asperger's is not a mental illness

Post Reply New Topic

Definitely a disorder. Being autistic is generally not to your *overall* advantage in life. Some people do get limited benefits in their lives, in which they gain a talent or super-concentration that helps academically.
But most of us will not have lives that have the same rewards NTs will have. There may be a few exceptions, but overall statistically this would prove true.

Sincerely,
Matthew

I think before you educate your daughter it may be a good idea "you" understand what a mental illness is!

The Australian government produce factsheets for school kids on what a mental illness is so "they" understand that if they have a problem they can seek help.
This factsheet might help you with your daughter
http://www.headspace.org.au/media/18334 ... heet18.pdf

XFILESGEEK - thats a woeful reply.

The term "beautiful mind" is such because it is very balanced and very ordered in terms of its structure. There is a reason for this that I can be bothered to go into on the basis of your "Randy Hicky school of debate/argument" post.

I will spare you my analysis of why you so want beautiful minds to be considered ugly.

Opinions vary. The truth is that we still do not know enough to say with certainty.

We could be anything - from a side effect of pollution to a new stage in human evolution. All theories are equally possible.

It's listed as a mental disorder with various clinical symptoms of severe severity that cause significant impairment and disability in important areas of functioning.

That's what Asperger's Disorder is if you've been diagnosed with it.

There's no ifs and buts to this.

If you aren't this, you don't have Aspeger's Disorder. Make up your own label if not, Asperger's Disorder has been taken.

Forgot one detail here - it is listed as a mental disorder according to the current state of knowledge in the field.

Just because a thing is "listed" as something, doesn't always mean that it really is.

Remember: in the past everyone believed that ASD was caused by "refrigerator moms". Nowadays we know that this is completely false. Similarly, some day the classification of AS as a disorder could be proven false.

You can say the same about any acronym* in the DSM; the fact is that it doesn't change the reality that points to it being a disorder in today's society (overwhelming evidence pointing to that).

*For example, OCD could be a positive if a very lethal and virulent infection was going around, and constant hand washing and "germ-vigilance" helped, but that's really only a very specific qualifier. The same is there for AS; an environment that allows people to work in their area of interest without going through the typical process (say, that hacker from the UK is employed by the government he hacked for security). I don't see that happening though

Off - topic as to whether or not it is a mental illness (I don't believe it is) I think there is a huge amount of stigma around the D word.
Is my aspergers a pain in the ass at times? Sure, but so is my far-sightedness. But no one calls it a "vision disorder " do they? I think this is part of the problem

Good link. A bit simplistic though. I know it's for children.
A person with a neurological disorder can have those traits though without having a mental illness.

In my view a mental illness is a psychiatric disorder, environmentally developed by some trauma or drug. It's a chemical imbalance while a neurological disorder is often inherited and present at birth. I'm conflicted about calling Bipolar a mental illness. I only would because it is episodic and when a person doesn't have episodes they don't seem to have any of those problems. It's highly hereditary like schizophrenia and there are structural changes in the brain, much like autism and ADHD. ADHD has both structural differences and a chemical imbalance by the way. In depression and Bipolar the frontal lobe and hippocampus (I think) actually shrink.

I'm not touching that disorder vs. difference with a 100000000ft pole. It's diagnosed, it's treated, it can impair you. Do the math. Or if you're like me and you can't without medication, then don't.

Whoever said the limbic system is unaffected in autism - it is unregulated. Why do you think we have meltdowns? Honestly. keep reading up about the autistic brain.

To the OP: Just tell your daughter (was it?) that the autism brain is developed differently. Certain areas are smaller/bigger, some neurons are densely packed together and the synapses are connected haphazardly. The 'social brain' is underdeveloped. The frontal lobes are affected the most which explains the symptoms, especially the repetitive stuff we do. The sensory connections may never fully mature from when we are infants. Some 500 genes present in the autistic brain are not present in the typical brain, and I think it's the frontal lobes that work more like the temporal lobes.

^ Years worth of research being spilled out up there.

Basically, the autistic brain is structured completely differently. It is not a psychological illness. And the Asperger brain is pretty much similar to the autistic brain (I'm pretty sure).

