Asperger's and Being Considered "Disabled"

Post Reply New Topic

So are you speaking for all neurotypicals? unless you are one I don't see how you could possibly speak for neurotypicals.

Research referenced earlier wrote:



It's not my opinion that autistic individuals are not more rational in general than the rest of the population, it was information provided by research, as indicated above. There are some cases provided by available research where autistic individuals excel in reasoned thinking such as raven's matrices testing; and evidence provided in research per card games where the potential for losing and winning influence non-aspergers individual's more than asperger's individuals in making decisions in these card games.

There are other cases where some individuals diagnosed with autism and/or aspergers have difficulties providing logical decisions in social communication as well as in decisions that impact everyday life functioning. And, there are some identified that are diagnosed that work in research fields which require reasoned thinking in using the scientific method to determine valid results in studies. Some of these individuals excel in these areas of research that require rational thinking in the decision making process.

In addition, there are other studies that provide correlations of schizotypal thinking (magical thinking) among those diagnosed with Aspergers.

This is the statement that you made after most of this evidence was presented:



I didn't make the suggestion that it was silly that autistic individuals thought rationally. However, the evidence as it exists provided by science gives them no overall advantage in rational thinking over those that are not autistic; Aspergers or no Aspergers.

Some autistic individuals express above average levels of rationality, and some express lower than average levels of rationality in their decisions in life. But, for those that are diagnosed with an actual disorder, they are diagnosed due to impairments in social/communication and RRB's that on average, in research, are evidenced as impairing rational decisions in real life, moreso than the general population studied.

If I were to make a decision on this based just on the individuals with Aspergers that I came to know in real life, before I found this internet site, on a personal level from anecdoctal experience I might have come to the personal conclusion that individuals with Aspergers are more rational than others, however after pursuing the issue in detail, per the larger population of individuals diagnosed with Aspergers, I find that the research indicates difficulties in rational decisions in everyday life functioning, for that group of individuals, with that specific diagnosis as well.

If I were to have made a decision based on the individuals with more severe cases of autism, that I actually came across that were not able to make decisions to move from room to room in a building without someone helping them and directing them, and reinforcing their behavior through positive reinforcement, the only rational personal conclusion would be that they are severely incapacitated in making decisions in everyday life.

Research has provided information that some of these autistic individuals with similar difficulties in everyday life functioning do very well on tests of reasoning that involve non-verbal measures of reasoning, so my observational analysis is tempered by that information. However, this information doesn't change the fact that some of these same individuals can't make a decision on moving from room to room without positive reinforcement. Those are deficiencies in contextual decisions of logic that can be profoundly disabling. And, part of the reason that 80% of all individuals with autism do not gain independence in life, and 90% don't maintain full time employment. It's not likely we are hearing many of those personal opinions, generated by those individuals on this website.

Some others do gain independence, and some do make above average rational decisions in life in the areas of life they excel in, but they are the scientifically measured minority, not the majority.

This website is not indicative of the majority of individuals diagnosed with ASD's. It is the tiny minority of individuals with autism spectrum disorders that actually express verbal communication in writing on websites.

Most of the individuals that post here, are not professionally diagnosed, nor is that a requirement to post here. However the statement "ohh how I love how logic is a disability", does not do justice for those that struggle for basic subsistence and/or independence their entire life.

I was luckier than most in that respect, but it is clear, even on this website for those that function well enough to display good writing skills, that milder cases of autism spectrum disorders are disabling for many of those individuals as well. It's good to hear the success of the minority that are not too disabled to function well in life, but they are neither representative of the studied and measured full picture of aspergers, or the full picture of other autism spectrum disorders.

The CDC and the government captures most of that other aspect of the reality of ASD's; the 1 in 88, in classes for the developmentally disabled of which about a third are measured with intellectual disability, a third with border line intellectual disability, and a third with normal to above average measured levels of intelligence.

Per the research provided earlier in the thread, even those measured with above average intelligence and good language abilities are still studied as having similar limits in everyday life functioning, as compared to those labeled as more profoundly impacted by the symptoms of autism.

There is a huge measured population of individuals on the broader autism phenotype (BAP), with autistic traits, that excel in most every area of life; the systemizers, the introverted. They are labeled in many different ways by others in society, and per their own preferences, including some that likely identify with the term autistic, aspie, or even BAP.

However, they are not autistic per the disabling five disorders identified in psychiatry; they have strengths in certain areas of intelligence that allow them advantages in the niches they find in life.

Some of these individuals are commonly understood to be less emotional and more rational, however they are not professionally measured as disabled in everyday life functioning. That makes a big difference. If those are the individuals whom the individual that made that statement about logical abilities is referring to, it is a different ball park from the overall picture of individuals actually diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders. A distinction of that difference, is reasonable, if that is the case.

