discovery criteria-Tony Attwood /Carol Gray

Post Reply New Topic

I'm surprised I haven't seen this discussed more here, unless it already has been of course.There is so much focus on the negative aspects of Asperger's. I like this and I can see myself in there.


Figure 1: Discovery criteria for aspie by Attwood and Gray

A. A qualitative advantage in social interaction, as manifested by a majority of the following:

1. peer relationships characterized by absolute loyalty and impeccable dependability
2. free of sexist, "age-ist", or culturalist biases; ability to regard others at "face value"
3. speaking one’s mind irrespective of social context or adherence to personal beliefs
4. ability to pursue personal theory or perspective despite conflicting evidence
5. seeking an audience or friends capable of: enthusiasm for unique interests and topics;
6. consideration of details; spending time discussing a topic that may not be of primary interest
7. listening without continual judgement or assumption
8. interested primarily in significant contributions to conversation; preferring to avoid ‘ritualistic small talk’ or socially trivial statements and superficial conversation.
9. seeking sincere, positive, genuine friends with an unassuming sense of humour


B. Fluent in "Aspergerese", a social language characterized by at least three of the following:

1. a determination to seek the truth
2. conversation free of hidden meaning or agenda
3. advanced vocabulary and interest in words
4. fascination with word-based humour, such as puns
5. advanced use of pictorial metaphor


C. Cognitive skills characterized by at least four of the following:

1. strong preference for detail over gestalt
2. original, often unique perspective in problem solving
3. exceptional memory and/or recall of details often forgotten or disregarded by others, for example: names, dates, schedules, routines
4. avid perseverance in gathering and cataloguing information on a topic of interest
5. persistence of thought
6. encyclopaedic or ‘CD ROM’ knowledge of one or more topics
7. knowledge of routines and a focused desire to maintain order and accuracy
8. clarity of values/decision making unaltered by political or financial factors


D. Additional possible features:

1. acute sensitivity to specific sensory experiences and stimuli, for example: hearing, touch, vision, and/or smell
2. strength in individual sports and games, particularly those involving
3. endurance or visual accuracy, including rowing, swimming, bowling, chess
4. “social unsung hero” with trusting optimism: frequent victim of social
5. weaknesses of others, while steadfast in the belief of the possibility of genuine friendship
6. increased probability over general population of attending university after high school
7. often take care of others outside the range of typical development

Yes me too! Thank you

Definitely have most of those "symptoms"
That settles it, my psychologist must be right!

I'd rather point out the positives of the deficits: overload = can be bad, but the openness to stimuli = can be good too, routines = inflexible, restricting which can make them bad, but also = the ability and need to plan and have them and not to mess up and have everything chaotic, thus can be good and so on.

Every person with autism with the symptom would have both the negative and positive side in some fashion. That's what ties most of the spectrum - the deficits and thus also both sides of the medal, so to speak (meaning there's a good and bad side to everything, including autistic deficits)

Not every person with autism fits many on these positive personality lists though. I for example see a positive in most deficits that come with autism, but I do not meet most things on lists about likes and dislikes and personality traits like Attwood's. Only, like 7 of 29.

If my family had been presented with a list of criteria like that by a sensible pediatrician, they'd have been overjoyed. They might not have had such an issue with the word "syndrome" had these been backed up by a physical scientific test and been well known about.

The thing is, they weren't: they were given a list of deficits and deficiencies.

It was damaging for me to have my personality presented in such a negatively biased way like that: it kind of made me feel as though I was no good for anything.

This is why my parents firmly believed that I didn't have AS because they knew that I wasn't the utterly hopeless picture of doom that the professionals believed I was. My personality had positive aspects that were being glossed over or discounted in the rush to "treat" me.

Also, the negative criteria gave helping professionals/adults in authority the very wrong impression that I'd never be able to relate to anyone meaningfully or that I'd be a deficient "failure" for the rest of my life. When someone in authority tells you those heinous things, you end up doubting yourself and actually believing them: it doesn't help you in a positive way at all, it just exacerbates the difficulties .

You wouldn't try to help and encourage someone to improve by calling him/her a non-achiever or a failure from the get go would you?

Yet this is what many people who were called in to "help" said to my parents and I.

As an analogy it's like personal trainer saying to a client:
"Hey tubby, you shouldn't bother getting on the exercise bike. You're too fat to get on. You'll never lose any weight no matter how hard you try. You're a useless vegetable. You'll never be able to lose a gram of weight."

