I think I might have been wrong...

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think either is intentional. The intention was strictly to get a drink. Paying the dollar was an additional obstacle and getting the cup was an unexpected bonus, but neither of these reflect directly on the intention itself.

I said both cup situations were unintentional. I think that makes sense. Maybe I'll read more comments on it.

That's the way I saw it too.

I'm just re-stating the actual Dx criteria.
No one is anyone making a case for adult-ONSET Autism,
merely that CLINICALLY APPARENT SYMPTOMS needn't be obvious in childhood for someone to later be rightly-diagnosed with Aspergers-
it's great that you think a patient's current manifestations of Autism are irrelevant and for diagnosis a decades-old reconstruction of their childhood must be conjured, but I've personally never heard of that, and it's contrary in practice to the experience of many of the diagnosed-as-adults here.

This may not have occurred to you, but Aspergers wasn't standardized diagnostically until the MID-NINETIES, meaning many people here *couldn't* have been diagnosed with Aspergers until after puberty if not well into adulthood. Does that change the validity of their diagnosis? Most definitely not.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 03 Sep 2011, 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The difference is whether you interpret intent as a mental inclination directly connected with an action in the moment or as a plan concocted before/outside the time frame of the story.

It seems aspies are more likely to think of intent as something related to a plan rather than a direct action. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the aspie "missing" anything, just a different interpretation of the language.

I'm not even sure what you mean. What you're saying does not conflict in any way.





Exactly. It's more about language interpretation than anything.

You explanation makes sense--but how would the situations differ. Both were technically unplanned.

If you classify something as intentional only if it was planned ahead, then both situations have an unplanned element and are thus unintentional. But if you classify as intentional, any ACTION taken with the intent to gain some desired outcome, then paying the extra dollar to obtain the drink must be seen as an intentional action. Obtaining the special cup OTOH, was NOT intentional because obtaining the special cup was not something desired. Obtaining the special cup was merely coincidental to obtaining the drink.

The DSM V criteria for Autism:

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 - This is very tricky. Depending on the evaluation, it could go either way. I'm somewhere in the range of normal to mildly impaired here. My own natural body language is extremely awkward, but could be a result of a lack of coordination and poor motor skills.

(b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level - up until the age of 13, no. After that, yes. But, this also applies to many people who are classified as intellectually gifted. "Developmental level" is very hard to define, because my mental development has always been far ahead of my physical age. By taking that into consideration, it would make sense that the one friend I have is four years older than me.

(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) - moderately; can also be defined as introversion.

(d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity - sometimes, but not always. It's not that I can't reciprocate socially and emotionally, it's that I lack an interest in doing so socially, and doing so emotionally isn't very masculine to begin with.

(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) - nope

(b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others - not usually. If so, very mildly.

(c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language - nope

(d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level - somewhat. I've never been interested in social imaginative play, though.

(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 - yes, and this is also a commonly shared trait with gifted people.

(b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals - more than the average person, but nowhere near enough to be considered impairing.

(c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole body movements) - yes, although nothing unusual like hand flapping. All of my stims are generally socially acceptable.

(d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects - as a child, yes. This was mostly with the wheels and axles on toy cars. I would analyze their motion for hours. Is this because I'm autistic, or is this because I wanted to understand how it worked?

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. - when I was a child I would often not interact with people other than my parents. Even before the age of 3 I was capable of understanding that people would ask questions that they already know the answer to. I simply did not see any reason to respond. My parents would not "play" with me like this.

C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. - no, it isn't.

You see where I'm going with this? Yes, I meet the diagnostic criteria. But why?

If you take away my intense interests, and a lack social development with peers, what's left is not enough, both in quantity and in severity. Both of those two can be explained by having above average cognitive abilities.

Which is why my hypothesis of BAP + gifted makes the most sense, as compared to being moderately affected by AS.

I saw a specialist yesterday, and this is something he really picked up on. I'd never thought of it before, but it is certainly true for me. As a small child I loved the functions of things, but had no interest in finding out how they work. My Dad is the kind who takes things apart to understand them, but I just appreciate form and function. I had cars but never drove them, I just loved the colors and how they were made. I loved Weebles because they don't fall down, but I didn't make up stories with them. The same goes for all my toys. I had them because some aspect of their design impressed me, but I didn't act out or show them to anyone. I just appreciated the details that other toys lacked.

That was when I was really young, though. After that "stage" I was really just more creative than anything. When I was 5 years old, if I could have wished for any one thing, it would have been an infinite supply of Lego blocks and other similar building materials.

The diagnostic criteria are written for identifying young children, they're not very good at identifying a lot of adults.

But are playing and building the same thing?

I can remember all my toys simply because I had so few of them. Because most of my time (at least from the age of 3 when I can remember) was spent making things with cardboard, and later making maps and comics and puppets and marble chutes and dioramas and everything. My Mum says I was born with a roll of sellotape and pair of scissors in my hands. I think creativity is a natural aspie trait. Most NTs don't see it because aspies don't do it for others. I don't know about anyone else, but I just have to create, and it has to be the best I can do, and it has to be new, things that nobody else has ever done.

I loved building things with Lego. But I was only interested in the creativity. A finished product never interested me, just the process of building. I hated the idea of buying a Lego car or plane or any other pre-designed object, that was just wrong, wrong, wrong! I never followed designs, and cannot understand anyone who does. It was completely against my nature. I never played with the things I made, or showed them to anybody. I just had to build.

