Autism spectrum has no clear cut-off point, research news

Post Reply New Topic

It's special only in so far as it often lacks the language and devolopmental difficulties of more classical Autism, but it's still Autism.

Don't you think "Sensory issues" is too un-medical psychiatrist jumbo-mumbo vague of a term? The DSM 5 isn't being specific at all when it comes to sensory issues (Psychiatry is a not a true medical science btw).

There are a lot of people who have, what you can call "Sensory issues" , one can't handle certain textile? Sensory issue. One that always sneezes by a certain smell? Sensory issue. Video game-induced seizures (photosensitive)? Sensory issue.
Any kind of skin or visual allergy can be called Sensory issue - and a lot and a lot of people have one or two of such things. Seriously, just name things as they are instead of "Sensory issue".

Another non-medical thing that I see discussed a lot here is "Meltdown" which isn't even a part of the DSM5 diagnostic criteria (I don't consider psychiatry as true medical science btw), I have seen many threads about this mysterious "Meltdown" and so far I have failed to grasp what it really this so-mysterious Meltdown.... and every one seems to have his/her own version of "Meltdown".

One describes Meltdown as tantrum, one describes Meltdown as an intense desire to be left alone, one describes Meltdown as anxiety panic, one describes Meltdown as total depression moment.....etc etc etc etc. I mean seriously?? Just name the things as they are instead of naming it "Meltdown".

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 23 Mar 2016, 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

If more of such studies go further to prove this even more, then terms like "Aspies" and "NTs" would become obsolete, stupid and cultist.

When people here are talking about "sensory issues" they are usually talking about sensory defensiveness or sensory processing disorder. Normal people that are only sensitive to some things don't think about how they have "sensory issues" all the time and feel the need to talk or think about them. I don't know of anyone who has mild sensitivities that goes around talking about how bothered they are by them. They accept them and deal with them because they are not impaired greatly in their day-to-day lives. So I don't think that "sensory issues" is really that vague of a description or that there is a danger of it being confused with the things ordinary people deal with.

I have severe sensitivities to many things, particularly tactile, olfactory, and auditory. It's also likely that I have auditory processing disorder because I have a lot of difficulty deciphering the spoken word when there is any kind of distraction or background noise. It's a problem because it has a great negative impact on my daily functioning.

I agree about the meltdowns. Everyone seems to have a different definition, and after several minutes of searching, I could not find a single scientific article or study that described "meltdowns." Perhaps a different word is used in the medical community, but I do not know what it is.

Meltdowns are usually caused by a combination of sensory overload, frustration with the sensory overload, and frustration in general.

It can be manifested by something which seems like a tantrum to an outside observer, or by silence with the inability to discern outside stimuli beyond one's self.

It's unscientific because meltdowns are a very individual thing.

Auditory processing disorder is a different thing, it is a real auditory deficit not related to ASD.

And a lot of "ordinary" people may have dangerous and problematic allergies, and they do talk about it, it's not AS specific.

The only part the DSM5 diagnostic list talks about sensory is this:

"Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g. apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement)."

I meant hypersensitivity issues. I didn't realise people took it as such a broad term.

What you quoted in the DSM V seems very clear to me.

Hypo or hypersensitivity to stimuli.

Stimuli is a very general term for all which occurs in a person's environment.

People with autism either are hyper, or hypo, or both sensitive to their own environment.

What is mentioned in the DSM-V would be a type of sensory processing disorder for many people if it were severe enough to be called a disorder.

It looks to me as though hypersensitivity and hyposensitivity fall under the category of sensory modulation disorder. I've heard of hypersensitivity being called "sensory defensiveness."

Then there are problems with motor skills, and some other ones that could be caused by the inability to filter out other stimuli to concentrate on specific senses, such as my difficulty with focusing on and understanding speech, which may or may not be due to an actual auditory processing disorder.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/07/107316/breakthrough-study-reveals-biological-basis-sensory-processing-disorders-kidsi

Ther seems to be a trend of thought arising here kind of agreeing with Autism/Aspergers being seen only as something different from the current norm and a way of trying to put a handle on that difference.
ie it is a relative notion of difference from what is perceived as the norm. (at the present time... in our `Western` culture)

for example a Viking beserker (a fearless warrior who would go into a violent frenzy in battle with disregard to his own pain or safety) was accepted, respected and treated as a normal if special member of Viking culture whereas today they would probably be imprisoned for violent psychopathy/sociopathy

So i am going to pose a question (may be a silly one I admit) but i will try to frame it clearly.

