TYPES of ASD individuals from a professional source
I think it's interesting that many people here (on an AS forum) so closely associate with WISC and not ESC (which is supposed to be where most of the HFA / AS people fall). I wonder if our perceptions of ourselves cloud our judgement, or perhaps that particular statement is misinformed. I also wonder if ESC, CSC, or SCSC are much broader classifications.
The problem with this classification system is that it creates discreet categories that should be independent in their theory but really aren't independent in practice. It doesn't really take into account the fact that cognitive social intuition / social performance difficulties, behavioral difficulties, sensory / information-processing difficulties, and emotional coping difficulties can all vary somewhat independently in degree of severity. Thus there is really four separate dimensions, each of which can be subdivided in terms of severity.
I'd say I fit most with the SASC in terms of strictly social symptoms. However, in terms of non-social symptoms I fit in more with ESC.
That's the exact problem I was noticing in the first place -- these difficulties are often very independent of each other. Which is why I somewhat resist being classified into one area even if it's the one I bolded the most in (with also understanding that not bolding something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't apply, it just means I don't understand it).
Having just one doesn't even work for me for saying what kind of support I need. My daily living support needs are those of an SCSC, not the CSC that I'd be classified as if I simply took the one I bolded the most of (and giving me the support needed by CSCs would be an utter and total disaster for me and potentially dangerous). Yet my best communication is that of a WISC, although most of the time it's between CSC and SCSC, because skills fluctuate for people like me. My sensory issues are pretty much pure SCSC. My social issues in different areas can be ESC, CSC, or SCSC, depending on which social issue we're discussing and whether that particular skill is available to me at any given moment. Many of the descriptions in SCSC (but not in any of the other categories) best describe how people generally see me from what I'm told and how they react ("Inattentive and internally distracted," "Singularly focused on internal thoughts and sensory input", etc.). Growing up I've had some of the cognitive "gaps" I described earlier, some of which were covered in CSC and others of which (if the assessors were even aware of them, which I doubt they are, because that would require deep familiarity with the minds of people who don't usually communicate well) would have been under SCSC. My difficulty transferring skills from one environment to another is totally what they describe on CSC. My hyperlexia is described under ESC. My naivete leading to others tricking me on purpose is described well under ESC also. The thing about "looking weirder as you get older" is described under WISC.
Giving me a single category here does not help a person see how to support me overall, because my support needs exist across pretty much all of these categories.
Which is which I posted that link to the A-SHED: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt155617.html
Which is another couple of professionals who've been in the field for a long time trying to find a way to rate people's support needs so that people can understand how to work with them. Of course, it'd also be possible for a person to be rated both on this thing (I forget the name of it) and on the A-SHED, so that they'd be given a "general level" like on this thing, and then given specific ratings on specific skills through the A-SHED. (So I'm not posting that link just to knock the thing used in this thread.)
But there are definitely many autistic people who just flat-out do not do well being given a single rating to cover all of their abilities, no matter what the intent is as far as making things easier for schools or adult support situations and the like. Which is also why I made some modifications to the A-SHED when I posted it as well -- even it didn't, for instance, give ranges where a person could range between one ability level and another in a certain area, so I added that. I'm always having to tweak and modify these instruments to make them applicable to me or anyone else like me, whether it's the A-SHED or the thing described in this thread. I think the one in this thread could very easily be modified to give different answers for different skill areas, and to give ranges, when appropriate, for people whose skills really are that diverse.
_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams
fiddlerpianist
Veteran
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,821
Location: The Autistic Hinterlands
I agree that the descriptions of the type of people which fit into which group are oversimplified. You have to keep in mind, however, that the purpose of classification is not to diagnose or document all traits that a person has. Rather, the grouping exists as a way to provide treatment (therapy, whatever you want to call it) for social thinking most effectively for a group situation.
It basically says to put the diagnoses aside and recognize that there are people cross-diagnosis (and even outside of diagnoses) whose social thinking is neurologically atypical but share some of the same approaches to relating and learning. Identifying WISC and SASC as categories at all (as opposed to "neurotypical enough" fills a void where often there isn't help offered.
But I still think the whole system over-emphasizes the social disability aspect of autism.
No, I think rather that's all it's trying to address. It''s not trying to re-classify or re-categorize autism.
_________________
"That leap of logic should have broken his legs." - Janissy
^^^THIS^^^
doesn't surprise me at all given the large percentage of people on this board who are so pro-autism and anti-cure.. The majority of people on this board do not see/experience the more serious consequences of the disorder and enjoy a more "normal" way of being. I am watching the people who are pro-cure versus ESC or less social functionality and the coorelation is there. Just something to think about as "we" have these discussions. We (the WP board) hardly represent autism (the spectrum) and we would do well to keep an eye on our less abled brothers and sisters out there.
