About the existence or inexistence of Asperger Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly.

The whole discipline of clinical psychology includes loosely worded, subjective, surface observations. The language used isn't precise and objective.

There is no real common language for describing phenomena in terms of scientific analysis, which in this case would probably be biological (biochemical and neurological), to be totally objective.

Only in the sense that we all are suffering, as Mr Buddha suggested. It's the Black'n'White thinking thing. It does seem that many with AS assume that life is eternal paradise for NT's and eternal hell for AS. Not so. Everybody suffers. And then we all die, as if that matters!



Yes, very concisely expressed, thanks! There are no biological components of the existing diagnosis, it's all behavioral.

There seems to be an unstated but assumed view in the world of a place where there are "normal" people i.e. those within 2 standard deviations, or about 62%. For these people life is a bed of roses from start to end. Success falls into their laps because they were fortunate to be normal.

And then we have "The Abnormal" i.e. people with disabilities, disadvantages and problems to solve. For them, life is never ending struggle. And then they fail, all because they never had a chance anyway due to the disability dumped on them at birth through no fault of their own.

I don't see such a neat division. NT's struggle and suffer too, yet many on the spectrum have gifts that the mediocre can only dream of.

Then why not give those who're not really disabled another category than AS? There are people who truly fit the criteria for AS as they're now (I guess, not sure, I'm not one of them either haha).

Yes, I realised this when replying to pandd at one point, that "suffering" applied to everybody, and how can we be sure if it is because of individual disorder/dysfunction/impairment, socially constructed disability, discrimination, or because "that's life". The only things society can measure, which can serve as indicators of "suffering", are things like occupation/job, social life/friends, general health, living conditions.

I'm wondering suddenly why society talks about the disability of some, as if they "should" be doing better/suffering less, but doesn't label as disordered/dysfunctional/impaired all the people with chronically low-paying jobs, in poor housing, prone to violence, or addiction, abusive relationships, and frequent ill-health, among other things? Why doesn't society declare those people to be suffering from some appalling medical disorder/impairment?

Why are some people seen as medically dysfunctional and others only as the underclass, "poor" etc? Everybody is to some extent disabled and enabled by society, aswell as by genes.

What is it about the children being diagnosed with AS/Autism which merits/justifies this medical treatment, and not the many children who routinely do badly in school? ( how many children leave school unable to read or write? ) It seems to have something to do with whether schools can in fact handle them, and/or whether the child can even make it to school by the "normal" age.

But why does school label some children as disordered/disabled, but not others, the habitually low-performing "masses"? Perhaps pressure from the middle-classes, unhappy at seeing their children perform as badly as the traditionally ill-fed/chronically unhealthy/environmentally deprived "poorer" classes, may also be fuelling the movement towards medical diagnosis.

If it was ever officially accepted that the problems we encounter are mainly, or even only partly, socially-constructed disability, and/or environmentally-created metabolic problems, ( as opposed to unavoidable, unrelievable, genetically-determined difficulties ), society would have to provide "enabling" conditions, and unpolluted environments/healthy diets, for everybody, or declare AS/Autism an "unfortunate" aspect of life, like poverty, ( about which nothing much is done ).

PS. It's possible that that is already the position of those in power. After all, people diagnosed with AS/Autism are no worse off than the current underclass. And pharmaceutical companies are making a lot of money out of it as they do out of the other environmentally/socially-challenged in our society.

.

There's a move towards describing those with the traits of autism/AS and the genes, but who don't meet the criteria for diagnosis, as broad autistic phenotype. I think many of those are the ones who'd be most likely to be unnecessarily clinically diagnosed with autism/AS.

ManErg, it's interesting you mention glasses and visual acuity. In the study, they made sure both groups had corrected vision if necessary. My father and I wear glasses too and have excellent underlying acuity, as it's postulated this phenomenon could depend on the number of cone cells or neurotransmitter/receptor characteristics. The optician told him about his excellent acuity recently (and this even though he's developing an eye disease!)

Yes, I know it's a spectrum, but the current definition does seem too broad. Maybe that category exists and it's called "Introvert"? I've read some web sites by people who claim to be introverts, but not have AS and their inner experience sounds very similar to mine and many of the 'milder' case on WP.



Isn't that where this whole discussion started? I believe it's largely down to social constructions!



