Post-assessment thoughts (finally got the result today).

Post Reply New Topic

In the post I was referring to the diagnostic manual criteria. According to the psychologist there were some signs of AS during childhood (which she talked to my parents about) and my AS became very obvious when taking ADOS. Apparently the rest of the test results confirm AS as well (though we haven't talked about those in detail yet).

Is it really important where you should be in terms of functioning compared to others, how many criteria you meet or should meet, how mild, moderate, or severe you are compared to others? Do the answers to these questions, if there are answers, really impact your life as you live it?

In my opinion, the answer is no, these questions are not really important. What is important is you and people close to you recognizing your traits, strengths, weaknesses, and you trying to work with these to do what you want to do in life. There is no you should be specifically this high-functioning, or you shouldn't be quite this high-functioning, or you should be somewhat higher-functioning than you are, etc etc etc.

No, it's not really important but, like I said, I'm just trying to understand how things work and in order to do so I seek information. That's how I work. Always. No matter what it's about. But yeah, sorry if I asked the wrong questions.

I didn't say that you asked the wrong questions.
I said that I don't think the questions you asked are important for helping a person live their life, and likely they could become topics of obsession that doesn't add much value, comparing self vs. other in terms of severity and functioning.

I see what you mean and you're probably right. Things like this easily become "topics of obsession" for me, which isn't always great. It's difficult to find just the right amount of information (especially since I'm also a very curious person who likes information).

Not stupid at all Rebbieh.

Here is a quote from Tony Attwood's book, The complete Guide To Asperger's Syndrome, pages 50 and 51, that can answer your question. I slanted the part that might be of most importance to you for answering your question.

CLOSURE OF THE DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT
At the end of the diagnostic assessment, the clinician provides a summary and review of
those characteristics in the person?s developmental history, profile of abilities and
behaviour consistent with a diagnosis of Asperger?s syndrome, and concludes whether
the signs are sufficient for a diagnosis. I explain to the client and family the concept of a
100-piece diagnostic jigsaw puzzle. Some pieces of the puzzle (or characteristics of
Asperger?s syndrome) are essential, the corner and edge pieces. When more than 80
pieces are connected, the puzzle is solved and the diagnosis confirmed. None of the
characteristics are unique to Asperger?s syndrome, however, and a typical child or adult
may have perhaps 10 to 20 pieces or characteristics. The person referred for a diagnostic
assessment may have more pieces than occur in the typical population, but sometimes
not enough, or the key or corner pieces, to complete the puzzle or receive a diagnosis of
Asperger?s syndrome.

My bad. You know how AS brain wiring can make one blind to a social world that NTs take for granted (the ability to read body language, social cues, and certain meanings based on vocal intonations, etc), I was trying to make an analogy to that. Except here, it is the NT mind that is blind to a world complexities that those on the spectrum can generally disentangle (as long as they are interested in it). As evidence to back this claim up, I was referring to the comment where I had made objections to the validity of the eye tracking experiment you were involved in. While originally typing that post, part of me wondered whether you had already come up with similar objections, based on the fact that since methods of diagnosis is something you obviously take interest in, you would see potential flaws. Generally speaking, I would not expect most people IRL to come up with those kinds of objections (with a few exceptions). There is something about the manner in which people on the spectrum approach interests of theirs (generally, they score higher than the rest of the population on tests measuring "the drive to analyze and construct systems", measured by 'systemizing quotient') that convinced me that it was likely others on WP would reach similar conclusions about the eye tests without much difficulty.

Assuming that you would reach similar conclusions on a subject matter of mutual interest based on assumptions about a shared reasoning process is no doubt of limited usefulness (if even correct at all. There's always the possibility that this is an anomaly or/and that I'm wrong about NT's mode of thinking, that most NTs would reach similar conclusions (in my experience, these are the kinds of conclusions that NTs would generally miss, even after having participated in the study)), but it felt like I had a glimpse of what NTs do all the time (ie, reach social conclusions based on assumptions of social intuition (which are biologically determined to a degree) vs reaching topic-specific conclusions based on assumptions of a similar reasoning-process (also biologicaly determined to a degree)). (sorry about the confusion, I'm not always the clearest of communicators)

skibum, nice excerpt, I've never heard of it described that way. Thanks for sharing!

It's not a stupid question, it's really tough to maneuver through all the information! The problem (as I see it, but I'm not a professional, so don't take my word) is that diagnosing psychiatric conditions is as much of an art as it is a science. We know there are real differences in the brain between someone on the spectrum and someone who's not. We don't know the exact ways that those differences affect how someone behaves, acts, feels and thinks, but we do know that the symptoms come in big enough clusters to warrant a single name (autism spectrum disorder, or previously, autism and aspergers) and a single cause (differences in the brain. Though the naming came about way before any physical evidence was found).
We now know that oftentimes genes work in clusters as well. There is no "autism" gene, but there are clusters of genes that together, produce a holistic experience that we know of as 'falling on the spectrum'. The clusters of genes are not the same for everyone on the spectrum, and they probably play out differently depending on lots of other things, including one's cultural and familial upbringing (ie, environment). We now know that "early intervention" (as it's often called) can assist those on the spectrum live more in sync (and with less life disturbances) with society. There are plenty of stories of abuse on this forum, but there are also plenty of stories like Temple Grandin's which reveal how much of an impact environmental factors can have.

