Asperger's is not real

Post Reply New Topic

No, just able to multitask
For someone who is ready to understand, that info is pretty powerfull. I'm hanging on this web site until I see if there are any people who actually want to improve, or just sit around crying about their problems.

YEEEEEAAAAAH!! !! thats whats up! oh well jeez i got nuthin beter to do than type *Sigh*
and this thing is giving me troubles... does anyone know how to upload a avatar of my choice cause it wont come up no matter what!! If you know also plz, plz, plz, plz give detailed instructions.

THX

MakazeAkumaBatsu
(Evil wind demon clan)

That avvy seems to have worked all right.

I am a student in Neuroscience, although I do not study Autism specifically, I do have some knowledge about standard psychological testing and data analysis and have read a couple of papers about studies on people with AS. But I certainly do not have the expertise of someone with a Ph.D.

All of what you have listed here is useless without knowing what you were doing when the scans were being taken. What exactly were you doing during the scanning session? What you were doing means everything. Were you lying still? Were you being talked too? Were you shown pictures? Did you have to read words? Without knowing what you were doing, we cannot tell what your scans were indicating.

For instance, if someone was shown distrubing images and the part of the brain associated with happiness became activated, we would deduce that that person may have disturbing tendancies and desires. But, if we were showing them standard images of happiness, and the same area lit up, we would not conclude anything abnormal. Thus making it crucial for us to know what you were doing during your brain scans, and what the other subjects were doing during their brain scans that your scan was compared too.

Keep in mind here that there must be previous studies which have validated the areas of the brain that are associated with happiness as both participants in this hypothetical study may have abnormal desires and tendancies. The area of activation needs to be validated through scans of many different patients, only then can it be used as a control and compared to the scans of someone with AS in order to diagnose a lack of activity, which is what usually occurs with people with AS.

Studies conducted on people who are suspected to have AS usually involve showing them pictures of emotional stimuli (happy, sad, neutral faces, etc.) while taking scans of their brain activity, and then comparing them to people who do not have AS who recieve the exact same paradigm. The pictures of the AS sufferer are then compared to the pictures of the person without AS and you can see the parts of the brain where the person with AS does not show activity where the person without AS does. Thus following the model that AS is an inability (logically meaning that there is a lack of activity in the brain area associated with picking up such cues) to perceive certain emotional cues from physical appearances.

Of course there may be other studies on AS that diagnose it that I am not aware of. But I find it hard to imagine that a neurologist looked at your brainscan alone, without comparing it to any other subjects, then diagnosed you. Then again, I do not have a Ph.D. either.

My personal opinion is that you should not trust the doctor who said that brain imaging was pseudoscience. But keep in mind, I am planning to enter this field. However, I don't see how anyone with a Ph.D could call neuroimaging a "pseudoscience".

Wouldnt it depend on what your were trying to ascertain with the imaging. I can see its use for strokes, tumors etc, but how could it ever be used for neuro-processing analysis. Science doesnt even know how messages are transmitted through neuronal channels, how the brain communicates. Just measuring brain activity tells us nothing about how the brain processes that activity, and what that activity really means.

They are just getting into this actually. That's what fMRIs are geared to do. In an fMRI, they don't just show you pictures, they have you functionally doing things and scan your brain as you do it. When they first started this, the first thing they noticed was that a part of the brain they thought was affected by Autism, didn't appear to be and that other areas they didn't know about did appear to be affected. They aren't sure how it all works yet because you have to remember that they are just now looking at these (in the last five years or so), but someday they will be able to follow the trail across your brain to see how the messages are being sent both correctly (control group) and incorrectly (affected group). Someday they will be able to look at your brain and say for a fact that you have it or don't, but that's a long way off and part of that is because we all display such varied degrees and symptoms. They have to develop a threshhold and say this is "normal" brain activity and this is where the Autistic Spectrum begins. That's why they map the control group...to establish the threshhold.

Did that help?

Not really, cause fMRI still only tells us areas of the brain where neuronal activity is taking place, and not how that neuronal activity is being processed. Its like saying that your computer uses 'this to do that' without ever first identifying what operating system is being used.

