About the existence or inexistence of Asperger Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

I think you are right, that a label can be useful, essential even, for "gathering around".

But I think it is also essential, for our mental health, that we do not believe, ( because the only label we have at the moment is a medical one ), that we are dysfunctional/disordered, or that our disability is inherent in us.

Gays suffered greatly from that aspect of the homosexuality label. Even today some young people go through deep depression, anxiety, self-hatred, etc, because they believe the still-pervasive attitude that homosexuality is "unhealthy"/immature/"abnormal" ( in a dysfunctional way ), aswell as wrong and disgusting, etc, which the medical origins of the word served to reinforce, ( with the cooperation of science ) , for many decades.

Religion luckily doesn't seem to have anything to say about "us", but I think that medicalisation of conditions/difficulties/differences has become far more oppressive than it used to be, again with the "help" of science, ( and people's mainly unquestioning respect for what "science says"). People with "AS" behaviours are as oppressed by social organisation as people with homosexual behaviours were 50-100 years ago, though psychiatric treatment, ( drugs or institutions ) has taken the place of prison.

In the same way as someone "homosexual" had to police their every gesture, suppress/contain their desires, renounce expressing their sexuality, so people with AS behaviours are excluded from increasing numbers of activities and rewards, aswell as discriminated against for expressing their needs. If they can pretend well enough they may "pass", but the amount of energy required to "perform" socially often makes it difficult to do anything else.

This is not a disorder. It is a difference. We shouldn't be in the DSM. But perhaps you're right, and faced with the last 100+ years of social change to our disadvantage, any label is better than nothing, so long as we don't confuse the signifier/label/symbol with the signified, ( us ).

.

Change causes distress to *all* humans, all living creatures in fact. Changing locations by itself does not cause me distress. It all depends on the location you are going into.



Again, I don't doubt that there are *some* who would react like that. But what you are describing cannot be a symptom of AS because many of us diagnosed would not react in such an extreme way. What you are describing - the inability to perform basic functions - is totally symptomatic of Autism, not AS. I agree with that a person who suffers from what I've been told is autism would behave exactly like you say. The definition is that AS is 'higher functioning' than Autism, so of someone totally loses it in that way, they really should not have been diagnosed with AS, but autism.



I used to love going on 'wilderness hikes', occasionally with a friend or two and I've seen several absolutely non-autistic people crumble to complete wrecks at having wet socks, or a beetle touch their foot! I think you're being fooled by NT's into thinking they are more comfortable with anything different to they're home environment than they really are!



It does, I totally agree. And that's where the difference lies. If any other disease had some people who had spots, but others didn't. Some who had trouble walking, but others who didn't. Some with headaches, but others with earaches. Well, crazy as it sounds, that's the picture with Aspergers at the moment! I'll repeat it again: I don't doubt the intensity of the traits and symptoms we all have, but these are so different, I do doubt that it is one, all-encompassing, coherent syndrome.



Quote from DSM IV in the diagnosis of Aspergers:
D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language

Whether right or wrong, that is the diagnosis criteria and, according to DSM IV, if you had language delays you do NOT have Aspergers. Not according to me, note. I am just quoting the definition as evidence that the whole syndrome changes its shape depending on the viewpoint of who's writing the checklist.


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.[/quote]

As above, you're not disagreeing with me, but with diagnostic criteria produced by others. I agree that the criteria are flawed - this is a crucial part of the argument of those who believe the whole concept of AS is flawed!



Accusing me of being a creationist is an obvious, but still low-down trick to try a win an argument. Whether I believe in evolution, creationism or discordianism has NOTHING to do with the points raised here. Such as the complete lack of biological evidence for Aspergers Syndrome.

But hey, I'll tolerate it and say "No, I don't claim there is no such thing as evolution". I simply claim that there is doubt in the current definition of AS. I believe in the evolution of ideas (and devolution too, but thats another story) - and the picture of AS will undoubtedly change as further refinements take place. The debate here is an aspect of those refinements. So little is known about how the mind really operates, with AS we are at the level we were when we thought Malaria was caused by miasma. I wouldn't be surprised if what we know as AS becomes 5 syndromes eventually. Or none.

