About the existence or inexistence of Asperger Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't say that the label should be medical. Just that a label is important. Some kind of definition, so that people are aware that the difference exists. Words are all labels - we use them to make sense of the world around us.

As I said, I don't think the whole 'disorder' aspect of our label is ideal. But a label is better than none, so that awareness can be reached and we can be given a voice. I imagine the label might change over time, as we become more vocal and are listened to more, and can therefore rename ourselves, as the gay community have done.

I don't doubt the existence of the traits, attributes, characteristics, sensitivities etc. that people here describe. What I doubt is that you can pick a set of say, 4 out of 8 of those traits and give it a meaningful label.

You can't have a broken leg without a break, you can't have chicken pox without spots. Yet you can have AS without meltdowns (I've never had a meltdown, but I'm diagnosed AS), you can have it without having special interests, - we've had threads here where many say they don't have special interests. You can even be an extrovert Aspie - go figure that one out!

That's what a 'syndrome' is, I believe. A certain number of a list of traits. At this point you can see how arbitrary and arguable the whole thing becomes. Somebody has to choose the list of traits, the number of traits that count towards the syndrome etc. Reading WP shows while there are a lot of shared experiences, NOTHING is shared by anywhere near everybody. There are a lot of differences, too.

Anybody could draw up a list of traits and derive a syndrome from them: "No interest in intellectual activity, never reads books, few if any qualifications, watches excessive television" etc etc If you have 3 out of those 5 traits, then you have "Ignoramus Syndrome". Statistics show that this previously undiscovered syndrome seriously affects your potential in life as those with IS are lowest paid, highest unemployed and most likely to commit crime. How has society missed this very real syndrome for so long?

We could invent a new syndrome every hour on the hour, based on real character traits . The culture *chooses* what it defines as 'abnormal'. And we are fools to believe it, given the shakiness of the evidence. Even the concept of an "AS Spectrum" starts wobbling when you find that in some traits you could be at one end, yet on other traits you could be at the other end.

Here's my map of what is really going on: there is a broad introversion/extroversion spectrum. We are all on it. The fast pace of modern life is causing those in the introverted part to suffer real problems, mainly due to unnatural pressures imposed from the environment. There is nothing wrong with us, it is a natural way for humans to be and a valuable part of the variety of life. It is not a disease, nothing to be cured. It has become a 'problem' due to environmental change and especially a trend where 'socialisers' are in positions of power in our culture. They use themselves as a measure of normality, and are making a world that is comfortable for themselves and their type. Those who can't comply are clearly (in their view) 'disabled', to put it politely. That would be most of us here.

There is also rare neurological disorder called Autism. It has very little to do with Aspergers, if anything at all. A few shared symptoms means *nothing*. Meningitis, influenza and a hangover after too much booze have MANY shared symptoms, but are totally unrelated! Think about it: if you diagnosed Meningitis based on trait counting, every case of flu would register enough traits to be "on the Meningitis spectrum". "Mild" or "Higher Functioning" Meningitis perhaps? Yet Meningitis has a clear test: presence of the Meningitis virus or bacteria. Totally objective, regardless of filling in a checklist if subjective symptoms. There is NO such comparison with Aspergers. And there never can be because, to be blunt, Aspergers doesn't actually exist in the same way that a virus does. It is a subjective judgement and is in the eye of the beholder, though that may be a self-judgement based on believing the cultural hype on what 'normal' is.

Somehow Autism has got mixed up with Aspergers, yet may have nothing to do with it. As I've said, a few shared traits means little. For those who say "my sensory overload is real". Yes, I'm not arguing that at all. What I would say is "Why label yourself as oversensitive, why not label the NT's as undersensitive and give THEM a label?".

We have no manual, or operating guide for a human being. So we base 'normal' on the majority. The same majority that believed the earth flat, that eating the brains of your enemies gave you their strength etc etc. History is a never ending catalogue of the daft things human's have believed. The majority is all too often absolutely, totally and shamefully *wrong* about everything.

You forgot that there is no validation for the existence of classical autism either.

