. People like me who have legitimate issues (but either they aren't as bad or i simply hide them better) get missed. Some people are obvious, I'm not all that obvious. Not enough to have been diagnosed as a kid anyways.

Its been said that aspies are either prone to meltdowns or shutdowns, one or the other, and i think this can be an indicator of whether they were likely to have been diagnosed as children or not as well. I was always prone to shutdowns so i never had any of the behavioral issues that, when i was a kid, teachers would have been told to look for that a meltdown-prone aspie may have shown, and, thus, gotten a diagnosis for. Nowadays the teachers seem better trained at what to look for; my aunt's son is in elementary school and got a diagnosis really early on and he's the quiet nerdy type from what little i've seen of him. Nothing like the only aspie i knew growing up in elementary school. Same goes for one of the little girls my sister used to cheerlead with.

This whole issue actually made me question for ages if i'm actually an aspie or not, because i never got diagnosed as a kid and to this day am reluctant to try for one. Fortunately the aspie i work with at my cashier job has settled those doubts without my ever saying a word about it to him. You don't have to be really obvious and extreme to be an aspie and have difficulties from it. For the record, i've never been explicitly told or heard verbatim that he's diagnosed and told them when he got hired but i heard the supervisors talking around the time he got hired.
 
What I am saying is that most people who should be diagnosed as AS are probably seeing a therapist under an anxiety or depression diagnosis. If a therapist diagnosed AS, how is the therapist going to treat that? When you go to a therapist or doctor, one has to be placed under a diagnosis so that insurance will cover it. Most therapists don't specialize in AS and therefore aren't looking for it and that's why I believe a lot of people who actually have AS are being put under another diagnosis and therefore throwing the numbers off of how many people actually have AS. And if you think I'm having observational selection bias with as few people as I talk to in a week (get out 2-3 days a week) then I can see how a therapist would be reluctant to diagnose AS instead of something else.

It doesn't appear that the change of Aspergers in the DSM is a benefit to Aspies. It appears to me that they are trying to phase out Aspergers and make it seem less important. Some kids with autism are really bad off and that's why HFA shouldn't be lumped in with the autism group.

Autism spectrum diagnoses: The DSM-5 eliminates Asperger’s and PDD-NOS.
That's the thing. If AS is as prevalent as you hypothesize, it would be one of the very first things psychologists would look for, if only to rule it out. And it would have been discovered much earlier in the field of psychology. Even if Freud missed it, Jung would have been all over it.

Treatment for AS? Even with no comorbid conditions, a therapist can serve as someone to confide in, a trustworthy NT who can help them understand how they differ from NTs, and to offer possible strategies that can help to keep those differences from preventing an independent, productive life.

With comorbid conditions, an AS diagnosis additionally provides a psychologist with the insight about which conditions are more probable compared to the population at large.

I have the opposite opinion of the effect of the removal of AS as a separate condition in the DSM. Recognizing it as part of the autism spectrum indicates just how serious AS is. The three levels of the spectrum seem better than a multitude of names. There are, after all, significant differences even among aspies. Should we instead adopt dozens of different names for AS to account for the most significant of those differences? Personally, I favor simplification when practical.

I confess that telling someone I have Autism Spectrum Disorder is potentially more embarrassing than telling them I have Asperger's Syndrome, but that has more to do with the negative connotation that autism carries in our society. That's society's problem (and needs to change).
 
To be honest, I just don't bog my mind with such things, since many times, I am on overload.

I am not officially diagnosed, which, in its self is ironic ie so called professionals because they have a label :D

I do not think it is so much about accepting us ie aspies, in a nt world, or at best, only a fraction. It is how we feel being around people.

As sense of being alien and I am pretty sure that if I were in a room with unbeknownst aspies, I would react the same way as if they were nts and suspect they would feel the same way.

I think the issue is that many of us, do not look visibly handicapped, until we start trying to talk and there is: mm this person is not right. If you take a clear cut autistic person, who looks handicapped and compared that one, alongside a severely handicapped autistic person, one would not say that the first one is not autistic, but is less effected than the other.

I met a young woman who is well spoken and articulate and yet, she clearly suffers from down syndrome; it is not prominent in her face and thus, she has it mildly. She cannot read very well and needs a lot of sleep.

So, the prejudice that we aspies encounter is because unless it is visible, we are treated as though we are nts, but just complicated.

I live in France and so far I have not heard of another aspie, but to be fair, I do not travel. I know this English woman who's son is an aspie and as she describes him, I recognise many similarities between us. He is in England and married to an nt. This lady explained that when he was getting married, he said to his mum: so I guess this means I don't love you now? She explained it is a different type of love. She goes to him for affection. He recently said to his mum that his wife wanted him to join him, in visiting her parents, but he point blank refused and his wife was non plussed. When his mum asked him why. He could not explain, but just that he doesn't like them. I empathise with him. He is very talented and has his poetry published. I hate poetry lol

I so agree with you on psychology. I, like you, am deeply interested in the way a person thinks, but what I note about training to be a psychologist is that they have to learn words that the "average" person has no compression about. It would be like you going to a dr and he or she only speaks to the lay person, in medical language. It is ridiculous and thus, I have no wish to get a diploma for it, because I bulk at their method.

People react better with empathy not a machine.

I battle every single day to stay on even ground.

I live 2 seconds away from our baker, but freak out to walk down the road. I have to time going out, when there are less people.
 
I have the opposite opinion of the effect of the removal of AS as a separate condition in the DSM. Recognizing it as part of the autism spectrum indicates just how serious AS is. The three levels of the spectrum seem better than a multitude of names. There are, after all, significant differences even among aspies. Should we instead adopt dozens of different names for AS to account for the most significant of those differences? Personally, I favor simplification when practical.
I agree that just as a matter of accuracy in terminology, ASD is a better categorization. However, I think the problems arise more from the change in how ASD is diagnosed under DSM-V. It's not just an issue of the label.

Take a look at the DSM-IV criteria for Asperger's Syndrome (I've bolded certain differences):

(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

(IV) There is no clinically significant general delay in language (E.G. single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)

(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.
Now, ASD under DSM-V:

A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
  1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
  2. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
  3. Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.
B. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
  1. Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypes, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases).
  2. Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior (e.g., extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat same food every day).
  3. Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests).
  4. Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g. apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement).
Specify current severity:
Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior.
  1. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life).
  2. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.
  3. These disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay. Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to make comorbid diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, social communication should be below that expected for general developmental level.
Note: Individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Individuals who have marked deficits in social communication, but whose symptoms do not otherwise meet criteria for autism spectrum disorder, should be evaluated for social (pragmatic) communication disorder.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
I took interest in that last part since I was originally diagnosed with SCD. This article pretty much sums up my thoughts on that issue.

Now, there are a number of ways in which the new ASD criteria are more descriptive--for instance, including sensory impairment which I would think is definitely a good thing. However, there is the quite glaring issue that someone needs to meet more criteria, in the eyes of the diagnosing clinician, to be diagnosed with ASD than with Asperger's--3 rather than 2 in social communication and 2 rather than 1 in restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior. This is not to mention Tony Attwoods hypothesis that the repetitive and restricted behaviors seen in ASD are actually a way of coping with high anxiety rather than a primary symptom of ASD. If you look further at guidelines for applying the criteria and levels to ASD, you see that impairment in functioning (coincidentally, the part most relevant to whether people feel someone with ASD deserves support and benefits--the money question, in short) is the key issue in whether or not symptoms qualify as being indicative of ASD.

As for the studies I mentioned, I don't remember the ones I originally looked up, but these have similar findings. They all found lower rates of diagnosis of ASD under DSM-5, especially for females and high-functioning people. I am not in a position to sort through it all--for one thing, I don't know what version of the DSM-5 criteria all were considering. As this study explains, the first proposed DSM-5 criteria were much poorer at detecting ASD, and a lot depended on researcher's interpretation of the language. They sum up the current state of research thusly:

"The proposed change to a single ASD category, as well as the requirement that there must be a history of restricted and repetitive behaviors, has led some to believe that DSM-5 will make it more difficult for some individuals with PDDs to qualify for a diagnosis. The comprehensive review by Wing et al. of the proposed criteria articulates some of these concerns, explaining that DSM-5 could inadvertently exclude subgroups of affected people, including very young children, girls, and those with diagnoses of Asperger’s disorder (14). The introduction of “social communication disorder” in DSM-5 raises additional concerns that children currently diagnosed with PDDs will be misclassified with this disorder if they do not meet the DSM-5 requirement for restricted and repetitive behavior.

