The autism spectrum is a partial lie

Post Reply New Topic

I tried telling them not to go on talking about agression but they derailed it :/

Also this is a step in the right direction but I don't think they do it clearly enough. THere's still this spectrum and it doesn't make sense.

Er sorry, but we were discussing 'the spectrum' in this case violent aspies, who may be as SF suggests co-morbid mixes of other personality types. On the hand you might get totally atruistic aspies and this will cause them problems as well when they start sharing their homes with homeless people and giving stuff away. Some of us have been having a long conversation with an aspie who is a proto aspie supremicist and I guess he is on the another part of the colour wheel ( 360 spectrum representation) which is why we resurected Konrad Lorenz. Who incidently tends to think above classification systems- he calls psychology a "soft science."

All these traits are 'disinguishable' when certain theories or approaches are applied to understanding them.

So one relevant question is , how valid are these disinguishable classifcation systems?

Is a violent aspie different from a violent non aspie - will she he have and give different reasons for the same behavioral traits?- what are the measurable consitent differences that emerge from studying this area?

If measurable difference exists , does this add validity to the personality type /psychological classification systems, or not.

Meme

My personal belief is that a non-violent aspie, violent aspie, altruistic aspie aren't on a different part of a spectrum because the spectrum doesn't exist. instead there are a number of different psychological problems, comorbidities, which are sort of ignored in favour of a one size fits all spectrum because the spectrum simply deals with the difficulty of each case to other people, not what the person actually has. Take the anology of a group of boxes, each of which have the name of a neurological or psychological disorder next to them. When people say a person is further down the autistic spectrum, the truth to me is that they are ticking off more of these boxes on top of what I have, which is your bog-standard smartassperger's. The second point I made was that people with asperger's are being let down by psychological problems caused by an unpleasant upbrining and otherwise they would be fine and that furthermore this whole spiel about them having a syndrome is a load of hooey because without psychological issues brought about by a bad childhood they're just as damned capable as anyone else.

Just as the spectrum of autism is too generalized yet is based on similarities I think your explanation as far as impairment and psychological development is simply not subjective enough. While poor experienced growing up certain does not help anything hardwired difficulties such as sensory integration, executive functioning and so on are not so much impacted by psychological developmental. Positivity does sure enhance outcomes but ultimately there is a need for understanding the underlining difficulties beyond that of psychological influences that are not always the greatest.

The arguments seem more like a pride strategy attempting to make autism into that great thing. I'd agree that some people just don't need to be labeled because they seem to do just fine. Reasonably blaiming parents is simply an old strategy in discourse when autism itself is clearly a disability.

I was not aware I was being close minded maybe I just did not quite understand what you where getting at....but I have looked at the DSM criteria for Autism and AS and it seems quite well defined there and has specific lists of symptoms. So I was just kind of thinking maybe a lot of people are rather mis-informed and basing their opinion on the wrong information. And it kind of is a spectrum.....as there are different forms for instance regular autism and aspergers syndrome. Things like dyslexia, depression, anxiety or other issues someone might have are not part of the spectrum.....so should not be lumped together with it.

Sometimes it seems others are ashamed of the image of autism and themselves. Like for instance depression. Someone not doing well socially because of autism then develops depression. Also anxiety and new changes or transitions. Especially with the anxiety it seems to go hand in hand if one has more difficulty with one symptom which can have psychological and emotional manifestations.

I was going to reply last night but we had a manic day repairing a house and went shopping and bought beer and chilled. We don't usually have manic days it was just the way it panned out. I tempted to say evolution has a tendancy to scatter traits where it will , it's part of the selection process.

Some aspies will be born into families which can funtion more positively than others. I guess this is a question of how much the families differing levels functionality is created by gentic predisposition and how much by circumstance. For some aspies family life will be positive, for some bearable , for some pretty bad. Yes there is going to be a degree of inherited traits that determine the quality of family life, but there is also the random and this can lead to families dealing with those traits or not. Depends on how much you rate free will and the ability to extricate oneself and the people you love from genetic influences, and how much the rest of your family is inclined to do this as well.

So you could argue like Gedrene there is a spectrum of familes, once we can figure a way of measuring and representing the spectrum if it is a useful conceptual tool to develop, but it it's only part of the equation.

The other side of the eqation, is the hardwired neurology of the aspie and to an extent their physical abilities (especially if you are tradespeople) living in that family . We cant' ignore this because we have just shown families to an extent are a product of differing genetic predispositions . So we are at the other end of the argument now ie there is a spectrum of families. If we accept the spectrum of familes approach, there has to be a spectrum of individuals making up those families and one classifcation that makes sense in that context is autistic.

So in here is somewhere is a complex formula measuring social and genetic influences giving rise to varying levels of functionality which could be expressed if anyone wants to formulate it. Even if anyone did it, would only be a crude rule of thumb, not a full understanding of the processes involved and the human experience of family life.