The client goes into a corner and cries petrified of even touching any equipment that could help him because the trainer has effectively forbidden him from doing the activities that could actually help.

Then after 10 weeks the trainer saying:
"You haven't achieved anything at all. You're still grossly overweight. I told you you were useless. You have Fitness Deficit Disorder, a mysterious and frightening syndrome that means you'll never ever succeed in your life."

I don't know of any physical personal trainers like this.
If there were any there'd be complaints and they'd lose their jobs pretty fast.
Yet these were the kinds of messages I received when I was being "treated" for AS.

I find it horrible that such positive traits (that I knew were inside me all along by the way at that many people who haven't known about my AS assessment have pointed out) could be twisted around into such a negative and inhuman description.

Surely the whole issue of people having varying abilities in reading non-verbal cues could be approached in a more balanced and sensible way?

Perhaps if people learn to accept that there are many different styles of communicating and relating to others.

AS wasn't a "discovery" for me. It was a negative label forced on me against my will when I was young. The label made me feel as though other people had to control me and that I was inferior compared to everyone else. It was frightening and confusing at times because people expected so much from me socially, yet didn't tell me where I was going wrong or what positive steps I could take to improve my life.


This is why I feel sick or like someone has punched me in the stomach at the mention of either Aspergers or Syndrome, because I remember how I was treated when I was labeled. I also feel angry because I share personality traits with members of my family. Now the assessment feels like an attack against the people I love as well as myself.

This is why I have mixed feelings about what Attwood is saying because I tried to write off the whole AS label as something I couldn't possibly have (because it was so negative in the past).

Having positive attributes associated label seems, weird given all the negative things that people who were "treating" me used to say.

I know I have all the positive characteristics listed, but part of me doesn't want to associate that with the AS label because I associate the words Aspergers Syndrome with being controlled by those people who bullied and wanted to "correct" me all those years ago.

Very well said, AmberEyes and I have mixed feelings too. Mine are because some of that criteria applies to me, but my problems relating to people and getting along with them/wanting to be around them without feeling out of place and awkward, enjoying being with them are so profound and intense it takes away from the positives.
If you have the above without the problems socializing you are so lucky.

If I'd been given the diagnosis of "Amazing Person Syndrome" instead of "Aspergers", I'd have been much happier about my life and so would my family. If I'd been called "gifted" and highly likely to succeed. The thing can become a self fulfilling prophesy: if you believe that you will make it (with some effort), you'll be more motivated.

But then again the danger with Anglicizing any criteria is that you can get cocky and become inadvertently boastful. It can be incredibly irritating for other people for you to go around bragging and say "I'm clinically fantastic!", "I have the same genes as geniuses!" or words to that effect.

Really great people don't have to constantly keep reminding others that they're great: "actions speak louder than words".

Demonizing the criteria is just as misleading.

Why can't there be a sensible balanced approach that takes into account people's individual strengths and weaknesses without the stigmatising labels?

Or if labels have to be used, can't they be viewed in a more realistic and less biased/dooming way?

Why can't the labels be defined by the people who have the conditions themselves?
These are the people who know how they think and why they react to the world in the way that they do.

I say this because I've found the idea that a professional (i.e. a stranger) can know more about the private, internal experiences in my mind than I do (using a limited set of generalised criteria), incredibly disturbing.

I find the idea that someone can tell me exactly who I am; why I behave the way I do and therefore what "should" go on inside my head kind of creepy.

The expert on me is me.
I don't require any specialised training to have self awareness.
Therefore, I should really be the one trying to define myself.

But instead of forming yourself into what other people want you and the world to be, why not set a different standard? I can't adopt other people's point of view and wrong conclusions. They make no sense to me. I rather point the more logical and reasonable out to them - that their whole people-world is a construct that has no meaning by itself.

If I change into positive descriptions because someone interprets me negatively based on his cultural upbringing and cultural langauge understanding, then I'm bending in the way they want me to. I don't like that because I wouldn't be true to myself. I rather show them that their interpretation is wrong and biased by the emotional and cultural influences that they mistake for something 'real' instead of recognising them as the fantasies they are. So rather than changing, I show them that a deficit isn't something that causes a bad feeling because it's just a word and that their fuzzy emotionality and like for adopting what society tells them makes them blind to what 'deficits' mean for real.

The criteria don't say 'failure' or that someone's never going to be anyone. They're not negative. They just say that this and this person can't do this and this and this. I suppose I can't put myself into another's shoes for real, because if the criteria themselves are negative for anyone I think they are wrong to think of themselves as only a success if they are in a way that society wants them to instead of letting go of the cultural bias and nonsense. It's people's interpretations of the criteria that are wrong. Not being able to do something doesn't mean anything unless someone goes about and interprets it some true or twisted way to be able to understand it.

The original criteria do say the word "failure" quite clearly:

"Failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level."

People interpret the word "failure" as applying to other aspects of the individual's life.
They might incorrectly assume that if someone's a social "failure", that they will also be a general "failure" even if they might be great at concentrating and working things out on their own.

I find that an incredibly offensive way and demoralising way of putting it.
It seems to imply (falsely) that there's some set socialising standard that everyone ought to aspire to and that everypne develops at the same rate. Variation or difference is not tolerated or permitted. If you don't fit an arbitrary set of developmental stages then you are "deficient".


"a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment"

"Lack" culturally implies a deficiency.


The word "disorder" also is incredibly negative: it culturally implies that something is "broken" or "wrong" with a person.

"Impairment" suggests deficiency rather than a legitimate difference in functioning.

"Deficit" means lack of and is negative.


If people in power (authorities, professionals, employers, school staff etc.) see these original negative criteria, they'll automatically write off people who might be competent, caring, honest, loyal and skilled: just because of perceived social short comings. People that could actually be useful to have around.

Unfortunately, the people in power can try to correct you if your opinion on yourself contradicts their's: especially if the negative criteria has a "medical" stamp on it. I've experienced this many times.

It's very hard to try and reason with a professional, qualified medical specialist who thinks that s/he has all the negative answers about you.




Exactly.


I have mixed feelings about the opposite reaction (putting people on a positive pedestal too).

In my experience people say "You're have special needs" or "You're special" through their teeth, but often treat that person as if they're sub-human or incapable of any opinion.


People are also envious of the idea that someone is more worthy of "special treatmet" or is "special".

Once someone puts you on a pedestal, everyone else is going to want to tear you down from that position out of jealousy, whether you're: disabled, fantastically abled or not.

This is why I find it sad that the word "special" originally such a positive word can generate so much stigma and hatred.

I've actually read in CBT text that calling yourself "special" doesn't help improve self esteem at all, but just sets you up for ridicule and disappointment.

You're special yes, but so is everyone else because we're all individuals.


It seems that people take phenomena that they don't or aren't prepared to try and understand and either react in fear or awe. They demonise or angelicise the phenomenon, when in reality, it just is. I've mentioned this kind of gut reaction elsewhere in my posts and psychiatric criteria, positive or negative are not immune from these human responses.

Ahhh, you're right! It's still the same word, even if they do not mean to say that a person cannot achieve something, I get that mixed up if there are more than one meaning to a word.



Well you are in some ways, compared to others. That's all. I don't see why that's a problem unless people think their words actually mean anything. Comparing to others is way overrated.

And people really should just stop thinking 'deficient' is bad if you ask me or that 'complete' or 'different' is better and start realising it's just all in their heads. So I tell those people rather than asking them to call me something that sounds nice to them.




Only in the minds of people. To me, these are just words meaning there's something present, missing or less than compared to something else. So people could stop placing so much worth into words if they tried perhaps?

I fell no difference over being called impaired, gifted or whatever. I dislike them all equally actually, because they are categories that are just faulty fantasies and categories themselves just don't mix well with some of my autistic impairments anyway.



That's why I think it's the most dangerous and wrong thing to change the wording into something positive. In the end, there'll be new words, new victims who do not fall under the fancy new words, because it's not the words themselves. Every word can be used to attack those people who react emotionally to words. Which is, like, everybody though there must be more people like me too.

Many neutral and formerly innocent words have been given another meaning throughout history by people. Until people get told and start to realise that it's just words and not truth, nobody's ever quite safe from this fate of being treated unfairly by words and accused and attacked with words.

Winning after years of arguments is unrealistic, but if nobody ever starts and tells others in their face that their believes are not making sense, of course they won't ever admit it. It would be good if all people who're currently labelled disabled would stand up against this ridiculous association that disability and impairments in certain area make them special people and bad people.

I just wish all the other people could, you know, see each other as normal.

Nothing special or bad based on medical or other data that compares to figure out how to improve, hat they just think of someone else as 'another'.

