Doctors are 'failing to spot Asperger in girls'

Post Reply New Topic

To be honest, I am unable to work up much enthusiasm for proving to anyone who would assume to the contrary in this context, that I am being honest.


So you know nothing of results that allowed all ASD subjects to be differentiated from non ASD subjects on the basis of visual acuity alone?


And what of this fact?

Do you mean that the absence of a biological test for something proves that no such test is ever possible? I find such an argument untenable because in terms of being extant, biological tests follow biological markers not the other way around.

Things that could be tested for using empirical biological tests with a very high degree of accuracy, are often not something that you can easily obtain a biological test for.

In other words, this whole line of arguing is another red herring in my view, as proving that there is evidence for biological markers does not require that one prove there are currently widely available and easily accessible biological tests based on those markers.
.
Actually I have not expressed any doubts about your diagnosis at all. I have stated that an AS diagnosis is not consistent with an absence of impairment in some species typical function/competency, which is entirely different from claiming any person with it will perceive themselves or construct narratives consistent with that.

I am not entirely convinced that biological testing is absolutely unavailable. I expect if you could travel and foot the bill, someone somewhere would test you and compare the results against evidence from research.

That's a big "if", and diagnostic error in relation to AS is an independent question.


And not diagnosed when they ought to have been because they did not present in accordance with "personality model" stereotypes? Hence why I am arguing against viewing AS as being about personality traits such as introversion.
Which actually undermines your view that it is about or should be about personality.

Absolutely not. On the contrary, I believe equating AS with personality is dangerous because it makes such diagnostic error all the more likely.

I expect many in the health profession view AS far too stereotypically as some kind of extreme personality (using entailing extreme introversion).
The "infallible" anything is not likely with humans being involved, and certainly is not the same standard met by existing biological tests for anything.

Presumably visual acuity is on a continuum. I don't imagine that there is a "natural" gap between those with "high" and those with "low" visual acuity which would provide a clear cut-off point between two groups.

Introversion/extraversion is also on a continuum, and of over 200 people on WP who completed the Myers-Briggs Jung Personality test during a three month period a year or so ago, 96% obtained an "introvert" score, and not only that but the vast majority of them were in just one of the 8 possible introvert "subgroups".

And there is a biological marker for introversion, which is the level of brain/neuronal activity at rest.

Introverts have a higher level of brain activity at rest than extraverts. It means that they will seek out/prefer, or function better in quiet/non-stimulating environments, whereas extraverts will seek out/prefer/function better in noisier more stimulating environments, because it helps to take their level of brain activity up to the optimum level for working at something.

Why are introverts, ( 96% of the population of AS on WP who took the test ), being grouped by a term indicating pathology or disorder, and not instead as a group of perfectly healthy individuals with particular needs, ( as extraverts have special needs, for noise and stimulation, in order to function well )? It is social bias/agenda which determines such things.

.

I know for the majority of WP user population AS and introversion is probably a very interesting topic. But being an extrovert myself beneath my AS traits, I am most curious how the theory about a connection of AS and introversion works would treat the few percent of autistic people who're extroverted?

I wonder, sometimes, if that's part of why it's a disability to me. I wonder if a need for stimulation, including social interaction but the inability to bear it or do it because one doesn't have the ability due to AS is a situation an introvert would expereince at all?

Do those introverts not really have the autistic symptoms but their introversion only makes it look so or do they have them too and their personality type just fits their abilities so that they never notice their potentially severely disabling nature?

That's a very good point. It makes me wonder how many, perhaps very few, people would actually be diagnosed with AS/disorder, ( ie: perhaps the increase in diagnosis is simply a sign of how extremely noisy etc etc society has become in recent decades ) if they screened out all the introverts, who are simply suffering from ( the lowered functioning resulting from ) being obliged to put up with a society catering to the needs of the 75% majority who are extraverts seeking/preferring stimulation in order to function.

.

That does seem to be the case, I agree with you on that. Could go some way to explain the underdiagnosis of females if the less knowledgable professionals are expecting AS to present only in a stereotypical "introverted male geek" way.



This is obviously a controversial area, but it seems a possibility. Especially when considering the shocking lack of knowledge of AS that some doctors display to WP posters.

