[Asperger's] - Information Inconsistancy

Post Reply New Topic

Let me preface by saying that in no way is this an attack but rather an attempt at gaining a better understanding. Yes I have heard the cliche saying-that-should-be-famous-by-now 'If you have met one person on the spectrum, you have met one person on the spectrum', but that does not automatically allow the foregoing of inconsistencies in the manner that I will describe. In other words, yes I have strongly considered personal differences and most other things that would cause me to think this way and don't need to be informed that 'everyone is different' or something of the like.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm beginning to become extremely irritated due to the immense lack of consistency concerning information that I read and of the so called 'facts' regarding ASDs. Every day I research the spectrum and/or think about it almost incessantly, and have been doing so for several months. I'm finding it EXTREMELY hard to develop a legitimate, factual understanding of Asperger's in particular as I constantly read/discover (refer to side note) information that almost completely contradicts something I have previously read or thought to have been true (constant cognitive dissonance). The hardest part of this for me is that the majority of the time, contradicting information I get is from people that are actually on the spectrum (yes I always double check to make sure), and sometimes they are from this forum. I'll provide examples below that may need extrapolating on or clarifying in further posts.

I'm not sure to what extent this is true, but aren't people with Asperger's very logical, factual and exact? Why is it that I frequently read through 'factual information' based purely on personal experience and emotion with an obviously underlying lack of concern for information that holds a solid foundation? I can't describe it properly, but it essentially disregards the apparent nature of someone on the spectrum. Perhaps sometimes whoever posts something in that manner lacks cognitive empathy or theory of mind etc, but that does not mean they should be unaware of the fact that others think differently if they have been informed so with a multitude of experiences to back that up. I honestly struggle to comprehend how someone could dismiss a claim based on what they personally believe or perceive to be correct with very little to no evidence to back it up, particularly if they are on the higher end of the spectrum. A bad (haven't seen this exact one before) example, but I'll read through material that conveys that 'People with Asperger's are capable of imitation' only to discover a post on the forum that indicates otherwise.. that people with Asperger's are neurologically unable to imitate others. The problem isn't what is said, it is that it is posted as a fact when it clearly is not. A potential compounding problem of course being that those on the spectrum are supposedly not prone to such things. This could seem like a never ending cycle, but in essence that is what confuses me. Everything contradicts everything, and then that contradiction later contradicts itself due to another contradiction and the world explodes because nothing makes sense! (This part is a joke, but still valid in a way.)

I can filter out the information I see less and what-not, perhaps presuming it to be less accurate, but it still sticks in my mind. There is a TON more I could say but it's hard to describe without making it illegible. I have barely even begun to scrape on this issue, nor have I explained what I actually think right now outside of it. I hope that if you read this you can understand what I mean.

Thoughts? Are there any pages with ACTUAL factual information?


--------------------------------------

SIDE NOTE - I underlined 'discover' in the first paragraph to refer to it here, as any additional information in that section would have made the structure increasingly sloppy: An example of 'discovering' information could be my viewing of an act or behaviour performed by someone on the spectrum that logically defies much of what I have read, causing me great confusion.

--------------------------------------

Yep. it's almost as if someone put some fake positive diagnostic criteria in there, so we'd feel better about the diagnosis, isn't it. I really don't think that is the case, though.

Last edited by Stannis on 22 Jan 2014, 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

There are many bad inductivists.
Some aspies think that being an aspie make them experts in ASD.
Posts don't usually have references.
References don't usually link to objective information but blogs.

I think the main problem is that most of the available information about ASD is written by people who are not on the spectrum themselves (beginning with the diagnostic manuals). On the other hand, those who are on the spectrum may indeed tend to think that everyone has the same symptoms in the same severity as them. Both of this seems to cause a lot of confusion, but this may be unavoidable. As someone who's diagnosed with Asperger's, my starting point is my own experience, while a non-autistic expert will start from observation of (hopefully) a wide variety of persons on the spectrum. You may think of my approach as less logical, more anecdotal, but I might counter that arguably objective clinical study of however many subjects lacks the depth that I have gained from studying myself for decades. Keep in mind, though, that many of us (particularly those diagnosed as adults) have never met anyone else who's on the spectrum in person ... Then again, scientific study has to start from certain questions that a researcher hopes to answer. The questions may taint the results and lead to misinformation if a non-autistic researcher starts from wrong assumptions (as they are bound to do because of the inconsistency of the information available to them). So you see why there can ultimately be no "solid foundation" for any information about ASD. But I agree, it is very frustrating.

I agree with Aspendos. I also think that Autism Spectrum is still relatively newly discovered as far as disorders go so there is still much that we are learning about it and a lot of the stereotypes of the past are being shown to be wrong. But people do speak and share from their own personal experiences so we have to be careful not to invalidate what others feel and experience because of stereotypes. And I don't know if people on the Spectrum necessarily feel like they are experts just because they are on the Spectrum. I know I am not an expert and I learn new things every single day. But perhaps some might feel that way but I think most people don't. But when people do post or blog it is from their individual understanding and life experience so there is much validity in that regard.

http://www.mugsy.org/wing2.htm

Other than the current diagnostic criteria, that's all you need.

A few more things to consider: Information you find online or in books may be addressed at different target audiences, i.e. non-autistic parents may prefer information from other non-autistics, such as other parents or medical experts, while those of us on the spectrum may prefer information from others in the same situation. Also, information may differ because of the point of view the writer takes on autism. Someone who thinks of it as something to be cured will stress other aspects than self-advocates who see it as a neurological difference that is equally valid and should be valued. Along the same lines, some information may be provided by organizations that benefit financially from stressing certain aspects over others, i.e. parents' charities that seek to raise funding to eradicate autism. Thirdly, information will vary depending on whether it relates to children or adults as symptoms change with age.

