Poke wrote:
It's funny how the DSM works.
This is the type of arbitrary distinction I'm talking about. Say that the criteria for, say, BPD includes ruling out autism (I don't think this is actually the case, but there are many instances of this type of distinction throughout the DSM). Not only is this distinction arbitrary (who says an autistic person can't also have BPD?) it sets up a false dichotomy that gives the superficial impression that these diagnoses are in diametric opposition, despite the fact that, upon consideration of their general attributes, the kinship between them should be fairly obvious. This is not to say that all persons with BPD should be called "autistic"--only that they're at a sufficient distance from normality and towards autism.
That is why is so easy for people to be diagnosed with many different labels.
Poke wrote:
Also, I think there's a tendency (especially among members of sites like this) to define Asperger's in terms of what I've previously referred to as the "rose-colored archetype" of Asperger's: a logical introvert with poor social skills who wouldn't/couldn't hurt a fly, full of empathy that NT's can't understand, etc. I can understand why such an archetype might persist in a place like this, but anyone with real-life/clinical experience with the conditions in question knows that it's largely illusory.
Agree that the "rose-colored archetype" bias exists, but I would not say it is
not illusory just an exaggerated bias.