(UK only) 'Is Aspergers real?'

Post Reply New Topic

I am genuinely sorry if I have offended you or anyone else with my opinions. I am not trying to belittle any difficulties you have encountered in your life or to say that you choose to behave in certain ways. I too, for example, get very disoriented by a change of schedule and am often unable to participate in the new plan and I know that this is not by my own free will. I did not say that I am not affected by Asperger's traits; what I have just mentioned is one of many ways in which my life is detrimentally affected by the way I am.

I also do not think Asperger's isn't real, but I do not necessarily know that it is. It's the same as my argument against organised religion; just because science cannot prove what happened at the beginning of the universe does not mean that religious people should make something up then work on the basis that it is the truth.

Similarly, Asperger's could be a real thing with a biological cause or it could be the coincidence of several traits appearing in a relatively large number of people. I should say now that I am a physicist and we are taught that if there are two or more things that are not impossible, you should never assume that either of them are true until you have disproven all but one. AS is currently in that state. It is not impossible that it doesn't exist so I will not take the opinion that it does.

My participation in this conversation was with the intention that we could perhaps have a scientific discussion about the matter but I realise now (and I don't mean to sound patronising here) that the subject is too close to many members of the forum personally for them to have an objective debate, so expecting one was a mistake on my part.

I have objections to some of the things you said in your last response, for example you said that rule bound thinking cannot be adopted by environment. Perhaps if you looked at the way children of military professionals behave and compare them to the children of gypsies you may change your mind on that one. Upbringing can influence that aspect of personality greatly.

However, you have said that continuing this conversation is not something which you feel is productive (what you would probably call the Aspie part of me is itching to address what I consider to be MASSIVE flaws in your argument and logic here but apparently I won't get the opportunity) so I supposed I should just say goodbye and apologise again if I have upset or offended anyone. I just meant to explore the avenue of what really classes as a medical disorder but I think I made an error in judgement when trying to do so on this particular forum.

I think literally, therefore I literally am.

Merci Rene!

ruveyn

Yes, it was a group effort. We all unanimously, from early infancy, decided to pretend that we were delayed and struggling to meet developmental milestones. My first sentient thought was "lets mess around with these f*****s"!

And all of the bullying and the mental illness and the stigma? Well that was the price I had to pay just to be a total twat for no reason.

Yeah, if what I've lived through isn't real then, f**k it - this is Narnia.

I think it's a totality of symptoms that defines Asperger's/ASD (as others have already said.) For example: sensory impairment, social impairment, lack of motor co-ordination, etc.

I couldn't access the original broadcast, so I can't comment on it. But, of course, it exists. As MindBlind points out, it would be improbable and impractical for a group to organize a fake syndrome; and to what end?

For my two cents,

isn't it also a part of where do you fall on the spectrum, the degree to which you consider AS to be a disability? Cannot it also depend on your work and home environment too? In some work environments, I am extremely quirky. These are when I am not primarily working with kids. In a child-centred environment, I am just one of the gang who is so extremely enthusiastic and chipper to do my stuff.

I also work with a group of children who visit who have Asperger's and different ASDs, so I can see the differences. ASD can be a disability or different ability for some people, while a real gift for others.

Anyway, that is just my 2 cents, and completely open to discussion.

This could also be though because my sensory issues are lesser, in my opinion, than what i have read. (i.e. SLOW visual processing rather than total overload).

I could not access the original broadcast.

This sentence seems to have caused a lot of debate. My two cents are that you aren't right and you aren't wrong.

For example, some people are intolerant to wheat. In some respects this is disabling as it can be very hard to find food that doesn't have wheat in it and can easily cause disabling discomfort or a medical situation in otherwise perfectly "normal" circumstances. However, if everyone was wheat intolerant no one would eat it and it wouldn't be disabling as it wouldn't limit food choice. The same way everyone is intolerant to mercury so it isn't used in cooking ever.

In a similar way I agree that aspergers isn't a disability, but I disagree that whatever aspergers isn't, that it doesn't have a biological cause. (Sorry for the quadruple-negative). So really its just the vagueness of the term disability - which is really dependant on external factors for a disability to be recognised as such.

But, I feel the entire rest of your points are moot. Just like those who deny the moon landings could easily just verify it if they used a big enough telescope, using an MRI scan allows autism to be seen (a process still in its infancy though) and proves that there is something physically detectably different.

I have read that there is a biological basis for autism. I hope that autism remains to be a disorder or else I'm just the highly antisocial smart guy who thinks slower than everyone else. I need a reason for my behavior and it can't just be "I'm weird".

Would you mind linking me to a paper or reliable source which conclusively states that there is a definite "test" for autism? I am reasonably certain that there is no reliable evidence to suggest that an MRI can diagnose autism. I'm a physicist with a particular interest in medical physics, I am generally quite up to date on MRI scanners and techniques. I don't mean to sound arrogant but I think you're mistaken here; I have rather extensive knowledge of MRI scanners (more than any other equipment), how they work and what they are and are not currently able to do. I have never heard of successfully diagnosing autism.

In fact, that I know of (and I specialise in diagnostic equipment) there is no medically valid way of physically proving Autism. There is no evidence to suggest we will ever be able to do that. For now at least, it is a pattern of bahaviour and thought, and as such there is no way of distinguishing between an autistic person and a person with a certain combination of personality traits and slight (and on the entire scale of physical differences, almost all sensory issues are slight) physical atypicality.

I have also read that there is a biological basis for autism. And I have read that the world is going to end this month, and the Bible, and the Harry Potter series. But none of these were published in peer reviewed scientific journals (to my knowledge) and until they are we can't assume that they're true, just because it's been printed in a public newspaper, Yahoo news, or anywhere else that can publish basically whatever they feel like.

I don't mean to be rude but " I hope that autism remains to be a disorder or else I'm just the highly antisocial smart guy who thinks slower than everyone else. I need a reason for my behavior and it can't just be "I'm weird"" is one of the main problems with diagnosing things which are on a spectrum such as Autism; no one wants to just be weird and no one wants their problems to be their fault. If you're diagnosed with something, you have something to blame for things you don't like about yourself other than just you.

Actually, it most certainly can be just that you're weird. I don't know you. I don't know how severe you are, or in what ways you differ from most people, but the fact that you act "weird" does not make you disabled. Some people are odd people just because they are, just because that's their personality and there is no further cause than that.

I think a lot of it could be a certain type of parent. "My son doesn't have many friends, he doesn't play with the other children and he has unusual interests. It couldn't possibly be that my child is at fault, it can't be his genetics or upbringing because that would make it my fault. Oh look, there's a disability that makes people act like that and there's no way to blame me for him having it. If he gets diagnosed with that, I'm the parent of a disabled child instead of a weirdo, and I don't have to make the effort to encourage him to do certain things because can be excused from them because he's autistic. It must be that then!"

Similarly, I think a lot of people diagnosed with autism use their diagnosis as almost an excuse to themselves. "I don't have many friends because I'm autistic, it isn't my fault, I needn't go to any extra lengths for them. I would make a change in my life but I'm autistic so that makes it more difficult for me to change than everyone else, it's OK if I don't bother".

I'm not saying that's you because I don't know you, but just keep in mind "I must be autistic or I'm just weird/unpopular/antisocial" is not a basis for a disability. There are people that are weird/unpopular/antisocial and the fact that you don't want to be one of them doesn't mean that you are autistic.