The Autistic Generation Gap

Post Reply New Topic

What floors me is that by doing an actual story involving a character specifically identified as Autistic, I found out that there is real concern at the professional level.

There was a lot of media coverage and outrage over Seinfeld. But I had no idea about the British version being so blatant about it, even 'playing' with it because the writers thought it funny about all the speculation. And then to find out that people are having deep misperceptions about ASD and what it really is.

I've never met anyone who wants to be autistic.

The article I referenced points that it is not about 'wanting to be autistic'. It's that popular media have misrepresented it and people don't understand. It also points to people latching on to those popular constructs and just saying "I identify with that, I must be too" and then never going to get diagnosed.

And, as always, there will be those who have to find something where there is nothing.

I am going to do more research later....

I think both views have merit and the more I read, the more I think they have equal merit based on different criteria.

The criteria may have been the elephant in the room nobody noticed.

Yes, it's interesting that quasi-autistic characters tend to be over-glamorized, as being highly functional, brilliant, and more socially adept than the average person with ASD.

Yet Bipolar Disorder (which I also have) is invariably portrayed as a horrible condition, with characters who are complete monsters, destroying the lives of their families. (I bet people aren't flocking to self-identify as that!)

Yeah.....that's what intrigued me is that the budding romance between the two characters (The female being Autistic/Diagnosed/Identified) was interesting because you can see some disability there. How accurate, I have no idea. But there is disability there. Humanizing disability. But not the invincible 'hero' that everybody wants to look up to or be.

It is a bit of an eye opener to find those two articles and there are more how popular culture is giving a bunch of bad information and people just latching onto it for various reasons.

I am honestly shocked to find this information.

Now wait a minute....

First off, we're talking (largely) about people who actually are officially diagnosed but allegedly shouldn't be. The Huffington Post article specifically refers to people who are not diagnosed. How can there possibly be an over-diagnosis problem among people who are not diagnosed?

Second, still regarding that Huffington Post article, who is that guy? If we disagree with EzraS and ZombieBrideXD, why would this guy change our minds? He doesn't mention any source of any kind for the perception mentioned in the paragraph you quoted. He doesn't mention any qualifications. He's listed as a software developer and technical writer. He doesn't even say "I've seen X on tumblr" or "my friend who's a doctor said..." much less give any actual statistics! The closest thing he mentions to a source is the National Autistic Society apparently disagreeing with him about the Sherlock thing.

The second article at least has relevant professionals giving their experience, but the article is mostly about the impact of ASD stereotypes and about whether that one character is a good example of ASD. I didn't feel like reading the article more than once, but in a single read, I didn't see any statistics or even a single anecdote about someone being wrongfully diagnosed (unless you count the fictional character). In fact, one of them specifically talked about the opposite:


(emphasis mine)

Meaning, people who thought they might have AS or ASD didn't get diagnosed. Assuming those people really didn't have AS or ASD, that is exactly how things are supposed to happen.

Slight tangent from what you were getting at, but I also want to draw attention to the fact that this doctor says (a) these non-ASD people found the idea that they might have ASD "very distressing," and (b) she specifies that even the ones who don't qualify for an ASD diagnosis still have real problems, just a different set of problems than ASD. In other words, they weren't calling themselves autistic just because it's trendy.

(I agree with the actual point both of those articles were trying to make, which is to try to dispel inaccurate autism-related stereotypes and to dissuade others from perpetuating those stereotypes by referencing media characters, especially media characters who don't even fit the condition well. But neither of them are evidence of this alleged "over-diagnosis problem.")


Well, I do think that there should be a non-diagnostic autism-like personality-related identity label, as ZombieBride made a topic about. The point where I disagreed was that I don't think such a label should apply to high-functioning ASD people INSTEAD OF a diagnosis. It would be for diagnosed people in addition to their diagnosis, hypothetically for ASD people who are cured (if such a thing ever happened), and for non-disordered people. It would also be an non-ideal "next best thing" for disordered people who aren't quite impaired enough for a diagnosis of ASD. Compare introversion or Highly Sensitive Person.

^^^^^I've honestly taken in so much information that it is becoming a bit of a muddle in my wee little head. But, overall there have been several arguments on several fronts.

Let's see if I get this right. I know I'm in the right place if I get it wrong. And I NEVER have a problem with being wrong. I just like to have it logical and all.

1) Xombiebride (not cutting and pasting so names will be muddled as well) was made aware of BAP which, while unofficial, is a seemingly good point.

2) Then about the 'over diagnosing'. Now I don't know if that is happening. And much friction came from people who spend an entire life not knowing then becoming educated and learning about it. And then getting a diagnosis. Those of us who are finding out about this can't fathom anybody wanting this.

3) Ezra did mention that it was becoming a bit of a fad (Again, we have no identification as he pointed out in a very angry way, not totally undeserved) amongst younger people. We, older people (OK...at least me) did not grow up being taught it was ok to be different. It was sink of swim. So we were 'trained' by society and parents and authority to not have these issues. So it is completely alien for most of us to even comprehend why someone would do this.

Whether the article did or did not have all the info you wanted, there is, as mentioned before, a plethora of articles about this. There is further reading for people who want to take the time to look.

But the articles are presenting information that does lend towards further research. And, I can see where the general population being fed a false representation could lead to people being ill informed.