The Lorna Wing article linked to by Dillogic is from 1981 - that's 33 years! It stands to reason that our knowledge has advanced since then ...

Well, as far as Asperger's goes, that's about as current and accurate as you can get. Everything is just a rehash of it (which itself is a rehash and redo of Hans' paper).

Now, if "ASD" is what you're looking for, just read the DSM-V and its expanded text.

I don't think WIng's piece will really answer the OP's questions unless you combine them with a lot of explanatory notes.

By this I mean to say, a person reading that will tend to interpret it according to their preconceptions and this may result in an incomplete or misleading sense of the meaning.

Looking at the descriptive section, for example, we can find this passage under "speech;"

But if we bold all the qualifying words, we get:

You will find many who would disagree with the unqualified statement "Subtle verbal jokes are not understood." Though I suspect no disagreement with another unqualified statement--the content of speech is abnormal, it's one of the things that sets us apart. There is one more definite statement: a full command of grammar is sooner or later acquired.

The rest is all qualified by "may," "often," "sometimes" or "tending" -- nothing definite, no yes/no checklist.

If you look through the rest of the descriptions, they are almost all qualified in the same way.

So if you ask: do people on the spectrum appreciate verbal jokes? The answer will not satisfy the need for clear cut certainty discussed in the OP.

I understand your frustration. I am a mother of a child with Aspergers and when we first got the diagnosis I read everything I could find - both online and in print - a lot of stuff contradicts each other, there is a lot that is anecdotal and opinion.

If you are looking for factual information only then I would suggest finding a couple of authoritative websites and sticking with those only. I learned this as a freelance writer that not all online sites are created equal - those that end in .gov or .edu are going to be the most factually accurate (though not necessarily the most recent) Sites ending in .org and .net are next in line for authority as these are organizations that specialize in a particular subject. .com sites are the least authoritative because they are commercial sites.

You can do a google search to find only the sites ending in .gov or .edu by typing in Site:.edu after your search word - for example

Autism site:.edu

This will pull up educational sites on autism.

I hope you find this helpful.

If you want to get the most accurate up to date information, then you should do a subsurvey of the scientific literature on topic X, and from hundreds of papers with different, sometimes conflicting, results, draw a conclusion about what are the current leading idears on that topic, then keep updated as new papers are published and adjust your thinking as required.

The anecdotal information from wp posters is going to be inconsistent with each other, because eberryone has different eggsperiences and interpretations, even if they have similar traits. And this true of blogs too, and often blogs are opinion pieces rather than educating on what is known on a topic. The rest of the information is on big and small websites and often are lists of traits like the list of female traits and the list comparing gifted nt vs. gifted as. Unless those lists have big list of references at the bottom, and the individual items are sourced from multiple references, they are not to be relied on for accurate up to date information. Usually, it's one person's interpretation of what he or she researched about a topic, and the level of research and interpretation are not always high.

Last edited by btbnnyr on 22 Jan 2014, 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Will discuss more tomorrow as it's 5AM here and I'm about to sleep.

I'm going to be a psychology/psychiatrist when I'm older and I'm going to specialize strongly in the Autism Spectrum. Maybe I'll do that then.



What is this obsession with 'Verry Berry Merry and 'egg'speriences?' XD

The very berry smoothie at Costco is my favorite drink, but I call it verry merry berry to be 3 words my favorite number and spelled consistently to satisfy my need for consistency.

Eggs are my favorite food, they are so delicious, I put them eberrywhere to eat them imaginarily without getting my arteries clogged with too much cholesterol.

I read through all these posts, and spent some time thinking about it. What I hear/read was that people are trying to find meaning. Which makes sense given the umpteen million (exaggeration) threads similar to this one on this site. I am just as guilty of doing it as the other 7+ billion people on the planet.

I like concrete answers myself, and the answer for autism is a huge resounding, "I don't know." from every which way you look at it. There are plenty of educated guesses, but that is the bottom line, no one knows. That is why millions are spent each year in research of the matter. As well as why you find so many conflicting answers.

That said the only answer that will be "correct" is the one you decide fits best for you. In other words, quit trying to find meaning and give it meaning.


You have to use your tenacity and define what autism means for you. Some people want to see it as a curse brought on them like the plagues, others find it to be a blessing that they use it's characteristics to their betterment. It's your choice, you can either become a grouch and miserable or you can be happy with who you are and thrive.

That isn't to say you won't have bad days, everyone does autistic or not, that you won't have misunderstandings or that you won't fail, you will, it's life after all with no guarantees. But you can make the conscious choice as to how you want to live it. No website, book, or topic thread can tell you how to do that, because each person is unique and each experience is of your own.

So make a choice do you want to be miserable or would you like to have a happy life? Then do things that promote that choice. It will be hard, not even going to pretend that it won't, but you can use what you have learned and continue to learn to better yourself, just by giving it meaning for yourself. Don't worry about what others think or say. That's their problem not yours.

All of you are old enough to say what works for you and what doesn't. If going to walmart on a friday afternoon is a bad idea then don't go. If you are comfortable wearing the same clothes 3 days in a row (I am guilty of this) then wear them 3 days in a row. If you like to spend time building lego spaceships then build lego spaceships. If anyone has a problem with it (besides things that are really unhealthy like hitting your head into walls until you bleed) tell them that you appreciate their concern, but you are content with what you are doing.

If something doesn't work for you and you want to change it then by all means, but don't let a definition define who and what you are. No matter how well intentioned. Leave the labels to the people who use them to help you, not the ones that would like to degrade you and certainly not for yourself to define you.

I am so glad you explained this because I was wondering why you write that way too. I am glad you can enjoy your favorite drink and food in a very merry berry creative way. That is truly eggscellent!

Well said Kicker. I really like what you wrote.