Does your experiences indicate that people on the ASD spectrum with less severe disabilities are "overrepresented" simply because the less abled are short of communications skills, and even in written language it is hard for them to communicate here on WP? They may feel somewhat frustrated or drained keeping up communication, as I see it.
Uh... I "might" be ASD which sort of sets me up to be a tiny bit relentless in pursuits of interests. Okay more serioulsy, (but proving the point) one of the professionals in the area that I work with introduced me to Michelle's work (the Superflex book) and I read her blog fairly regularly. There is a WORLD of fascinating stuff happening in the Autism world right now if you tie into it.
I'm glad and feel a bit envy that you work with professionals. I think it is a very interesting thing to explore, especially when someone is concerned, and yet has the opportunity to contribute to the help of others who may be more disabled or simply need more appropriate help.
_________________
Another non-English speaking - DX'd at age 38
"Aut viam inveniam aut faciam." (Hannibal) - Latin for "I'll either find a way or make one."
I personally think that most of us (many at leasst) COULD be active in the autism community in some way if we so desired. Even the less abled people in my ASAN group are contributing members in our community. Face it, there are MANY people so much worse off than we. In my case, it was just a natural thing to do once I received DX and I sought ways to get invovlved and to help. I am very,very blessed even though I am obviously cursed with this syndrom (in a not completly insignificant way). It happens that I still have enough gifts to be able to contribute in very significant ways to this earth. I have an ability to communicate and work with NTs and to possibly help bridge our species in some ways. It would be wrong for me to not reach out IMHO.
Wow! The WISC describes me perfectly! The only differences are that I don't have social anxiety (I have anxiety about "how the world works," according to the article), and my need for routine and my sensory issues' severity are much worse than described for this type. But that is EXACTLY what happens to me- when I tell people I have AS for the first time, even most doctors, they don't believe it. It makes me angry, because they don't even know me! And then, I feel like I have to prove it to them. The diagnosis is right. I shouldn't have to spend time proving it.
_________________
Helinger: Now, what do you see, John?
Nash: Recognition...
Helinger: Well, try seeing accomplishment!
Nash: Is there a difference?
I'm not really too sure where my own personal presentation would fit into these categories. i could equally identify with the WISC and ESC but I think I need to sit down and give this a more thorough read before I reach such a conclusion
I do quite like the way they have attempted to breakdown the presentation of the spectrum somewhat. I guess from a practitioners point of view I would want to analyse their evidence base for how they reached to the concluson of such categories. Which is not going to be contained in this document. I shall have to go and enquire about it when I have some free time.
_________________
"Tall people can be recognized by three things: generosity in the design, humanity in the execution and moderation in success"
I agree that the descriptions of the type of people which fit into which group are oversimplified. You have to keep in mind, however, that the purpose of classification is not to diagnose or document all traits that a person has. Rather, the grouping exists as a way to provide treatment (therapy, whatever you want to call it) for social thinking most effectively for a group situation.
It basically says to put the diagnoses aside and recognize that there are people cross-diagnosis (and even outside of diagnoses) whose social thinking is neurologically atypical but share some of the same approaches to relating and learning. Identifying WISC and SASC as categories at all (as opposed to "neurotypical enough" fills a void where often there isn't help offered.
But I still think the whole system over-emphasizes the social disability aspect of autism.
No, I think rather that's all it's trying to address. It''s not trying to re-classify or re-categorize autism.
Then what is the meaning of such a categorization system? There is a false implied assumption that the severity of symptoms is correlated. This is simply not true for a lot of "high functioning" individuals with autism. My issues are mainly sensory and emotional. Yet according to their classification system only people with a much lower social functioning than me can have the sensory and emotional issues I do.
They have a lot to learn in that respect. The work of organisations such as Mencap, National Autistic Society, Scope, MIND, Leonard Cheshire, RADAR, BILD (amongst other charities and not for profit organisations) here in the UK far eclipse their achievements.
They have promoted themselves in their marketting as a medical model approach to disability. If autism speaks is to be an advocacy group in addition to its other work it needs to have less of an emphasis on being a parent and carer lead organisation and have an inclusive approach. From what i remember the USA when it comes to disability is far more in favour of self-advocacy then it is for organisations to advocate on behalf of others. The preferance is always towards self advocacy.
As for the "lost" population. They technically fall into learning disability services if it is similair structured to the UK. If the US being the home of person centred planning and all those other fancy gimmicks they like to flog at conferances all the time is actually in reality quite far behind its contemporaries in europe when it comes to disability and promoting inclusion that won't really suprise me. The over reliance on allopathic approaches is kinda overbearing.
_________________
"Tall people can be recognized by three things: generosity in the design, humanity in the execution and moderation in success"
fiddlerpianist
Veteran
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,821
Location: The Autistic Hinterlands
I agree that the descriptions of the type of people which fit into which group are oversimplified. You have to keep in mind, however, that the purpose of classification is not to diagnose or document all traits that a person has. Rather, the grouping exists as a way to provide treatment (therapy, whatever you want to call it) for social thinking most effectively for a group situation.
It basically says to put the diagnoses aside and recognize that there are people cross-diagnosis (and even outside of diagnoses) whose social thinking is neurologically atypical but share some of the same approaches to relating and learning. Identifying WISC and SASC as categories at all (as opposed to "neurotypical enough" fills a void where often there isn't help offered.
But I still think the whole system over-emphasizes the social disability aspect of autism.
No, I think rather that's all it's trying to address. It''s not trying to re-classify or re-categorize autism.
Then what is the meaning of such a categorization system? There is a false implied assumption that the severity of symptoms is correlated.
Again, the categorization system is targeted only for purposes of education and training around social issues. They are using the traits as a description of a "typical" person (dare I use the word) who would fall into that group. Those traits are not meant to be exclusive in their severity to any particular group. Categorization would only be used for placement on a particular education track. If you weren't learning well or effectively on that track, presumably you could switch to one which is more effective.
I imagine this would sort of be like taking a beginner, intermediate, or advanced course in an applied subject like fiddling. (Not a perfect analogy, since there is a concept of advancement which isn't there for Social Thinking, but disregard the progression of a student's abilities over time.) The guidelines around which class you should take are around what you are currently capable of understand and how you map your knowledge of the fiddle to approach. A beginner class would have prerequisites such as "knows how to play scales," "are comfortable finding their way around the fingerboard." An intermediate class would have more prerequisites such as "has a working knowledge of at least 10 tunes." An advanced class would have prerequisites such as "has played in the style for 5 or more years," "is comfortable playing at dance tempo." Each class would have a different approach and focus, since the knowledge gaps between students in each class would be different.
Now, you might end up trying a beginner fiddle class based on prerequisites but realize that your comprehension and approach is actually more appropriate for the intermediate class. No teacher would say, "Sorry, you don't meet those prerequisites." They would much more likely let you try out the intermediate class because you'd be a more effective learner in that class.
_________________
"That leap of logic should have broken his legs." - Janissy
I agree that the descriptions of the type of people which fit into which group are oversimplified. You have to keep in mind, however, that the purpose of classification is not to diagnose or document all traits that a person has. Rather, the grouping exists as a way to provide treatment (therapy, whatever you want to call it) for social thinking most effectively for a group situation.
It basically says to put the diagnoses aside and recognize that there are people cross-diagnosis (and even outside of diagnoses) whose social thinking is neurologically atypical but share some of the same approaches to relating and learning. Identifying WISC and SASC as categories at all (as opposed to "neurotypical enough" fills a void where often there isn't help offered.
But I still think the whole system over-emphasizes the social disability aspect of autism.
No, I think rather that's all it's trying to address. It''s not trying to re-classify or re-categorize autism.
Then what is the meaning of such a categorization system? There is a false implied assumption that the severity of symptoms is correlated. This is simply not true for a lot of "high functioning" individuals with autism. My issues are mainly sensory and emotional. Yet according to their classification system only people with a much lower social functioning than me can have the sensory and emotional issues I do.
Same with me. I have a strange mixture of traits, it is like some parts of me are reasonably high functioning, whereas other parts of me are very fragile, esp the sensory parts.
And though I got the highest EQ score that gets you a diagnosis- 32 - I still struggled to a huge extent in school and the workplace and the social arena, everywhere in fact, and I havent managed to make anything of my life really.
The thing about AS is it can have so many different little things, I think it is a very hard thing to categorise, every person I have met with AS has presented a unique set of traits, and can become high functioning or low functioning depending on environment.
_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf
Taking a break.
Yes, it is so strange. In most respects I am very high functioning. I even do fairly well in work environments, as long as I don't have to deal too much with annoying people. Any sort of conflict, though, and I get into trouble. I am also a disaster at socializing. Yet, in some ways, I would be considered fairly successful. I just wish that I could average out my strengths and weaknesses a bit.
_________________
"Like lonely ghosts, at a roadside cross, we stay, because we don't know where else to go." -- Orenda Fink
^^^THIS^^^
doesn't surprise me at all given the large percentage of people on this board who are so pro-autism and anti-cure.. The majority of people on this board do not see/experience the more serious consequences of the disorder and enjoy a more "normal" way of being. I am watching the people who are pro-cure versus ESC or less social functionality and the coorelation is there.
That may be the case, nowadays; I don't know. But, there is some history that people don't seem to know, anymore -- that the idea ("pro-autism/anti-cure") was originated before Asperger's even existed as a diagnosis, and by people who, as far as I ever knew, would not commonly be considered "mildly autistic" at all.
My point is the idea that being very "high-functioning" is the only way to arrive at a "pro-autism/anti-cure" opinion is very pervasive, but not correct. There are other ways (independent of "functioning level") for people to arrive at such beliefs (personally, I have mixed views on the matter). It wasn't (when I heard of it in the early 90's) dreamed up by a band of stereotypical "HF aspies."
And I remember someone noting from their local ASD meetup group that being closer to normal actually seemed to make it worse in certain ways, compared to people who were more "obviously affected," but oblivious to when they were weirding people out. IOW, that being a little "more" affected counter-intuitively seemed to lead to more success in employment, romance, and friendship, etc.
(Maybe it's an "uncanny valley" thing: too far one way and you're a cartoon character, and people aren't afraid of that; too far the other way and you're "NT." But, almost, but not quite NT -- then maybe you've got worse problems that the other 2 groups. So, maybe the relationship between wanting a cure and "level of autism" isn't linear. OK, enough of this tangent.)
The first part of your paragraph is implied in the paper on discussion (WISC vs. ESC). The second part is a logical deduction, me think.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
My stance on a cure has nothing to do with my "functioning level," and is partly to do with my unwillingness to alter my neurology so thoroughly. I also think that a "cure" is pretty unlikely and that money spent to research it is far more likely to get results if it were funneled into actually providing necessary services to autistic adults, who seem to be pretty consistently neglected. It strikes me as irresponsible to leave so many people to basically sink or swim while trying to work out ways to "fix" future generations.
I've read anti-cure arguments from people who fall pretty much everywhere on the spectrum, and found them convincing even before I was fully convinced I was on the spectrum.
I am not really sure WISC fits me, although some of it does.
You know it is funny. Before I read this paper and realized that there were such things as a more mildly affected group of ASD People, I was pretty perplexed RE a few things. The first thing is the many, many posts I read here RE people being lonely and wanting "friends" and such. I am so socially aloof that the stuff these Aspies are talking about goes completely over my head. Things like"connecting" to people the way NTs do, hanging out, etc is just not even in my radar. It also is the case that the local Asperger Adult group here in Portland socializes WAY too much for me. We (they and I) make jokes about that all the time. They actually tease me about being a hermit. Finally, I have been pondering this whole diagnosis thing and why it is so hard for so many adults to get diagnosed. I have never had a problem with DX (4 independent Phd's have seem me so far and not one suggested the DX was wrong) and I never had anyone who knows me disagree with the DX either. My Mother told my PsyD to save the pencil for the test. She could tell him that I was...
It never occurred to me that others might be more mildly affected than me before reading this as I am one of the most succesful ASD people on this board wrt "NT" success criteria. I just assumed I was super mildly affected and everyone else had more severe issues. This paper was a big wake-up call for me. I am actually pretty obvious and obviously affected in life and I am learning (from reading the posts from people who ID themselves as WISC or otherwise NCSC) that it is probably a good thing for me on many levels that I am so obviously "broken". People who I call "friends" all tell me that they know I am "weird" but that is one of the things that they love about me. I recently asked them to define "weird" and they all say that I do not subscribe to societal norms. There is not anyone saying, "Can't quite put my finger on it" sort of thing. It is very out there. Because of this, I do receive a LOT of support from them on a social level. I have no shortage of friends who help me to dress or shop for things and/or help me to figure out how to navigate social and other more challenging situations. My neighbors actually check up on me regularly to make sure I am well and that my animals are okay and that I am doing "normal" well being things. People just seem to instinctually know that I need extra help with some things. I just always assumed before this was more because I am a single woman. I suspect now it has to do more with me being obviously different. The words of my first shrink are ringing in my ears right now. He actually told me that I am very obviously different and people see me as different. I did not believe him then so much then... More to think about here...
The good news is that since being DX'd I am very honest and open about the disorder being a disorder and everyone is stepping up to "help" me in a different way which is very empowering now. I had another discussion with my boss yesterday and he makes a lot of jokes that go over my head because I am so literal. On our last converstaion he kept having to pause the converstaion to tell me he was just kidding. He actually brought with him a 3x5 card with the word, "joke" on it to our conversation yesterday and held it up when he was kidding. On one level it was stupidly funny, but on a more serious level it avoided a lot of our "normal" confusion RE what is serious and what isn't serious. I thought that was pretty astute.
Ravenclawgurl
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,274
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Barriers for Neurodivergent Individuals at Job Fairs |
07 Nov 2024, 7:52 pm |
Problem-Solving Challenges for Autistic Individuals |
03 Nov 2024, 1:15 pm |
Professional Autistic: Justin Miller |
30 Aug 2024, 6:23 am |
Many Types Of Masking. |
12 Sep 2024, 7:08 pm |