Next person to say AS "symptoms"...

Post Reply New Topic

I usually call them traits, but I really like the criteria by Attwood and Gray. I actually just finnished copying it into a document to save and read again. I don't remember ever reading so many positive things (seemingly written about myself) all in one place.

I like the term 'quirks'. It's how my NT boyfriend describes those traits, not as symptoms, but as, 'oh, she has some Asperger's quirks.'

Yeah, saying "symptoms" will offend a certain number of people here, as will saying "NT" or "person with autism" or anything implying AS is a disease . . .

Yes, there are plenty of potentially offensive connotations to these terms, but I think it's important to keep in mind that language is inherently quite imperfect. We all mean different things with the words we use; communication is approximate, made up primarily of generalizations and guesses.

The point is that people mean different things when they say, "symptoms," (or anything). Some may have only heard AS traits described as "symptoms" before coming upon this site.

So I don't see what the big deal is. It's just a word. I would say that the pattern of its usage is what is bothersome, not individual incidents, in which its intended meaning may vary considerably.

If we stop calling them symptoms... It wouldn't be a syndrome would it?

Meh - I look at it from the non-disease definition, which is "a sign of the existence of something"... it is not something I take offense to.


M.

The problem is the connotations of the word "symptom", even when applied to potentially positive traits. I would be keen to know why Aspergers is listed as a disease, and why logical thought, ability to concentrate on a subject - key abilities in my field - are listed as symptoms of this "disease". For the last time, I'm not infectious!
Yes, sensory issues can be very detrimental, I have many myself, but even labelling them as symptoms colours an increasingly negative stereotype of AS.

It's labelled as a disorder, neurological to be precise, rather than an illness. Illness doesn't denote infectious in the psychological field however, rather something that can respond to therapy, and it can be caused by emotional stressors. Conversely, there's no therapy that'll help with an ASD, and it's not caused by emotional stressors.

It's labelled as a disorder due to the problems it causes for most of such with it. For example, it's more "severe" than Schizophrenia when one looks at the outcomes, and the possibility of successfully being treated.

Not everyone has the same experience with AS, and many out there are quite impaired by it; many need help from government services that see it as a disorder.

But I'm not talking about it viewed as a disorder - of which the term "symptoms" would not apply, note dis-order.
I'm talking about how ordinary folk can be far too easily mislead by simple wording.
Symptoms connotes disease; perspective changes through assosciation.

For that matter, who was the bright spark who decided listing Aspergers in DSM-IV wouldn't have negative impacts? The disease notion in that text has caused endless joy for those delusional curists.

You could call it Asperger's Fluffy-Bunny Super-Special Difference, and as long as those with said difference get the help they need, cool.

For some reason, the multitude of people require someone to be "sick", "ill", "disordered", "diseased", etcetera, before they're willing to give them allowances, rather than seeing them as just "different" and who can't fit in to modern society as well as people without said difference.

Whether this above is "right" or not is beyond me, but if someone needs to be seen as disordered to get help, then so be it.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
symp·tom /ˈsɪmptəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[simp-tuhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. any phenomenon or circumstance accompanying something and serving as evidence of it.
2. a sign or indication of something.


symptom is the correct word to use. you are placing incorrect conjectures on the term, and subsequently turning it into a negative aspect

ryry85, various dictionaries hold many meanings to the one word.
Regardless, I'm not talking about dictionary use; but common perceptions on the meaning of the word. Best intentions, official proclamations aside, seems as though hardly anybody has acknowledged the harm this can cause by giving the lesser people a form of rallying power, if you've never heard the so-called "argument", "why is AS listed as a disease if it isn't, then, huh?", you may understand.
Basically, by allowing use of those words, it almost seems as though they expect it to be idiot proof.

AS symptoms...........go ahead, punch me in the nose I got a tazer in one hand and a blade in the other.(jk, calm down calm down). Okay they are SYMPTOMS because they affect a persons quality of life. PERIOD. Perhaps you suffered a serious injury to your head as a child that forced you not to see more than 1 side of things.

Mindovermatter, note the posts I made prior to yours, and rethink your "one sided" statement...

On that note; how is your view that AS is 100% negative not a one sided argument?

I have, as a result of being AS, many positive traits - greater logical ability, etc, etc.
Perhaps you could try revisiting the issue, and maybe attempt to apply more than a stereotyped image of asocial suffering, eh?

Just a thought. Try having one, sometime! Trust me, you'll like it! I guarantee - for you - a new experience! Isn't that what life is all about?

I don't know what to make out of this now.

A little time ago, you say it didn't matter to you if people start to think of autism that is not caused by the cause you consider the only real cause as something bad, unreal etc. if they take your wording of 'real' and 'autism-like' to twist it to fit the idea that a 'real autism' exists (which it doesn't).

Now, however, you worry about how those same and other people may twist and misunderstand the word symptoms in the context of Asperger's by associating it with something you consider harmful.

So, does it bother you what other people think about both topics now or not bother you? Because I can't understand how only the second would bother you, but not the first.

Sora, it appears you have grossly misinterpreted my points, to the degree I had some small note of difficulty in understanding your meaning. People have a damnable habit of doing that, for some reason.
Contrary to your interpretations, those are two vastly different concepts.
One physiological, acknowledging truth and accuracy - another, this issue, the harm and damages of idealogy and the psychology of those words.
On the surface, perhaps, they may seem similar - but, closer to the reality of it is they most certainly are not.

I on the other hand think they are very closely related.

You believe you what you say is the truth. Bur your statement of a real autism is not something generally correct. You say it is, it is your opinion, your vision and your research and you may believe so. But in the end, that is what you believe and nothing more.

I am no more inclined to believe you hold the truth than I am inclined to believe the DSM-IV-TR holds the truth in the matter on how AS should be defined with the inclusion of the term 'symptoms'.

People who are leaning towards the interpretation of DSM-IV-TR of Asperger's believe that handbook holds the general truth by claiming AS is defined purely/partly by symptoms.

If you believe you hold the general truth, then yes, both discussions would indeed be completely different in nature. However, who holds and if any person actually holds the 'general truth' is debatable.

Many people had a vision, discovered a theory, researched to conclude already, so who's to say you're right or wrong as long as you do not indicate others must share you or else are grossly misdirected and confused about reality?

I do not think you want to indicate that and I do not believe you harbour any ill intention (instead, trying to make something good and improve circumstances), but your statements are bordering this indication because you believe so strongly that have concluded and now know something important.