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

[Jaywalker]

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.

No.

Psychologists cannot prescribe drugs. If we continue to assume (probably incorrectly) that the psychologist is looking out for his/her own financial interests instead of the patient's, then an ASD diagnosis is much more likely, simply because the psychologist can more often participate in the treatment. Heck, it's also more likely even if the psychologist puts the patient's interests first, especially if AS is as prevalent as you hypothesize.

I agree that autism tends to sound worse than Asperger's, and posted as such. However, that is a consequence of an uneducated society. Perpetuating that ignorance by manufacturing an artificial difference is not helpful.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Psychologists cannot prescribe drugs. If we continue to assume (probably incorrectly) that the psychologist is looking out for his/her own financial interests instead of the patient's, then an ASD diagnosis is much more likely, simply because the psychologist can more often participate in the treatment.

Sorry, let's say Psychiatrists then to be more specific. It's not exactly that the doctor is looking out for themselves where money is concerned, it's more because if they can put the patient under a diagnosis that can be covered by insurance then that's better for the patient so they don't have to pay more out of pocket expenses. I'm going to have to read up more on what specific symptoms one has to have to qualify in the new "Autism" section and see if many Aspies would be covered.

 

[Lukas]

It seems to me that the world humanity has created was designed for a specific slice of humanity. I call it a cookie cutter world. The majority of humanity was the model for this design it seems. Few of us fail to fit the expectations and are thus considered "dis-abled"... as we are unable to fit their design expectations. Sorry for them. But that does leave us in a bit of a quandary as now we are expected to, and thus must, find a way to function in the world that they built.

Humans are indeed all unique creatures but most do have more in common with each other than some. The cookie cutter NT has not to worry about such things as are needed to function in the cookie cutter world. The system has built in programs that allow them their uniqueness. For the minority, there exists little room for programs that we would need in order to function. Majority rules. They don't have, for example, classes in how to properly choose a mate, organize your thoughts, or self-awareness insofar as how others view you is concerned. Expressing your emotions 101 was not a class I could sign up for in college. Most humans have little issues with these and thus, the system has neglected to install such.

Are we human? Of course we are. Are we normal? Of course we are, but only compared to the gamut of humanity... not society, as of yet.

As an Aspie, I do not consider myself a substandard human, or DISabled. I suppose from a social standard, I would be, but they don't have the authority to judge me... that remains solely my privilege. Differently abled is a bit more accurate description. Being different is not very well accepted by mainstream society but that makes us neither less nor more human. However, in the realms of society, we are most definitely neither considered equal nor treated as such.

We are a unique breed amoungst a unique humanity. The eccentric thinkers in a world of elementary school students who happen to be seated at the front of the class at the moment.

 

[Warwick C]

(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.

You have my respect Grumpy cat for the work you do.
From what I undestand there is also less staff rostered on as well. So a major call can involve all the availible staff. when I was in hospital in the heart and stroke ward. One night they had four calls to help a patient back into bed. that involved all the night shift staff each time .

 

[Stopheles]

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?

My boyfriend has many many many Aspie traits, but he would be absolutely devastated if he tested out AS. He is in his forties and once told me Autism and ADHD didn't actually exist, they were a result of poor parenting. Obviously, this man has never had a friend with either. This is because he absolutely cannot respond to people who do not meet his standards. This is one of the reasons I've never told him my diagnosis. Looking back, I can name at least 16 people I grew up with who would test within the spectrum. This is not a "growing disorder", it's a separate mindset! I am 35 years old, and I know my aunts and uncle have it, most likely my mother, several teachers, and so so many kids I went to school with in the 80's and 90's.

 

[Cecile]

NTs have aspie traits just like Aspies have NT traits... But NTs don't have as many "full-blown" aspie traits. And Aspie traits go beyond personality "quirks", a love of logic and a need for aloneness. Their "sensory system" really works differently than NTs, and so does the way they "feel things". Once you have dated and been intimate with an Aspie, it becomes really hard to doubt or deny this.
To me it is not about labels, but facts. It isn't a disease, it cannot be treated. They are not defective people nor lesser people, but aspies are born different from NTs and will not "grow out of it". (To me, true acceptance of differences and diversity in humans -- not only neurodiversity, but racial, cultural, gender, etc. -- starts with acknowledgement. Without it, there can be no self nor mutual understanding and no fairness.)

 

[MicroWeiss]

Hey Grumpy,
I like your post, it is very thoughtful. Anyway, try thinking back to your time in 3rd and 4th grade, and do this type of comparison, it may be a more random group to start with. I don't know what all develops in the adult mind, but most doctors are only interested in autism in children, because adult psychology is more complex, doctors don't know how behaviors that are similar to autism may have developed, but with young children it stands out more as a neurological development rather than a psychological one. It is a case of doctors going for the low hanging fruit.

Autistic behaviors in adults who also have a lot of neurotypical qualities is a subject worth approaching, but while approaching it try probing the adults about their childhood. If the behavior is a neurological trait they had as a child, it's going to be easier to label it as autistic.

If you think autistic traits can develop over time, that is another thing I guess. Would it be possible for a neurotypical person to later copy autistic traits that they deem valuable?

 

[pax]

Here is a little clip by the late Stella Young, in which she refers to the "Social" model of disability : ie we are not so much disabled by our physical or neurological condition, but by the fact that society makes this an issue. (This is what someone referred to as the cookie cutter model.) As she says, " No amount of smiling at a flight of stairs ever turned it into a ramp".

 

[Grumpy Cat]

This is one of the reasons I've never told him my diagnosis

I don't think he would be good marriage material especially if he found out about your diagnosis.

 

[royinpink]

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 ...

I think this is a difficult question to answer because the way psychological disorders are currently defined is to create a cut-off when the pattern of behavior in question begins to 'impair functioning'. Basically if you still manage to have a life--work, friends, school, romance, and family--they don't consider you to be 'really' autistic. It is like this for many disorders, although what exactly constitutes impaired functioning is a bit fuzzy sometimes. They write up guidelines for psychologists to maintain consistency, though, like this one for depression. If you scroll down to the bottom, you can see a chart describing what specifically needs to be going on in various areas of your life to be considered mildly, moderately, or severely impaired.

So it may be that the spectrum truly runs through ASD all the way to NT, or it may be there is a core difference that some aspies have learned to cope with better. The current diagnostic criteria don't claim to answer that question, and I believe we're still waiting for a conclusive neurological explanation. I have shared this article before, presenting evidence that a lack of synaptic pruning may cause autism. A protein called mTOR was overactive in autistic brains that also had extra synapses, so there is one specific protein they can point to as related to ASD.

Neurology is not my field, so I don't know if that means this could be on a spectrum (from, say, a low to a high amount of synaptic pruning) or if the mTOR is simply overactive or not, and there isn't an 'inbetween' area. They claim this to be a unifying feature, as there is no one gene that causes the overactive mTOR and lack of pruning (autophagy). But the article doesn't mention whether the brains they examined were of 'low, moderate, or high-functioning' autistics (my guess would be low, but the study says 'ASD' implying aspies could have been included. I don't have full article access). If they only examined low-functioning autistics, then there could well be an inbetween level of autophagy that they haven't examined. However, it could also be that the difference between high- and low-functioning comes more from other traits, like IQ and environment (we already know that high-functioning correlates with average or above-average IQ, which would support that hypothesis).

I would say from what we know already about autistic brains, the frontal lobe is less well-connected to the rest of the brain, and that's where the impairments in impulse control, motivation, planning, decision-making, thinking through consequences, prioritizing, adapting impulses to social norms, and more come from. That seems like it could be a more-or-less sort of thing (number of connections), which would lend support to your hypothesis.

But a lot of NTs have similar traits for different reasons. For instance, there is being unable to make a decision because you're a perfectionist and you're too worried about making the wrong decision, and there is not being able to make a decision because it presents itself as a logical problem with a hundred variables that are very difficult to weigh against one another, which is the case with poor executive functioning in autism. So it is possible that there is a core difference between high-functioning autistics (who, remember, are coping the whole time) that appears similar to some NTs but isn't really.

Anyone know more about this?

