Do you sometimes feel that AS is a made up disorder?

Post Reply New Topic

Same here.

My interaction with others when I was younger used to be very one sided, but since then I've learned how to respond in a polite way, give compliments, how to persuade others and taking turns in conversation.

I have to try and store up my one sided interaction for times when it's socially appropriate. This hasn't always been easy. Once I knew that I could recite television programmes, I started to watch educational shows so I could recite facts that the schools wanted me to memorise and recite at the appropriate time. My monologuing skills formed the basis for my academic talks and presentations. My observing the physical environment got me interested in learning about science and drawing. My comparing animals and objects to each other as a child formed the basis of similies and metaphors in my later writing.

My underlying personality and perception hasn't changed, I've just learned the hard way what's socially acceptable to say and when. I'm still learning. Sometimes I simply can't keep up with all the different trends and customs.

I'm still not perfect at this and can still come across as rigid. In conversation I still tend to talk about the surroundings, interesting objects/subjects and my current interest more than I do about other people's relationships. I talk about these things simply because I notice these things first. I still say unusual things, but some people appreciate my perspective.

I still find it almost impossible to walk up to a stranger and say "hi" because I'm afraid of offending people. I do much better if someone initiates the conversation first so I have an idea what I should say and what to expect.

If AS exists only as a way to say that people fail at socializing, the argument could be made - I don't know if it has been made; I didn't read the whole topic - that depression exsists as a way to say that people are just sad.

I've considered it.

My problem is this - there could possibly be an actual neurological reason for the way we are how we are, but since no one can ever 'prove' your neurology - how can anyone ever know whether you have it or not? How is anyone (even an 'expert') to really know if you have a neurological disorder or something else that mimics its symptoms?

That's what I think about, anyway.

No doubt Aspergers exists, but its highly variable just how much it disables a person. In some ways though to me its just a nerd disorder. I mean people who had Aspergers before the diagnosis existed still had a problem. But they were just considered the class nerd and they went on and did the best they could in life as they become adults. Now its like having a label for it creates a crutch. It's still the same as its always been; there are normal people and there are the weirdos. Aspies are just the weirdos of the world.

Actually, they found that most adults with AS were previously misdiagnosed with Schizophrenia before the days where anyone would dream of diagnosing a verbal adult or non-echolalia child if he or she spoke [with a normal IQ] with autism.

anna-banana,

That's from Lorna Wing's paper on Asperger's, which is the definitive one besides Hans'. It is what is it.

When you actually think about it and look things up in books it comes about that even 'normalcy' is a made-up condition so why not autism and Asperger's syndrome.
Just because because it's a made-up description doesn't make the condition any less physically real.

^
Well said.

That's a really interesting idea. It would suggest that there isn't an increase in autism, but that it has become more noticable.



Sounds like this implies that the AS brain is closer to the 'original state' of the human brain and it is the NT brain that has developed to adapt to life in large towns and cities. From what I've read and seen about the more 'primitive' (perhaps 'authentic' is a better word?) peoples left on the planet, they do seem much more calmer, introverted, quieter and peaceful that the hyper-social contemporary citizen. I've also read that eye contact varies between cultures, that our western culture *does* emphasize it more than others.

Not sure that AS traits are good in business. They *should* be useful. Objective knowledge and genuine skills really should be enough to take you far, but in big business at least, there is this huge 'cheating culture'. There are a lot of people writing about this, including the ideas that the world of business is just ripe for a sociopath to succeed in. Scandal after scandal....conscience is a disadvantage.



Oh, but they can't really make us buy something we have no real use for. We know this is true because the advertisers have told us so.

Yes. Very often.

Homosexuality used to be considered a disorder. It was removed from the DSM because it's no longer considered a disorder. But that doesn't make it any less real.

AS may or may not be a disorder. But it's definitely real.

Though it's also made up in the sense that, it's a human created category. But, then, so is AIDS. Was AIDS "made up" and not real before they discovered HIV? No, it was just as real before that, just less understood.

All conditions are made up, I am not saying the problems aren't real but just the labels. Doctors just give conditions names is all so we all know what is wrong and know what to look up and read about it to understand yourself better or that other person.
Imagine what life would be like if there were no names for disorders and syndromes? What if there were no names for illnesses?

But there are some names out there that are ridiculous like Casandra Effective disorder, shy eating, pregnorexia. It be like taking autism symptoms and giving it a name of its own. That is just going a bit too far.

Last edited by Spokane_Girl on 06 Jan 2009, 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I feel that it is a made-up disorder. I don't see any reason to distinguish aspergers from autism and I find that system a bit flawed and pointless.

For instance, I didn't have a language delay yet I'm more withdrawn than people with aspergers typically are. I never try to socialize. I've never went into a monologue about something, I'm happy by myself in my own little world. I also don't accumulate facts about one particular interest, I think I'm more into just studying parts of objects and obsessing over objects. I don't see the difference and I'm honestly quite confused by it all.

NT society has far more need to catagorize things than we do. They have some strange as yet non-official condition called 'fear of the unknown'.

interesting question. yeah i sometimes feel that way.
xxx

I agree.

Also, if the schooling and employment systems become more sociable and inclusive over time any cultural/socialising differences will become more noticeable.

Also if social expectations increase and people are expected to do brilliant work as well in corporate environments. Higher expectations, higher stress more multitasking. A more competitive and crowded workplace: a "hive" like environment. Any differences in people's working or socialising methods will really stand out.

Perhaps in the old days, many people didn't have as many opportunities as they do now. Also people generally knew the locals and that was generally it. Most worked locally, had apprenticeships and had the same job for life.Things were probably less complex then and belief systems and morals were more rigid.

Now we have world wide international travel, the internet and television. Fifty years ago I think that people's lives were less socially and culturally hectic.

People have higher expectations now and expect things to be "instant" or others to behave in the "appropriate" way without being told how.

That's a lot of change in society in a relatively short space of time.
I wonder if it's sustainable...

Yes, people do like to label things. Some people were alert enough to co-opt the label of "normal" for themselves. Imagine if aspies had gotten there first. The DSM would list "social addiction disorder" and not autism.