Come to think of it, at the age of 43 I haven't really changed. I make computer games now, but I never make much money because I hate telling people about them. I don't enjoy playing games either, I just have this irresistible urge to create, to do bigger and better things than anybody has ever done, and keep pushing the envelope, even though nobody else cares. I'd be a lot better off making the kinds of games that people already like to play, but I can't do that. What I do has to be new and different and if people appreciate it after I'm dead that's great, but I'm not holding my breath.

Well, yes, you have a point. As a young child, because I had no noticeable nonverbal impairments and I wasn't anywhere near as dependent on routines as most aspies are, I was overlooked. I did have sensory issues, but only very mildly. But I can think of many other autistic traits that I had when I was younger. I would run around in circles with my arms spread out (stimming), I had emotional attachments to objects of equal or greater strength than that of people, and I had obsessions as extreme as can be, just to name a few.

It's possible to look at that and say there's no way I can't be autistic. But the big things for identifying autism really weren't there. I bonded just fine socially and emotionally with my parents. Even at school age, nobody noticed anything majorly wrong, I was just a little bit weird. But weird in either a neutral or a good way.

I know I've said this before, but once I started secondary school that all turned around completely. In some ways, this definitely sounds like AS. After all, it isn't uncommon for symptoms to get much worse during puberty. But that doesn't entirely make sense. I was never nonverbally impaired as a child, so why would I just suddenly become socially isolated? The reason is most likely not because of AS, but because of other things. I am aware of the social world. In the social world, I am considered to be a loser with no life. I know that's not true, so, in response, I ignore the social world. As an extreme introvert, it's not like I need people anyway. Then, of course, it's always arguable that I must be autistic, because a normal person would never say that. But its true. Happiness, to me, has little to do with my social status.

I really don't think I have AS. Saying that I'm on the BAP is much more accurate, in terms of direct impairment. Still, that doesn't mean I'm anywhere near a normal person. I'm actually so far from normal, that is probably the sole cause of my problems. But doesn't AS define how I'm not normal? By definition, no. But, in other ways, yes. The majority of aspies are introverted nerds. I'm different from most people because I'm far more introverted, and far more nerdy. That's why I'm here. That's why I can relate to so many aspies.

But how could I not have AS? All the online quizzes and common sense suggest that, yes, I am an aspie. I do meet the criteria. There's plenty of other nerds who are introverted and still have a social life. Why aren't I one of them? Why do I still not fit in among my own kind? If it's not AS, it's because I'm even more nerdy. Which, actually, isn't a very difficult assumption to make. It is most likely true, after all. I might not be the only person in AP calculus class, but I'm the only person who actually enjoys the challenge of working on calculus problems. For everyone else, the only thing that matters is the grade.

This is what I mean by thinking in circles. I seriously could go on forever. I've only spent a good hour and a half thinking about this to produce a few paragraphs. Actually, I think it might be two hours by now.

The criteria for ASD states that it must have been present in childhood (dsm v). In regards to the dsm-iv, it acknowledges that Aspergers is a pervasive developmental disorder. By the medical definition of a PDD, it MUST BE PRESENT IN CHILDHOOD.



It's great that you've completely twisted my words into something they are not.

I never said a "patient's current manifestations of Autism are irrelevant". Those are your words. What I said was that a diagnostician MUST pay more attention to what a person was like in childhood BECAUSE other conditions can mimic autism-like symptoms in adults even in the absence of autism. Most adults will present autistic symptoms in adulthood as well, but--even if they were different in childhood--SOMETHING must have been present in their youth too. Because autism is a developmental disorder, it CANNOT develop in adulthood; it MUST be present in childhood. Sorry, but there is no way around it.



Well, that is not my problem. The fact of the matter is: that is the definition of a pervasive developmental disorder. If you do not like that definition then argue with the medical professionals, not me. IMO, a PDD being present from childhood makes PERFECT sense. A person cannot be NT as a child and then be autistic as an adult. That is absurd!



If this comment is true, then they were not diagnosed by people who know about the disorder properly then because to be diagnosed with a developmental disorder, it had to be present from childhood. You cannot gain a developmental disorder when you are done developing. It is just common sense, and one that is CLEARLY spelled out for you in the new dsm-v for those who do not like to look up the definition of PDD themselves.

And just a side note: I have never come across this before on WP until your post.



LOL Is THAT what you thought I was saying?? If so, you TOTALLY misunderstood EVERYTHING I said then! Shocker: your little 1990s revelation is not news to me! I am WELL AWARE of this, and knew about it ever since I first suspected I had an ASD almost a decade ago. I never said people could not be diagnosed as adults (duh--I was!) What I said is: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF people had an evaluation in childhood (hypothetically speaking) and they could NOT QUALIFY for a diagnosis in childhood, then they cannot qualify for one as an adult. Whether you agree or not is besides the point. If you are an NT in childhood, you will not grow up to be an autistic adult. FYI, I was not evaluated until I was 26 and again at 27. Had I been evaluated as a child, I STILL would have qualified for a diagnosis then as well. I was not an NT child even though I lacked a diagnosis. If I was an NT child, I would not be autistic today. I just did not have the opportunity for a diagnosis in my youth.

Aha! I get the logic now that you've spelled it out for me. In any future circumstances, I probably won't remember that logic, but I see what you mean.