WOW that is bloody scary its like tony attwood and carol gray are following me lol,

every one of those qualities and symptoms I have the extreme loyalty with me is really true to

my problem is that I find it hard reading people and following them but I think I am lucky since my 5 friends are really diverse one loves films like me, other comics, other music as well as another an my one friend maria is like all of them so yeah I have really devierse friends with my interests at heart lol

It's good to see the OP and this thread here. Always nice to see someone attempting to reframe things in a positive light.

Certainly seems more beneficial to me than tired old whingeing all the time.

My personal view is it is very important we celebrate the positives and acknowledge the difficulties as well, without getting perpetually stuck in either one.

Last edited by millie on 07 Jul 2009, 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ Agreed.

I really saw my father in these; it was uncanny. All of these qualities he taught us to value.

The "good" and "bad" aspects of Autistic traits are simply different sides of the same coin, something NTs trying to "fix" us need to understand.

I am a mixture of the good and the not so good. My biggest problem has always been in the human relations arena, no doubt about it. That is the one thing that stands out more than anything else. Why am I not like everyone else? Why can't I roll with the punches like they do? Think of clever ways to save face? Not get so upset about things? I don't see them getting that riled over something petty so why do I? Why do I second guess everything others do and then worry endlessly about the conclusions I reach? All this is a normal part of my social experience.
Just going to a club I would get this overwhelming anxiety while walking through the parking lot. I remember wondering if that was normal. Did everyone feel that nervous inside over something that seemed so commonplace and shouldn't be a big deal? I thought it was sorta out of place, to feel that way but it happened so often I became accustomed to it and expected it.
I used to wonder if everybody was just like me and did the same things as me. Worried with the same intensity? If they did they were better at hiding it than I was.
It has affected me in soooo many ways when dealing with family members, peers, neighbors, authority figures like teachers and employers, co workers, whatever- you name it. Any time I have to deal with the same person more than once or twice it creeps in. It's that obvious and apparent. It influences every aspect of my relationships with my fellow humans.
I wish I could say this was not much of a problem and it's great to have intellectual gifts, charisma, and a public speaking persona. I could be great at addressing others and speech giving if only I weren't so darned nervous and scared. The entire time I would be so self conscious, constantly thinking about other people and what they might be thinking about me.
This is what it's like.
It does have some positives, but the negatives can be overwhelming and can definitely interfer with other people benefitting from the good points.
If you can't talk to people because you are so nervous, how are they going to know how much you know about a certain subject or topic? They are going to notice how nervous you are or that you aren't looking at them or that you are so busy thinking of so many things while talking about one thing, you lose your train of thought and forget what you are going to say next.
If you are so aware on a subconscious level of everything that is going on in a classroom and you are trying to take an exam, how easy is it going to be to focus and filter everything out so that you can think clearly and come up with the right answers? MANY times I have taken tests and done worse on them, even though I fretted and studied and made sure I knew what I was supposed to beforehand because I was so anxious and nervous. I didn't realize why and I thought I wasn't that smart. The real reason was I couldn't block out all the subtle things going on around me that I wasn't consciously aware of. Instead all I could feel was anxiety and a paralyzing fear so that I forgot answers I knew by heart only an hour before.
It's way too easy to forget the details under such circumstances.
It's also too easy to run away or talk yourself out of the belief you can do something under such circumstances.
The negative effects are serious and cannot be glossed over or talked away.
Yeah, sure, I might have been trusting when I was eight years old but after countless times, of being taken advantage of, played upon, and treated with very little respect or concern, I no longer have the naive faith and optimism I might have been destined to have.
At one time I might have believed having a true friend was to be expected and not too unreasonable but after being preyed upon by numerous predatory types who took advantage of my good nature, generosity, and willingness to help another out, I have become very cynical. Cynicism has aligned itself with my nature. The most open, caring people are the ones who are capable of becoming the most cynical and bitter.
So, yes, you can start out this way but it slowly erodes. The underhanded treachery of others is enough to thoroughly destroy it.
Just imagine what it's like dreading something so simple like going somewhere with someone else just because it's safer that way. Imagine not wanting to do something for safety's sake because you don't want to deal with another person and you feel more comfortable and at ease on your own. That's what it's like for me.
Even something most people enjoy or, at the least, feel like is no big deal, no issue, like attending a family dinner is a major thing with me. I would rather not do it and would tell them "No" even though I know they want me there and would feel insulted that I passed it up.
The strangest thing is, most people think all of this is nothing. They do not get why anyone would have issues with any of this. To them it's no big deal, they don't feel this way about being with people and cannot understand why anyone would.
They reach the conclusion I must be insane for feeling like this. That doesn't help, either.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 07 Jul 2009, 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.