Classical autism is as valid or as invalid as AS, because the cause for it is as unknown as that for AS and because just as those with AS do not share all traits, those with classical autism also don't display all traits.

You can try to compare two children with classical autism of the same age and you will likely observe that they're almost completely different in symptoms and presentation. They only share a few symptoms.

We know as much about classical as we know about AS.

@ManErg
Not even the autism professionals/researchers can find much, if any, validity in AS and HFA being separate entities. It's more than "a few shared symptoms". In addition, there is neurological evidence. There are small differences, but the findings are that they are more alike than not.

Also, if you consider AS to be a matter of introversion, why mention in an earlier paragraph that there are those who are extroverted and AS?

Edit: the trouble with the HFA and AS labels emerges from diagnostic procedures, which are not stringent enough. That's the ridiculous thing I find with labelling; they should at least adhere to their own criteria and avoid circular reasoning.

Last edited by outlier on 19 Mar 2009, 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Consider that. Introversion and extroversion are diametrically opposed personality traits. Ergo, AS is not a personality.
I have no idea why you think that for a condition to be a biological medical condition rather than say merely a personality type, we would expect everyone diagnosed to have the same core personality traits. Do you expect all blind people to have the same personality traits?


How arbitrary is it when it can be correlated to objective biological traits at a rate that cannot be accounted for by coincidence, and which themselves are not part of the selection criteria at this time? Underlying personality traits differ, there is deviation from core-species traits that is impairing, and objective biological features not within the diagnostic criteria have been found to differentiate autistic subjects from non-autistic subjects.


What do you think the statistical odds are of finding common objective biological markers (not themselves referred to or necessarily following from any of the listed criteria symptoms) that differentiate this population from others who do not share the traits? Around zero I would suggest.

Unlike a condition with the biological reality of AS, we would be highly unlikely to find biological markers that can differentiate out those with the condition from those without, despite those biological markers not being a selective criteria, nor necessarily following from any of the listed criteria traits.



This is not a good explanation because people with the condition are not all introverts. Since personalities amongst those with the condition vary a great deal, it cannot be a personality type that is being targeted. Ergo your explanation simply cannot succeed.



How can that be when autism is simply the term used to describe a particular triad of impairments that is present in Aspergers Syndrome? They are both autism if autism exists, and nothing is autism if the triad of impairments is not.

Because their senses are not impairing them. Why not call blind people normal and everyone else oversee-ers? Because there is very little to no utility entailed in doing so seems the most obvious answer.

But we do not call every deviation from the majority a dysfunction or disorder; we consider whether the difference entails impairment.

Imagine that 5% of the population has social skills difficulties and 5% of the population has obsessive interests; imagine also that these two traits are totally independent one each other. Then, by statistical coincidence, 0.25% of the population will have both social skills dificulties and obsessive interests (in other words, Asperger Syndrome).

Its hard to say.


look i have been in a group with other Aspergers. And some of them acted sometimes very clever and predictable , like they wanted to get an advantage just because they have asperger. Like they play the "poor me" game in every situation they could get a benefit , and if there is no benefit they are just normal.

Perhaps they are just attention-whores , i dont know

It is true that a part of the autism triad of impairments can be found in isolation.

No, but I expect them all to be blind! Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough, so I'll try again . I expect for a PERSONALITY disorder, for everybody who has that disorder to have the same personality traits that define that personality disorder. This is not the case with AS , which is partly why I'm concluding that the current definition of AS is very doubtful as a personality disorder. For a biological disorder, I expect everybody who purports to have that disorder to have the same biological symptoms that define that disorder. Personality is irrelevant. The situation with AS is like a group of blind people chatting and one says: "Funny, but I've never had any problems seeing,my sight is really good, but I have ALL these experiences similar to you guys"!

I don't expect *anybody* to have the same personality traits as anybody else, it is those who do who need the belief in a syndrome to explain those who are different. Can you point to ANYTHING that all AS people have, yet no NT's have? Rhetorical question because there isn't anything. It is easy to show the thing that all people with a biological disorder have. Which is the point I'm trying to get across - and your example helps highlight the difference between why AS is arguable as a disability and blindness isn't.

Triad of Impairments: Social Interaction, Communication, Imagination. Nothing biological there! There are many here who are *very* imaginative (and communicate well and have lots of social interaction...) . Does that mean they have been misdiagnosed as they are lacking one of the triad? The criteria are changing all the time and will continue to do so because nailing this syndrome is like nailing jelly to a wall.

Maybe we need AS-IN and AS-EX to differentiate between the types with AS who are introverts and hide away and those who are extroverts and outgoing? There certainly seems to be a demarcation along these lines on WP. Then maybe we can take the AS off and leave the IN and EX



I'm not aware of any objective 'biological' traits with AS. I'm open to being proved wrong. If there are any, then why on earth aren't they included in the diagnosic criteria? A blood test would be a lot more efficient all round. The one that comes closest would be 'clumsiness and poor physical coordination'. However this is rather subjective and there a plenty here who like *every* other trait are not physically uncoordinated. Maybe they have a different syndrome?

It depends whether you assume 'psychological' and 'biological' to be the same thing, perhaps? As our psychology depends on the brain that is totally biological, then this is a feasable approach. To my knowledge, even MRI scans only show 'tendancies' for 'some' autistic people to process information in a certain way. And the vitally important thing is that an MRI scan can not put the value judgment on whether that AS persons processing is incorrect or merely different.




If there is a biological marker for whatever causes say, the social impairment of AS, then surely there is a biological marker for whatever causes say, Low Intelligence? Either all psychological traits have some physical presence or they don't, surely? I still want to know what this biological marker for AS is and why the psychiatrists are all ignoring it. Biological markers for Autism may be found, but I doubt they will ever find them for AS.

The presence of absence of biological marker for character traits is not the point, anyway, the point is that the impairment is caused by the judgement we put on those traits. The fast talking con man used car salesman may have biological reasons for his behaviour, yet the reason he is not impaired is because he is tolerated by our culture, not ostracised like the intellectual loner is.



Exactly as I pointed out in my post! The reason is because there IS an extroversion/introversion spectrum (of sorts) but in my opinion there is NO condition other than that.


For many years I had a blind friend who sometimes said the worst thing about being blind wasn't the lack of sight so much has the attitude of those were sighted. He had come to terms with it, the general public hadn't. Not too different to AS, apart from we aren't really disabled at all in the sense that a bliind person is. Have you ever read "In The Country Of The Blind", by HG Wells? This story portrays what I'm trying to get across about disability being socially determined. Many disabled people realise this already, it seems with AS we have a way to go yet.

Pandd, you last statement about what we define as a dysfunction is really the whole point! "Impairment" is not objective. If a group of people with AS at the level I have were dumped on a desert island, we'd have no less chance of surviving than any bunch of NT's. In fact probably a better chance, due to getting on with the task of survival rather than playing ego games and power struggles! I have no impairment in many, many situations. The situations where I do have impairment are socially contrived situations that have been organized to make those who have a different set of traits feel conmfortable.

I'd like to stress that I do believe the genuinely Autistic *are* impaired. There are many adults with AS who despite a harsh road, do end up in careers, relationships and all the things that the 'unimpaired' also have - and struggle with. While not denying that there is such a thing as Autism, I suspect there are now far too many of us who are part of a trend of introverts being over-diagnosed with AS. I'm not sure it's at all helpful grouping these in with the extreme autistics.

But isn't the gist of what you’ve been saying that the line of demarcation between impaired and unimpaired is not absolute and is a value judgement? It seems you’re now imposing your own absolute and arbitrary line on what is a very diverse group of people, i.e., those diagnosed with AS, whose range of functioning is very wide; doing what you've accused the professionals of, just in the opposite direction.

It is the case that the same argument you are applying to you own impairment/lack of impairment can also be logically applied to those with even greater differences from the norm, since you say it's simply a value judgement. They can equally argue that they should not be labelled impaired.

You are also agreeing that there's such a thing as autism, but deny there's such a thing as AS, when not even the experts can distinguish between the 2 categories since they are so alike. There is enormous overlap on multiple measures, including functional.

They were not included because they were not known of at the time the criteria were formulated. The criteria was formulated so that research could proceed and proceed it has.