Q. What if an individual had lots of strong autistic traits (ie was Autistic) BUT it wasn`t a problem for themselves or anyone else?

what exactly would happen then?
what if it was just accepted everyone is a bit different and THAT was the norm?

would we still need to talk of a label or spectrum, or anything other than a different personality?

A bit of a false equivalency there. We have that in modern times. We can see the difference between self sacrifice and just doing it to be doing it. They could see it too. That's why they needed laws as well.

The level of acceptable brutality was different though. William Wallace, who we all loved in 'Braveheart' skinned one of his opponents and made a belt from it.

But, I don't see how there can be so much debate if there is a quantifiable, small percentage of the population that possess a set of traits, and then is shown to be wired different from the other, much larger percentage of the population.

I do believe in "normal human variation."

I don't believe a person who possess autistic traits, and who is no bother to him/her self or others, should be scorned for possessing these traits. The person (and people who are more "disabled," by the way), should be treated with the dignity that should be accorded a member of the human community.

There are autistic people who have a disorder; and there are autistic people who are not disabled, who have been able to completely pass for neurotypical within their society.

I actually believe there are times when an autistic person who exhibits a disorder in personal relations could very well be the same person who becomes eminently useful to society--by virtue of the fact that this person's single-mindedness resulted in the discovery, say, of a vaccine which would prevent all form of cancer.

This autistic person remains "disordered" because of the fact that he/she is not able to, say, raise children because of social difficulties. However, this person has proven to be viable in other fields.

This happens fairly often within many disorders.

Viking berserkers are now thought to have had a kind of post-traumatic stress syndrome, so yes, it was a difference, and yes, it was definitely adaptive and even celebrated, to some extent, in their society, but it was not a pervasive developmental disorder. Still there is a point: that human diversity, whether developmental or acquired, can have positives for individuals and groups.

In the latest issue of the National Autistic society's Asperger United magazine, which can be downloaded free here
http://www.autism.org.uk/aspergerunited there's an article by Lisa called 'What is Nutter's Syndrome' written as if the whole world were on the spectrum and NTs were the unusual, disordered ones, with such debilitating needs for conformity and dependence on being with others and lack of tolerance for being alone. It's provocative in a good way, I thought, witty, and turns the world upside down.

Finally, Digby Tantam's book (Can the World Afford ASD) isn't the kind of thing will be top of most people's reading list probably because it's written for specialists and is not so much a guide for coping as a sort of restrained polemic. But he is making precisely this argument about the special contributions that ASDs are particularly capable of, not just because of savant gifts, but because of a different way of being in the world. Incidentally, he's using the word 'afford' in a very specialised sense, not to mean 'pay for' but rather, 'make room for'. And he says yes, the world needs the ASD people and qualities. It's a positive view of humanity as being diverse and needing neurodiversity and difference

Peejay,
Asperger as a social construction is not a new thought. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf


Hell, every single thing in Asperger is a spectrum on the whole human population.

The social awkwardness is a spectrum.

The receptivity behavior is a spectrum.

The hyper/hypo sensitivity is a spectrum.

The "professor" behavior is a spectrum.

It's ridiculous.

The OP of this thread was right: viewtopic.php?t=93422&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

junior war right!!

Look at how all the members attack the OP, as if they are like a cult whom their religion been insulted, ha!

Something being a spectrum doesn't mean it doesn't exist. IQ is a spectrum. Intellectually disabled people cannot often take care of themselves, however. It's a disorder because it causes problems for the individual, and prevents that individual from being successful. If the intellectually disabled were to be left alone to fend for themselves, because IQ is "a social construct" many would end up on the streets or dead.

The cut-off point for disability for disorders on a spectrum is determined by the point at which it causes problems with daily functioning.

Social skills are a big part of human behavior. Humans are social animals. The inability to socialize properly because of a lack of social instinct will cause problems living as a human being in human society. The same would be true of other social animals. Those that do not fit in are either the lowest-ranking, or outcasts, and may die from being forced from the group.

EF problems are very real and make my life miserable. So are the repetitive behaviors. They are outside the normal part of the spectrum.