I can see it being used as a tool to narrow the field maybe, but even then, we still havent put the cart before the horse. The first thing that science needs to understand is how neuronal messaging works, and how differences in this process effects different people. Then we can start applying this to mapping that activity. Until we know the basics of the process, its all just more guess work, and I am so tired of scientists claiming theory as fact. And the control group is nothing more than someones opinion of what the threshold should be.

An example is the recent research theorizing that messaging is done by sound waves. Since it was discovered that the physics of the process negates messaging being done with electronic impulses as was originally believed, science has been trying to ascertain what the process might entail. And sound waves is a new theory, but its still all guess work.

If imaging is ever used for diagnosis without first knowing how the neurological system works, how it communicates between its parts, it will indeed be pseudoscience.

Maybe you overdid it. What I mean is something I did at first -- when I found out I had AS, it was easy to let the power of suggestion take over, and make myself a walking "Mr. Asperger's Syndrome". In other words, maybe when you stayed at home all the time, after you found out about your AS, you thought you had it worse than you actually do. Then, you were like, "Wait a minute, I CAN socialize, at least adequately, so I must not have it!" Aspies are at various points along the AS continuum, and yours may not be particularly severe; you may find that many other Aspies are more afflicted than yourself. That doesn't mean you don't have it, or that it doesn't exist. The key word in the short-short definition of AS is "qualitative social impairment". There's variation from person to person, and indeed from day to day. I've had a few (a precious few) "non-AS" days in my life, where, from my perspective at least, I socialized well, but I still had AS -- just had days where I was able to compensate for it well enough to be accepted, if only for a very-short-lived time. But, like I said, it's a continuum that runs from extreme AS to fully NT, and everyone is somewhere on that continuum. That's one reason one Aspie's abilities differ from another Aspie's -- while they still both have AS.

They have to start at guess work if they are ever going to figure it out. They have to have a theory then test it to prove or disprove it.

If it's like everything else from Migraines to Depression, they won't be any closer 50 years from now. They'll just realize how many of their theories were wrong.

It's all just "practicing" medicine.

Look at how much theories in Physics have changed.

By the way, if you can find the research where they found the electronic impulses weren't sending the messages, can you link it? I'd like to read it. Thanks.

The reason scientists, especially physicists, dont think its transferred via electronic impulses is because the energy exerted should produce heat along the nerve and studies have shown that none occurs.

The biggest problem I have with theories is that if enough quacks say yeah thats probably right, somewhere along the line it becomes treated as fact, and thats when all the problems start.

The bottom line is, no one knows how the brain recieves data, processes that data, and then communicates its findings with the rest of the body. What if it is sound waves, and nothing is imaging that. The response to radio waves in the brain, (or whatever is being imaged by the scan), may be totally unrelated to the actual thought process that is occurring.

LOL. I don't come here often so I missed this nonsense the first time around, and so I was pursuing the thread to see if anyone had asked this. Anyone who willingly submitted to such alledged testing for something she doesn't think exist is probably full of s**t in my book, and she's likely just loving the fact she's taking the more gulliable souls around here for this ride. My money's on her having made up this tale, after doing some amateur psych research on Wiki to get some impressive jargon under her belt (or maybe she's just some dumb, solipsist undergrad who's taken a couple of psych classes and now thinks she's smarter than people with Ph.D.s), and came here posing as someone dx'd just to see if it gave her more cred when she turned around and said AS doesn't exist. There's obvious deception going on here, and I suspect there's a simple, very immature, ego-driven reason for her doing this. Maybe her psych prof laughed at her. Maybe she's mad because a relative has AS and is getting attention and support she wants for herself. Whatever it is, she's obviously attention-seeking if she's drunk-posting on top of her other nonsense.

Stats, you have no cred with me. I'm a 35-year-old, educated, well-read and incredibly intelligent woman with AS who has been working with students with autism and other disorders for about a decade now. Those are my creds. Regardless that I do agree that people with conditions like AS should not define and limit themsleves by a mere diagnosis, and regardless of what wonderfully self-serving pretense you think validates your game, I still think you're full of s**t and that you're lying to the people here about who and what you are. Get over yourself.