Some people just don't see it like that. I don't know *how* they're seeing it, but they don't see it like that! We perceive what we're conditioned to perceive all the while fooling ourselves that we are having our own individual thoughts? That's what the Zen people and Sufi's believe, although I may just have been conditioned to believe that

Isn't the trend to make more and more psychological dysfunctions? If it continues, those people you describe are just labels waiting to happen. Right now some graduate psychologist is aiming to make his/her name by finding a new group to label. Eventually, the un-labelled will be in the minority and will suffer 'label envy' and realise how odd they truly are. "I'm so straight I'm weird" as the song went

The thing about a culture is that we are so immersed in it, we don't see it. I'm fascinated by the way behaviour that is considered 'normal' can become 'outlawed' within a few decades. Considering it's impact, cruelty is amazingly invisible, for example. We look back at schooling, parenting, treatment of the disabled, of criminals within the last 100 years and say "how could they be so cruel". What we are judging as cruel now was 'normal' then. Which is why I am very wary of using the word 'normal' to justify behaviour.

The pattern hasn't stopped. 100 years from now people will look back at what we think is normal and they will feel horror at how dumb, cruel and stupid we are. Another element of the repeated pattern is that those who point out the cruelty and stupidy are *not* intially welcomed by the masses! They are despised and treated with contempt...until the mind set shifts which sometimes has to wait till the 'believers' in cruel and stupid things have shuffled off and been replaced by a set of fresher minds.

Only because of views that it impaired health, morality, social order, family values, and perhaps civilization itself. Only because it was viewed as a problem was it ever actually innately problematic. Independent of an ideological/conceptual issue with the practice being held, what problem is there that is innate to homosexuality?

This is simply not true. Not being able to communicate effectively with others is an impairment that exists independently of whether there is a clinical concept of autistic spectrum disorders.
This is not true. My distress was very real before the label entered the DSM, before anyone I interacted with knew anything about AS whatsoever. Unlike homosexuality, AS causes impairment and distress that would occur even if the condition were not in the DSM; that is historical fact.

I have never claimed it was a symptom, although it certainly is a potential outcome of social difficulties that arise as a result of lack or insufficiency in particular core social competencies. And a lack of, or insufficiency in one or more species-typical core competencies constitutes dysfunction.


This is not relevant since "not having friends" might be an effect of AS, but no one sensible is claiming AS is "not having friends" or that "not having friends" is AS.
When we talk about autism we are talking about the core triad of impairments that is meant by the word autism; that core triad of impairments is present in AS by definition of AS. Therefore when we talk about autism we talk about Aspergers Syndrome.


Not necessarily.

There is no evidence that there is any advantage to the heightened acuity of vision, and since it can be "overstimulating" in the absence of others, your notion that it is about others not being as sharp simply does not hold up under examination.

Further, I am a human and my environment happens to include other humans. Being "sharper" is not necessarily of any utility, how one functions to their advantage or disadvantage in their environment is an objective measure of impairment. Valuations you might place on "being sharp" are not objective measures, they are subjective valuations.

Further still, the objective biological trait constitutes a distinctive underlying biological unity between the characteristics you have suggested might be randomly grouped. It demonstrates the biological unity of what is being described. If the overall is impairing beyond any utility that can shown to arise from this heightened acuity of vision, then objectively we are still looking at impairment.

And I again point to the irrelevance of that, since biological impairment does not convey any moral valuations such as negative/positive, good/bad. Objectively negative is not a coherent concept, and arguing against something being a biological dysfunction or impairment on the basis that it is not innately a morally negative trait (rather than on the basis of whether it advantages or disadvantages an individual in their particular environment) is fighting a strawman.

I expect you know as well as I do that the objective biological evidence of associated audio processing dysfunction cannot be "spun" to look like anything other than objective dysfunction, hence the decision to not comment on that. But not commenting does not wish the evidence away. The reality is, ASDs are a dysfunction. That means nothing morally, nor indicates a single thing about our moral worth. It takes a subjective appraisal of biological dysfunction as negative to jump from objective dysfunction to subjectively negative.

Last edited by pandd on 20 Mar 2009, 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, my view is certainly not that any atyicality whatsoever, is or will result in impairment. The problem with AS is not simply that it is atypical. The problem is that the particular atypicality is an impairment, and will be in any human society.

Being homosexual does not innately prevent one from effectively and easily communicating with others. ASDs by definition, entail barriers to communication.

Human species typical traits are such that all the societies we form, always entail cooperation facilitated by exceptional communication competencies. Impairment or deficiency in core communication competencies will always be a problem for effected individuals in any society humans would form, and AS entails impairment/dysfunction/insufficiency in core communication competencies.

You are very welcome.