So to answer question 1, the criteria for ASD were not made for a single person but to describe a cluster of patterns that seem somehow interrelated. It's possible that someone fits all the criteria, though many do not, and it's possible that there are criteria that many on the spectrum share that researchers have yet to formally identify. In any case, there are enough people who share different combinations of criteria, that when put together, makes the criteria list that now exists.

To answer question 2, not meeting every criteria has little bearing on the severity of autism. Though there seems to be a correlation between severity of autism and prevalence of symptoms, severity usually refers to the degree to which the symptoms are present, not how many symptoms are present. For example, to what degree is someone sensitive to sound-stimulus, and to what degree does that affect daily living. As for your diagnosis being correct, based on your description of the process, it seemed pretty comprehensive, which mean less likely they would have screwed up, though it's always possible. Could you see a therapist to express your concerns? Possibly explore alternative explanations and see where those take you?
As for functioning, that's a personal thing. You can't determine that based on the results of a test. You might want to explore what particular limitations you might have, but in all likelihood, there are those with more severe autism that are very high functioning and those with much less severe autism who are lower functioning. I think this is where a previous poster mentioned to not let the dx define you. It's good to figure yourself out, but what if someone were to say that with your results, you'll never have a relationship (if that's an ambition of yours), hold a job, or be able to go through school? There was a point in time when doctors did say this, but we now know that this isn't the case. Just a word of caution.

I think this is excellent advice. For me, I have never felt ?disabled? (either before or after diagnosis). However, I have felt ?excluded?. I was OK with this, when I was younger (in school), because I knew that it was a short-term situation. However, it can become ?debilitating? when you become an adult. For example, if you become excluded from the workforce (due to your lack of social skills). As then, you are not permitted (by society at large) to become an independent adult. I worry a lot about the younger Aspies, who are not properly prepared (mostly by their parents) to become a functioning member of the larger society. I believe this is one area where we can ?come together? to figure out how to make this not a problem.


Once again, excellent advice.

Rebbieh ? From my perspective, this is an important time in your life to figure out what this all means. There are no wrong questions.

Skibum: thank you for sharing the excerpt. Perhaps I should really give that book another go (I started it once a few years ago but never finished it). I think I'm a bit worried about reading books about Asperger's nowadays though. I worry that I'll read it and won't be able to relate and then doubt everything even more. Honestly, I'm afraid I'll never get over the doubts and that would be awful. Half of the day today I've been "convinced" there must've been a mistake (that I must've exaggerated things, which must've led the psychologist to the wrong conclusion) and the other half of the day I've felt that perhaps the diagnosis is correct. I keep obsessing over all of this. I can't let it go. How do I let it go?

Spectacles: thank you for giving me such a clear answer. You asked if I could see a therapist about my concerns. I've voiced my concerns about exaggerating and faking and what if the diagnosis is incorrect etc. One of the psychologists (the one I've seen for depression etc) have told me that those are valid concerns but that those are questions that probably won't ever be answered because we can't know for sure. She tells me I have to somehow accept that there are no definite answers to my questions (which I find very hard to accept because I can't really stand uncertainty). The psychologist who assessed me for AS told me she knew about my concerns from the beginning of the assessment process and that she had therefore kept it in mind throughout the whole thing. She told me her conclusion is that I'm not faking and that the diagnosis is correct.

Rocket123: thank you. I'm thankful that you people still read my posts.

I am not 100% certain I followed everything you wrote. But you did raise a question, which I wanted to respond to, about the validity of the experiment.

#1 ? Validity of the Eye Tracking Experiment?
I had no prior knowledge regarding these types of experiments prior to my participation. Afterwards, I spent several hours watching videos and reading studies. At this point in time, I don?t have any objections to their validity.

#2 ? Were my actions influenced by Confirmation Bias?
This is something that I wondered about. As eye-to-eye gaze wasn?t something I ever paid attention to before learning about Aspergers.

Interestingly, I posted about this immediately after being diagnosed (Becoming more aware of Symptoms following Diagnosis <click>).

Usually, eye-tracking eggsperiments don't measure just one thing, like gaze to eyes of faces in pictures/videos or eye-to-eye gaze in live interaction. Instead, there are many measures in terms of locations of fixations, durations of fixations, velocity of saccades, distribution of velocities and durations, path lengths, path features, breakdown of all these by different conditions, etc. There is also an eggsperimental paradigm wrapped around the physical measurements, such that it is not just sit down and measure eye movements, but do specific task with specific instructions and your eyes will move while doing so, and how they move can be calculated in terms of concrete details as described but also mathematically modeled in terms of the big picture of what these behaviors may show about cognitive processes. I just saw NIH grant about eye-tracking and EEG as objective measures of social impairments in autism, I think I will apply for it.

Huh, I figured there was always a tiny chance that with enough observation (eg, if one were to look up videos), your body could pick up enough information to do a pretty good imitation (placebos can do wonders!). I thought subconsciously picking up on saccade patterns was a bit of a stretch, but it sounds like the research has gone way, way beyond that. That's really fascinating, thanks for sharing! And good luck on getting that grant!

Whoops, my bad again. I need to refrain from reading too much into things (still pretty new to the world of forums, and I'm pretty sure it shows ).

Thanks for the link to your previous thread. I'm personally going through a similar phase where I'm becoming more conscientious of how I behave/have behaved, and I keep on getting more and more surprised. It makes me wonder what else have I been oblivious to all my life

^ ^ ^ That is cool. It?s simply amazing how far technology has progressed.


^ ^ ^ That sounds interesting. Good luck.