 

[Progster]

I agree with GrumpyCat and other members who say that a large part of the population has at least one or two noticible ASD traits. I see this in everyday life in the people around me, and I would say that these traits are usually a part of their personality and go towards making them who they are, a unique human being. Some of these traits may be restricting in nature - rigid thinking, repetitive activities, monologuing or adherence to routines are traits I often see in the general population. But it's one matter to have to deal with just one or two issues, which might just be perceived as a personality quirk by others, and an entirely different matter to have to deal with several more severe symptoms which have more of an impact on those around them, so that they have daily communication, relationship or employment issues which can affect their funtioning to the extent that they find it hard to get and hold down a job or sustain a relationship, or live independently. It's at this point that the person needs the outside support that a diagnosis will give them access to. I should also point out that it is often not the ASD symptoms themselves which are urgent in terms of treatment, but other secondary issues which can occur as a direct result of the ASD, such as depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues. In order to get relevant and helpful treatment or support for those, an ASD diagnosis should also be made if ASD symptoms exist, even if those ASD symptoms are mild.

I also agree with those who stated that ASD goes beyond being merely personality quirks, as it is characterized by changes in the neurology in the brain which affect the way we interpret and understand the world around us, as well as the way we process information.

I strongly agree with Stella Young's statement that "we are not so much disabled by our physical or neurological condition, but by the fact that society makes this an issue."

 

[Spiller]

One thing I've become aware of in the UK during my quest for an official diagnosis is that psychologists/psychiatrists qualified to give such are few and far between. This coupled with constantly moving the goalposts for diagnosis must affect the actual number of people diagnosed and therefore the official figures/percentage of the population said to have AS/HFA.
An official diagnosis is also the difference between being able to claim Disability rather than the lower Incapacity benefit; I don't like to consider myself disabled per se, but I'm not suddenly going to become more capacitated any time soon either.. I would, however like access to some services, such as councelling, to which I'm not currently entitled by dint of being merely incapacitated. So there's definitely a money element to diagnosis here, as far as the cost of benefits and treatment are concerned.
In the '70's the official figure was about 1:2500, now its more than 1:100. I've come across the argument in several books and articles over whether Autism is becoming more prevalent or if the numbers are rather due to standards varying over the years.
Having become aware of the many self-diagnosed and unaware-but-struggling people in the world, as much through AC as anywhere, I can only conclude that the actual figure is certainly higher than 1.5:100, which rather puts the bias against diagnosing in the professionals' court.

 

[I am that which I am]

Firstly I apologize if I am merely repeating the overall ideas already portrayed on this thread. In talking with Vanilla a few days ago about the subject I came to a realization. A rather simple one as the writing in my opinion is on the wall; particularly in the case of Aspergers.

We discussed how aspergers seems much more like a personality variant than a disorder in many cases. There are many people who are not affected to a significant enough degree to require services or to impede them in living their lives. However, particularly in childhood many could use assistance and workshops to learn how to cope and deal with a world that is not made for everyone. Unfortunately the world is not particularly made, I see life more as a chaotic phenomenon that just so happens to for an instance exist in a vast chaos where anything can happen. Of course humans do try to beat nature at its own game and order this for their own needs, desires, and survival. But do so rather imperfectly. Now before digressing too much I will return to the issue at hand. There are many different kinds of personality factors which lead to a particular personality. So instead of looking at aspergers only as a disorder we should include it as a personality variant, but even this would be imprecise. The big five personality traits by Myers-Briggs were a good basis and a good start. There are others, like type A and and type B theory. However human psychology is far more complex than five major personality traits, which due to their agglomeration of several "minor" ones can be contradictory and imprecise. A more complex branching system that includes a spectrum along each personality attribute should be developed, but would be a major undertaking for any one researcher. But asperger traits and those of other disorders should be included in these personality variables. From the top of my head I can think to include sensitivity of the senses (sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch (etc) as well as emotion), cognitive style (logical, emotional; linear, branching, non-linear), mindfulness and self awareness, motivation, and many others.