"In sum, from the existing empirical work, the sensitivity of the proposed DSM-5 criteria remains unclear. "​

It seems to me a legitimate concern that the new criteria reduce diagnoses--and not just a reduction in false positives, but excluding many from the high-functioning end of the spectrum and those who are better at pretending to be normal (especially women). So I think Grumpycat's concern about people trying to get rid of Asperger's is legit--it's not just a name change.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking a lot about Aspies lately after finding out that the guy nurse that orientated me is a probable Aspie. I had my suspicions from certain things he did and said so I just came out and asked him in which he said that he hadn't actually been diagnosed, but did believe he was one. My new friend that I made at my new work place was telling me about her boyfriend and certain ways he acts that are different from her. Strange, but he too sounded like an Aspie and I asked her outright. Later on she said she asked her boyfriend if he was Aspie so he looked it up and said that he did have a lot of the traits and possibly could be. Which leads me to my theory - Could it be possible that there are tons of more Aspies out there that just don't know they are Aspie (unfamiliar with the condition) and also those that think they have it and haven't been officially diagnosed?

Which makes me wonder something else. Say there are tons of these Aspies out there, how do we know that maybe there could be 50% of people that are possibly Aspies? All Aspies are unique just as all NT's are unique, right? Some Aspies aren't as sensitive to some things (light, pain), can understand sarcasm, have empathy, etc. Same as there are some NT's that have some sensitivities, not much empathy seen (NT men usually), depression, etc.

Which leads me to my question - Since people are all unique and I'll say "on a spectrum", might NT's and Aspies have more in common with each other and Aspies aren't really a minority? And might Aspergers be another way that people are being categorized and made to feel like they are "different" from everyone else when in actuality they are not any different from any other NT walking on the street. Just like you have your extroverted people and your introverted people. I'm NT, but I need my downtime just like some Aspies. I think Psychology is a touchy subject and I think that people are categorized into certain little boxes where their behavior can be looked at and scrutinized so that "doctors" can make some sense out of that person's behavior. When I went to a psychiatrist before, one tried to lump me in as a bipolar when another one said I was clearly not that. Why would I have to be categorized as anything? Maybe I'm just grumpy!

What are your thoughts about this?
I've believed in this idea, for some time, too. I know quite a few members here will agree too.
 
Psychology looks like it doesn't even try to falsify its hypotheses.

Might be because of Ethics.

If a therapist diagnosed AS, how is the therapist going to treat that?

The word diagnosis is enough to make people think of diseases. The therapist can try making his communication completely literal, and avoid making his voice mild lest the patient confuses him with a kinder garden teacher. But that's not the kind of treatment you mean, and I get that you are likely asking rhetorically, so I'll just leave it at that.

The people you mention who are unable to communicate are probably able to communicate, but their attempts to do so have been ignored and dismissed as "symptoms" for so long they just sort of gave up. It's very discouraging to have people respond to you in a way reminiscent of professor Umbridge, and I sometimes think neurotypical young children are heroes for not giving up, but for all I know you are right about them.

Speaking requires quite a few motoric abilities, so it's just unfair to say a person can't communicate just because they don't form words with their vocal chords.
 
