Stop with the Autism Supremacy!

Post Reply New Topic

I've never had difficulty discussing things with aghogday in the past. Generally speaking, we've gotten along well in discussions (I think!) even when we disagree.



I do not know if this difference is quite that profound, and since the language delay itself is not required for a diagnosis of autism, and that most people diagnosed with AS and PDD-NOS meet the criteria under the same category due to communication difficulties or unusual play, I don't really agree that the dividing line is all that sharp.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say there is no difference between having a language delay and not having one - just that the criteria themselves don't require it, and someone who might otherwise be diagnosed as AS probably fits the autism criteria via one of the other three criteria in that category.



I don't really think it is a separate disorder from autism (nor, for that matter, do I think PDD-NOS represents a separate disorder or cluster of disorders from autism or AS). But even within that category, you can find a lot of research and discussion about how difficult it is to find a strong distinction between AS and HFA (autism). This lack of a definitive border is one of the reasons all diagnoses are being collapsed into ASD in the DSM-V.

As far as it goes, people who are pretty severe can be diagnosed with AS (and some of them are later rediagnosed with autism). I can immediately think of at least three on this forum who fit this. At least two more who were diagnosed with AS and rediagnosed with PDD-NOS. While it seems the idealized visualization of AS is that people diagnosed with it are milder than people diagnosed with autism, what happens is that both overlap a lot in the "HFA" category and most people diagnosed with AS could be diagnosed with autism as I understand it, or at least diagnosed with PDD-NOS because they fit the autism criteria, but may not have available history to support the autism diagnosis itself.



Callista posted the name of the study and its findings in one of the "Aspies are geniuses" threads. I will try to dig it up for you, as I think it is an interesting bit of information. For the IQ test.

For the one regarding the assumption that most LFA are intellectually delayed, I should be able to dig that up right about now:

http://foa.sagepub.com/content/21/2/66.abstract

The PDF with the full study is free.



Right, but this doesn't necessarily mean lower intelligence. People assumed Carly Fleischmann was in the intellectually delayed range, but when she was able to communicate, it became clear she was much more intelligent than they suspected. Using IQ tests designed for verbal neurotypicals cannot possibly provide realistic IQ scores for nonverbal autistic individuals, and is even problematic with verbal autistic individuals.



Sadly, there's really not much research supporting the idea that nonverbal/"low-functioning" = 80% likely to be intellectually delayed. A lot of it, apparently, was taken at face value from IQ test results. So much science about autism is like this, too, going all the way back to Kanner and Asperger.

I mean look at Stephen Hawking. He is the smartest man in the world but if his IQ were based on his ability to verbally communicate without his augmented communication device, he would be considered a ret*d.

I've never had difficulty discussing things with aghogday in the past. Generally speaking, we've gotten along well in discussions (I think!) even when we disagree.

I'm much in agreement with most of what you are saying here about opinions on how people view autism vs current diagnosistic procedures, and it is a good reason why there is change planned for the future in this respect. My comments were based on current objective diagnostic procedure, and research as it is understood at this point, it doesn't necessarily reflect my personal opinion.

Thanks. I will say in my opinion that current diagnostic procedures are actually subjective, no matter how many tools one brings to bear to measure behaviors or outline history, it still comes down to someone's judgment as to how to diagnose.

That isn't what I said Verdandi. I said he takes evidence at face value without criticizing the methodology, not that I have had difficulty discussing anything.

We have the medical establishment to blame because they refuse to give up using the R word. By definition the medical establishment defines mental retardation as any kind of language impairment or delay. So the medical establishment finds it perfectly acceptable to diagnose someone with Autism as mentally ret*d or impaired.

Just remember people with cognitive impairment should be respected as well. Referring to people as the R-word is highly disrespectful and people are people first and not labels. Another reasons why I don't like to be called Autistic is it's using that disorder word in place of who I actually am over that of a disorder label.

It is not the r word......you cannot very well diagnose someone with mental R-word-ation, I do agree that the stigma attatched to the word has got to go. So what some people are mentally ret*d, they did not choose to be that way they are and certianly do not deserve to be hated or mis-treated for it. But calling it the r word does not help just gives into the idea that there is something innappropriate about the word ret*d(it really basically means slow in basic terms, which would make sense considering the symptoms of the disorder like slow mental development or maybe even development that largely stops at a certain age...They also use fire 'retardant' to try to get control of forest fires or to slow it down, and I think there are a couple terms in music that have the word ret*d in them in reference to parts of a song where you are supposed to slow down). So yeah I get your frustration but the word in itself is not an insult towards anything.

It is forgivable and reasonable at times to confuse human context with objects such as fire retardant and musical instruments. However like the N word the R word has been used for hate. Beyond this to refer to a person as simply a R word is inhuman. In the context in which we speak it was considered an insult to be associated with the likes whom experience substantial cognitive differences. It to me cannot be brushed aside as simply the same as non-aware objects rather then human people.

Likewise the N word was once much more innocent then what it has evolved to today. Why would anyone want to be called a disorder anyways rather then simply human. My personal view and choice is not to like to be called the A word for instance. It represents a disorder classification when I am much more then a disorder, I am an individual beyond these stereotypical classifications to receive help.

"They also use fire 'retardant' to try to get control of forest fires or to slow it down, and I think there are a couple terms in music that have the word ret*d in them in reference to parts of a song where you are supposed to slow down)."

It's not bad but there is a difference between a substance designed to slow fire for instance and a human being who is different. Calling people by a diagnoses to me is inappropriate. Whether it is an R word or the A word. It's called the people first movement and I'm not the only person who prefers to be a person first rather then some clinical term.

You don't seem to have got my point...I was further explaining how the word is used and its meaning. in the dictionary it does not say the term ret*d=human who is different. I am not saying call someone depressed, ret*d, autistic or anything else as if it is their name......but the label does apply. someone can have depression, mental retardation, autism and other things that does not mean they ARE those things.

And uhh everyone who is human is a person...but there are catagories of people, and in the case of mental conditions the labels help people receive the help they need. Well actually it is hard not to apply the term person to certain animals....my friends dog means just as much to me as my friend does.

I think there is a big difference between referring to autistic disorder and calling myself the disorder like hey that's <a disorder> an autistic. Likewise there is a big difference in human respect by understanding someone has cognitive impairment as opposed to referring to them an R word. It's what others don't like as well as myself and the point of my reply to that poster was he was calling others R*T**ds. People are not unaware objects but are aware people and this is common sense. The idea that there are other unaware things called R words is simply not an effective argument given the context of this conversation and I think works in favor of what you agree with which is respecting other people.

Congress eliminates the R-word

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/2 ... he-r-word/


Bill Text Versions
111th Congress (2009-2010)
S.2781
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.2781: