How can I prove that I *don't* have aspergers?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think that is true. Aspies don't have to be antisocial. They just have to have difficulties socializing. Someone could be truly horrible at socializing, but have a very well developed social circle, because they have something (money, power, influence, beauty) which makes people want to socialize with them despite their poor social skills.

A neurotypical diagnosis
I'm really enjoying this thread, but really i have to join the people asking you what you want there, you want to prove you're not autistic, but, to WHOM?
Is it to yourself? If this is the case, just become NT! How? For one, stop thinking about this. Do you find it an impossible task to stop thinking about your newfound special interest? huh oh.
Then, convince yourself you had a momentary lapse in judgement and go on with your life as though you had never started thinking. Can't go back to THAT? you have your answer.

Well again you claim to have the same IQ as me so I will treat you will that level of competence... Google the DSM criteria (IV and proposed V are both out) and you will find EXACTLY this. It isn't rocket science.. You can compare YOUR knowledge of these things to the things that are listed and make a "self" determination RE DX. If you want to appeal to authority, go find a professional that knows AS and have them NOT DX you. From what I read on this board it is deadly easy to get NOT diagnosed as an adult.

I would love to find one who says I am NOT on the spectrum but so far have found 3 out of 3 who believe I am so am having to accept the DX myself right now. But am or not doesn't change who I am. It only changes HOW I approach certain things and my realities in life somewhat...

I think this has been the most important thing for me. Once I internalized that, knowing was a relief.

FIRST SUBMISSION FOR PEER REVIEW

(Simplified) Neurotypical non-disorder
Must meet criteria A, B, C, and D:

A. General easiness in social communication and social interaction across contexts, not accounted for by general developmental delays, and manifested by any one of the following 3:
1. Normal engagement in social-emotional reciprocity; ranging from normal social approach and success in normal back and forth conversation through adequate sharing of interests, emotions, and affect and response to initiation of social interaction,
2. Adequacy in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction; ranging from adequately integrated- verbal and nonverbal communication, through normalcy in eye contact and body-language, and success in understanding and use of nonverbal communication, to use of facial expression or gestures.
3. No impoverishments in developing and maintaining relationships, appropriate to developmental level (beyond those with caregivers); ranging from the ability to adjusting behavior to suit different social contexts through sharing imaginative play and in making friends to an apparent interest in people
B. Diverse, non-repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. Spontaneous inventive use of speech, motor movements, or use of objects;
2. Not attached to routines, patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior, and can easily adapt to change, though not necessarily without upset;
3. Diverse, non-fixated interests that are normal in intensity or focus; (such as normal attachment to or occupation with usual objects, interested in a subject's typical content or fleeting interests).
4. Normal reactivity to sensory input and usual interest in sensory aspects of environment; (such as normal reactions to pain/heat/cold, normal responses to specific sounds or textures, normal smelling or touching of objects, lack of fascination with lights or spinning objects).
C. Symptoms must be present in early childhood (but may not become fully obvious until social demands meet their adequate capacities)
D. Symptoms together enable their everyday functioning.

So, what do you think peers? Please feel free to revise or supplement it, if doing so may improve it.

(Btw, while going through the list, I noticed how I am fascinated by spinning objects. But, it's nothing that I can't break my interest away from on my own.)

swbluto,

Check this page out: http://isnt.autistics.org/dsn.html

Well i think the best way to prove you dont have AS is by acting like you dont have AS

I'm still trying to figure out what you are trying to do here. It seems that you can get the same results by using the AS checklist, and simply noting that you fail too meet the criteria. It is in the nature of diagnosis that if you fail to meet the criteria for any disorder, you are assumed to be NT.

Also, being a bit pedantic, you are really not showing that someone is neurotypical, only that they are not autistic. It is common on WP to use NT as the opposite of autistic, but that is not really correct. This seems to be a situation in which a little more precision is warranted.

lol. That actually sounds like a good idea. I need to find an accurate video depiction of someone with aspergers in order to act like I 'don't have aspergers', so I wonder where I can find good depictions?

