You are very sociable, you can't be aspergers ....

Post Reply New Topic

So heres what I get from what you wrote:

1: There are so many professionals that do not know enough about diagnosing Asperger's so It's ok that I diagnose myself.
- Well, I agree there are many who do not know what they are doing, but you still have to keep seeking a professional. If you seek someone who has experience with Aspergers in adults specifically it's not that hard to find someone who knows what they are talking about. If every expert disagrees with you chances are that you are wrong.

2: The 'scientific' diagnostic criteria is awfully generic and open to wide interpretation.
- This is a on-going discussion within the field of psychiatry/psychology. To criticize it is fair, but it has nothing to do with Asperger's specifically and it makes very little sense to criticize a diagnosis scientific background and definition and still want it to apply to you.

I think it is silly for us to fight over what I see as an ultimately answerable question. I will explain why I say that...

(Caveat: I am pending diagnosis myself at the minute but the point I am trying to make is not arguing for either side of this - just focusing on why people are getting frustrated in my view)

I see arguments spring up a lot regarding someone being able to classify themselves as Aspie or not. This seems to spring from fundamental misunderstanding of the two ways the name is used. The most technically correct use of the terms is someone who has an official diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome by a qualified profssional. I personaly do not fall into this group as I am currently in the middle of the assesment process.

The second use of 'Aspie' is the less technical (but not neccesarily less correct) neurological version. What I mean is that there does seem to be something in the brain and it's wiring which leads people to experience all that the phycologists identify as aspergers (and autism in general for that matter). Since medical professionals need to make their lives easier, they also add a requirement into the diagnosis to specify that the patients are impaired to a certain level to qualify for the diagnosis. My understanding is that two people with the same or similar kind of aspie brain wiring could have different diagnostic outcomes because they have led different lives and learned better or worse techniques for managing and counteracting the various impairments (for example). One might be technically diagnosed as AS wheras the other might just fall short of the professional's opinion of requisite impairment. However, the diagnosis is a man-made artificial construct compared with the raw truth (albeit a truth that is difficult to quantify) of the underlying mind type.

I think someone with the genuinly aspie mind type is bound to have had serious struggles throughout their life and to finally find people like themselves after years of feeling like an outsider to their own species is powerful and life-changing. While there might be some people who, for various reasons, misidentify themselves as on the spectrum, I for one would like to see less focus on whether some person meets the criteria and more on whether they seem to be autistic in it's true neurological (vs diagnostic) sense. I think we need to accept that the diagnosis method is not able to identify all people with the autistic mind, only people who meet a rigid criteria of traits and levels of impairment in a complex and varied condition. I respect the diagnostic process and I think it is by and large about the best we could do under the circumstances but it is important to remember it is the tool used to asses need for paid-for assistance and benefits etc, not a tool to identify all those who have the aspie mind type but might have done better than most in one or two areas.

Sorry for the novel there but I saw arguing resulting from misunderstanding and it seemed it could be avoided by explaining both sides (Ironically, some might say that this post would potentially disprove any future diagnosis in myself but I was a born analyst and problem solver so I think it is more about that really)

Si

Which is why significant impairment is a diagnostic criteria. And this criteria is not something that is in any way "difficult" or "extreme". It's something every psychiatrist and psychologist looks for before ANY DIAGNOSIS!

If you go to a psychologist and tell them you have few (or none) friends and great difficulty getting friends THAT is significant impairment (social impairment). If you have been told otherwise it is wrong. Nothing more is required to meet that criteria! Me and my wife is actually great examples. We were evaluated by different people in different institutions. We are both happily married and successful at university, but still nobody questioned if we had a significant impairment.

Thanks for that Phychegots! I was actually going to post asking specifically about that 'significant impairment' part since it does seem to be wildly open to interpretation unless there is some definition of this elsewhere (as it sounds like there might actually be from what you describe). That is reassuring to hear since I am superficialy doing alright in terms of having a wife and a few friends. However, I dont see many of my firends much these days apart from a couple of people who are involved in my current special interest and I would not really think to meet outside of those activities.

What I was trying to get at was that it seemed that regardless of previous issues, someone could be having a really good month socially and this might be seen as ruling the person out of diagnosis since they, at the time, were maybe apparently not impaired in the view of the phychiatrist. I deffer to you diagnosed folks for a clearer picture of this since I have not yet been through the whole process and acknowledge that I quite worried myself about being told that I don't technically belong now I have finally found people like me. I have been wondering what was 'wrong' with me pretty much my entire life and finding out about AS explains how I am pretty perfectly and I think I might find it quite difficult were I to be told that I am employed and married, have a few vauge friendships and sometimes try to be outgoing so I cant legitimately claim to finally have my answer. It might turn out I was worrying over nothing and, either way, I will still relate to aspies like no group I have ever come across.

Sorry to deviate into ramblings lol. Anyway, please dont think I am attacking the diagnosis itself, just saying that some people are going to slip through the net I imagine. If I am wrong about that assumption then that would be great though.

That's why I am so frustrated with 'experts' and why I made my statement about knowing more than them. The psychiatrist told me I meet ALL the criteria (which is pretty obvious) but I'm not impaired enough to qualify for a diagnosis without a long and expensive evaluation. If I can't make or keep ANY friends other than my almost certainly Autistic GF and spent three years looking for a job despite superior qualifications, that's apparently not impaired enough. Again, I meet all the criteria but I'm not 'impaired' enough. At that rate, if I don't have Aspergers then almost nobody does because I'm a textbook case of how AS can cripple you socially.