You read my post wrong my friend. Read again.

This is your post right?


It's your thoughts on why people might think AS is "fake". And I only quoted your thoughts, not the ones you imagined others having, ( other than the one about "shy, singled-out brats" ). Based on your beliefs it was difficult to see why you think that a medical label, designating us as dysfunctional/disordered, is justified.

.

What definition do you mean in specific? DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 says that a person must have no delay in such adaptive skills, but it doesn't say that stress can't cause the people to fall apart.

Both sets of criteria also say that the social impairment and the repetitive behaviours are as severe as those in classical autism or the same as in classical autism.

I can understand what you're probably trying to say though and I picked that example, because you'll find that a lot of children and teenagers that are diagnosed with AS and considered hf react like this.

In the past 2-4 years more and more adults though sought a diagnosis for themselves here too and they're largely different from those kids.

So knowing that I wonder who's it that really got AS or how can it be that such different presentation now come under the common label of AS? That's why I picked that example.



Oh, wait a moment. That's the experiences I made. You made different experiences, but I don't see why you think this means mine didn't happen.



I think that's is absolutely.

I expect that if science ever figures a majority of the causes for AS (and classical autism) that the autistic community is in for a lot of categories. Whether it will have an impact on the existence of the label Asperger's I don't know. I'd like it, personally. But others may disagree and so may researchers, who knows.

It probably depends on how many causes can be found and how similar these causes are. It could be that there are a few very different causes but also that for example several common genetic factors are found in people who present totally different to a couple of other genetic or environmental reasons.

Then they'd probably diagnosed with the same AS still despite their differences.

Whatever it'll be in the future, I'd either like the whole AS spectrum to come under a common ASD spectrum with classical and PDD-NOS or would like different categories for the severities (not how well a person copes, because severity and success aren't that related) of AS. I'm not really happy with how things currently are.

The other danger however, of a label, of whatever kind, medical or not, is that, because people do tend to identify with labels, and to confuse the symbol/signifier with the signified, ( even if the label did not specifiy us as dysfunctional/disordered ), it is likely to encourage stereotyping, ( as someone said on another thread ); for which phenomenon/mechanism there is substantial evidence.

People will, if they identify with a label, unconsciously "restrict" their behaviour to conform to that; it is how a certain amount of gender-construction/formation happens.

Gays have been finding this out over the last 20 years or so. The expected unity and harmony of gays etc together only worked so long as people carried on submerging their very real differences in the political and/or sexual identity of homosexual. Once this in turn became oppressive the movement broke up in many directions, with a lot of hurt and hatred, and wasted energy.

Fighting for anything on the basis of identity has actually been put seriously in doubt by the experiences of the sexuality-rights movement. Anything which labels/categorises people, as opposed to specific behaviours or biological indicators, ( with all the complexity and overlap that this would allow ), is probably a bad idea.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 19 Mar 2009, 1:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The problem with your conclusion is that although the statements "X has no delay in language development" and "X has no problems in language development" express different things, to arrive at your conclusion you must treat them as though they mean the same thing.

An additional problem is whether or not the DSM accurately and comprehensively describes these two conditions, does not determine whether or not the two conditions objectively exist. Malaria was once described as a condition that one acquired from breathing "bad air". That incorrect idea about malaria did not stop malaria from existing, nor cause malaria to actually be acquired from breathing "bad air".


I am disagreeing with the conclusion you are reaching about any flaw in the criteria. Flawed understandings about something do not determine that the something does not exist. The criteria in the DSM reflect the understandings prevalent when the criteria was formulated. As has been explained to you, the criteria for AS was added to further research. It recognizes (based on a body of evidence available at the time) that the autistic triad of impairment existed in a population that was not receiving diagnosis, in part because of stereotypes physicians had about Kanner autism. Very probably the two conditions will be merged in the next DSM congruent with our better understanding that has arisen as a result of the research that prompted the inclusion of AS in the first place.