Type "visual acuity autism" into google for information on one biological marker and type "audio processing autism" into google to access the (informational) goods on another.

You would have to start before that and beyond the social stuff to discover many impairments of those with AS.

Just getting into that desert will show a common impairment of those with AS - distress by change. Changing locations or going into a completely unfamiliar typically cause distress, meltdowns or an inability to function.

The change can so severely disrupt the routines of someone with AS that they will be incapable to take care of them in basic things such as noticing when to drink and eat, when to wash, when to change clothes (though I doubt there'd be much chance to change clothes in the desert, really), treat eventual wounds and take notice of the heat that might as well kill those who're lost in the desert.

If they're teens and adults who didn't outgrow impairments like the following, they might also totally fail to work together because they're unable to talk to each other.

Literally unable - by either ignoring the others, talking in monologues or trying and giving up due to anger or due to feeling defeated after an argument about how one doesn't understand the others, how one feels treated rude, about how one was insulted or because one just disagreed with the others in a neutral debate and everybody can't stand it because they don't get people.

And then there might be issues with one totally annoying the others by making loud noises or annoying movements. Or rambling on and on about their totally boring obsession.

Also, you won't find many non-autistic people totally going to pieces about having sand in their socks or shoes or having to walk barefoot through sand. Non-autistic might hate it, feel horrible about it and totally grossed out, but they can stand it unless they're abnormal and disordered.

I have trouble imagining what AS must be like so that it considerably lessens or vanishes by just avoiding social contact. But that shows the massive differences that currently come under a common term. My AS is more of a all-round impairment.

Yes, fair point. Your right that we're all drawing lines and boundaries. I'm just drawing the line further along than the average psych is doing. In a way, I wouldd rather reject the whole spectrum than follow the current trend which is going to have about 30% of the population labelled with some 'dysfunction' in a few years.

Between HFA and AS, there is much confusion. Between 'classic' autism and AS, there is a much clearer demarcation. Some quotes found by Googling "Aspergers Autism Difference":

"Children with Aspergers Syndrome have no trouble with language development, unlike children with Autism

children with Aspergers Syndrome seem to find it much easier to tackle daily chores, from dressing themselves to eating at a table.

Curiosity about the world is another important factor. Children with Aspergers Syndrome develop a normal curiosity about the world, a desire to see and learn more. Children with Autism never seem to have this sense about the world

Children with Aspergers Syndrome are often seen as high-functioning children - they might have above average intelligence, but they seem to lack social skills. "

In other words, the Autistic has a much greater struggle. The most disabling aspects are not present in AS. I've heard As referred to several times as "the invisible disability". It is much easier to see the 'disability' in autism. The clearest defining attribute of AS is the last one - "lack social skills". And that depends SO much on the environment one is put into. I've read people here say that they get along fine in some social situations but struggle in others. We get along fine in one class, but not another etc. When symptoms are coming and going depending on who you're with (and I experience it often myself), that's a red flag to me! Maybe it's....them! !! !

There used to be many discussions on WP about whether AS and Autism belonged together. There's no scientific answer, it's all just opinion. All personality disorders have the same essential problem - and a review of the last 100 years shows how much these disorders change their definitions depending on the prevailing culture. The definition and categorisation of this bundle of traits called the autistic spectrum has not finished yet! Compare with malaria where it's unlikely that the definition will be expanded at any time soon.

I fully understand the reluctance to follow this line of enquiry because it seems to suggest "if we don't have a problem, then it must be the rest of the world - and that surely can't be the case?". Well, maybe. They've all been wrong before and I see nothing that suggests they can't all be wrong again!

The statement is actually erroneous so far as research results indicate. In fact, such a statement is not even consistent with the information describing Aspergers Syndrome in the DSM. Obviously not everything someone or other puts on the internet is entirely accurate in every respect.

The diagnostic practice of differentiating on the basis of self-help skill development at age 2-3 years, explains this in and of itself. If you differentiated based on geographic region, then we would detect a difference in geography in the diagnosed.

This does not seem entirely true when we ask those Kanner autistics who can communicate. Many Kanner autistics are very interested in aspects of their world, and many with AS are not interested in many aspects of their world. The problem with the criteria is that they are based on interpretations about appearances. Because someone appears to not be interested when one perceives looking interested to have certain characteristics, lack of interest is assumed. I know I have looked profoundly non-interested to others on occasions when my interest was so great, that I had no attention left over for the production of interested appearing behavior.
My nephew is seen as high functioning, and to those who can understand him, he appears very intelligent. He has a classic high functioning Kanner diagnosis.

Blindness ranges in severity, deafness ranges in severity, bouts of the common cold range in severity (between individuals), even when the same pathogen is the causal agent.

That depends who is looking. Many people do not see the disability when they look at nephew, and many hear the disability just as clearly when I talk, but they make different interpretations because my talking sounds more like the kind of talking they are accustomed to. It's still just a difference of degrees.

It's not them when others do not experience the same problems you do when exposed to the same people/circumstance. If the common factor is you, even if not in every and any context, then the common denominator is you. Being blind is more or less impairing depending on whether the environment is one where the furniture is moved every ten minutes or left in the same place all the time. The actual physical status of the person is not altered. For all conditions that entail non-adaptivity or maladaptivity, the environment will influence the severity of any impairment experienced.

Opinion in some cases that ignores the underlying commonality of objective biological markers and evidence about familial concurrency, and in other cases is based on these things. I think the latter opinions have greater utility and probably more accurately reflect reality.


By malaria you mean the condition that was once believed to be caused by miasmas?
The conceptualization of malaria has changed over time. The fact that we have better knowledge about malaria than we have about some other condition, does not prove the other condition does not exist. The changing of conceptualizations in response to incoming information is the hallmark of objective science, not a proof that something does not exist. Will you next claim there is no such thing as evolution since our ideas about that has changed over time with our increasing knowledge, and we do not yet have the full the picture nailed down, and so can expect further refinements to take place?


I think rather obviously if I am the one experiencing the suffering, that it is me that has a problem, whatever problems others do or do not have.

True, but a major part for me has been social. It has significantly impaired my social skills and has attributed to self imposed isolation and denial of why I choose it. It has impacted me more socially than in any other area. The isolation has attributed to other impairments.


Somewhat but not to the point of inability to function or meltdowns, for me. It's fear and anxiety that plague me. It does cause distress but not to the point of meltdowns and inability to function. I give up more easily, it's easier for me to experience demoralization, where I feel hopeless, apathetic and depressed.
I would feel defeated before ever trying to cope.


Not to that extent, but I see this happening to a lesser degree. I have a difficult time without heating or air conditioning.


In a situation like that, I could do it, but would more than likely become obstinate and argumentative.


All of this rings true for me. This would be my issue above all others. I would get defensive because of a percieved slight, become childish and sullen if I get the feeling no one cares about my pov. It all depends on how the others object. If they are nice about it and give sound reasons I would feel better. If they roll their eyes and treat me with sarcastic disdain, rudely whispering to each other when they think I'm not looking or make insulting comments about me, I would become sullen and resentful, might start complaining about it, too.

I might ramble on and on about something..that would annoy them. I know because it has annoyed others in the past. If it annoyed them, why wouldn't it annoy these newbies? I wouldn't make loud noises. I might need to pace and move around more than they.


I can walk barefoot in the sand but I have never been able to tolerate walking on rocks. My cousin, when we were kids, could do this effortlessly and I wondered why it bothered me to the point I couldn't walk barefoot on the lane (where the pebbles were to keep it from getting muddy after rain) and not her. She could walk and run on them without trepidation. I am more sensitive to discomfort than some people and have more difficulty remaining graceful about it.

What I know:

--Asperger's (like any other DSM label) is a set of observable symptons used to group people. On that level, it clearly exists.

--The DSM criteria for Asperger's were not selected to map onto a neurological condition.


What I think I know:

--Asperger's is based on an underlying neurological condition(s)

--DSM criteria for Asperger's may include symptoms that are not characteristic of the neurological condition(s)

--The underlying neurological condition(s) may express themself through symptoms that are not in the DSM criteria