DSM change justified due to pandemic of AS misdiagnosis

Post Reply New Topic

As to being bullied, people will have different life experiences and depends on school etc. It is not a sign for or against Asperger’s or other handicaps. Normal peoples can be bullied too.

Some autistic people seem too attention-seeking and whiny to be autistic, because if you complain about your problems and your feelings of upset constantly, then you can't be autistic, because autistic people don't communicate things about themselves and only say things like the sky is green and the grass is blue.

Also, if you know that you are being bullied, then there is no way that you are autistic, because autistic people are not socially aware enough to know about being bullied.

See, based on these, my personal criteria for autism, I used to be autistic, but I'm not anymore.

My autism is in remission.

Professional psychiatrists, after reviewing empirical evidence, decided to make the criteria a little stricter in some ways in DSM 5 and decided to keep the requirement of "severe impairment" for a diagnosis of ASD and to add the option of saying ASD is" in remission". I'm not saying that what professionals say is always right. Of course it's not and of course what scientists believe changes with new evidence ect. My point is this: This isn't some wild proposal that the OP or I came up with based on jealousy of people who are un-impaired. You guys are saying things like "The OP's criteria" or "The OP and daydreamer'84s' criteria". It's not our criteria. This is what the DSM requires. We're just saying we agree with it.

When the OP was talking about bullying she wasn't saying bullying should be criteria for autism or that it is. I'm quite sure she knows it's not. She was describing her childhood and her severe impairment in social interaction, giving an example of it. She never said everyone else's impairment should be exactly the same and they should be just like her to be diagnosed. I likewise did not propose any criteria for autism different from the criteria that currently exist.

I agree with the DSM-5 criteria too.

I think they are fine, and I agreed with them all along.

A valid point that multiple people have made in this thread is that no one knows eggsacly what are other people's impairments, and sometimes, people themselves are not aware of themselves having impairments that they have.

I was unaware that I had any social impairments before diagnosis, but I had more then than I do now, since I learned some ways to improve communication and social since.

Also, some people tend to be quiet about their impairments, and their personalities are such that they don't talk about successes or failures much, and perhaps even dont' consider either to be big deals.

I tend to have one of these even-tempered personalities, and I don't say much about problems due to lacking instinct to communicate about problems to people.

I like the ASD-related changes in DSM 5.

^^^
Okay, I get it , the OP's observation of people identifying themselves as AS or ASD and not being very impaired can't be trusted because you can;t tell over the internet. Okay, I'll agree with that.Nevertheless her assertion that PDDs might have been over- diagnosed is supported by the fact that the professionals did decide to make the criteria somewhat stricter and by the research that Peter Szatmari discussed (mentioned earlier in the thread).

Anomiel, since you happily chopped and pasted bits and pieces from my OP, re-assorted them completely out of context, and then made BIZARRE (no exaggeration here ) accusations and assumptions about me, after I had already wasted my time responding to the sensible part of your other comment, and politely explaining why my views are actually oppositional to just about every negative attribute you ascribed to me, I honestly don't think I can take anything you're saying seriously, or bother responding in context. I'll copy paste my favourite bits.

I only read the first post and I widely agree, however: due to the complexity and plasticity of human intelligence its effectively impossible to prove or reliably pinpoint any of the claims. So to speak they can only be realized by some immense pool of coherent knowledge and rational conclusions as well as the appropriate personal experiences (like a 30-year-experienced doctor in the field would have). Or in other words, its just unarguable. Someone non-verbal 50 years ago might cope and never visit a doctor nowadays, only because he has internet access. The power of intellectual effort is not to be underestimated given the appropriate environment. What a child can understand now in grade school used to be unimaginable by the most brilliant scientists 1000 years ago. Access to precompiled knowledge frees up immense amounts of cognitive capacity, capacity that can be used for everything.

But anyway, diagnosing mental disorders is and always was just widely guesswork. Its basically to mental health what used to be shamanism to physical health. The theories make some sense, but then not really and the effective outcome rarely leads to a cure. In that sense, its kind of pointless to argue rationally with a widely irrational framework. But we got nothing better currently, so something (however nonsensical) is likely better than nothing.

I see basically the same thing happening with AS as with BPD (borderline personality disorder) or bipolar and even just plain depression. By my observation, they even seem to sometimes diagnose just because they believe the therapeutic measurements would help although the diagnosis itself is extremely misfit. Imagine a person had some unknown infection and you could only get antibiotics if you knew what the infection was: it makes a whole lot of sense to misdiagnose. Same thing can possibly be true for mental disorders.
Doctors diagnose just more and people keep coming up with their problems to health care more frequently. It used to be that diagnoses were only done if it was dead obvious, if even an educated layman could see what it was, so to speak the person was the near-exact cliché of the very diagnosis. That just changed. In simple numbers, even if a diagnosis fits only 20%, you are probably better off tackling that 20% than to do nothing (even if there could be collateral damage, e.g. by medication). That is the real pragmatism behind diagnosing more loosely. But the whole framework still works with the notion that it is either on or off, that the diagnosis is true or false, applies or does not apply and people get confused, understandably, because like I said and like it would become obvious to you too, if you had years and years of knowledge and experience with mental health, its because its basically all still BS, very much in its infancy. Don't take it too serious.

I have mainly read the original post and a few others.

As someone who is awaiting a possible diagnosis at age 30, I must say I am ambivalent about some of the claims. Firstly, being bullied is not the foundation for any form of diagnosis. No, I was not bullied as a child to a disabling degree, but I was still hurting. Secondly, very few people would seek out a diagnosis or help if they did not feel the massive disadvantages of being on the spectrum. It is much like with personality disorders: Most people can relate to a few of the characteristics, but when it becomes disruptive to your life it calls for a clinical diagnosis.

In regards to the diagnostic criteria; I have no issues with that. As a psychology student I have learnt to adjust to the forever changing diagnostic manuals without batting an eyelid. But it is also important to recognize that autism in most forms presents slightly differently in females than in males. My social skills as a child were probably slightly better than yours, but I was still unable to interact with my peers in a satisfying manner. My sensory issues did not cause me to wretch (reactions like these do not necessarily show the severity of your sensory issues or physical sensations, but rather your inability to deal with them), but I struggle to wear clothes to this day. I have numerous issues in every day life. If I had no issues, I would not bother seeking a diagnosis. I really doubt many young or old adults would put themselves through the scrutiny simply to wear an autistic badge.

That many are proud of who they are, including their autistic traits, is fantastic. That they stand up for themselves and say: "I am different, not wrong", "I can function and thrive in the right environment", "I have more to give than you think" is nothing short of amazing. I am sorry if you cannot relate to this.

As for ackshul misdiagnosis based on real life observed traits instead of internet-eggspressed impairments, that is probably happening particularly in children, with the super loose and vague PDD-NOS criteria from DSM-IV, but they have fixed that in DSM-5.

However, research has not yet reached clear conclusions on what is the meaning of the many people with PDD-NOS who don't meet criteria for ASD, but show social and communication traits very similar to ASD.

New NIMH approach and studies suggest that autistic traits of people with PDD-NOS are same as those in people with ASD.