Because everything exists on a sliding scale, it is inevitable that diagnosis will vary as the perception of certain grades of a condition slide.
What I mean is, one way to look at it is that everyone has autism(because autism is defined in terms of conditions that are in existence within the "diagnosed" individual) to a varying degree.
A more clear cut example because the very name of the disorder is so telling is the "Bi-polar personality disorder". Everyone is bi-polar in the sense that there are two extremes from which and to which their emotional state can travel(unless they do not have emotional states, a condition I am not familiar with if it exists).
However, as bi-polar became more prevalent in the community consciousness, the diagnosis became more common, just as you have described with autism.
The problem with this standard of psychiatry is that grouping people is only vaguely helpful in identifying the symptoms that they have. Furthermore, when you give someone a label, you encourage them to find out what that label means, which can actually cause them to enhance their symptoms in accord with the diagnosis.
It is more valuable instead to approach each person as unique and individual, rather than a faceless diagnosis.
The article said 1 in 38 have traits of autism. Having traits of autism isn't the same as being autistic. A lot of the symptoms of autism are personality traits that anyone might possess. It's having them in the right combination that makes you autistic. The article even goes on to say that some of that 1 in 38 probably could benefit from treatment but that they couldn't claim that all of them would.
You later quote a description of Asperger's and decide your shy friend who is into cars would qualify. No, he wouldn't. The phrases were "unusually intense, circumscribed interest" as opposed to "has a hobby" and "Qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal social interaction" as opposed to "is shy". If he had Asperger's you wouldn't be saying he's "very into cars". His interest would be more along the lines of memorization of a very narrow set of facts as opposed to genuine interest in a broad topic. AS also has nothing at all to do with shyness; it's not reacting appropriately to social interaction. It comes off more as insensitivity than shyness although someone with Asperger's might learn to be withdrawn after enough failed attempts at social interaction.
You're reading too much into the first article and simply not understanding what the criteria mean in the second example you quoted. If casting a wider net means that autistic kids lead more fulfilling lives then hooray for wider nets, in my opinion.
I agree one hundred percent. A ton of mental issues get over diagnosed. my sister for example, who is just lazy and doesn't want to do work/school, got diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and there is absolutely nothing wrong with her. Yet she gets benefits from the state to help her because she is "disabled" (Swedish welfare...).
Maybe that makes me sound like an asshole but it pisses me off since I am lazy as well but i still used to work (now i go to school again).
[QUOTE]On May 10 2011 20:33 piegasm wrote: The article said 1 in 38 have traits of autism. Having traits of autism isn't the same as being autistic. A lot of the symptoms of autism are personality traits that anyone might possess. It's having them in the right combination that makes you autistic. The article even goes on to say that some of that 1 in 38 probably could benefit from treatment but that they couldn't claim that all of them would.
You later quote a description of Asperger's and decide your shy friend who is into cars would qualify. No, he wouldn't. The phrases were "unusually intense, circumscribed interest" as opposed to "has a hobby" and "Qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal social interaction" as opposed to "is shy". If he had Asperger's you wouldn't be saying he's "very into cars". His interest would be more along the lines of memorization of a very narrow set of facts as opposed to genuine interest in a broad topic. AS also has nothing at all to do with shyness; it's not reacting appropriately to social interaction. It comes off more as insensitivity than shyness although someone with Asperger's might learn to be withdrawn after enough failed attempts at social interaction.
You're reading too much into the first article and simply not understanding what the criteria mean in the second example you quoted. If casting a wider net means that autistic kids lead more fulfilling lives then hooray for wider nets, in my opinion.[/QUOT
Fantastic post, exactly what I was thinking but more concise and well written .
Also in general it really bothers me when people confuse aspergers with classical autism. Though they both share similar traits in regards to social interaction, autism is far more debilitating in nearly every single way. Also not all aspergers and autism sufferers are savants, they are not all brilliant at a specific skill or area.
The article said 1 in 38 have traits of autism. Having traits of autism isn't the same as being autistic. A lot of the symptoms of autism are personality traits that anyone might possess. It's having them in the right combination that makes you autistic. The article even goes on to say that some of that 1 in 38 probably could benefit from treatment but that they couldn't claim that all of them would.
You later quote a description of Asperger's and decide your shy friend who is into cars would qualify. No, he wouldn't. The phrases were "unusually intense, circumscribed interest" as opposed to "has a hobby" and "Qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal social interaction" as opposed to "is shy". If he had Asperger's you wouldn't be saying he's "very into cars". His interest would be more along the lines of memorization of a very narrow set of facts as opposed to genuine interest in a broad topic. AS also has nothing at all to do with shyness; it's not reacting appropriately to social interaction. It comes off more as insensitivity than shyness although someone with Asperger's might learn to be withdrawn after enough failed attempts at social interaction.
