What makes someone autistic?

Post Reply New Topic

Thinking about this a lot. Thinking about Hans Asperger himself (but didn't want to make my other post the Longest Post Ever). In the shout out thread devoted to him there was much speculation that he was able to be such a compassionate diagnostician with his young patients because he identified with them. That he had Asperger's Syndrome himself. But of course they wouldn't have been his patients if they weren't having problems. So he created the notion of "Asperger's Syndrome" as a category of traits that would encompass people who were having very specific problems. He himself wouldn't fit because he wasn't having problems, he wasn't impaired. Yet I believe that he identified with them because he saw himself in them. So he both did and did not have Aspergers Syndrome. On the one hand, it is merely a term he created to categorize problems and target interventions. The whole idea of "syndrome" wouldn't apply to somebody who wasn't impaired. On the other hand, it also describes a particular type of brain wiring that can make life harder in some ways but if these ways are compensated for later in life, the impairment is gone yet the wiring remains and with it the bennies of AS (laser-like focus, attention to detail, perseverence- which only impairs when it morphs into perseveration). So the person is still an autie, an aspergian, autistic, pick your word. Yet with no syndrome because syndrome implies impairment.

So if you compensate for or grow out of the impairments, I think you no longer are on the autism spectrum yet you still are.Ouch! My brain! But I'm still going to resort to this wonky dualism because we don't have a vocabulary for things that are wiring differences between humans that can be beneficial, impairing, both at the same time, or both at different times in a person's life. We really don't have anything but impaired/not impaired. But I don't think it's so simple and our vocabulary will eventually catch up.

I don't know that. What is autism? Am I autistic because while I coped in many areas and do lots of normal things, the underlying triad of impairments itself never lost it's severity that for reasons unknown renders others unable to do many things? Or is someone whose severity actually decreased somehow the real autistic person? Does such a person and myself have the same neurological impairment or not?

As for the criteria, yes, PDDs are life-long they say but yes, some people with some forms of autism seem to be able to lose their autism (diagnosis). Because the nature of autism is vastly unknown and because of the diversity of the spectrum I will stick to the criteria for now. There's no harms done to say someone who's doing truly normal by himself isn't autistic anymore because he or she doesn't need the support that follows a diagnosis.

But I imagine that when we find out what causes autism, there will be gravely impaired people in that group, mildly impaired people, people whose impairment lessened and almost disappeared, people that have coped so much that they function normally whereas their impairments remain and people who might have some genes or something or were exposed to the same cause as others and have traits but are not impaired. Again I'd ask who of these people has autism or whether all of them have different forms of autism because they all shared the very same/very similar symptoms at one time of their lives?

I think the autism is permanent, at least the impairment is permanent. When you cannot handle it, it is obvious. When you get older and more experienced it is easier to compensate for these impairments. Easier to hide them from other people.

When the impairments can be sufficiently compensated the diagnosis could go away. But they are still there.

I can hide my quirks at work and I look like a bit strange, but mostly normal person. At home I have more strange behaviour. Am I now autistic at home and normal at work? No, I think not.


To return to the original question. I think the line is thin, but should ideally be made around the age of seven. Then most of the original behaviour is still easy to determine and the behaviour in the group becomes important at that age in the course of development.

It may be enlightening to categorize all that's on the spectrum and just outside it and see which traits they have in common and which ones stand out. I was very surprised to see how much ADHD and NVLD have in common with Asperger's. I agree with the concept of impairment vs non impairment but even then the lines blur. Many posters here that are diagnosed Aspies don't fit the criteria to a T and of course there is subjective interpretation. I don't rock or flap my hands but I do have these little body motions and habits that are definitely sensory oriented. I do them because they satisfy me in some way. If my routine is disrupted I don't freak out but I will have a hard time getting back in the groove. I'll forget things for instance. The simplest alteration in my morning routine will result in my making the wrong turn to work or forgetting my pocketbook. I can work and I know how to get along on my job, but even with a college education I am underemployed. I don't have meltdowns but if I get to a certain level of stress my mind stops working. I need to rest after interacting with the world. I've read posters talking about consciously moderating their tone of voice and facial expression when interacting-I'm afraid I don't even think about it. I heard my self on tape recently-very flat. Some social situations are much easier for me for short periods and some are still impossible. Relationships? I want what I imagine them to be but the actual nuts and bolts of being part of a couple are still a mystery for me. My son's father was my first boyfriend at age 40. Most would consider that impaired. How do you define impairment? I am comfortable where I am because I decided to have more realistic expectations for myself. I don't beat myself up anymore for not measuring up. I can see from some of the responses in this thread that comparatively speaking, I am not impaired. I can handle what others cannot and I am not unable to work. But I wouldn't describe myself as NT. The funny thing is I have been reading about ASD since my son was diagnosed and the thing that really made me consider that I may be on the spectrum was not part of the diagnostic criteria but coming to this forum and reading how much of my internal experience matches other people here. I actually almost cried when I realized I was not alone. I believe many here know exactly that feeling.

Impairment is necessarily relative to environment. Take school, for instance. If I had gone to a military school, I probably would have been more impaired than if I went to a regular school. If I had gone to a "gifted" school, I might not have been impaired at all.

Then there is post school. I can find both a work environment and social environments where I am definitely impaired. Then again, if I find a work environment that suits me better and a social family that works for me, I'm not impaired.

If you define autism solely in terms of impairment, here's what could happen. If I were to build my life around my strengths and not be impaired by any of my traits, I would not be autistic. However, if I were to go out and try to "force" myself into a world I would inherently be impaired in (such as a social scene involving dance clubs), I would be autistic.

So if you use only impairment as criteria, I don't buy the "once autistic, always autistic" argument.

I also think that the line in the "borderlands" isn't much of a line at all. It's more of a cloud of no-man's land.