I have not accused you of being a creationist, as should be obvious since if you were a creationist, the analogy would not have made much sense to you as a means of pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

I am not suggesting you do not believe in evolution; I am pointing out that the reasoning you are using is precisely the same reasoning that creationists use when they suggest evolution is not real because information about it has changed over time. Clearly if you did not find creationist reasoning dubious (as I suspected you would), the analogy would not have had even the remote possibility of demonstrating to you the flawed nature of your reasoning on this particular count.

You were indeed suggesting something might be less than real simply because information about it has changed over time. It's the same argument many creationists employ in regards to evolution; the only difference is in the subject matter.


There is not a complete lack of biological evidence. You have been informed as to how to find information about the biological evidence, but apparently have chosen to not look, or to simply ignore what you found.

As well there should be since defining such things is an exercise and application of science. There should always be doubt in science; it is the ability to doubt, question, reconsider and reformulate when evidence requires, that makes science such a useful tool.

It occurs to me that perhaps it is this very issue, or one of them anyway, which is causing so much turmoil/controversy around AS/Autism; the dilemma, or battle, over whether we/society is going to once again categorise people or whether it has evolved to the point where it can concentrate on behaviours and/or bio-markers alone, without enclosing the person in the label.

Hence the child locked within the autism monster. There is a person trapped inside this label!

.

Yes I was speculating why people would think our condition is fake. I have read ignorant thoughts about it on other sites and most of them are "it's an excuse to be a brat" "It's an excuse to be lazy." They just don't understand the condition and know the difference between us and people without it. Maybe if they read the memoirs by aspies who write about themselves with it, then they might see the difference and that it is indeed real unless they're too stupid to get it. But lot of people don't read about something they aren't interested in so if they aren't interested in reading about AS and have only heard a short discription of it or read a short description of it, they're not going to care to keep reading about it to understand more.

There are even people who think autism is fake so it's as if they think kids with it choose to not talk and also think kids decide one day "Oh I am going to yell and scream in this store and pretend I am getting all overwhelmed so we can leave."

Even some people have acted like I choose to have anxiety and I'm screaming in my mind "You think I enjoy having these meltdowns? You think I decide "Oh I am going to get all overwhelmed and get all anxious and get all upset and cry?"" Even my ex thought sometimes I would have anxiety on purpose to get my way, my other ex thought the same too sometimes. They have said "Sometimes I think you use it as an excuse." But my first ex was able to say "It doesn't mean it's true though and I really think it is, just sometimes I do."


I thought you were accusing me of thinking we don't need help and stuff just because we are closer to normal and look normal and seem normal. It's what you made you reply sound like so I guess I read your post wrong then, my bad.

My therapist told me when I was 17 I'm right everyone does aspie things and has troubles in social interactions, and don't always fit in etc. but some people have it more often and too much so it makes it real hard for them so that's why it becomes a disorder. When I hear "That happens to everybody?" I say "They have that problem all the time?" My way of trying to explain the difference between me and everyone else.

I don't want to get involved too deeply here b/c much of the debate is about definition and criteria, which is kind of a tar-baby as far as I can tell.

I just want to agree with ManErg on the desert island, thing. Asperger individuals only have trouble with changing routines, environments, etc. relative to normal NTs in the context of daily life in the U.S. But that's because they're not engaged in a lot of socially scripted roles and games that are an intermediate stage of mental processing between them and reality. AS have a harder time compartmentalizing reality and filtering facts for relevance according to some social agenda or role. So we aren't as effective in changing jobs and routines as easily because we get overwhelmed and disoriented by all the details, even different sensory stimulation from different environments.

However, with a drastic change that takes people out of their world and dumps them into something outside their normal range, AS are better equipped than NTs. If dumped on a desert island, the NTs would be traumatized by the dislocation of their social reality and all that reality-filtering and editing that supports their social minds. They would be traumatized by their social isolation and dislocation, and would spend a lot of time adjusting emotionally and fighting/negotiating a new society among themselves. Remember Tom Hanks in "castaway" and how he had to invent a "friend" head out of the Wilson basketball that he could share his day with, before he could start functioning and build a life? The AS would make a faster, less complicated adjustment to the less social and more physical reality of their island.