The wearing of glasses is not relevant. Some of the subjects who manifested the heightened acuity require vision correcting. The difference is not related to the structures that result in short or long-sightedness, hence when eye sight is corrected, the heightened acuity is measurable.

That is not a good analogy unless you also predict that if you gave the criteria for this condition to others, they could separate people on the basis of it, then find distinct biological markers that are not predictive of or predicted by the specified criteria, but that directly correlate to the two distinct groups created. This would beyond the realm of plausibility unless what you were describing actually did have a biological coherency.

This is again not relevant other than proving that a unifying biological set of facts underpins the nosological concepts being employed.

It is entirely common for various causes to be grouped as one condition based on outcome.

The common cold is caused by particular instances of varied pathogens. Two people with the same viral infection might manifest slight variances in symptoms, and any one person is likely to manifest variance in symptoms from one infection to another. But we still view the common cold as coherent medical condition.

Last edited by pandd on 20 Mar 2009, 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

The communication medium here is really frustrating....I feel we're going round and round, possibly the same point!

BTW When talking to typical teachers and many who work with children now (including some parents), they believe that being 'unsocial' is also a health impairment, unnatural, breaks up families and is probably a threat to civilization when the one who prefers to play with Lego rather than running and screaming will no doubt grow up to be a psycopathic serial killer.

Anyway, *my* experience of AS contains no INNATE problems. It's not just me as Tony Attwood made the comment about AS disappearing as soon as the sufferer was alone. That describes me to a tee. Similarly, there have been posts here where people have said that AS hasn't caused them problems, their depression/anxiety etc was caused by bullying and harsh treatment from others due to having a different (not faulty, not disabled) way of presenting themselves in social situations. Through being inward looking and thoughtful. These are not problems that need fixing, but are traits that can lead to harsh treatment by those who I believe to have the *real* problems.

*However* I'm well aware that this description doesn't fit many here who, like Sora said, struggle by themselves to cope with basic needs.



If this audio processing dysfunction becomes a key criteria in diagnosis - which it should, according to what you're saying - then some of us are going to disappear off the autistic spectrum as I don't believe we have that dysfunction.
How many, I don't know. This is not a value judgement, just a statement of fact.

This then becomes a personal journey. I, and those similar, can say "I don't have a neurological disorder at all. I am NORMAL!! !" And then we can sue the people who misdiagnosed us, becasue of the distress they caused.

I can see a way of reconciling what you're saying Pandd, with what the "AS doubters" are saying. The reconciliation is that AS exists, but there is a serious over-diagnosis problem.

That is not what ManErg said. He said that in a society which had different attitudes to people with certain mannerisms, "quiet, reserved" social behaviour etc, someone with AS need not experience it as impairment.

You only refer to experience before and after AS/ASDs etc were diagnosed/known, but that has nothing to do with whether the society accepts "AS" kind of behaviour.

Imagine a society in which people did not demand rapid verbal responses; in which eye-to-eye contact was considered rude/impolite; in which much facial expression was considered a sign of immaturity, mental illness/weakness or inferiority; in which "mirroring" another's postures/gestures would be seen as mockery; physical and mental relaxation/stillness was encouraged and enabled by routine physical exercises like yoga and martial arts; "peer" relationships were not as important as those with a mentor, children, or pupils, and reciprocity was regulated by complex delicate codes of behaviour.

In this society, finely adjusted to the needs of those with AS behaviours, would you necessarily experience distress?


Exactly. Whether your style of social interaction is a positive thing, of use/value, depends on the society surrounding you.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Mar 2009, 7:39 am, edited 4 times in total.

I think the diagnostic guidelines and criteria are rather specific actually though there are a couple of holes indeed. Can you say which ones you find most non-specific?

Paradise ! !! !

(apart from the combat)

The thing is that while what you're describing would be fine for may of us, there are also many who appear to have a rather different set of problems. Or we get into a philosophical debate about where does a trait stop becoming a trait and become normal. e.g. everybody has *some* special interest, and nobody is a perfect communicator etc

It amazes me that on WP many of us are describing a completely different syndrome and I hadn't noticed it before.

I'm increasingly getting the feeling that I don't belong on WP at all. Running out of places to hide...

Last edited by ManErg on 20 Mar 2009, 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Most of them, because they require completely subjective, society-specific, evaluations of what constitutes non-dysfunctional "social interaction", including how much eye-to-eye contact, mirroring, movement/gesture, facial expression, is appropriate, and a subjective evaluation too of what represents "repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities", in a society positively plagued with such activities on the part of most people, at all times of the day, at work and at play. And the "apparently inflexible adherence to specific, non-functional routines or rituals" feels like a description of almost every workplace I have experienced.