You're reading too much into the first article and simply not understanding what the criteria mean in the second example you quoted. If casting a wider net means that autistic kids lead more fulfilling lives then hooray for wider nets, in my opinion
qft
At any rate there's no doubt doctors nowadays seem to like throwing arround this kind of diagnosis as an explanation.
You can notice ADD and Dyslexia becoming overused recently aswell, one out of every 2 sweedish people i know seems to suffer or have kids suffering of something of the sort. Imo it's a counterproductive thing to let your kid think he's dyslexic so he won't put up any effort in proper spelling. Even most people that suffer from it have np writing a proper paper if they concentrate.
As for ADD, man when i was a kid no1 even knew of that shit, though in hindsight i can remember a few kids that showed simptoms. Remedy was simple back then...some1 in school yelling at the SHUT UP AND LISTEN, and all the adders were cured in a year !
It's a common reaction when people are presented with the figures for diagnosed mental disorders in the "western" world vs other places to think that perhaps a lot of the disorders are being misdiagnosed by trigger happy doctors.
It's important to understand that as with any mental disorder, you can read off a list of symptoms and they might seem innocuous to you, and you might even think you have one or two, but that is not the same thing as being diagnosed. At least with the DSM-IV, for every disorder I've seen, there are multiple symptoms listed, and the disorder itself is a pattern of these symptoms, so multiple symptoms have to be present for a diagnosis. For autism specifically I believe the number is six, with some of those having to be in different categories.
I think whats more likely is that we are gaining a better understanding of how the mind works, and how certain mental disorders work, and this "rise" of autism is just the recognition of symptoms previously gone unnoticed. The rate of incidence rising just reflects that, its not that so many more people have autism now than before, its just being recognized. That being said, like others have mentioned, it is a spectrum disorder, so statistics like 1 in 100 are misleading. I've seen numbers from 1 in 50 to 1 in 2000, its important to know what criteria are being used
Your friend liking cars and being shy is in no way close close to what is described by what you've linked or any other criteria. The qualifications to get diagnosed as autistic arent that low. And its an evolving field... the increase in cases can very much just be a result of better knowledge being available in 2011 and not some kind of pharm pushed rush to diagnose everyone. While drugs are certainly used to treat it to some degree, it's not like ADD where drs are handing out pills left and right to every kid who comes in
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)
(1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(a) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction (b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level (c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest) (d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
(a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime) (b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others (c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language (d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
(3) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus (b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals (c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements) (d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
B. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play
C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.
On May 10 2011 19:24 Acritter wrote: Autism is hardly crippling. There are plenty of successful, happy autistic individuals out there. Can't we just leave things at "people are different" for this "disorder"?
you are a moron
edit: alright alright, lemme clarify that you are speaking about asperger's and not autism. this video outlines some of the day to day tribulations associated with living with a child with autism. i suggest you watch it and read the DRM IV diagnosis for autism before making blanket statements like "autism is hardly crippling"
I definitely think it's being overused in an attempt to come up with an excuse for why certain children are a little different or aren't doing quite as well in one way or another. It's the same with ADD/ADHD/etc. Parents don't want to take responsibility for really raising the child and use it as an excuse to say that odd behaviors/not paying attention in school/etc. are perfectly fine. It also cheapens the diagnosis for those that actually have these problems and really need help. That said, I don't feel like it's just being diagnosed to every third kid that comes into a doctor's office with some social problems.
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)
(1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(a) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction (b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level (c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest) (d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
(a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime) (b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others (c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language (d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
(3) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus (b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals (c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements) (d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
B. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play
C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.
seriously, throw that up in the op because it's pretty damn lacking.
I don't know about the USA, but I know that in Canada any symptoms of a disorder must be severe enough to affect your life for it to be considered a disorder, otherwise it is merely symptoms. 1/38 having symptoms is realistic, but 1/38 having the disorder is far different.
I know that I have Tourette Syndrome. My case was pretty severe when I was younger, but I have since learned how to control it (without medications), to the point that nobody would know I have it if I didn't tell them. I also consider myself lucky, because my case, while fairly severe when I was younger, still seemed incredibly mild to some of the worst cases out there. And the fact that I've learned to control it pretty well is definitely a good thing as well.
Autism may be a lazy diagnosis, but the really conspicuously terrible ones are ADD/ADHD, bipolar, and Starcraft addition. (One of these is not like the others).
Wonder why we never seem to discuss what appears to be a wide spread dislike of mental illness/personality disorder diagnoses in general.
Reading threads like this makes me want to know what the thought process behind the dislike is. If there is one since it's probably completely normal to simply dislike things. And it's probably to a degree what the thread is about.