Blaming a specific family is as much use as blaming an individual if you consider it an organic unit. You can't yell at a family "stop being dysfunctional", any more than you can yell at a child "stop being so autistic".

One last point , there is a conduct rule in some converstation that it is not so cool to say "hey my family is functional and positive", well to a geater extent mine is, and it does the magic trick of creating more than the sum of its parts. Until a family has a mutual task to solve you never get to see the "cluster-fusing" of minds working as team to solve a collective problem and it's like one unit getting stuck in and going to work. I worked damned hard to get us to and keep us in this state, like the other team members did .

Yes there is a spectrum of families, some more functional than others. To an extent evolution scatters across this spectrum where it will.-Evolution's playing an old game, it's playing blind , and in sucessive each generation it wants to replace and shuffle the fullest deck of cards it can.

Depnding onwhich way you lok at it the idea of spectrum is a partial relevant truth in this stage of the game.


Meme

Well those criteria seem to cover a large number of factors that can be either true or not true. That is not exact enough. What I am saying is that various syndromes and disorders are lumped together with autism when dealing with low functioning patients because people just see more of the factors ticked off on the criteria and look to find different disorders.

It's like people are looking at a bolognese but are ignoring that this used to be a set of different ingredients. I hate the word autistic too. It was how a swiss scientist referred to self-admiration in schizophrenics. It's insulting.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/No_single_c ... _id=271607

YEAAAAH!
No one cause!
Related but not the same disorders!
Together ranging from increased to decreased severity!

Well in the DSM it does not cover a large number of factors that are true or not true......it has different catagories of symptoms and depending on the catagory you need 1 or maybe two of the symptoms and if you have at least on or more if specifified symptoms you can be diagnosed. I guess I just don't know who these people who are trying to lump other disorders under autism are? are they same people that think things like autism means ret*d? and everyone is entitled to their opinion but what would you prefer it to be called if not autism?

That's just a different way of saying what I said. These different factors can be true or not true for each patient mataphorically speaking. They are also general factors if you thinka bout them that are symptomatic and together do not suggest one underlying cause that varies in severity.


I was saying about members in the scientific community that speak about autism as being one monolithic spectrum. It doesn't make sense. I do hold some ire for those whom call it retardation, but the current diagnostic I feel is also incorrect. The not calling it autism thing is a seperate issue.

I don't like the word autism. It suggests schizophrenia and self-interest. But if anything we're not schizophrenic. Self-absorbtion is the first thing I would think of as a schizophrenic. We on the other hand seem to want guidance on things that most people only infer from their environment through experience. It explains not only our social deficiencies if we grew up in an environment that did not fulfill this need but it also shows how some of us can have outstanding interest in one area, by latching on to interesting and understandable concepts and pursuing them further where all other things seem pale in comparison, because we didn't catch a hold of them the same way.

You are right that they do not suggest an underlying cause......but keep in mind that is how it is with most mental disorders or conditions they have an idea of what some of the factors that could cause it are but nothing very specific.

And I guess I can kinda see what you dislike about the word, not sure quite how it suggest scizophrenia.......maybe the part about some people with autism seeming to have kind of their own world. But yeah most terms for mental disorders come from people who do not have these disorders themselves so its baised towards how people with the disorders come off to them rather then how the people with them actually feel. Like I know I can come off as self centered but I am not really a selfish person its just hard for me to express how I feel about people and such. So maybe the term autism does not take that sort of thing into consideration.

To me you seem to have taken other people's words and ideas to heart too far. You are being to trusting in their words. However, from my point of view you are showing a lot of consideration for me because you were taking time to ask what I was actually saying in a way that made sense to you. We are empathetic and considerate. We just have different signs. Nearly every one of us thinks that the most capable of our kind have a difference, not a deficiency, but at the same time some of us believe we have some form of this 'autism' because everyone tells us we do. The only failing we have is in being too trusting in the opinions of a people who are often untrusting, culturally impulsive and unpleasant when desperate.

Well I know what they say about that is not really true, but it can still be hard to deal with when you know what kind of person you are and others get the totally wrong idea and attack you for it. I feel like the AS explains some of the problems I have like difficulties with social skills but there are also some positive things. But yeah to me the fact that there are so many disorders and such says to me that maybe the real issue is with society......I mean why is not functioning well in this society a disorder? not sure where you live but in the U.S even a lot of NTs do not want to conform to the ridiculous society. I guess there are two sides to everything though....some NTs do want to conform, some people with autism or other mental conditions want to conform to being more normal or functional in society and some don't. I am kinda getting off topic I guess but I see it kind of like the whole weight thing, so many people are striving to have a skinny 'perfect' body because society says skinny is the way to be....same with how it seems people think the best way to treat things like autism is to train the person to resemble what society sees as a normal member of society.

Society needs a cure too but so does autism when people choose.

Well it might not have a cure...but yes people who would like to decrease some not so pleasent symptoms of autism should have every right to. But still if a lot of people are suffering from things like anxiety and depression for instance what is to say the way society is set up is not part of the problem?