Why I don't believe in The Aspergers Theory

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds like the OP is in serious denial.

What is this "obvious discrepancy?"

I think people like to believe that particular conditions are overdiagnosed, but I have no idea what they get out of such a belief.

I had plenty of people to socialize with growing up, I just chose not to most of the time because they didn't make sense to me. I have a VERY real problem dealing with loud noises. It makes my brain unable to concentrate on anything except the noise. I can't hear people talking in a movie and have a conversation with my girlfriend at the same time. The two conversations meld together to gibberish. You ever walk into a big room filled with tons of people, all having their own little independent conversations, and all you hear is this... it sounds like one big collective sound of gibberish/nonsense? Well that's what happens anytime I try to keep track of speech when someone else is talking(or any other noise is occurring. They try to override each other and turn to nonsense in my brain). That is not a theory, that is a very real thing that occurs. And so is thinking for myself.

And what about the fact that I can't read body language whatsoever? It takes me months to figure out someone's flirting with me if they don't come out and tell me bluntly what their motives are. What about the fact that even though I know it's socially "wrong," I can't ever stop myself from interrupting a conversation unless I try my ass off to just keep completely silent? I never know when it's my turn to talk. This isn't because I simply haven't been around enough people or had enough conversations to learn the rules.

I have no idea why people believe that doctors are gods and they can't be wrong. Have you heard of autosuggestion, subjectivity, acting?
Do they make blood tests, mri scans and s**t to prove their diagnosis have a real basis? NO.
Appearances can be faked easily and people are good at making up stories.

I find it odd, the suggestion that someone who has studied extensively in a field - often for upwards of 10-20 years - would have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

People don't just go around saying 'you know what, bipolar, that'll be a thing, I shall make that a thing!', they observe, document, analyse, etc. until they have a large body of evidence to prove that this condition is identifiable and categorisable in our human understanding of the world.

Yes there are poor diagnosticians, and some people are miss labelled, or are appropriately labelled for the understanding of the condition at the time but as developments are made it turns out they fit this label more. But generally speaking professionals know their stuff.

As for acting, for an act to be convincing the actor would have to know a great deal about the condition their imitating to be passable. There is, I think, an implicit understanding that your diagnostician will assume you're being honest to the best of your ability, and that you will assume that they're competent in their field.

Now I think I said such blasphemous words that I have no forgiveness in the heavens.
Please forgive me for being such an heretic and not believing in all the saint aspies, your highness.

Yes, aspergers diagnosticians are gods and you are the saints. Are you satisfied now?

Uhm... Guys, go and get yourself some tea or something, or this is going to turn into a nasty argument over nothing.

Keep it civil, hmm?

True. Anyway I was going to sleep. Argue with nobody. Buh bye.

I was saying no such thing. I was simply saying that to view them as completely incompetent isn't helpful either. Perhaps I shouldn't have responded snark for snark, but it's hard not to.



I wasn't trying to be uncivil, or have a nasty argument. I'm just slightly tired of the 'profession don't know anything' attitude. *Shrugs*

I am enjoying that there are so many troubling parts to that original post that we are now on page three of replies and not a single person has yet got to the fact that he started off by comparing himself and the likelyhood of disagreement with his opinion to the brutal mythical execution of Jesus Christ on the cross. Seriously, he compares himself to Jesus and nobody picked up on that? I dont mean to mock the OP for what is presumably something the seem to believe but you have to draw the line at deity comparisons, no?

I didn't really read too much into the post. I saw something about environmental factors and being stuck living around people who are in their 60s, and I had to respond to that alone. I went back to try and read the rest, but the post is ridiculously long, and I said "f**k that."

You are very ignorant about several things. When I read that part above I lost interest because you sound like those creationists that try to bash evolution because it is just a theory. I know people say this a lot but gravity and germ theory are also theories. If aspergers were really a theory then it would have a VERY solid foundation. I don't actually know what aspergers is, but a theory seems wrong.

I briefly skimmed the rest of your post and you don't seem to know very much about how aspergers is actually diagnosed or what the symptoms are.

And by the way, global warming is not a hoax and you're a f*****g dumbass if you think it is. It is not subject to refutation by people like you. The only people who have any say in the matter are graduate students who study in the field, and 98% of them agree that man-made global warming is occurring. Global warming deniers, or whatever you call them, should be scorned in the same manner that holocaust deniers are, because the evidence for global warming is in a sense stronger than that for the holocaust because you can actually take up-to date measurements on it and perform experiments on the effects of greenhouse gases. Also, most of the people who were harmed by the holocaust are now dead, but global warming will harm all future generations.

In reality, Global Warming is likely to be of immense benefit to mankind.

First of all, a warmer Earth is a more productive Earth. More food production means that we can feed more people. The real disaster would be Global Cooling as people would be starving and dying of starvation by the millions.

Furthermore, we are very far into the current interglacial warm period. When that ends, we will have a major disaster -- Global Cooling that will wipe out the vast majority of humans by starvation. The hope is that Global Warming can postpone the next Ice Age or at least make it somewhat less severe.

Global Warming is something we need, not a disaster. There is no need to panic about change.

This is so bizarre that it rivals anything said here before in terms of idiocy.

I said nothing about doctors not being wrong, but so can perceptions - and the perceptual bias that a condition is being overdiagnosed seems more prevalent than what seems to be the reality, that the condition is underdiagnosed.

A diagnosis may not have an MRI, blood test, etc. but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a real basis. Such diagnoses are made by observing and interacting with clients, sometimes in fairly involved ways (such as the ADI-R and ADOS).

It seems peculiar to me to invoke autosuggestion, subjectivity, etc. in terms of discrediting diagnoses, but somehow the perception that overdiagnosis is a real thing is not subject to autosuggestion, subjectivity? Consider a common cultural narrative about primarily childhood diagnoses such as autism and ADHD is that they exist to give parents an excuse for their child's behavior without taking responsibility for their poor parenting. Such a narrative lends itself to belief in overdiagnosis or even belief in the idea that these disorders do not exist. It is also subjective and suggestive, and does not require direct interaction with those who are diagnosed with these conditions, except perhaps briefly. Brief interactions are subject to fundamental attribution errors in which behavior is misattributed to personality flaws when it may be a brief reaction to a temporary stressor or fit into a larger pattern of behavior with a more thorough and empirically valid explanation.

So it's not really about thinking that doctors are always right, but rather wondering why they might be considered systematically wrong in a particular way. Which obvious statistical discrepancies are you talking about?

I disagree. It is almost certainly factually incorrect, but the gist of the statement is true: People who actually work in the field of climate science largely agree that climate change is real, and presents real dangers. There really is no scientific consensus that climate change isn't happening.