But no one will reply and try to explain why they feel a dislike for for example the ADD diagnose itself so it's pointless to ask now when I think about it.
I think the excessive diagnosing occurs because parents simply want the best for their child even if what they are suffering from is extremely mild. Can you honestly blame them for that?
What I'm not down with is how being introverted and extremely interested in hobbies or activities that aren't very social means a person is autistic these days. Back in the 90s it was simply "oh he's just quiet and shy." Now it's some kind of disorder? I understand there's overlap. But as a very introverted and private person that keeps most things going on in my life to myself it's strange. People think there is a problem with me because I don't feel like it's necessary to carry on idle chatter with them. Not everybody is on the same social wavelength. I don't want to talk to you multiple times a day, every day. Even if we are dating or very close friends/family, it is overwhelming for me. But if we are close I am willing to find middle ground if the other person is much more craving of social attention from me.
I'm also not down with how readily docs throw prescriptions out. But they are under a lot of pressure from said parents.
Although individuals with Asperger syndrome acquire language skills without significant general delay and their speech typically lacks significant abnormalities, language acquisition and use is often atypical.[7] Abnormalities include verbosity, abrupt transitions, literal interpretations and miscomprehension of nuance, use of metaphor meaningful only to the speaker, auditory perception deficits, unusually pedantic, formal or idiosyncratic speech, and oddities in loudness, pitch, intonation, prosody, and rhythm.[3]
This would mean that the usual SC2 strategy forum poster has Asperger.
The whole article looks like the definition of it was achieved in a very unscientific way and could be applied to anyone with a job. These people must be desperate to stay in theirs, otherwise they wouldn't create such things.
On May 11 2011 04:22 Akta wrote: Wonder why we never seem to discuss what appears to be a wide spread dislike of mental illness/personality disorder diagnoses in general.
Reading threads like this makes me want to know what the thought process behind the dislike is. If there is one since it's probably completely normal to simply dislike things. And it's probably to a degree what the thread is about.
But no one will reply and try to explain why they feel a dislike for for example the ADD diagnose itself so it's pointless to ask now when I think about it.
I tend to believe that people like to operate on an assumption of free will and choice in individuals. Whenever people attempt to explain human behavior by pointing to factors beyond an individuals control, such as the physiology of the brain, it undermines the notion of will or choice in favor of a deterministic explanation for both thoughts and behavior. This in turn undermines a person's ability to apply responsibility, judgements, or other socially desirable attitudes towards an individual.
No two people are exactly the same when it comes to Asperger's. But those who are affected, exhibit superhuman traits in other mental areas - to make up for social deficiencies.
An aspergian might be able to completely visualize everything that's happening in the millions of pathways within a microchip. Or perform astoundingly accurate performances on a musical instrument(upon merely hearing the song once), or be able to communicate and manage animals in such a way that a normal human would find very challenging.
Aspergians can communicate very effectively in written form and tell you exactly what's on their mind and how they feel. Just don't force them to look you in the eye when you're talking to them. They're more likely shifting their eyes to the side or entirely avoiding face to face contact, or even looking down whilst listening.
The lack of empathy makes it very easy for them to say potentially very damaging things to another person, eg. they see that you're incompetent(in their eyes) at a specific task, and they'll just straight up tell you "you're useless", and in an even tone, too. That hurts you harder versus someone who's obviously saying it in a malicious manner. Due to this, they have to explicitly be told, or otherwise learn, that there are certain behaviors that they're supposed to show, or do, based on the situation. There are specific things that they've learned, they shouldn't say in specific situations.
For example if you tell them something bad happened to you, which really matters to you, and you needed to tell someone. A normal person would see your facial expressions, listen to your tone of voice, and empathize. An Aspergian would go "oh that's unfortunate" but there's no human warmth. Or heaven forbid they go "ok" and say "i'm hungry let's go eat". They don't "get" the emotional plea for empathy.
The key is, you can't take anything an Aspergian says personally. They can be very insulting(they're just speaking their mind), very cold(they're not equipped to understand or properly process your emotion). People who downplay emotion constantly, saying it's useless, nothing about emotion matters...makes you wonder if they're aspergians.
Aspergians can live through very productive lives otherwise, when they put their skills to use. Think about the guy who invented the bitorrent client.
So what if mental health problems exist in a spectrum ranging from debilitating to mild to normal? So what if a very large amount of people can benefit from special treatment, and even psychiatric drugs? Are these things automatically wrong without evidence? How are these things automatically out of the question? On what basis? On what evidence? Because it's common sense? You just know it? You feel it in your gut? Since when was reasoning like Stephen Colbert a substitute for medical science?
EPT
.
