About the existence or inexistence of Asperger Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that this is very important. This whole thread shows that there are some, maybe many, who prefer to accept themselves as disabled/dysfunctional and will fight that label being taken away. If that works for them, then you have to respect that. I do not want to make anything worse for them. I have been that way myself, maybe it is transient? They also should respect that some of us do not believe we are any more dysfunctional than anybody else in this crazy society we live in.

Now awakened to this Asperger/Autism blurring, I'm seeing loads of threads where the terms are being used at random, interchanged, as aliases of each other. This strikes me as a big problem. What's happened? There should be a clear distinction. It has NOT been scientifically proven that Aspergers is on the autistic spectrum. True they share similarities, but then some of us have more in common with Social Anxiety Disorder than Autism. The whole thing strikes me as a mess. It's psychological musical chairs - every few years the music stops and the symptoms run for a place in the next available syndrome! The Autism/Aspergers connection has become true by constant repetition, not fact, as far as I'm concerned.

I've seen quite a few people stating the "AS is not a disability, it's the way they treat us" line since I've been on WP. The thing is to identify them and see where that takes us. I have a feeling that some of them have moved on because once you see it, once you get into that frame of mind, 25,000 people weeping, wailing and gnashing teeth at how hard their lives are because of their terrible disability is err... well not where you want to be, I suppose.

The problem is not alienating those at a different point on the human spectrum, I suppose.

Last edited by ManErg on 20 Mar 2009, 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, but that's all just socially constructed too If you build a world that says normal people should be able to sit or stand still at the same place every day for their whole adult lives...well, the rest all just follows, doesn't it?

Surely nothing could be more 'normal' than motherhood for a woman? And fatherhood for a man, too. The fact that both these (motherhood more so, obviously) sit incongrently in what the contemporary workplace (and town centre) expects shows how dysfunctional our culture really is.

PS Yes, I did the pushchair thing. It's a total mind warp! Having young children in general made me see clearly how anti-humanity the prevailing cultural norms are. I think adults don't like that spark of THE REAL that is natural in every child. It reminds us of what we have lost, so we want it hidden away, suppressed and ultimately hammered out of the child so they can join the herd. But that's another story....

The UK is particularly "child-unfriendly", when compared to France and Spain, in my experience. The latest trend is "Child Free Weddings" ! !! Even better, I know people who have had "child free christenings" (apart from the poor sprog being dunked, of course). ie they invite adults but say you can't bring children under 12 'cos they're so disruptive. We are so fragmented, our society has a sickness at its core, I can not be judged by those who are sicker than me.

No group and no individual should have to tolerate discrimination. First remove the discrimination. People can embrace their labels if they want. Abolishing discrimination and socially sanctioned disrespect should, hopefully, take a little pressure off.



Does anyone know how Aspergers was placed on the Autism Spectrum? Or how Aspergers came to be regarded as not very different from HFA?




So many people labeled with AS have horror stories from the past and/or are presently living a disaster of a life. Much of the misery and confusion is due to social pressure and trying to force us to conform. Over-usage of bad drugs and attempts to eradicate or cure our differences don't help much either.


Exactly.

It's doubtful a group can form a movement if it's unaware of its own history or of the current state of research, and cannot agree on what it actually is.

For history, the place to start would be the work of Asperger and of Lorna Wing (who published the 1981 paper on his work), and to read that within the wider context of autism research (e.g. Kanner).

Lorna Wing was the one who coined the term "Asperger Syndrome" in her 1981 paper. She used it to avoid Asperger's term "autistic psychopathy". She doubts the widening of the concepts of autism would have occurred had she simply used the term "high-functioning autism", i.e., autism with normal cognitive ability. Wing fears she opened pandora's box by calling it that (and indeed she did, judging by the enormous confusion it causes.)

She thought it part of the autistic spectrum and did not intend AS and autism to be thought of as different conditions, because there were no clear boundaries between them. Another thing: it's often overlooked that Asperger mentioned there was a "smooth transition ... to those mentally ret*d people who show highly automaton-like behavior" (p. 75, Asperger, 1944/1991). He acknowledged that the behaviors he studied also occurred in the less able.

There have since been no clear boundaries found between the sub-groups of the autistic spectrum. The overlaps are too great.

It's also relevant to mention quickly that various types of autism spectrum disorder can be found in the same family.

I'll leave it at that for now. There's so much more to write about the history, current state of research, and how labels are produced (and all the problems involved with them) that the post would become too long if it were included.

The history of a group starts with it's formation. A group can form with no history and no knowledge of research. It would have to agree on what it actually is, though.



That's really interesting. Although there are those who insist they can see the quality of the Empress's new clothes, it seems that the Empress herself may have been feeling a little chilly.



And no clear boundary between Aspergers and Neurotypical either. Maybe we shoudn't regard those as different conditions, just different points on a spectrum?



Sounds like the typical factory or office worker. Behaving like an automaton are desirable traits in those environments.



Surely the NT have sub-groups too? Is anybody looking?

It is very easy to say that - now how do we solve the problem. It is not as simple as "First remove the discrimination", is it? Essentially what you would need to achieve that is a revolution in practise and I mean an actual one. Unless we box ourselves into our own society that is and even then, I reckon the same stuff will start flying around between levels of Aspie...

Write a book on it if you want to do something about it. Seriously, most things are changed by books. You should take a close look at politics...

I have tried to read through some of this debate and make sense of it. But I am getting lost in it right now. All I know is that I was diagnosed with AS and am happy with that diagnosis. From what I have read about AS---it is definitely me. I believe AS is on the autistic spectrum. There are many things about me that have always seemed autistic. So I often use the terms AS and autism interchangeably---and why not? It is all considered the autistic spectrum.

I have so far identified at least 8 members of my family with autistic traits. Most of them only show/showed traits and not what I would call full-blown AS or autism (I say show/showed because some of them are deceased). It has been found that 60% of AS people had a problem while being born. These problems have been said by many experts to turn on the genetics to make the AS/autism more pronounced. I suffered 45 minutes of oxygen deprivation at birth---I have pronounced symptoms of AS/autism. One of my cousins was cruelly locked away in the infamous Athens, Ohio psychiatric hospital when he was 16 (many years ago). He got out of that place when he was an old man. I met him once or twice. He was truly the "Rain Man" type. He had all these dates memorized of our family members' births complete with the weather conditions for those dates. Socially, he was not able to cope. Today I believe he would have been considered somewhere around the border line of AS to classic autism. I am convinced I have found the genetic link in my family of AS. My family is descended of Thomas Jefferson's uncle or father. Either the uncle or father (not known which one of the two for sure) is the ancestor here. Thomas Jefferson is now said to have had AS. This may be the ancestral genetic link in my family. That is my mother's side of the family. However, my father is interesting too. He can multiply three (or maybe 4) digit numbers in his head faster than one can do it on a calculator---savant skill? I don't know. He has some AS traits himself. As for me, I am considered to have musical savant skills.

Anyway, my point is---I know AS is real. I believe it is not a chosen way of life for us, but rather a different wiring that makes us the way we are. We cannot help that. For me, I love my AS.

Yes, it's part of the diagnostic criteria.

Anyone it is not true of, does not meet the criteria for diagnosis.
Utterly irrelevant. No attempt to describe and define the condition was being made. The point being discussed was whether or not homosexuality is a good analogy. The fact remains that culturally variable social attitudes rather than species typical social behavior was/is the crux of the issue facing homosexual people. In the case of AS there will always be the issue of species typical social behavior that cannot be removed or altered simply by altering social norms.


That is not a scientific sample. More to the point, even if 90% of persons with AS are introverted, unless the 10% who are not introverted are not having any problems socially, your notion that a change in attitudes towards quiet people is the crux of the issue, simply is not true. Either only introverted people with AS are effected socially, or social attitudes towards introverted behavior simply cannot be the explanation.

That is irrelevant to whether or not AS is real and to whether or not a change in attitudes about introversion would "cure" any problems.
I know someone who was misdiagnosed with fragile X. This is a condition tested for using "empirical biological tests". The individual concerned was retested and found not to have fragile X. None of this makes fragile X not a very real condition. Misdiagnosis happens with most if not all conditions, even those tested for using "empirical biological tests:.

I do not understand why you imagine that I am refusing to acknowledge any group. I am asserting AS is real and constitutes biological dysfunction. I have never asserted that no one is misdiagnosed with AS. I thought I had actually explicitly stated in an earlier post that I had no opinion as to how common it might be for people to be misdiagnosed with AS.

I'm curious. Do any of those who assert AS is not a disability or disorder because they personally are not defective/disordered/dysfunctional, view those with asthma as defective/disordered/dysfunctional people, or do they simply view a condition whereby one often cannot breath and which might result in death, a difference but not a disorder?

In my view I am not dysfunctional, but I do have more than one condition that is a biological dysfunction. It would seem whether or not I have AS I am dysfunctional as per your reasoning, because I am also short-sighted. That constitutes a physical dysfunction, so to you I am dysfunctional anyway. I do not mind, because the notion that some physical dysfunction renders the individual characterized "a dysfunctional person" or generally dysfunctional is not one I can respect.

What I do mind is attempts to misrepresent my view as being about dysfunctional people, rather than biological dysfunction that some people are characterized by. I am not deliberately misconstruing your view to be general bigotry against disabled people, even though such a description does not appear too far off the mark to me, in all honesty.

The second half of that statement IS a delibrate misconstruing of my view, despite your disclaimer.