Also, they would be better problem-solvers, in my opinion, because they are less distracted by ego and domination when they are in groups trying to figure things out.

I think that NT functioning is best suited for large, stable, complex societies and AS functioning is better equipped for small hunter gatherer and survival groups.

In fact not just one person, but many, when "person" is defined, as it so often is, by stereotypes.

The battle about Autism/AS may not be so much about "real" disability, dysfunction/disorder etc, but about labels. About identity.

Wondering whether this is what Donna Williams ( sp?) is getting at with all her "splinters"/multiple labels/fruit salad; that the real tragedy/problem with labels for people is that noone can fit themselves into a label without suffering damage, whether it is the label woman, gay, black, heterosexual, AS, whatever.

In me there is an Aspergers, a feminist, a Sagitarius rising, a monk, an astrologer, a spinster, a voyager, an artist, a manic-depressive, a nutritional evangelist, etc etc. If I try to fit into just "Aspergers", ( or Autism ), I would be constantly wanting to widen it, broaden it, to include everything else, and the label would become a sprawling mess. It would include everyone.

Perhaps the jumble of things that people keep asking about on WP, "I am like this, is this AS? " etc, is because so many of us are trying to squeeze inside a label.

Identity is not containable in a label. Identity labels are bunkum. Oppressive rather than liberating.

AS/Aspergers/Autism, if they have any validity, are just names for behaviours, ( and only three or four behaviours at that ).
.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Mar 2009, 1:14 pm, edited 5 times in total.

BIG A

Did you mean "A" as in an excellent school grade, or short for something rude? Just checking.

.

Are you familiar with evolution and how it works? Are you aware you are talking about the environments that produced a species where we are the minority, not the majority? Having you considered the rather obvious implications of the aforementioned?

Your conclusion is not credible. The evidence as to survival in the kinds of environments at issue, can be proven simply by figuring out who is in the overwhelming majority; it's not us.

I suspect millie is referring to inventor's recent discourse as to the analogy between the Deaf culture (with a D rather than d) and the big A (Autism). Search inventor's recent post-history for a more lucid sounding explanation than my brief summary would appear to indicate.

I'm familiar with your evolutionary theories, having seen them in threads here before. The flaws in your evolutionary theories of social psychology are that you assume that the norm is the only ideal phenotype. I think a sapient, tool-using species of community animal has a more successful gene pool when there are variants in it that provide for a diversity of talents to exist in the village. Say you think that strong physical fighter-leaders are the ideal Man. A village of strong physical fighter-leaders might not cope so well as a village of people with diverse talents, and not more fighters than inventors.

Once you see the benefit of specialization and diversity of cognitive function in a tool-using animal's gene pool, you can see why Asperger or other AS types can fit. Every village needs its fighters, medicine people, spiritual leaders and pragmatists. Why not "little professors" and inventors and novel problem-solvers. One of the big features of AS is independence from socialization's external programming on how to think in problem-solving. That's an essential feature of a home-grown village problem-solver. IMO AS people used to be the wise people, the seers, the witches and the oracles, before universities and hospitals and structured organized religion came along.

AS members of their hunter-gatherer groups would be extremely useful variants in the genetic pool since many AS are born with the ability to self-start specialization in a technical field. They're not as dependent as regular NTs are on having teachers to program them how to think about something in their field of special interest. That's why some are called "little professors" -- they are literally self-starting, self-taught systemizers. A species of sapient hunter-gatherers would benefit from having a few of these classical engineer phenotypes in their gene pool. That's a very valuable trait in a sapient, tool-using species.

Also, your proportional view of how evolution works (the necessary genotypes are > 50 percent of the population) totally overlooks epigenetics. Perhaps more AS are born during social conditions where they are needed more, and more NT neurotypes are born when social conditions are for large, stable social communities. You cannot use the evidence of population distribution now as evidence of population distribution under dramatically different conditions.