I've been thinking a lot about Aspies lately after finding out that the guy nurse that orientated me is a probable Aspie. I had my suspicions from certain things he did and said so I just came out and asked him in which he said that he hadn't actually been diagnosed, but did believe he was one. My new friend that I made at my new work place was telling me about her boyfriend and certain ways he acts that are different from her. Strange, but he too sounded like an Aspie and I asked her outright. Later on she said she asked her boyfriend if he was Aspie so he looked it up and said that he did have a lot of the traits and possibly could be. Which leads me to my theory - Could it be possible that there are tons of more Aspies out there that just don't know they are Aspie (unfamiliar with the condition) and also those that think they have it and haven't been officially diagnosed?
Very possible. Some of us are so baseline that at most we're just a little odd and perhaps come across as your stereotypical geek, dork, or nerd, or are just that good at blending in. Those who have more positive symptoms than negative ones often get lauded as great employees because of their attention to detail, dedication, research abilities, or whatever. The fact they're anti-social or don't do well on phones is simply wrote off, even if they still get nagged incessantly about it since they're not 100% perfect in every area. And of course there is the issue of ridiculously expensive insurance and medical costs that prevent many from even attempting to get diagnosed.

Which makes me wonder something else. Say there are tons of these Aspies out there, how do we know that maybe there could be 50% of people that are possibly Aspies? All Aspies are unique just as all NT's are unique, right? Some Aspies aren't as sensitive to some things (light, pain), can understand sarcasm, have empathy, etc. Same as there are some NT's that have some sensitivities, not much empathy seen (NT men usually), depression, etc.

Which leads me to my question - Since people are all unique and I'll say "on a spectrum", might NT's and Aspies have more in common with each other and Aspies aren't really a minority? And might Aspergers be another way that people are being categorized and made to feel like they are "different" from everyone else when in actuality they are not any different from any other NT walking on the street. Just like you have your extroverted people and your introverted people. I'm NT, but I need my downtime just like some Aspies. I think Psychology is a touchy subject and I think that people are categorized into certain little boxes where their behavior can be looked at and scrutinized so that "doctors" can make some sense out of that person's behavior. When I went to a psychiatrist before, one tried to lump me in as a bipolar when another one said I was clearly not that. Why would I have to be categorized as anything? Maybe I'm just grumpy!
I find the lines very, very blurry. Sometimes a nerd is just a nerd, sometimes a shy and awkward person is just a shy and awkward person, and sometimes an introvert is just an introvert. Everybody stims and fidgets, very people have any concept of social grace, lots of people have allergies and food problems that easily present as sensory issues, many have weird pain thresholds. At most, Aspies seem to just have exaggerated qualities.

And when you live in the country, it gets even more blurry! You know what makes me weird? That I'm NOT obsessed with football and have my car, house, and clothes all decorated in football paraphernalia. What makes me normal? I grew up catching and learning about bugs, and any kid squeamish or uninterested with bugs was the weirdo. Same with cars, hunting, and fishing, if you're not good with basic mechanicking or don't hunt or can't fish, there's something wrong with you. Half the girls are tomboys, so there blurs the gender identity lines all the more! I don't know if I'm an Aspie, or one helluva redneck. :confused:
 
If AS is as prevalent as you hypothesize, it would be one of the very first things psychologists would look for, if only to rule it out.

I disagree. If I were a psychologist and you came to me for help and I did believe you to have AS because of lack of eye contact, unable to recognize facial expressions, hard time making friends, etc., the thing would be that there is no pill I can use to help that except for maybe "talk". Now then I would see if you also have anxiety and/or depression and I can give anxiety meds and an antidepressant for that. There is not way for me to treat your lack of eye contact, being able to recognize facial expressions or help you make friends. Therefore as a diagnosis I would put you under Anxiety and/or Depression so that it's covered insurance wise. As I recall, there really isn't any good way to diagnose adults as having AS, is there? So if you are labeled under the anxiety or depression diagnosis that is what you will be counted as - not AS. That's why I believe a lot of adults are going misdiagnosed. I also believe that is why they have grouped everyone together under "Autism" which I also believe is going to make it harder to diagnose quite a few Aspies as Aspergers and will throw them over into another category like Anxiety or Depression so they can be covered with certain benefits. I see no other reason to have not left things the way they were other than to decrease costs and cut certain people out of benefits.

Another thing that troubles me is that having to tell an employer you have "Autism" rather than AS sounds even more disabling and I worry that Aspies won't be able to get decent jobs. Just like that paper I had to sign at work - Autism was one of the "disabilities" listed and they kept saying that they won't use this info against you if you disclose the information, but I don't believe that for two seconds. Employers are going to hire people with the least disabilities that they can.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom