Discovery or Diagnosis? by Attwood and Gray

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks! It's so nice to be here and share something like that and get affirmation.

I've been told this numerous times. Lots of people have actually thought that I was invincible due to my abilities and wrote about it in my High-School Autograph book. That's not true though: I'm only human. I think they'd all be very surprised if they saw me now.

No, I would not happy with being called "disordered" because I've done so many things in the past. It actually hurts me physically whenever I hear that word due to my experiences in the past.

My family wouldn't be either. My family would not be happy with anything that could potentially limit my opportunities. We've been through all that nonsense already. Years ago, my diagnosis was never framed on the wall: it was hidden in shame because it was something that was "wrong" with me. We've spent years fighting it/hiding it, so I could be entitled to a proper education.

I really wouldn't mind being called "different", "having a different operating system" or "having a different ability" though because it's less offensive to myself and my family and suits my situation better. If people could understand this and not be judgmental of me, that would be great.

People seeing and accepting me as just me would be great too.

I wouldn't actually mind being in a situation or job which was more suited to how I function and just getting on with it. I'm the sort of person who can get on with things and other people usually don't mind, bar the odd "She's a bit quiet" comment.

I accept that some people may have different views on this though because of their own personal circumstances/needs.

Last edited by AmberEyes on 30 Nov 2008, 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

O my god, I think I'm "aspie".

He has rather gone down the route of celebrity and money-grabbing.

He spends an inordinate amount of time on the lecture circuit and does very, very well out of it.

Nevertheless, perhaps we should be grateful for small mercies. But Baron-Cohen, he ain't.

That's the thing I detest about this whole business. If you don't meet these random 'positives' some other people with AS claim you cannot have it. For example, I meet 7 out of these 29 supposed traits of AS. And boy, do I hear people getting worked up about these various lists of traits and about how these should be meaningful in terms of defining AS. That's a gross misunderstanding.

First of all, this is the point where character is mixed up with abilities and performance. You can be pretty much everything, it's just that you're autistic alongside with the rest.

And then also, the intention of these lists is to show that as a person with any diagnosis - in this case, with a diagnosis of AS - you can have strengths too. And that all your weaknesses can be strengths in a another context, same as that you strengths can be your weaknesses in a different situation. That you're just another part of normal, not some deficient half-person, but the same as every person who has strengths that can become weaknesses and vice versa.

A physiological test. Some quantity that can be measured accurately with inexpensive equipment would be brilliant. Then we'd all know exactly who "had" it and who didn't. There wouldn't be any question or ambiguity.

I'm also interested in the visual acuity research. I am pleased that the scientists are using less offensive terms like "condition" in this research and not "disorder". I wouldn't mind saying that I had a condition at all, if the professionals are right and I do indeed have a condition.

I honestly wouldn't mind helping with any research, if and only if it wouldn't endanger my future job/career prospects/insurance.

What if I could say that I had a certain brain type and people wouldn't talk down to me/penalise me for it?

That would be brilliant.

I'd love to be able to help with any positive research if others would respect me for who I was and paid me for my time.

In a perfect world where I had brilliant interview/friend making/social skills, I could theoretically study for evolutionary psychology and help with the research. I'd love to be able to help in some way, but at the moment I don't have the inner reserves to do so and I don't think that people would respect me if I revealed who I was anyway.

I wish I could say the same about my self-esteem and security.
My AS dx seemed to erode mine because other people couldn't accept it. I'm female, so there's still a lot of controversy and not much helpful advice. Because they couldn't accept it, I couldn't accept it. Even though I match all the criteria and overwhelming evidence and experiences suggest that I do have it, I still can't accept it.

Now I don't know if anyone will really help me/accept it because we don't live in a perfect world.

I think that perhaps the most important things is to differentiate between what are "objective impairmaints" and what are only "subjective tastes".