@Eurythmics - Nifty page. I recognized the satire, but it still seemed at least somewhat applicable and I don't think I agree with about half of it, since there's variation in the 'neurotypical population' in regard to interpersonal preferences/expectations and behaviors but, even so, it seemed apparent to me that I would be diagnosed with the neurotypical disorder using that criteria and the formal criteria I devised, when imagining my younger self. Actually looking at the DSM-V, using the severity chart, I'm pretty sure if I were diagnosed with "aspergers"/autism, it'd be autism with a severity rating of .5.

So, now... one mental syndrome down, two more to go: Schizophrenia and expressive language disorder. If Schizophrenia checks out as incredibly unlikely, and the expressive language disorder doesn't seem to affect written verbal patterns, then I get to fall back on just simply being weird with varying levels of socially-relevant sub-abilities (Like reading comprehension, auditory comprehension, linguistic comprehension, humor ability/skill, semantic memory access speed, etc.).


YAY! Uncyclopedia has a page on the neurotypical disorder at http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Neur ... V_Criteria .

NOT having a diagnosis will make your adult/professional life easier - no stigma, no threat of pre-existing conditions,less bias thanks to a few words on a piece of paper. Sure won't help in any other way though. If you don't need a diagnosis to get services, etc. there may not be any benefits for you. and from others stories here - getting an adult diagnosis is not only expensive but a nightmare as well unless you get real lucky.

Whatever you're doing to 'mask' your AS - keep at it. That is effectively what 'social skills training' is anyway. I recommend lots and lotsw of people watching. Bury commuter stations at rush hour. Malls and supermarkets on a Saturday. Barnes and Nobles Starbuck's cafe.

Good luck! Let us know how you do!

True, but I have an imagination and my interpretations are particularly malleable. From the first post...



So looking at the 'autism criteria' isn't particularly adequate for me. However, looking at the neurotypical criteria makes it far easier to see that I was actually neurotypical as a child. According to this website at http://www.succeedsocially.com/relatedfactors, it appears that there are other factors that can make socialization difficult that are unrelated to autism, such as particular disorders. I suppose an expressive language disorder might be partially responsible for my not appearing to 'getting it' (Even when I think I do) when it comes to socialization and the hazy wall that seems to exist between me and the vast majority of others might be related to schizophrenia. Giftedness might have also compounded the problem.

I was the soccer champion in 6th grade and this paper by http://www.onthespectrum.com/board/viewpoll.php?id=433 states "As a part of Other Characteristics, People with Asperger’s Syndrome tend to be innately clumsy, so they are terrible at sports.", so I really doubt I have aspergers.

go to youtube and type in the search box "clay marzo just add water"

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3321532.html#3321532

Okay, I see what you are trying to do now, but you really have not done what you think you have.

What you have done is written a new set of criteria, which are similar to the old criteria, and shown that you satisfy that; however, similar is not the same as equivalent.

Which is why I submitted it for peer-review! I know I'm not perfect.

For the diagnostic criteria part A, I applied DeMorgan's theorem. The negative of product terms becomes the sum of the inverted terms (You must meet 1 and 2 and 3 becomes you must meet -1 or -2 or -3.)

So, part A is logically equivalent, I think?

Part B - Yeah, ummm, any insight? If you must meet 2 or more of the 4 autism criteria... then.... You'd need to meet at least 3 of the opposite to ensure you wouldn't meet 2 or more of the corresponding 'autistic criteria'. Yeah... so, let's change the 2 to 3.

Part C - Eh, who cares - it's basically conceptual filler. The semantic equivalent would be "It's been present since birth.".

So, would that make it equivalent, in your opinion?

The problem is that the way that you phrase a question makes a huge difference, even if they are exactly equivalent. This is well known among people who take polls. Even if two questions are logically equivalent, they can get very different results. The only way to validate it is to independently apply your criteria, and see that the same people are diagnosed in the same way, within a certain margin of error.

Take the following two questions:

Would you submit to medical procedure XXX if it had a 10% chance of killing you.
Would you submit to medical procedure XXX if it had a 90% survival rate.

Studies have shown that the second choice gets significantly more "yes" votes than the first, yet they say the same thing.