i showed the wikipedia page about aspergers to people on another forum and these are some of the responses i got:
Anonymous 1 wrote:
These days we examine and classify everything to death. This "syndrome" just seems to be another way we try to justify ourselves.
Anonymous 1 wrote:
In the last 20 years, social activities have been on a decline in place of video games, television, computers/internet. Add in how social elite-ism has intensified, it's no wonder why a behavioral pattern like this would develope. Syndrome, no.
Anyone with this just needs some confidence and a kick in the pants.
Anonymous 2 wrote:
I still don't get what constitutes this being labelled a syndrome though. There are tons of behavioral patterns out there displayed by millions of people that wouldn't be considered a syndrome. Granted I didn't read the whole article, and there may or may not be something in there that tries to explain why scientists thought it was justified to call it a syndrome, Genetics predisposes us to a lot of particular behavior. Say someone had DNA that made them genetically very social and outgoing and they enjoyed other people's company. Not only that, but they share this characteristic with millions of other people, who also have DNA that makes them act that way. These people don't have a syndrome that makes them that way. They display a behavioral pattern of being extraverted. Where does one draw the line?
And you mention that before 1981, people with Aspergers were considered "ret*d." Not to be impolite, but how is declaring them not ret*d more than just a politically correct facade? ret*d literally means slowed down. That article says that people with Aspergers have late social/emotional development. That would mean they are literally socially ret*d. Sure we don't go around saying that now because it's not PC, but if this is actually a syndrome, it seems to me that would make peopl e with Aspergers ret*d. And I'm not trying to say this in a mean way, nor am I trying to degrade people with Aspergers or say that there's something wrong with having it...it just seems like people want to be able to say they have a syndrome, but don't want the negative stigma that might go along with it.
Additionally, what constitutes having Aspergers? Is it a mutated strand of DNA or missing/additional chromosome like some of the other symptoms out there? Or can anyone who has the old nerd qualities qualify and they just need some doctor to nod and say, "Sure, you have Aspergers" after interpretting what they said about an ink blot or two?
Anonymous 3 wrote:
Im going to have to agree with *Anonymous 1* here. Eventually we're going to have a "syndrome" to classify every persons specific personally type. It's just your experiences and attitude that make your personality, not a syndrome. But, like he said, in very little cases its probably a syndrome.
they seem to make some good points, but at the same time still seem ignorant about the whole idea of things.