Where this gets into disorders is really interesting as disorders are often extremes of one personality trait or another. Narcissism is an extreme of ESTJ and is now a personality disorder in the DSM. The further extreme to that is psychopathy or sociopathy (the difference, if any, between the two is rather controversial in research). And perhaps this is the way in which the DSM is going with it's confusing and inadequate personality disorders. I think the whole DSM is due for a reorder around a new theory that takes into account this fact. As for Aspergers, we all know it is related to INTJ and many people have aspie personality traits. These traits are particularly apparent when they are young and may struggle more than others as they have to adapt to a world that is not "made" for them. However, when they do adapt (particularly woman) many are no longer diagnosable and it is very difficult to tease out all of the symptoms of Aspergers. Then the other question is does it impair normal functioning? To reach diagnosable criteria. In many cases except in periods of stress or more difficult situations it does not impede functioning too much. Further some skills can be and are learned by many aspies to be able to live in this world. Some struggle more with this than others and some receive better support than others. We also need to underline the fact that the severity of Aspergers varies across time. One may need more assistance at one point in time or another. At times this extreme personality variant does delve into more severe diagnoses such as autism, PDD-NOS, and mental retardation and these may require a greater degree of assistance and such conditions may more severely impede one's life. However, those that write the DSM should really take into account that every disorder has a spectrum of severity and may be based on an initially normal personality trait that is brought to the extreme. I see mental health disorders more as a branching system where you start off at some level and can get out into the "disorder" range and from there may become more severe where it can branch into several disorders. But a bit unlike a tree these branches do sometimes converge. AS does seem to predispose aspies to anxiety, depression, and PTSD related disorders and for some reason many do not conform to the gender they were born with (i.e. are transgendered) or typical sexual orientation and sexual interest. So researchers and clinicians need to see mental health as a tree.

The whole "disorder" word is also rather disagreeable as it implies that it prevents normal functioning but does not specify to which degree this occurs. The research and medical community need to be far clearer in what they mean. I very likely have Asperger's but am not as severe as my father who never had the chance to learn any skills and may not have been wired to learn those things by himself. I am also not as severe as my cousin who had severe symptoms and impediments when he was young. However, he received a great deal of assistance and now appears almost completely normal to everyone else. The fact that he appears normal does not mean that little effort is involved in this and that he does not have difficulties fitting in.

I also get rather annoyed when reading research articles because researchers are not always specific as to what they are studying especially now that autism can mean several different disorders. I guess it would be up to the research community to start using another system than the DSM and RDoc is being developed for this purpose. So hopefully this helps and does not lead to convoluted definitions. I also wonder the same thing as you (royinpink) when reading research articles about autism and particularly one transcription factor (MeCP2; influences how much of a gene is transcribed) that I am studying that is related to Rett syndrome, mental retardation, autism (whatever that means) and depression (what I am looking into).

Those are my thoughts for now maybe RDoc will pick up and replace the DSM at one point.

 

[allie]

it seems very clear to me that mental (and many physical) "disorders" are a social invention completely. that is, if you deviate too much from "normal" behavior, then you will be deemed to have a "disorder" even if your behavior doesn't hurt you or anyone else.

i'm skeptical of the mental health establishment in general. capitalism, binary gender essentialism and gender roles, and compulsory heteronormativity ALL tie into this. remember, gay people used to be considered pathological because they wouldn't make straight marriages. because straight marriage is a norm, so violation of it is deviant/abnormal/"dysfunctional". same with being transgender. although being trans doesnt actually hurt anyone, because it doesnt fit a norm of binary essential gender, it's "wrong".

 

[unsurewhattoname]

The mindset of this thread absolutely terrifies me. If the general public ever begins to think like this I don't want to go on in this world. Nothing I do or say will ever get taken seriously. No autistic person will be eligible for disability because "everyone is autistic". No accommodations will ever be given because "everyone is autistic". When you try to explain a problem then people not understanding at all will say they relate but they don't. Their reason? "We're all autistic".

This is not a personality quirk. It's not a cute little label. It's a disability. To have it not only do you need the specified number of impairments, not only do these impairments have to be present since childhood, but you need to be significantly impaired in your functioning. This last one has been completely ignored.

I find it very demeaning when it's suggested everyone is autistic. It completely ignores the struggles I've faced my entire life. Not because of others, no. It's not their fault. It's not anyone's. Even if everyone was super accepting I'd still have struggles.

No offence, just really disagree. Completely. A quirky NT is a quirky NT. Not autistic. Using this logic I have every disability in the world, because they're all spectrums, therefore we all are on that spectrum therefore we have it. No.

Like you can't call everyone intellectually disabled because IQ is a spectrum and we're all less intelligent than someone else so compared to them we're intellectually disabled. Doesn't work like that.