"elevated-functioning" vs "high-functioning&q

Post Reply New Topic

Whenever I really think about the term "high-functioning autism" or "higher-functioning autistic", it bothers me. Semantics can be a picky thing for me, sometimes, and so, more accurate language use brings relief. My issue with the term is that at a particular moment, for a particular reason I might fluctuate functioning levels, and so the term "high-functioning" feels innacurate, at worst, inadvertantly deceiftul.

Well, I was thinking about this a few minutes ago and I thought how about "elevated-functioning autistic"? This implies an expected fluidity and perhaps is more accurate.

Is this a good reallignment of semantics or a lame substitution?

I think that the term "high-functioning" is a bit misleading because those to whom it applies are not going to function highly in all of their faculties, yet the term leads to a popular expectation that they must be high-functioning in all normal, day-to-day activities and responsibilities. This can be dangerous as it encourages the public not to recognize the difficulties and even diminished responsibility which exist

I feel the same way about the term "high functioning." It implies that people with HF autism function at a higher level than most people. They may function at a higher level than many autistics, but the professionals should coin a another term.

I concur. The term 'High Functioning Autism' makes it sound as though the autism itself were somehow less severe, when the truth is I think we're just better able to work through the difficulties (not work them out, but keep going, as someone continuing to work even though they're suffering a migraine). I don't think we suffer any less stress or anxiety, we're just better able to put on a mask of normalcy and look outwardly as though it's not happening, which in the long term is actually far less healthy mentally and in my experience, extremely damaging to the physical machine as well.

Sometimes smiling and saying "I'm okay" when you're really not okay is much worse than falling down in public and having a seizure - then at least people believe there's really a problem.

"High-functioning" is really problematic. It can mean you can speak but can't take care of yourself very well, or it can mean you're completely independent with a job, a spouse, a dog, and 2.5 kids. When it's applied to developmental delay, "high-functioning" can mean IQ level above 50 or 60, so it often bleeds over into autism and anybody with a normal or near-normal IQ is called "high-functioning". It can just be the perception of how you're functioning at the time, depending on stress. Ironically, you can even be called "high-functioning" if you're totally unable to take care of yourself due to some other problem, but your autism isn't the main cause of the disability. It's just plain ridiculous. It's better to dump functioning labels altogether and say things like "living independently", "fluently verbal", "good self-care skills", "not developmentally delayed", etc. Specifics make more sense. "High-functioning" has no official definition and doesn't say a thing except for some vague sort of backhanded compliment about how close to not being disabled you are.

Some of the people adding comments to the Daily Mail articles about Gary McKinnon have said that he must be completely responsible on the grounds that he is "high functioning". That is an example of how dangerous the terminology is. They should be made aware of other examples like Sigourney Weaver's character in "Snow Cake", who was described as a high functioning person who couldn't tie her shoelaces

Elevated-functioning autistic does seem slightly less misleading than using the word high.

I am unsure where I fall on the functioning scale (e.g., Vineland) relative to others described as high-functioning. It fluctuates as well. For example, I will have days such as yesterday, where it took me over an hour to move to the kitchen to get a bowl of salad. When I arrived, I could not figure out how to open something, threw it across the room and was immobile for 1/2 an hour until someone found me.

However, today I woke up feeling unusually functional and went on a short bicycle ride! It is hard enough for me to understand such fluctuations, let alone try to explain it to anyone unfamiliar with autism/AS. The term high-functioning is misunderstood by such people. Unless they spend time with you in different situations, they assume your intelligence automatically means you can function independently without support.

Being high functioning doesn't make him responsible; making a conscious choice to disobey the law does.

It can be dangerous to attribute someone's crime to his diagnosis, because then people assume that the diagnosis makes you more likely to be a criminal. Most autistic people labeled "low-functioning" are quite responsible for their actions, for that matter.

Unwittingly committing a crime because of your diagnosis is a category that contains mostly people with dementia absent-mindedly doing something embarrassing... it doesn't include an awful lot of autistic people. I guess I could see someone in mid-meltdown, hurting somebody, but it's a lot more likely that he would just hurt himself, and a very likely that if he hurts somebody it's because he was scared and freaked out and somebody tried to pin him down.

I have a problem with how functioning level is determined. At the moment it's an average-above avergae IQ and the ability to talk/read etc, but intelligence is not a good indication of how well people cope, really whether you're "high" or "low" functioning should be determined by how well you cope with day to day things, for example working or finding friends or looking after yourself, and many "high" functioning individuals would instead be low functioning because they may have an IQ of 150-something but they have never been able to use their intelligence because of problems with day to day functioning and sociability.