I'm not bothering to fact check that. It could be wrong but it's based on actual research, not just a few picked up theories to make me feel better about myself.

I have yet to find any historical evidences that ASD was said to be caused by 'refrigator mothers' in the past. The only thing I am able to find is that kids which possess the symptom of autism as defined by Bleuler as a core may in some of the cases have had a 'refrigator mother'. This is not in conflict with today's research on consequences of child abuse.

ASD is to be seen as autism as a core symptom as a result of congenital factors.
Schizophrenia is to be seen as autism as a symptom as a result of hereditary and environmental factors.
Attachment disorders, dissociative disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders is to be seen as disorders which may involve autism as a core symptom as a result of traumas.

It started from Kanner's paper, where he describes parents of his patients to be cold and detached, though he didn't really say it was a cause of autism, rather he noted it. Another guy latched onto it and promoted it as a cause; I forget his name. He was big on emotional neglect leading to autistic and asocial behavior (which is right in some ways, just not regarding the conditions we're talking about).

Naturally, it was most likely that Kanner was seeing the commonly referred to autistic condition known as Broader Autism Phenotype, which is often found in relatives of those with a diagnosable condition, just in a subclinical form that's not severe.

Not necessarily true. There are lots of structural abnormalities that are associated with schizophrenia, such as enlarged ventricles and miswiring of the DLPFC. And the fact that schizophrenia often starts between ages 17 and 22 is because of structural changes in the PFC during that time (e.g., "pruning"). The hyperdopaminergic state of positive symptoms is the only true chemical imbalance part of schizophrenia.

In the paper by Kanner I have read and in his book Child Psychiatry Third edition he does not mention ASD: "In 1943, I reported eleven children whose withdrawal tendencies were noted as early as in the first year of life. I have suggested for the condition the term early infantile autism" (Kanner, 1957, p. 739). He does here mention that he has studied a group of children who does have signs of withdrawal tendencies from the first year of life and not ASD. He use the word by Bleuler to define those cases and it does not at that moment exist any classified ASD diagnosis. Bruno Bettelheim (1967) make, in his observed children, the notion that child abuse may lead to autism; still in Bleuler's definition and not as ASD: "Inasmuch as Kanner used the concept autism as Bleuler defined it in 1911, perhaps that definition should be given. Although Bleuler recognized that 'In the outspoken forms of schizophrenia, the emotional deterioration stands in the forefront of the clinical picture', his definition of autism stresses not so much the disturbances in affective contact as in relation to reality" (Bettelheim, 1967, p. 387).

Reading Bettelheim one see clearly that he is not talking about ASD, but abuse related disorders. His books and modern books on abuse related disorders only differ in that Bettelheim describe the topic much more comprehensive (which is no surprise regarding the time he is living in). With his further clearly citing of Bleuler and his notion of Kanner's interpretation of Bleuler's autism, his use of autism is a fully valid use; a use which also still exist in the field of abuse related disorders.

Sources:
Bettelheim, B. (1967). The Empty Fortress: Infantile Autism and the Birth of the Self. New York: The Free Press.
Kanner, L. (1957). Child Psychiatry (Third Edition). USA: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

No, it's a disorder. That's why it's called "Aspergers Disorder."

The label "Aspergers" was created for the sole purpose of describing people with impairments in certain specific areas of life. If you are not "impaired" in the ways that Aspergers Disorder describes, you do not have Aspergers.

The fact that a bunch of goofballs decided to hijack the term as a new way of saying "quirky personality" is irrelevant.



None of which negate the fact that it's a disorder.

Its not called aspergers disorder.

Its about to be removed from DSM5.

Its also a label that described people with great abilities in other areas of life

I do not have many of these impairments but thats because I worked on it.

You post is wrong in almost every respect.

Yes it is.



And replaced with AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER.



There is nothing about "great abilities" in the DSM-IV criteria, which is what they used to diagnose me. I have Aspergers Disorder.



If you do not have the impairments described by Aspergers Disorder, either now or at some point in your developmental history, you do not have Aspergers.



You might want to re-read the DSM-IV criteria.