What do you think of functioning labels?

Post Reply New Topic

Mild, moderate, and severe AS.

Sometimes I don't like them because they are misleading and it can make people expect more out of you when you are mild. Like lets say you have borderline AS and you take something literal. An aspie who is more effected by it than you could go "You should know this because I'm more aspie than you and I wouldn't have taken that literal."

It's bad enough us aspies don't get as much help as auties because they figure since we are so high functioning, we don't need as much help because we are closer to normal and more milder.

Okay so someone can have severe AS and not have difficulty with metaphors while someone with mild AS can. I have met some other aspies online who seem to read people better than I can and understand them better. Every aspie is different and they might be effected more in one area than another aspie even though that aspie is more effected by their condition than that aspie. Like doctors say, it's a spectrum.

I think they're of use, so long as they're understood to be limited in meaning. If "an ordinary person" who can be expected to do "ordinary things" is normally-functioning, and someone who can do those things with some trouble is high-functioning and someone who can't is low-functioning, that's good enough for some purposes; but try to define an "ordinary person" or "ordinary things", or cope with someone who can do some things well but not others, and it doesn't really work. And people change over time, too.

You keep using effected when you should type affected. But yes, functioning labels don't have a lot of use.

They don't really bother me, when used in the right context. I just don't appreciate somebody saying to me, "You're lower functioning, than I thought you were." It's almost like that particular person is saying. "You're not as good, as I thought you were."

However, if somebody was to give an analysis of my grade, or level of functioning, hearing or reading the results wouldn't bother me, one bit.

I think it's like most instances of reductionism - useful as long as you're aware of its limitations.

So I class myself as "moderate Aspie" because on questionnaires I tend to score about halfway between the diagnostic borderline and the maximum possible score. But that tells nothing about any one particular trait, except that in the absence of more detailed information I'm likely to manifest it quite strongly. So you could use the label to predict my traits, and more often than not you'd be correct, but not every time.

I think it is important to make a distinction between "severity" and functioning level. I would define "severity" as the degree to which traits are present and "functioning level" as the degree to which one has been able to adapt and function in society. For example, in my case I basically didn't begin to notice that other people even existed until the very end of elementary school. My AQ is 44 and I usually score around 180 on the Aspie quiz. However, my upbringing, intellect, drive, etc. have allowed me to compensate very well and I consider myself to be extremely HF. I graduated from a highly ranked college, live on my own, have had relationships and am employed. On the other hand, a former roommate had obvious traits, but was probably sub clinical. However, he had difficulty maintaining employment and really couldn't take care of himself.

It's stupid, for one reason: we do not fit into neat little boxes like that!

We are all different and varying! Someone on the autistic spectrum could be unable to talk or make facial expressions, yet they could be very good at maths (sorry to use a stereotype).

You get the idea. You can't take someone with so many different variables and just call them low-functioning or high-functioning.

Oh, and also... Would you like to be called "low functioning"? Just think about how that would feel.

Rant over.

I think functioning labels/severity scales could work if you grade each aspect of your condition and not just as a whole. Because you could be mild when it comes to making friends but you could have moderate meltdowns, or severe obsessions or mild sensory issues. Because take me for example, I'm all over the place, not one trait is the same severity or frequence, they change and they fluctuate, some have disappeared while others have got worse and some new traits take the place of others. I have very mild sensory issues (I don't like tight clothes, I have a strong sense of smell but that's about it), I have mild social problems and am able to go out with friends and enjoy parties, my emotional immaturity is moderate, my tantrums/meltdowns whatever they are are moderate-ish, my obsessiveness is mild but used to be moderate, restistence to change is mild (but I can be very stubborn about some things), I have virtually no routines.

Maybe they should use a numerical scale: Type 1 - Type 10 (10 being the most severe). Numbers seem to convey diversity a bit better i think (besides, the word "functioning" makes us sound like robots).

Personally, i tend to set the categories as Mild, Classic, or Severe (AS would be in the mild range). to each his own.

As far as i saw those labels are more used for autism as a whole spectrum and i do think some sort of grading is needed. You just can`t put everyone in the same basket. Like for example a person who can`t speak or take care of itself vs. someone who just barely meets the criteria. There is of course always a problem with borders and people who fall there, and some may interpret these labels inappropriately. It still doesn`t mean they are unjustified.