We should keep the separate Asperger's category

Post Reply New Topic

anbuend, I just wanted to say I'm glad to see you posting here. I've read about you and learning about you has created a paradigm shift in my understanding of autism "functioning levels". I hope you keep writing.

Someone mentioned AS being a different subgroup because of lack of speech delay and higher verbal IQ. I really suspect the higher verbal IQ and lack of speech delay are part of the same thing. A few problems though. One is that a lot of people with speech delays or no speech might have higher verbal IQs if they were tested with some way of communicating their actual abilities. Not all but some. Because there are people with speech delays but excellent language comprehension. (And even people like Sue Rubin who had zero language comprehension for thirteen years but when she learned to type she switched over to really needing language and doing better at verbal tests than anything. And still can't speak communicatively.). And I know people dxed with AS who have massive language comprehension problems with no speech delay at all.

The other big problem I see is the privileging of a subgroup with good (or superficially good) speech and singling that out for a separate diagnosis. When there are other talents among autistic people that are not singled out and given a separate name. For instance there are a lot of autistics (me included) whose highest IQ test score is in Block Design and we are not singled out for a new name. Also many talents that do not show up on tests at all. And difficulties in certain respects as well (I often relate well to people with serious language comprehension trouble regardless of their diagnosis or speech abilities, for instance. And even more so if they have a specific cognitive profile I can recognize but that would be hard to test for -- good at patterns of certain kinds, bad at resolving sounds into words with meanings or sights into objects etc., and often experiencing huge shifts in abilities on a daily basis. But though we van recognize each other there is no special word for us. And if there was, there would have to be got every common pattern and then those in between the main clusters would be left out, hence not liking AS being considered special out of all subgroups.)

I know people focus a lot on speech when it comes to autism; but I think maybe this focus is misplaced. Don't get me wrong--I still stand by my statement that teaching someone to communicate is the number-one autism education priority (as you can't make your own choices count if you can't tell people what you want)--but speech, as a diagnostic criterion, may not be fundamental at all.

Autistics, in general, have many characteristics that can differ from person to person. Some of these represent very significant impairment. Speech is one of them--but only one of them. Executive function is another. So is sensory processing. So is non-verbal communication. When we get better at doing brain scans on people, we'll probably find quantifiable differences between fMRIs that represent significant cognitive differences. The autistic brain develops in a unique way that tends to create both specialization and way-below-average deficits simultaneously.

Speech versus no speech seems like it might easily be just one manifestation of an underlying developmental process that can create superficially different results--not something that divides autism into two categories. How come we don't divide them based on who can get through a crowded supermarket without melting down? Or maybe based on who can draw realistically or write neatly? Maybe we want to differentiate based on who can get away from their special interest long enough to eat and sleep properly. Or maybe we want to divide down the middle based on the ability to do math, or the ability to move gracefully, or the ability to remember people's faces and respond to their expressions and gestures... Because, you know, there are verbal and non-verbal people in all those groups (and partly-verbal, too, to be complete, as there are quite a few people you couldn't clearly categorize there either).

We diagnose autism based on what we can observe. It would be nice to be able to fully define autistic traits based on how one thinks, rather than on one's behavior; but at the moment, we don't have a really good definition yet. And, even if we could, practical observations such as the ones a doctor or psychologist can make are much more useful for diagnosis.

The problem with using speech as a criterion is that we've been using it only because it's easy to observe. Other than that, there's no very good reason to use it. There are a lot of other dimensions along which autistic people could be measured, which differ just as dramatically as speech does. It's actually quite arbitrary to say, "These are different because speech is different," when many other things are different within those groups.

re. Wolves: A bit of socially appropriate echolalia--

Well put, Anbuend.

I am a parent of a young child of almost 5 on the spectrum. I am not sure if he has Asperger's or not. He fits some of the criteria----clumsiness, special interests, no real big speech delay. He doesn't care if his routine is broken, and he doesn't speak like a "little professor"

My concern is that he has been placed in special needs pre-k with other children that are more severely affected. While he is verbal and is speaking in full sentences and is able to have a small conversation, the majority of his class is nonverbal and screams a lot or makes a lot of noises. There is a definite distinction in the way they present themselves.

Now don't get me wrong. My heart goes out to these children and their families, and I am not saying that my son is better or not autistic. But my concern is that I am not sure how much he is learning by not being around children that are at least verbal.

I think that there has to be a way to classify the different levels in order for educators and therapists to know what they are dealing with.

Just my thoughts!! !!

If you're worried that he's ready to learn things his classmates aren't ready for, and consequently not being taught, then you've got every right to ask for him to be moved to a different placement. As in, legal right. Make a nuisance of yourself if you have to.

This isn't an Asperger's/Autism labeling problem, though; it's more global than that. Most education systems attempt to standardize their curricula; and when they get kids who can't be standardized--that would be special ed, gifted/talented, and the twice-exceptional combination of the two--the system pretty much breaks down. Some schools simply won't admit that the standardization doesn't work on kids who aren't close to the average; and when they don't admit that, you get kids all in the same class with totally different ability levels being taught the same thing, so the advanced kids are bored and the delayed ones are left behind. Applying it to special ed is even worse, because not only do you have kids who are either behind or ahead, you have kids who are simultaneously both. Teaching kids in the same classroom with different educational goals depending on the kid works fine, if it's done right; but if they try to teach everybody the same thing, nobody really benefits.

So yeah. Talk to the school. Make sure they're actually teaching your boy something useful. Special education is supposed to be education, not just a place to put kids that don't fit into the regular system.

Worst comes to worst, you can home-school. School is exhausting; kids are cruel; and if you can't take it, you're called a "behavior problem". But then again, many school systems have been scared straight by mamma bears looking out for their disabled kids.