When the DSM5 criteria go into effect, the organization recognizes that the sub-clinical term Aspergers will be useful for those individuals that may not experience milder traits of autism as disabling in everyday life functioning. That provides an opportunity for those that have milder traits, to identify with a term, that is no longer considered a disorder or a disability in areas where the DSM5 is the guideline for diagnosis; however the traits are not entirely different than those that are already identified as introverts, systemizers, the broader autism phenotype, etc.

But, some that don't consider themselves disabled in life, already identify with the term Aspergers, so it is good that the term will still likely be commonly used, for them to continue to identify with. And maybe at that point in time, there will be less confusion about the fact that the disorder Autism Spectrum Disorder, is an inherently disabling disorder that limits brain function, per the areas of social communication and RRB's.

It is also a good potential change for those individuals that are diagnosed with Aspergers now, that will be moving into the new DSM5 ASD diagnosis, that are profoundly disabled with that disorder in life, whom currently receive little acknowledgement from the general public or the US government of how disabling the disorder can actually be for those individuals diagnosed.

In other countries Aspergers is identified by the government and the public as an actual disability in everyday life functioning, and those individuals are already provided the support they need for subsistence in life.

This website is an international one, so the perceptions of the disorders are colored by differences in culture, in how people in general with disabilities, are perceived and afforded accommodations in life.

It can be tougher in the US, for some, where the government safety net is not nearly as large, as it is in some other cultures/countries, and where there is little understanding among the general public or organizational efforts for awareness of what Aspergers is, because most of the focus has been directed at Autism Disorder, rather than the other 4 ASD's.

It is becoming tougher in the US for College graduates without diagnosed disorders, to gain employment in life, as 12% of recent graduates are measured as unemployed, and close to 50 percent of graduates aged 20 to 24, have not found full time employment per research from 2006 to 2010.

The propects in the US, for employment are currently not expanded, for this age demographic, they are shrinking. The economy is not keep up with the demand of the population for jobs. And, college graduates are measured as more successful than those without a college education in gaining and maintaining employment, among young adults. This issue of overall job opportunities in life for young adults, is part of the synergy that makes life very challenging for those with inherent disabilities. Particularly young adults and aging adults.

Much of the picture of this issue, is colored differently in other countries, beyond US borders. Some conditions much worse and some conditions significantly better for individuals diagnosed with ASD's, depending on nation and culture.

All these factors can play a part in how one perceives this issue and most every issue discussed on an international website; part of the reason I like to use third party evidence, when possible, to provide objective answers rather than ones based just on my personal limited experiences.

Do I have to be a neurotypical to know how they think?

So you claim to know how they all think? Then I suppose you're ok with it when neurotypicals assume they know how we all think and make blanket generalizations about us. I just don't understand what you're trying to prove by constantly spewing generalizations about neurotypicals in an attempt to prove the superiority of autistic people.

your post in and of itself proves my point right

http://www.wrongplanet.net/gsearch.html?cx=partner-pub-8703422890298959%3Aq5of6baj6hj&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=moon+hoax&siteurl=www.wrongplanet.net%2Fpostp4628218.html%234628218&ref=www.wrongplanet.net%2Fforum-posting.html

Per the link above there are quite a few people that identifiy themselves with Aspergers, that have argued the point that the Moon landings were a hoax, so if there are accurate self reports on this website per whom does or whom does not have Aspergers, that's not an example of a type of empirically based logical analysis specific to autistics or non-autistics. In fact, it is associated with schizotypal thinking which is correlated higher among individuals with Aspergers than the general population, per research.

There are entire threads here where individuals also talk about personifying objects in their environments, also associated with schizotypal thinking. The evidence here is anecdotal, but there is actual evidence per science that has measured this phenomenon correlated stronger among individuals with Aspergers than the general population.

There are a great many threads here with interests in psychic phenomenon. Interestingly, many "religious" individuals, in the general population don't believe in psychic phenomenon because of their religious beliefs, but religious ideas that are part of the cultural norm, are similiar to belief in psychic phenomenon considered part of schizotypical thinking. But, since mainstream religious ideas are part of the cultural norm they aren't identified in personality tests as schizotypal thinking

Beyond the actual research that shows that schizotypal thinking is correlated with Aspergers above those in the general population, there are threads here that provide self reported personality test results, that provide anecdotal evidence that the majority of individuals with Aspergers testing and reporting test results here, measure high on tests that measure schizotypal thinking.