The specific group being discussed here was formed by those with a certain/suspected diagnosis deciding to communicate. Without the label, this particular group would not have congregated. Individuals who share likenesses sometimes naturally form groups, and those who would fit under these current labels would have done so throughout history in different guises. However, this particular group was formed under a label. This group has huge issues with the labelling, and is attempting to clarify what the labels mean, what actually exists etc., and how to go about activism and forming movements. I don't see how it can do this without being aware of the labels' history.



Sorry, I don't understand about the naked lady.
I'd need concrete statements to comprehend the opinion on Wing.



Indeed. However, HFA and AS are far more alike, as a whole, than AS and typicality are.
(Another issue, which has probably been brought up somewhere [I know Wing did], is that it's more complex than a spectrum; it's a multidimensional continuum.)



By highly automaton-like behavior, he's referring to stereotypical autistic behavior. This does not occur in all diagnostic groups or all with MR. It is specific to autism to a large degree. The more typical population does exhibit mild repetitive behaviors, but overall, they are distinct in quality and quantity. The point of the quote was that there's a smooth transition in the syndrome he studied from his patients (generally labelled as high-functioning) to the less cognitively able (generally labelled low-functioning).

The environmental adaptiveness of such traits is a separate issue, and I don't dispute that highly atypical traits can be adaptive in the right environment. That's also relevant to the social model of disability. However, classifications, while not absolute, can be applied to the natural world and are applied because they are useful. Otherwise you end up in an amorphous sea of information and cannot extract any useful knowledge from it. I can only see use for stripping all boundaries completely if you are embarking on some traditional path to enlightenment. In everyday life, categories are useful and necessary; the trouble arises when it's assumed they are absolute or inherently "bad". This is what needs to be sought: equal rights for the different variations of the human condition. Simply denying those differences doesn't solve the problems.

It is a description of a construction that could be made about your views; notably the sentence describes the construction as a misconstruction, making it obvious that I am not asserting the construction described is your view, but on the contrary describing such a construction as a misconstruction.

That I have trouble seeing the difference between what I understand to be your view, and a generally denigrating view of those who are not completely without biological dysfunction describes my perspective, and my earlier post clearly signals that it is simply my perspective (rather than trying to pass of my perspective of your opinion as being your actual opinion.

I note you still seem very reluctant to clarify how your view of "biological dysfunction = a dysfunctional person" relates to those who are characterized by biological dysfunction, and would ask why this is not a significant factor in whether I can accurately be described as deliberately misconstruing your view.

I have been quite clear in stating that a biological dysfunction is not equivalent to a "dysfunctional person", but you have yet to clarify how if in your view admitting AS is a biological dysfunction is equivalent to calling those with AS dysfunctional, whether or not you view asthmatics, short sighted people, diabetics as "dysfunctional people" rather than people experiencing biological dysfunction.

I've made it clear that biological dysfunction is not equivalent to being a dysfunctional person, you have not made it clear that you do not view those with biological dysfunction as dysfunctional people, and further it appears to me to be a necessary implication of what you are purporting.

So even if I had represented my suspicion about your view as being your view (rather than my opinion about the appearance of your view from my perspective), it would not be deliberate misconstruction on my part. There is a difference between representing someone's view as being something that is consistent with what they have said and have not denied, and presenting someone's view contrary to what they have explicitly asserted and denied.

I meant it sounds like she had some doubts herself, yet there are others who say "there is no confusion *I* can see it clearly". It reminded me of the emperors new clothes, a so-called story that to me shows more truth in the human condition than a roomful of psychiatrists ever could!



Aspergers seems in practice to be catching a very broad range of behaviour. Diagnostic criteria seem to be getting interpreted differently.

There are a lot of shared traits between Social Anxiety Disorder and Asperger's. Well, in some of our Aspergers, at least. When I was diagnosed, there was apparently 1 key indicator that suggested AS not SAD. Yet several criteria for autism, such as sensory overload, I don't suffer from at all. And then some people will say that Aspergers doesn't have sensory overload, only communication problems (eg DSM IV), and others will say it does...oh no it doesn't..oh yes it does....oh no it doesn't.....behind you!!

It is very clear reading the text in question, that the doubts are about the name, and not about the existence of AS, or about whether or not AS is a form of autism.

That is interesting.

Does that mean that you would never refer to someone as "an aspie" or "an autistic", because it confuses the person with the condition/dysfunction, ( the "identity" politics issue again )?

.

So perhaps the answer to Kangoogle's question of "Who is the group?" is; "People With X", ( where "X" is almost any recognised biological/neurophysiological/metabolic dysfunction which causes serious/chronic difficulties, and which society currently makes little or no effort to include/accommodate. ).
.

Last edited by ouinon on 21 Mar 2009, 11:13 am, edited 3 times in total.

No, it means if I call someone an asthmatic, I am not implying that they are a dysfunctional person, nor do I necessarily view them as a dysfunctional person.