.

To determine disability we compare to species typical traits in the particular competency/trait assessed and consider whether the impairment results from significant deviation (from the species typical comparison) that can be explained by biological dysfunction.

Why this entails differentiating between normal people and not normal people I cannot see unless one assumes that most people will never be characterized by disability in one or areas of functioning. I am not convinced that it is normal to be entirely free, for all of ones life, of disability.

Short sightedness alone covers a significant proportion of the population. Many will suffer significant hearing loss that constitutes disability before they die. Many will develop disability in the function of their heart, or liver, or lunges. Many will suffer injury resulting in diminished mobility and/or recurrent pain. Arthritis hits many....the list could go on and on and on. I very much doubt among the population that does not die young, that a life free from disability is the norm at all.

I do not believe that is accurate. If someone is suffering constant debilitating pain, there is no reason why we cannot measure this as a significant impairment.

I wonder what this means. Surely you are not suggesting society ought to consider that people should suffer more or do worse?
How will that help anyone?

Arguably society does label as disordered and dysfunctional those at the bottom in low paying jobs and poor housing, some societies more so than others. The difference is in the case of the poorly employed and poorly housed, this is not a biological label, but a subjective moral valuation.

If there is a medical cause to the violence then that would be viewed as symptomatic of biological dysfunction/disorder. Addiction is viewed as a dysfunction/disorder and by many a disability (it is certainly viewed medically). Ill health is obviously biological disorder/dysfunction; I cannot understand how ill health could not be medically viewed as anything else. Surely by definition ill-health is physical dysfunction/disorder and impairing?
A tendency to seek out unhealthily violent relationships is also viewed as dysfunctional/disordered. Some argue that such behavior is symptomatic of disabling clinical dysfunction/disorder.

Poverty is very obviously not a physical dysfunction or disorder, and I do believe you can figure that one out for yourself.

Why would society call these things appalling? Society is not calling ASDs appalling; a vocal minority might, but a vocal minority also wish to assert there was no holocaust. There will always be vocal minorities asserting very silly things.

This is a very silly question. Being poor can occur without any physical dysfunction or disorder.

This is just playing a very silly word game. The common use of disabled to mean something other than biological disability does not mean that it is logical to assert that any disability should be biological, or that if not none are. That just impoverishes our ability to communicate about the reality. No on is saying socio-economic disadvantage does not exist, but it is not necessarily related to anything biological. Why should we pretend no impairment or all impairment has a biological cause when we know this is simply not true? Because in essence that is where your argument goes if followed to its natural conclusion.

Which children?
What merits the treatment as something that the child is not willfully or lazily responsible for, is that the child is not willfully or lazily responsible. Whether a child does poorly because they cannot be bothered, or because they are not capable of achieving the expected standard in the circumstances in which their peers are achieving, is significant. I can assure you it matters to the child whether they are considered lazy, stubborn, naughty and a trouble maker, or someone who is trying as hard as anyone, and can achieve their potential if others join them in the effort in manner appropriate to their needs.


Quite a number, and in my generation many suffered undiagnosed learning disorders that this generation of children receive assistance and support for instead of blame and condemnation. Not only does this result in them feeling better about the situation, it greatly improves their success as well. So which is better, treating everyone as though their lack of achievement is simply a personal choice, or detecting real barriers to success, and treating the child concerned fairly as a person while delivering pragmatic assistance? I think the later, so do the people I know in RL who left school with low esteem and without learning to read and write fluently.

Because there is a default assumption that peoples' choices dictate their outcomes, and everyone is capable of making the same choices. The result is, unless there is a reason to believe someone could not simply make better choices and be as capable as anyone, that the non-performing individual is at fault and morally wrong. This is not helpful to someone trying their very best but still not getting results, and so when we discover a cause beyond the scope of personal choice, it would be unjust and frankly cruel to continue to treat the child as someone who is simply not performing to standard due to character flaws. It would also be impractical when compared to the alternative of finding appropriate interventions that will enhance a child's success.


Most children I know with a diagnosis of a learning disability are actually from the "poorest" classes in my society.
It will never be determined that human society will not entail impairment for AS. Of course some learning disabilities like dyslexia are not a problem in non-literate societies, but the solution of doing away with all literacy is not likely one that will receive wide enough support to ever be practical. I would oppose it myself.