I knew a person who was a forensic specialist. He had to testify a lot. He said his biggest problem is what is known as the "CSI" effect. It really is the term used. Anyway, since everybody believes what they say on TV, they all think they are forensic specialists. He spends most of his time having to repair wrong impressions.....

So, yeah, I can see where that can be a problem with ASD and other things that don't fit in a cookie cutter.

I do not watch every episode of "Elementary" but did see last nights. The woman charactor in question self identified as "neuroatypical" discussed her problems reading people and dating "neurotypicals". Aspergers/Autism while heavily implied was not specifically mentioned. Did she self identify as on the the spectrum prevoiusly? . Has the show labled Sherlock as aspergers or Autistic?

Right here:



It's okay. I have reading comprehension difficulties too.



No problem. A few people have purposely twisted my words to fit their agenda and then used that as an excuse to trash me, but I guess you are not one of them.

My reading comprehension difficulties make it very very frustrating to try tell who is agreeing with Erza and I or not so just to get this topic to die, let's all just say I agree or disagree.

So, here's my statement

I believe There are people on this website, NOT EVERYONE, but some people have autistic traits but I don't feel they are completely autistic because they just don't seem to be disabled or the traits they do have are just the bare minimum of symptoms and try and pass off as autistic. I find that kinda wrong.. Because it's like someone saying "I have cancer" but they really don't, all they have is a swollen lymph node, or a person saying " I'm gay, but I don't have sex with the same sex or even like the same sex that much, but I'm still gay" ( being gay isn't a mental disorder and autism isn't fatal) but I still feel like they shouldn't try and see what's not there..

I still think these people are allowed on wrong planet and even relate to autistic people, but they should do better research on autism or listen to a doctor when they suggest other conditions that aren't autism.

On a previous episode she was the person they investigated. In that episode Sherlock deduced that she was autistic. It was directly mentioned there. I did find it odd they used the term Neuroatypical instead of Neurodiverse. But, that's probably my inexperience.

How accurate it is, I don't know. So far, I am the only one I know of for sure so, no baseline there. Well, waiting to finish diagnosis to see if I am or not.

Sherlock on this side of the ocean has not been identified and does not attempt to do so. However, the writers on the BBC Sherlock have played word games with it as well by having people tell him he's got Asperger's and he plays it off by saying he's a high-functioning sociopath instead. So, there they are playing with things that people don't really understand in the populace at large. They say they like doing it because they are amused with all the people trying to 'forensically identify a fictional character."

So, without further information from them (Good story telling should involve introducing new material in a way that is explained or illuminated somehow) they make either a high-functioning sociopath or an Autistic person some sort of superhero without any of the negative influences.

More than anything, this does illustrate your thread title. Two completely different generations (2 by standard count and almost 3) with completely different expectations (They are doing this vs why would they do this) got waysided by not having better information.

So it seems that some people are saying that if those that are autistic overcome their difficulties and become successful that they no longer consider them to be autistic?

Autism is a brain abnormality. It doesn't go away as far as I know. It's not like recovering from an illness. It's an actual biological difference in the way the brain developed. If I were to find a way to be happy, and to learn to socialize, get a full-time job, and have a real life, how would that change my brain?

If I succeeded, all it would mean is that I went and got extra help, worked my ass off, and found ways around my differences, not actually changed them. I would only be successful through enormous extra effort, and mental "crutches" to help me do the things that others do. It wouldn't make me like them, though. I'd still be different, think differently, act differently, and seem different to others.

The text of the DSM-V specifies that these behaviors must be present "currently or by history" yet it also says later "Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning."

It makes absolutely no sense to me. There's no cure for autism.

A deaf person can use sign language, read lips, and learn to speak. They can use numerous devices to make their lives easier. They can hold full-time jobs, and have families and children. But they are still deaf. Perhaps they don't feel that it disables them. So maybe they wouldn't be "disabled" but would still be deaf.

I have every intention of having a real life. But that's not going to change who I am, or what I am. I'm disabled now, but I don't expect to be forever. Why can't I be an "adapted autistic"? I just don't see how learning to overcome my problems, like other people with disabilities often do, means that I no longer have the problem, or that I magically am going to become "a real live neurotypical woman."

I have arthritis, but I do pretty well with medicine. But I still have it. It's here to stay, and just because it's not disabling at the moment, doesn't mean it's not still there lurking underneath the surface.

Again, just in case, I'm not attacking anyone; I'm questioning the reasoning behind the idea that autism is cured if one has found ways to overcome it.

I'm not sure that was anybody's implication. At least not as I read it.


Exactly. Just hard work to learn to operate better in social situations.

this whole controversy has my head spinning! I'm going to play some computer games to chill out.

Good question. When I went from level 3 to level 2, it was not a matter of being partially cured. Or that my autism went into partial remission. I guess overcame is an accurate enough term.

One person mentioned that the "autism personality type" could be for those that are cured. Then somewhere on another thread, maybe? I don't know. Someone mentioned that those that that aren't having trouble functioning wouldn't be considered to be autistic. I honestly am totally confused and sleep-deprived, so I don't know who said what.

It made me curious, so I looked up the DSM-V. And then that part that mentioned current impairment confused me. If I am able to overcome things, do they reverse the diagnosis?