Of the symptoms usually associated with AS, only the difficulty in understanding non-verbal and/or non-literal communication seems to be an "impairmaint" (these and the sensory issues, who don't appear in any diagnosis criteria). All other things seems little more than a question of personality type (more or less equivalent to the ISTJ/INTJ types in MBTI, or to the "non-Active Secundary" characters in René Le Senne typology)

Like someone (Anemone, I think) was proposed in another thread, perhaps only the problems with non-verbal/non-literal comunication should be used as a definitive symptom for AS (i.e., if you have these problem, you have AS, even if you don't have the other symptoms; and, if you have the other symptoms, but not these, you are only an eccentric person, not an Aspie).

[And, following the same logic, Schizoid PD should disapear as a diagnosis, because all symptoms of SPD are simply a question of personal taste]

I disagree with that.

A need for routines based on the autistic perception style strikes me an as important criterion for ASDs.

Somehow, people seem to misunderstand often: It's not preferring routines out of your free will. Not choosing them. Or having them to feel 'good' and not anxious.

But the disability to navigate in an environment and/or situation that does not fit the routine one needs, because one is incapable to sort through that situation if it's new and/or changed.

Sure, the line seems to blur in those with AS. That's a complication in understanding this. Some don't have an obvious need for routines and 'just' feel discomfort. Or anxiety. Which poses the question of where does anxiety fit in AS?

But for many others with classical, AS, PDD-NOS/atypical, it's not (primarily) a preference regarding likings, but a need that is based on their autistic style of perception and processing stimuli.

The reason for autistic repetitive behaviours is not psychological - though all these behaviours can have a psychological reason as do all other ASD symptoms, but then they're not autistic symptoms - instead they're neurological.

Maybe that's where 'mild AS' is different from typical AS comes in or it's just the diversity of the whole spectrum;

just as not everybody is similarly worse at reading and using non-verbal cues (e.g. one is able to detect an angry face, another is not), not everybody is as worse in their need for routines.

I'm actually backing away from non-language communication impairments as a central criterion, because I suspect that some people are right in putting the sensitivities first. I was rather fixated on the communication at one point because I'd been reading up on it, and I do believe people need to realize that communication involves more than language and non-verbals, both of which I can do - it's the coordination side of communication that kills me. So I'd say, stress the more-than-just-language communication aspects as an important domain of impairment, but also look beyond that. Both the eagle eye paper and the intense world syndrome paper are important directions to continue looking in, especially if they tie in with our domains of impairment consistently and accurately.

I agree that the current portrayal of autism is unduly negative, and so I can see Attwood's point in celebrating the positives, but I also agree that we need to not lose sight of the impairments that many of us struggle with. Kind of like how being tall is advantageous, but not so much so when you're 7' tall. Gifts can become complex and difficult at the extremes of their distributions.

I also agree that at least some people who are schizoid are just people with personalities, and if the diagnosis is kept it should be restricted to those who experienced some sort of developmental problems rather than those who are just born that way.

I actually agree that it is an amalgam of both - we need to see it as Discovery and Diagnosis.. What i do like however, is that someone is at least actually bothering to reframe the situation in a more positive light. I think the artisle is probably posed as a counter-balance to the prevailing tendencies regarding literature on the topic. That was my take on it, anyway.

There are times when i need to focus on my AS as a discovery ( eg..the past week as I mentioned earlier in the thread,) and there are times also, when i need to actually focus on the difficulties it brings - particularly as Neshamaruach mentions - in relation to other people.

As usual, the good ol' Wrong Planet allows us to discuss these things in a really meaningul way, which I enjoy.

have a great day people.

A single, or even a couple of criterions only work for a portion of the people, unless one wants to keep all of the labels separate, rather than a single "ASD" label that Wing likes, and the next DSM may have.

Leo had it with his "autistic aloneness" and "desire for sameness"--he saw that when there's these two, the verbal and nonverbal communication difficulties will be there, as well as the funky motor mannerisms. Most people with Asperger's today wouldn't meet his criteria. This was "Autism", and still is "Autism" for those with Kanner's Autism/Autistic Disorder/Classic Autism.

Anyway, Tony Attwood is a population panderer (when you try to help everyone, you're going to end up stepping on the feet of everyone), and he has his own agenda in the label game.