I don't quite understand how you can be saying much of what you have posted. What exactly is your background in academics?

We do not need to know how a computer transfers its electrical data to know which programs are not working. One has nothing to do with the other.

You said: "Its like saying that your computer uses 'this to do that' without ever first identifying what operating system is being used." Which is wrong. Exactly which neuroscientist/university/publication has claimed this to be the case? Or have you simply attributed this to the field of neuroscience yourself? Neuroscientists do not claim that anything uses "this to do that", but they claim whether "that" is occuring or not. Now what "this" is, and whether or not something uses "this to do that" is a completely different problem. Much as diagnosing a tumor is completely different from eradicating a tumor.

Neuroscientific studies are along the line of diagnosing tumors, which is why doctors don't run fMRI machines; diagnosing and healing, two completely different things. I don't know of any neuroscientist who has claimed that he can heal anyone with a brain scan, yet this seems to be the heart of your argument against neuroscience. That it needs to heal, not merely diagnose. Yet, this is not the purpose of neuroscience in these types of situations, much as it is not the purpose of the fMRI tech to heal, but only to diagnose.

When someone is diagnosing AS they are looking for a lack of activity where others have activity, not how information is transferred. You are talking about the causes of why there is a lack of activity. This is not what neuroscience is used for in these cases.

Thus, your statement; "Just measuring brain activity tells us nothing about how the brain processes that activity, and what that activity really means." Is correct. Thats right, we are not trying to ascertain physical mechanisms of brain processes, but whether this process is occuring or not; we are not trying to cure but diagnose. This will be usefull for when they actually discover the causes of something and are able to cure it, because we will have a tool to test whether the cure worked or not. The doctors healings methods are useless without the fMRI tech to tell him whether they worked or not. You cannot cure something until you are able to diagnose it consistently and identify commonly occuring symptoms, otherwise you'll be treating everything and nothing at the same time. Accurate diagnosing paves the way for a cure (I do not advocate a cure for AS, these are merely examples to show the difference between diagnosing and curing).

Diagnosing something and discovering the cause of something are completely different. Looking to see if the fish is missing from the tank is not the same as ascertaining why the fish isn't in the tank. Diagnosing AS is like looking to see if the fish aren't home so to speak. Why they aren't there is a completely different problem. Again, diagnosing something and seeking the cause of something are two completely different things.

Thus your statement, "If imaging is ever used for diagnosis without first knowing how the neurological system works, how it communicates between its parts, it will indeed be pseudoscience." is based on an inability to seperate diagnosing something with explaining what causes something, and also an inability to seperate science from pseudoscience. You do not need to know anything about how data is communicated between parts to diagnose a lack of communication. But, you do need to know such information if you goal is to heal or cure that lack of communication. Pseudoscience is a method which has no scientifically verifiable conclusions, so diagnosing is definitely not a pseudoscience even if it cannot explain the physical mechanisms of brain processes, which is not purpose, nor could it be; diagnosing and curing are two different things.

And your statement, "The bottom line is, no one knows how the brain recieves data, processes that data, and then communicates its findings with the rest of the body. What if it is sound waves, and nothing is imaging that. The response to radio waves in the brain, (or whatever is being imaged by the scan), may be totally unrelated to the actual thought process that is occurring." is based on the misunderstanding that what signal is used to get information from place to place has something to do with being able to simply see whether the transmission is occuring or not. It doesn't matter if there are tiny fairy's in everyone's neurotransmitters who carry the information from place to place. Knowing how something is being transferred has nothing to do with being able to see whether it is being transferred or not, (although they may be related, but not in any way that you are trying to link them together). We are not trying to see how information gets to place to place, but to see if there is a link that allows for such transmission, and if that link is operable. In these cases we are not searching for what that link consists of (other people are working on this).