For crying out loud, it's like my left arm is missing and I can't get anyone to tell me I'm an amputee. What more do they need and why do to spend money I don't have to back that up?

I have not seen a definition of significant impairment specifically for Asperger's clearly written down anywhere. The way I explained it to you is how my professor in the abnormal psychology class explained it to us when speaking generally about every psychological disorder. And professors generally do not say things so bluntly without pointing out that there are different opinions about it in the field, unless there really are not. The reason this is a requirement in general is that we do not want to end up in a situation where everyone is on drugs because everyone fits a psychiatric diagnosis (not that everyone diagnosed uses drugs, but you get the point). It's to maintain the notion that for you to be sick (which you by definition are if you have a diagnosis) you have to have some loss of function in some way. Psychological (stress), social (friends or colleges), ability to work, romantic relationships, limiting where you can move around etc.

I get what you are saying in the second paragraph, I had the same concern before my evaluation. What I would say is that if you are having a really good week or month, that's not the time to go for a evaluation. In theory it should not be a problem, but just don't. It creates unnecessary confusion. And if you are in general high functioning just remember to clearly explain the issues you do have. Since I studied psychology myself I was afraid that I could unintentionally "fake" a disorder I did not have, since I knew a lot about it. So I tended to answer every question where I was in doubt whether to put for example 3 or 4 with 4 if I knew that was in the "NT direction". That's not a good idea, your not there to impress someone. In hindsight I do not think it's anything wrong with focusing on what you can not do and the negative when being evaluated. The professional is there to help you, so as long as your honest (obviously) it's great to focus on the negative because then you have something to work with. The bonus is that it makes it easier for the professional to see that you have a problem that require a diagnosis. His job is then just to figure out if that diagnosis is Asperger's or something else, not if you are healthy. I agree that someone will always slip through the net, but that's because of human errors, I do not think it has anything to do with the diagnostic criteria. And if you are miss-diagnosed and sense something is not right (I was in my early teens) seek a second opinion, don't diagnose yourself!

Last edited by psychegots on 29 Jan 2013, 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah I get it, and I truly believe that you have just met another incompetent psychiatrist. It is really frustrating. But I would still seek out a second opinion before you claim to have that diagnosis. You can ask to have a copy of the journal and test results from your old psychiatrist and then bring them or send them to a new guy. It should not take the new guy a lot of time (and therefor not you a lot of money) to come to your conclusion if what you're saying here is correct. Actually Tony Attwood wrote that he knew about someone in Australia that had diagnosed international patients through having sessions on skype since there were not great expertise on ASD in adults where they were from, so there are flexible, caring and knowledgeable professionals out there you just need to find them.

Pfft if you are not impaired enough to qualify for a diagnoses, then you don't meet the criteria so what he said made no sense. If you meet it, you are impaired. If you are not impaired, you don't meet it.

Different psychologists have different standards for what is significant impairment, so one psychologist's significant may be insignificant to another.

Let me clarify: he said that I had all the criteria except I was slightly impaired but not nearly enough to be eligible for a formal diagnosis (in other words, significant impairment). I have a Asperger personality instead he said. I tried to explain to him that I've learned to 'fake' eye contact, how to do small socialization and how to 'act' NT for a short time but it never lasts. Apparently that's enough to say I am not impaired. Guess I'm just too good of an actor I suppose.


Thanks for taking the time to respond to me. I wasn't sure you understood where I was coming from but I think we are on the same page. I just don't have the time to find a competent professional (I'm going to start another thread about some of the ludicrous things said about me by "experts") and I have had nothing but bad experiences with psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists. as they simply don't get it and why I want to be diagnosed. I'm sure there is a decent one out there but unfortunately the only local one I know of (thanks to another WP member) refuses to diagnose without a parental interview and that is simply not an option if you knew my parents and how they go into massive denial about my Aspergers. My brother thinks its VERY obvious but this person demands a parent/guardian or grandparent and won't proceed without them.


Which is exactly my point. While I know scientific knowledge is always changing, the science behind ASD diagnoses isn't nearly as hard as we are led to believe and is open to way too much interpretation in my view.

Ok, that's enough information, you're dealing with a rigid idiot. My diagnostician did not even ask about a parental interview since I could document early problems (I brought the journal from my miss-diagnosis as a teen which I got by just calling the place, no need to talk to my parents about it). My wife (as I said dealt with a different individual at a different place) was asked about a parental interview and she more or less said that her mom does not think she has it but that she's an idiot and that was it. He said that's fair if you do not think your mom has any valuable information there is no point in asking her.

Tony Attwood says it is not a must to have childhood information and parental interviews and he's the leading expert in the field. That bozo of a therapist you have basically says that if your parents are dead there is no way of diagnosing ASD, that's madness!

And everyone who has studied psychology should know that memory is a re-constructive process, asking someone to tell you about something that happened 20 years ago is a tiny bit more reliable than flipping a coin.

I love how certain doctors and people skip the whole part about either being markedly dysfunctional OR tends to do it more than normal part of the diagnostic criteria.

Also, it's a list of like 7 things now in which like any 4 parts can be a sign of you having ASD, all 7 are not required, and the whole part about being social or not is only 1 of those 7 or so criteria!

What I do is suggest a refresh course in that department if a certain doctor thinks in such a way or tell the person who is not a doctor that they are not a doctor and they should perhaps research something first before talking authoritatively on the subject.