Types of Aspergers

Post Reply New Topic

Since my current interest has shifted in a way to help myself and includes neuroscience/aspergers/autism, I have done nothing but read non-stop online about this stuff. I really like these kinds of things from a standpoint that doesn't really affect the outcome of me wanting my success, help, resources, and finally finding the simple explanation for everything. I was diagnosed with ADHD, OCD, ODD, Deep depression, Bipolar just like that. And I have been suffering from epilepsy knowingly since I was 5. And I feel these really all point to Aspergers.

However, I came across something that says there are different type of aspergerian people. Which one do you think you are? (Hope this is in the right place?)

http://www.livingwithaspergers.com/type ... rgers.html

I have always felt to be the logical type, and my boyfriend even agrees.

Logical, I guess. The only thing is that as I've gotten older I've come to value spontaneity.

I'm the "XFilesGeek type."

I don't really "see" myself completely in any of those. They're too vague.

--XFG

Sometimes a challenge/condition is divided by three as in: mild form, moderate form, severe form. That's my understanding.

Yeah, well I thought this too, but they already note some things on the bottom about the types. and how it is just aspects of the disorders broken down.

I'm still curious. I feel I resort to the other parts too, but not as much as the logic one.

I'm not sure what type of aspie I am, cuz I see bits of my personality in each one.

Well, since you asked, I'm the type for whom "Asperger's" is enough of a label, and really doesn't want to be sublabeled, further categorized, compartmentalized etc. etc. ad naseum. I'm happy enough to have found the answers I've needed for so long, and finally make some sense out of everything. I don't want or need another cubby hole to be shoved into.

I'm immediately suspicious of these "sub categories," because they aren't mentioned in the DSM at all. Don't know who came up with them. Could have been an NT (in which case, shame on them), or an Aspie (in which case, I hope they got some satisfaction out of it, because it was probably their particular fascination), but it doesn't matter to me.

To me, it's just taking things a bit too far. What's next, sub-sub categories? A lot of us have spent all of our lives seeking answers, getting none, then finally, there's this thing called Asperger's that explains everything. What happens when you start subcategorizing and breaking it all down to specialized types? You end up with people who, yet again, don't fit.

Sorry, I've had enough of that already.

Again with the Logical vs. Emotional... yeesh.

Anyways, I see parts of myself in each one. I figured there should be different types of Aspies, but I don't know if this is the best division of them.

I suppose I'll have to go with Emotional, as apparently I tend to be more emotive compared to most Aspies, despite a few issues with empathy in social situations.

Aww! I feel your pain. I just thought this would be a fun interesting way to see how people are. I'm not trying to look at them as labels, but rather, I guess, I'm trying to find a way to express myself. <3 the avatar Mr.Xxx

Edit:

I fit these the most:

Logical:
* They like to know exactly what to expect, and they prefer to have the rules systematically spelled out for them.
* They often have difficulty getting past the analytical stage when completing tasks and assignments.
* The need for order and logical sequence can lead to frustration and intolerance for things that appear to be irrational.
* The logical type might resist following directions that don’t make sense.
Emotional:
*Many of their emotions might be difficult to control, and this can lead to anxiety and tension.
*Structure and order help to calm and organize this behavior.
Rules:
*If rules are not established, this type will make his or her own rules in order to understand and organize his or her surroundings.
annd sometimes These individuals need to have everything in its place, including their daily routines, but it's... sort of not necessary

Last edited by Kelpie on 18 Aug 2010, 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

These categories are stupid. There is huge overlap-- how are the rule and logical type even separate?

You know, I coulda swore I started a topic proposing the existence of multiple types of Asperger's, and just about everybody who responded did nothing but shout it down as rubbish. They chalked it up to different variables. Well I'm gonna say it again, I think there ARE different strains of AS! And I think as behavioral science gets a better handle on what it is, exactly, it'll be broken down further yet into more distinct diagnoses.

o_o I got myself in trouble again. I'm pretty bad at this stuff. Sorry I bothered.

I have Cataspergers

No, I'm just pissed that everybody seems receptive when you bring it up, but when I did they just disagreed all the way.

You can also be more than just a syndrome or disorder.

I'm a aries taurus cusp in the year of the rabbit. I have a practical hand shape. I have B RH+ Blood type. I have 7 occurring thru birth numerolgy to name number and other core numbers.

My face shape is XXX my body type is XXXX my ascedent is virgo my various houses of personality have................................................................................................................................................ I prefer comfortable shoes

Hope you don't think so with me. I don't mean to be negative about it. I'm sure it's a useful way to think about it for some. Just not for me.

I do think that sub categorizing anything can get a bit silly though. Whether or not it is, is up to the individual. But if subcategorization is taken to its ultimate extreme, we'll end up with over seven billion of them, each of which only one person falls into. Maybe that would be a good thing, because then no on would be left out, but then again, everyone would be in their own little subcategory, with no company at all. My point is subcategorizing taken to far can end up leaving some by the wayside, then you have to create more subcategories to include them.

I can think of another thread I started last night for which my own arguments here might be seen to counter what I said there.

Might have just gotten myself into some trouble.