We know that the way something gets there has nothing to do with what areas it activates because if there is no activation, there is no behavior. Thus, linking activation areas with behavior has nothing to do with how information gets there, the only thing that matters is whether an area is activated or not. Whether your internet signal gets to your computer through a line, or wireless, this has nothing to do with being able to look on your screen to see if the signal is arriving or not. Yes, the method of transfer may have something to do with why the signal is not getting there, but again, this information is useful only in curing things, not diagnosing them. We do not need to know what signal you have, to see if there is a picture on your screen.

I don't understand how pinpointing activation areas in the brain is a theory. This is like describing where your dining table is in your house, then saying, "but it's only a theory". This makes no sense. Activation area's are facts, not theories. Just as where your dining table is is a fact, not a theory. These are identity statements, not explanations. Again, you are mixing up two different things.

Control groups are not "someones opinion", but the typically occuring activation areas within the human population. Thus the need to test many different humans and then see where the majority of them display brain activations in any given area.

Again, what is your background in academics?

This was pretty long, but it irratates me when people insult my field with no logical arguments for their position.

We are all shades of grey, or hues of color in the rainbow of human existance. The only 2 human conditions I can think of that are absolutes are "pregnant" and "dead".

Finding out about AS helped me quite a bit, though I am more high functioning than the average Aspie seems to be; AS helped explain why I had such a difficult time in high school and church, and several seemingly unrelated behaviors I have. I get along in life; I don't use (and don't intend to start using) the AS label as a crutch or the need for special treatment. For me, it merely acts as a map to the minefield of life, showing me potential areas where I might have problems so I can better prepare for them and not be as hard on myself when I fail at things other people have no trouble with.

Just because AS is a condition, that doesn't make it a bad thing; we just have our stats allocated in a different pattern than what is considered normal by society (and the ideals pictured in media). Just like ADD has been mentioned to maybe be hunter's talent versus fighter's talent, AS may just be an evolutionary niche some of us chanced to wind up in.

First off, Im a high school drop out. Does that make you feel smarter now.

Im not saying fMRI's are used for curing anything. Im saying the understanding of what fMRI's tell us is based on theory piled upon theory. When a scientist claims an area of the brain does this or that, this is theory based on the particular type of activity that is being measured. But what if that activity was secondary and there was other activity occurring that was a type of activity we couldnt see with the imaging.

The definition of diagnosis is determining "the nature and circumstances of a diseased condition".

Please tell us in your most learned fashion how imaging will ever define "the nature" of autism without understanding the processes involved.

Imaging may someday in the far distant future allow us to assume autism may be involved, but the actual diagnosis will never come from the imaging. Or do you actually believe that someday it will. If so, how.

No diagnostic tool ever renders the diagnosis in and of itself. Typically, a doctor renders the diagnosis based on the greatest available data he or she has available. The fMRI only provides some data.


All science is theory on top of theory, up to and including Physics. It is accepted that theories and advances will be never ending, but if you don't start somewhere you will be guaranteed to get nowhere.


If you are looking for a quantum leap from no theory to instant understanding, you need to consult a physic and not a doctor. That will never happen. And no diagnostic tool wil ever be used to to diagnose, treat or cure anything (with the possible exception of ultrasound in other cases).

No, I know. And Im not saying that someday imaging wont be a central factor in the diagnosis process.



This is what scares me. First, physical law is one of the few things I consider fact. But, yes, pretty much everything else is theory on top of theory. Which can also be summed up as assumption on top of assumption. Or castles made of theoretical sand so to speak. And whether or not in each instance it is the right thing to do or not only time will tell.

And Im not saying to stop the process, just admit what it is. Which scientists have a hard time doing, because it diminishes the importance of their work. Instead, bold statements are made that convey images that are not valid.

As an enivronmental investigator, I have to review scientific data and understand wide ranging issues during a legal challenge of a proposed project or action. And I have learned that all scientific data needs to be cut open and examined closely before any judgements as to its usefulness can be ascertained. And the main culprit is almost always the fact that theory has been misrepresented as fact. And then built upon.

But its just a personal sore spot and I dont mean to belittle a profession.