alex doesn't have Asperger's

Post Reply New Topic

Danielismyname:

Those responding might be having difficulty with your word choice, your semantics. I take exception with your choice of the word "real." Those with ASD and I can and do have "real" communications and socialization. Perhaps they did not originally come naturally, and maybe we had to learn certain things by rote, but those factors don't make them any less "real." Your word choice gives the impression that there is no hope for those with ASD to have an interpersonal or meaningful life outside of the boundaries of their own disability. I'm not sure that you intend to imply that.

Z

I always took sarcasm to mean that you SEEM on some level to be 100% FOR the argument, when something makes it clear, on another level, that you aren't.

When I said on one thread that observations made it CLEAR that evolution was FACT, and then showed how it can be observed in various years of the VW jetta, I seemed to be making a point FOR it, and a GOOD one at that! We ALL know that the VWs are made by HUMANS though, and thus didn't just evolve, so I also seemed to shoot the theory down!

dictionary.com describes the concept like this:



In other words, they APPEAR to be commending the person on being prompt, when others know it is an observance that they aren't.

Then again, though every other reference ties into the kind of concept I spoke of above, dictionary.com DOES say "1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. ". Even then though, I don't think anything here has been harsh or bitter, and I don't think MW99 meant it as derision.

I don't know about danes, but MANY young kids are "clumsy" with language. Supposedly, that is even MORE true of boys. How young is your son?

The DSM says this in criteria C:

That's pretty open to interpretation if you ask me. "Clinically significant impairment" is different from "a complete inability in every situation." Like others, I take umbrage to the suggestion that the kinds of interaction aspies may engage in is somehow not "real" just because it might be more "learned." Who defines "real" interaction, and how is aspie interaction not real? Someone else on this thread made the point that NT kids don't "really" interact by adult standards, either. Developmental delay is not stasis.

Anyone who seriously believes that intra-aspie interaction is merely "humorous" needs to spend more time observing it respectfully. Myself and others on this thread have posted anecdotal evidence which counters this view. Autreat and Autscape are examples of conferences to which many people on the spectrum want to go specifically because of social experiences with others on the spectrum, including people who are more severely affected. Professionals, because they are professionals, may not be in the best position to observe or comment on interactions between aspies. Freud made generalizations about how "women are", but how the hell would he know the ways in which women interacted with one another without him there? Luckily, I've been fortunate enough to see professionals who believe me when I talk about having an extremely meaningful and interactive relationship with another aspie. Our conversations often incorporate our interests, but they are still interactions, and we can still be spontaneous with each other. He talks about a certain comic book series and I respond with questions about what he's saying and maybe make a comparison to Harry Potter or Animorphs or Everworld or Diana Wynne Jones novels. He responds to me, and our interests (both mutual and separate) are often a part of the conversation, but not all of it. There's some "talking at you" and a lot of "talking with you", and often the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I know Daniel's not a fan of anecdotal evidence via Internet, but repeating quotes from "experts" doesn't discount it in my book. I consider myself a social scientist-in-training (though not in psychology), and critical readers of social scientists always need to consider these questions and more:

-What's the sample size, both numerically and qualitatively? What limitations must be placed on this study because of the sample size?
-Are the generalizations warranted by the data? Does the researcher overreach the evidence?
-How objective is the research?
-How reliable are the measurements utilized? Are there any potential problems?
-Does the researcher adequately discuss possible problems and limitations of the research?

My son is 9.
I didn't mean language per se.
I meant language in context. Having a hard time with the rythm, exact meaning and underlying humor in what is being said.

In my thought, I very rarely talk to myself in third person. When I speak, I very often talk in first person plural. Saying 'we'. It only happens when I do not think about my words. But it's usually amusing to others. They say I use the 'royal we'.

I don't know if that's what is meant by 'pronoun reversal'. I can become aware of that I used an incorrect pronoun when I observe what I wrote or think about what I said right away. I know how to apply pronouns consciously.

I thought the Alex part was sarcasm. I do this sarcasm all the time when people pull the "You don't have AS" just because they can do something so I use some famous aspies as an example by saying they don't have it, so that's why I thought you were being sarcastic too. Proves me how I read people wrong thinking they are being sarcastic when they are not. I wonder how often I do this

I once saw an article about a camp I attended for gifted kids (which I'm certain had a lot of undiagnosed autistic people, I can still remember several others besides me), and it described how some of the people there "could not hold real conversations", and then it showed what some of the conversations were like.

The conversations consisted of one person telling a monologue about their interests alternating with a second person telling a monologue about their own interests. Or else each reciting litanies of facts about themselves.

They were said to be one-sided.

What the reporter didn't realize, was that on each side of the conversation, in addition to talking about their interests or facts about themselves, the person was listening to the other people's interests or facts about themselves.

Much like conversations on WP.

I find the characterization of these conversations as by default "not real" to be pretty offensive.

Technically, we is still the same person. It is PLURAL, but still first person. Apparently pronoun reversal is when you say you, or s/he, to mean I. Several here have said they have done just that. Apparently you usually grow out of it. Obviously, daniel and bob dole haven't though.

TELL ME about it! YOU are the ULTIMATE example of how wrong that is! Someone that has SUCH a hard time communicating verbally that you use a voice synthesizer, etc... and yet you have enough to say, and figure it is important enough, to go to the trouble. AND, you communicate well enough here to pretty much make what I just said appear to be some crazy fabrication. If you can, and do, do ALL that, WHO can dare say that no person with AS has such an ability?

As for it being phony, or artificial, I find many at my jobs parroting garbage that they should have been able to recognize as such. Most are CLEARLY NT!! !! !! So who is the REAL parrot and all? Are THEY, the NTs, parroting what they heard that may NEVER be true but is, at the very least, misapplied so real? Am I, the one stating what I know, etc.... so phony?