Here is only one recent example. Not one person reported measuring lower than moderate on the test for schizotypal thinking; approximately 75% scored high to very high on the measures of schizotypal (magical) thinking.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf196978-0-45.html

Most human beings engage in some form of schizotypal thinking, but categorized within religious context, because that is a cultural norm in thinking, psychiatrists do not identify that as schizotypal thinking.

I've come across very few people here that won't have anything to do with schizotypal thinking, however there is a potential problem there as well, because without the ability to move into the area of schizotypal thinking to some degree, one can become close minded to phenomenon that actually exists that is not supported by empirical evidence. Again, a balance is healthy.

Without a balance of emotion or a little bit of magical thinking, one's horizons can become reduced; however some of this is beyond the control of individuals per inherent and environmental factors.

Per example, there is actual scientific evidence that some types of anamalous pre-cognition phenomenon exists, per what has historically commonly been understood as psychic phenomenon.

There are only a couple of individuals on this site, that I have found that have refused to have any part of that evidence, because it is associated with what they consider is magical thinking and assess themselves as very rational individuals; likely they would score extremely low on personality tests that measure schizotypal thinking.

Most people don't need any evidence, per most reports of people on this site, per threads that address these issues, to understand that there are things beyond current measures of science that exist.

Again, a balance of emotion and logic is healthy, there are negative aspects of refusing any type of information that is not perceived as completely empirical based as there is in refusing to accept information that is strongly empirically based.

Any human being that thinks they have control of their life events, is guilty of magical thinking to some degree, however it is a degree of magical thinking that provides the potential for human beings to find order and sanity in life. Without a certain degree of magical thinking life can be very hard for some human beings.

In fact, a healthy brain frames life around an illusion of what is expected per experience in life. The process, that in part, is behind the phenomenon of optical illusion. There are some individuals that cannot see this optical illusion that perceive reality close to what it actually is. Many individuals studied with schizophrenia, do not have the ability to perceive optical illusions.

Some individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia that have difficulties in life determining their realities, in part, are suggested, through this research, to potentialy have a problem of inherently providing an illusion of reality, through limits in brain function, that most human beings have the ability for.

This difficulty in brain function, is suggested to limit the ability to provide a roadmap, for one to find their way in the world.

Science now suggests that it is illusion that underlies much of what humans perceive as reality, and attempt to rationalize after the fact. In fact our conscious awareness of reality is measured per science as being slightly behind the actual experience of reality. The emotional processing centers of the brain are connected with this whole process.

Interestingly, some autistic individuals have been measured as having similar difficulties seeing optical illusions. I did a poll on it sometime ago, and about a third polled could not see the optical illusion.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4269418.html&highlight=

When I wrote about the Moon landings I put the emphasis on WE. In other words if the Moon landings are not what WE are doing as a nation TODAY then it could be likely that a neurotypical would use that as a reason why not to believe in the Moon landings rather than some conspiracy theory that a schizophrenic would use as a reason why not to believe in the Moon landings. My point is that neurotypicals define their reality by an inherent group think which means something is true if others also believe that it is true.

My other point is that if neurotypicals are indeed equal to us and their mode of thinking is just as valid as ours then what is stopping us from becoming a neurotypical since that would give us a tremendous social advantage?

its a hard pne to call because AS is techly a disability
but it should not really be a disability

Your personal opinion "you must agree that most of the time autistics are generaly more rational in their way of thinking", is not validated by the third party research I provided above. I appreciate the fact that you consider that I present material in a rational manner, however that ability is not fully indicative of my abilities as an individual to make logical decisions in the full expanse of life.

To use an example that many could probably relate to, people in general consider schizophrenics to have problems in making rational decisions in life, however per individuals like John Nash, even when he was having delusions in school, he did much of his logical analysis in game theory, that eventually won him a Nobel prize in Economics.

It is interesting that individuals with Aspergers are studied to do quite well when it comes to logical analysis in playing games in face to face interaction, where the factors of emotional influence can play a role, however abilities in pattern recognition in studies of fluid intelligence, aren't quite the same as in what that ability may result in, in real life.

The extremes found among individuals with Aspergers in schizotypal thinking is relevant, because schizotypal thinking is often related to connecting patterns in life, that may be rational or not rational, depending on individual perception. One that sees more patterns and details in life, per statistics are more likely to come across ones that may not have rational basis. Anxiety can result from this ability.

All human beings construct their realities from their experiences, whether they exist in the "natural" world or exist in the virtual world that technology provides.

It's still questionable among some whether or not John Nash had schizophrenia or Aspergers, however he became obsessed with patterns that he found in magazines and newspapers that had meaning for him, and no one else. It requires a certain level of emotional intelligence to filter out what is real and what is not real, and if one excels in pattern recognition with low levels of emotional intellligence, this can result in problems, in real life.

Science provides evidence that individuals with autism disorder, who do not score well in traditional areas of intelligence testing measuring verbal intelligence, excel in measures of fluid intelligence through tests of non verbal pattern recognition, in raven matrices tests of abstract reasoning. Even slightly higher than those whom are not autistic, in one study.

This is a type of logic and reasoned thinking, however it is not the only type of logic or rational thinking. Emotional and verbal intelligence are required in making other logical/rational decisions in life. Emotional Intelligence provide the ability to filter the context of details in everyday life functioning in making logical/rational decisions in everyday life functioning. The inherent logical abilities in pattern recognition alone, is no guarantee one will excel in other areas of logic/rational outcomes in life.

The evidence as it exists per schizotypal thinking as associated with Aspergers syndrome, and contextual reasoning per autism, provides evidence that some areas of logical reasoning are compromised in both disorders.

Individuals studied with Aspergers neither score higher in standard measures of intelligence or raven matrices measures of abstract reasoning through fluid intelligence measures of pattern recognition, as opposed to non-aspergers control groups, in the most recent research, but they do score slightly higher overall in fluid intelligence, in the recent studies that have been done, as compared to their own performance in standard measures of full scale intelligence.

There is evidence from research that individuals with autism have more difficulties on average with emotion than the rest of the population, however no research that provides evidence that they have an advantgage, on average, in the overall logical or rational decision making process than non-autistic individuals.

I respect your personal opinion but the third party evidence as presented does not validate it.

Very different background ... Canada in the 70s here.

I can see a few differences between us that do seem to be environmental in origin, I think.



Here, I apply my view on science, which is instrumentalist - that is, it says nothing of objective truths (if there even are such things) but simply creates tools in the form of models that are useful for prediction, and thereby, can be used to solve problems. Asperger's and schizophrenia and other such things are, to me, simply tools to correct problems - not objectively true statements about a person. Nash is Nash, if Asperger's or schizophrenia were useful ways in which to understand and solve problems related to him, then they were relevant, and if not, then they weren't.

Every communication that human beings participate in from the time they are tiny children is based on group think. One's ability to communicate at all is based on group think.

Those with the most severe forms of autism are crippled in their ability for communication, and often require years of intense therapy to gain this ability. The inability for group think is a disability. Most individuals with Aspergers can communicate however it is impaired per social interaction. Logical decisions and outcomes are in part dependent on group think, in real life.

Schizotypal thinking is not necessarily indicative of a disorder, but it is associated with "magical" rather than rational thinking. At times it can be part of group think as well.

The idea that we didn't go to the moon, is not part of group think, per society as a whole, it is a fringe element of society, that a minority of individuals share, per group think. Group think, and emotional intelligence, in part, is what provides the logic that most people use to know that we did go to the moon.

If you've ever been involved in an Autism Speaks conversation, in an online autism community, group think is as evident as it is in online conversations about football games where there is a common opponent.

While autistic indivduals have difficulty in social communication, given the opportunity it is evident that group think is very much a part of the behavior of autistic individuals that are able to communicate in written language.

In real life, autistics whom communicate often do not have that common point of reference for group think.

Culture as a whole, is moving away from group think. Group think is what makes culture, and is important to a healthy society. It provides a sense of culture and nation, that is lacking in some modern cultures.

The impairments that are associated with autism spectrum disorders are considered biological and environmental in origin.

Some autistic individuals make a tremendous effort in adapting to the rest of society in overcoming their impairments in social communication, and RRB's, however that adaptation can be very difficult for some, and humanly exhausting to try to continue to accommodate over the course of a lifetime.

Neurology, in autism, can be changed through the process of neuroplasticity, however usually it is an approximation that results for adaptation, not a complete transformation.

Whenever one hears an autistic individual state we or us, as it relates to all autistic individuals sharing the same characteristics, needs or desires, that is evidence of group think, however it is an imagined group think, that does not exist in reality. But, it makes one feel part of a group to use langauge like that; group think is inherently comforting to human beings, unfortunately it is harder for some autistic individuals to find in life.

It is a similar area of comfortwhen some autistic individuals relate to the rest of the world as a neurotypical opponent. It is a comforting thought that there are us and them, and a natural part of human behavior to determine allies and opponents, however 99% of the world is not a fair fight. Fortunately, 99% of the world is not an opponent in real life. Most of those individuals identified as "neurotypicals" could not identify an individual with aspergers, if they met and talked to an individual with Aspergers in real life.

I agree with that view. The tools, though are certainly expanding, per the pharmeceutical industry and the DSM5. Mental disorders are not the stigma they were when I was young. I knew no one on medication early in my career; 20 years later at work, close to half the staff was on some type of psychiatric medication that they freely talked about, usually prescribed by a general physician.

Ok, this third-party-evidence crap is really getting to me so I'll post one more time.

In psychology there are no such thing as reliable evidence except when talking about situation and action, never motivation, this is why:
Depending on what view you hold (behavouristic, humanistic, etc.), anything other than Situation and Action is extreamly debatable, everyone who does research in the field knows this, that is why it's preferable to do research on animals, because their behavioural patters are much more limited than humans. The factors of error are so many that it's not possible (no, really it's not) to make a studie even barely reliable in any larger context. That is why all psychology studies beginns with a very long explaination on what view they have and exactly what behaviour they will study. Simply said, this is how a study is done.

1. Controled situation.
2. Act trigger.
3. Act recording.
4. Act interpitation.

Might seem straight forward enough, but the fact is that all these steps are heavely suseptible to researcher influences.
Nr 1 for example, is either the product of what the researcher belives will trigger the wanted responce or a place where there's merely a chance the action will appear. Plus the fact that your presence/lack of presence will affect the subject and thues the outcome.
Nr 2 have the same flaws, but also rely on that the subject percive this in the right way so that they can act upon it. (Not to be mixed up with the previous: researchers opinion.)

I could go on, but I don't really see any point in doing so, if you want to know more I suggest you take a class.

But this:

That's not evidence, nor do they claim it to be such, the only thing they say is: These are our findings, this is what we THINK of this.


So no, that research did not indicate that, nor claims it to do so. This...

... only say that in this age, there might be a difference in this specific area. Period.


[Sarkasm]Did they start licking a wall or break into appartments to water flowers?[/Sarkasm]

And autism still does not make someone more logical/rational than a neurotypical.

illogical conclusions in social reasoning is precisly because of logical thinking.N.T's make more logical conclusions in abstract reasoning because they are less logical and understand the beast of emotion better.

Perhaps it would help if you were provided an explanation of what scientific evidence is:

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



You still have provided no third party evidence to support your statement that "ohh how I love that being logical is considered a disability", in relation to aspergers".

Nor have you provided any research that counters the methodology or the results of the specific sources I have provided.

On the other hand, I have provided many sources of evidence that are empirically derived and properly documented in accordance with the scientific method as applicable to this field of study, that do not support the overall advantage of the population of individuals with aspergers or autism on average as being more logical than the rest of the population.

Michelle Dawson, a researcher studying aspergers/autism that is autistic, recent study, does not show an advantage of individuals with aspergers over a control group of non-aspergers individuals in tests of fluid intelligence, measuring abstract reasoning, the area of logical reasoning that individuals with autism are shown to excel in per other measures of intelligence testing. Neither adults or children with Aspergers are shown to have an advantage over a control group of non-aspergers individuals in measures of fluid intelligence per non-verbal tests of abstract reasoning ability.

81st percentile for non aspergers adults vs 74th percentile for aspergers adults.
72nd percentile for non aspegers children vs 59th percentile for aspergers children.

Interestingly enough, Adults with autism disorder scored slightly higher than adults without autism disorder in similiar testing. However, as you indicate you were only talking about aspergers syndrome, in your statement about individuals with that condition as having an advantage over the rest of the population per logic.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025372.g003&representation=PNG_M



The third party evidence that I have presented is well beyond the simple third party evidence needed to counter your original statement that "ohh how I love that being logical is considered a disability", in relation to aspergers. It is provided in the DSMIV and US code.

Per that original statement, there has never been any question per diagnostic criteria that Aspergers syndrome is disabling because of logic. Aspergers syndrome is defined as disabling because of impairments in social interaction and restrictive stereotypical repetitive behaviors, that result from inherent limits in brain function, per medical and legal definition.

If one is not impaired in an important area of life functioning due to impairments in social interaction and restrictive stereotypical repetitive behaviors one does not receive a diagnosis of Aspergers per DSMIV diagnostic criteria.

The only way your statement could even possibly be technically considered as valid, is if you were referring to some disorder other than Aspergers, as it is defined by diagnostic and legal classification.

In geographic areas where the DSM5 guides diagnostic classification applies, once the final DSM5 revision goes into effect, the term aspergers will no longer be considered a DSM5 Disorder, and can technically be used as a subclinical term to describe a condition that does not limit and impair one in everyday life functioning, but until that time, per DSMIV diagnositic criteria, Aspergers is defined as a source of considerable disability both by DSMIV guidelines and legal definition per US code.