Makes sense.

When I say 'we', I still use a pronoun that is ultimately related to my person. It refers to my person in a different/incorrect way only. Unlike this, 2. and 3. person are related to other people. The pronouns do not make any reference to the concept of one's personality.

Thank you for clearing that up!

I think I agree with it. It also is a matter of "Know thyself" and being self aware. I tend to think over things and try to figure out what I can do better next time. Whether it works I don't know.
But I still may struggle, who knows?

I hope to go back and read this when I have more time and not pressured to eat or go somewhere.

If a person is unable to come up with a response rapidly that communicates what they mean to communicate, but is able to come up with one beforehand and use it appropriately to the communication, it seems to me the one that the person has planned for is the more genuine response. The idea that responding rapidly is more genuine is quite foreign to me.

I think too many people are putting too much "me" into this topic and their feelings pertaining to its subject matter.

That they are saying "I can do this, so you must be wrong". I also think that the majority of responses here are typical of AS. You are arguing a case you believe in, using your experience to support it and manipulate the written word into portraying your opinion, without consideration or understanding the other person's argument.

From my interpretation of the posts concerning social interraction, is that having AS doesn't mean you are completely unable to interract socially, or even reciprocate socially, but having AS means that neurologically you approach these situations from a completely different perspective to someone who is neurotypical.

Many who are diagnosed with AS as an adult, have an innate feeling of being different, but they don't essentially associate anything being "wrong" and are able to apply that to a specific part of their life confidently. It is not until the label of AS is able to describe their symptoms in a specific way that they realise what they have had difficulty in.

The point of having an AS from what I have read is that there is nothing "wrong" with having the Syndrome, just that you are different. The difference and due to being in a minority is what creates the disorder in that you are unable to function on the same level as the majority.

For example, as Daniel said, you may think that you are socially interracting and are reciprocating the social interraction, however from an external point of view, it may appears as though you are dominating the conversation, interrupt, talk over the other person and the conversation mainly involves something you are interested in. Alternatively, you might feel you are being a good listener, but externally, you are being silent, withdrawn, and not providing constructive input on the conversation, your responsese might consist mainly of "yeah", "really","that's interesting", but you're not actively progressing the conversation. If the other person stopped talking, the conversation would cease unless they started talking again, or unless you thought of something you wanted to talk about, you wouldn't actively discuss their perspective, only yours.

An example that I find a lot, tends to come out in conversation when people are apparently "relating". Lets just say they both have AS, one will talk about how their girlfriend dumped them, how they don't know what to do, that noone understands. The other will reply with "Yeah, but when that happened to me" and will proceed to explain a situation they experienced, without actually acknowledging the original person's problem.

An example in this post is, regardless of what Daniel has said or other posters have said, everyone keeps saying "yeah but, i've seen this" or "i've done this, so you must be wrong", or "I agree because of what I experienced" and every post is almost a yearning to experess your own experience and talk about what you have been through, impressing your perspective onto others.

Wheras a neurotypical response would be to ignore the topic altogether, or ask Daniel questions about his sources, or why he has come to that conclusion. Or possibly suggest that the reason for his voracity in relation to the official written word on AS, his concrete belief in it and his almost compulsion to "convert" people to his thinking, that what he says is facts, may actually be more his Asperger's or Autism speaking than what are actually facts or what might be actually correct.

Anyways, I tend to agree more with the official side of things than people's interpretations of their own experience, because before I found AS I knew I had difficulty socially, and I knew I was quite mechanical in my interraction, but at the same time, it was subconscious, I never knew that I was impaired, or had a problem, I just thought it was natural. I guess its all a matter of perspective as to what you think. But for the disorder to work, there has to be an objective description that encompasses everyone to an extent, and I believe that is the written word and diagnostic criteria.

Last edited by tbam on 06 Apr 2008, 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not a psych major and a lot of this talk has gone way over my head. I never have gotten into the minutiae of what AS or autism is, mainly because I can't get into the technical jargon. When I originally read the first post (and the few that followed) I misunderstood what '2-way interraction' was intended to define. After sitting here today and re-reading this entire thread as well as the posted quotes from the DSM IV, I believe I now understand at least what Daniel is saying. It (true 2-way interraction) seems to be a matter of whether or not there is actual give-and-take in a conversation, as opposed to giving 'automatic' replies remembered by rote or otherwise parroting the standard 'NT' responses in a given conversation. This is exactly what I do. I have been mimicking proper conversational response all of my life (and often get it wrong), as well as beign completely incapable of making 'small talk.' If this is what Daniel referred to, then he is correct.

I originally took the quote of his postings to mean that people with AS are unable to carry on conversations, which is not (technically) true. We carry on conversations, and some of us can do it so well that it's almost indistinguishable from 'true' 2-way conversation between NTs. Now that I understand what he was trying to say, I agree. What I don't agree with is the original poster's assessment of Alex P. based on a video of his interraction with another person. You can't a make a diagnosis based on that, especially if you aren't a trained psychologist. What I know about psychology is almost next to nothing (my eyes glaze over when peope start flinging textbook med-speak in my direction), but had this been explained in more simpler terms, there probably wouldn't have been all this arguing. MW99 can't make a diagnosis based on what he (or she?) saw on a video, and people in general are honestly wasting their time trying to diagnose someone else online. You can't make that call if you aren't qualified, and even if you ARE qualified, you still can't do so without observing the individual in question over a period of time.

[I apologize for repeating any words or misspelling, I've got a raging migraine today and my thoughts are as scatter-shot as my typing.]

***thinks about this***

Very interesting point. I'd never really thought about that. But then, I suppose because I tend to talk a lot and rarely sit back, quiet.