One thing that I should correct from an earlier post, I was too harsh on the medical professional in general. I forgot one key therapist who first told me they didn't believe I had AS, but that I was of an introverted personality and that this is in no way a personality disorder. The medical profession is not at all united and "singing from the same hymn sheet", with respect to AS. Here's a quote from:
Misdiagnosis and dual diagnosis of Giften Children and Adults

"...clinicians too often apply the label [of Aspergers] to anyone who is socially awkward, has difficulties reading interpersonal cues, or simply seems aloof in social situations.....Aspergers is not an appropriate label for those who are simply awkward...in social settings."

We cannot be certain until the research has been replicated, preferably with a larger sample size, but based on the research results that we do have, every non-ASD subject tested had visual acuity within the widely accepted range of "normal human vision" and every ASD subject tested had visual acuity in excess of the widely accepted range of "normal human vision". So the results we do have indicate the potential to rely on the upper limit of what is currently widely accepted as "normal human vision".

Might I ask if you apply this same reasoning to fragile X and the biological test for that condition? In other words do you view fragile X as something that cannot be empirically tested for using a biological test, and/or that it might be a personality variation rather than a medical condition?

Either everyone with AS is introverted or AS is not introversion. The fact is if a single person who is not introverted has AS then AS is not a form of introversion, and introversion cannot explain AS.

As has already been pointed out, because for someone with AS, AS is part of their environment, we would predict that AS might have some influence on personality and so if AS were a medical condition rather than about personality, we would still predict that AS would be likely to influence peoples' personalities. So it's no mystery whatsoever that people with AS might as a group manifest particular personality characteristics more than is common outside the group.

If AS were medical, it is unlikely that this would not have some effect on personality formation, and thus it is unlikely that it would have no influence on the prevalence of one or more personality characteristics. However if AS were personality, or merely about personality (rather than a medical condition), there necessarily there would a 100% correlation between people with AS and this personality type or cluster. It really is that simple.

I find it astonishing that you or anyone else would actually give credence to an informal poll that is inherently biased in selection.

The fact is there are plenty of people who are introverted who do not have an AS diagnosis, do not need such a diagnosis and could not be appropriately given such a diagnosis. There are many people with an AS diagnosis, or struggling without an AS diagnosis where they could appropriately be diagnosed with AS, who are not introverted. This would not be the case if AS were inherently about introversion.
Which has never been shown to differentiate AS from non AS, which it could if AS were just introversion.


Whereas people with AS it would appear (based on research), have irregularities in the white matter of the right hemisphere of their brain.

Because AS causes pathological effects Ounion. Despite the fact that there is a wide spread stereotype of people with AS being introverted, and despite the fact that AS ought to influence personality formation to potentially produce greater prevalence of particular personality trends in-group as compared to out-group, there fails to be 100% correlation between AS and introversion and this is impossible if AS is introversion.

In all honesty, I do not find this notion that AS is a personality type any less dehumanizing than when people insist that ethnic traits and personality traits are one and the same. All AS are introverted is no better to me than all Asians are good at math, or all Jewish people want to be in the diamond trade. It is simply a reductionist denial of the unique individuality of the members of a group.

Unless someone can explain how AS can be introversion when there are plenty of introverts who cannot appropriately be diagnosed with AS, and plenty of non-introverts who can, I cannot see how AS can possibly be introversion or about introversion.

Then surely the same reasoning must apply to Fragile X? If 1 person with autism does not have fragile-X, then fragile-X cannot explain autism, can it?



In a public forum, opinion is acceptable. What I find amazing is that I can't find the scientific proof from the experts for whether Aspergers and Autism are "the same thing but on different parts of a spectrum" or whether they are "totally different things". And the exact relation between HFA and AS remains unclear.

Surely this needs to be clearly established once and for all so that we know whether research applies to Autism, Aspergers or both? Similarity of symptoms is clearly not enough as many conditions share symptoms.

The argument is not that ALL Aspergers are really introverts. It is that SOME Aspergers are introverts who have been misdiagnosed. I have little idea on the actual number, but there are professionals exploring this possibility.

... ... ... " "

.

I did not make any claim that fragile-X does explain autism.


What has "acceptable" got to do with anything? I would not personally be comfortable forming my opinion or indeed placing any particular credence at all on such, and am more than mildly surprised that others would.


I have no idea why you find that amazing. AS has been in the DSM less than 20 years. It takes time to build research capacity.

Is there some widespread debate about whether or not this is something that ought to clarified? I would not have thought such a thing was widely contested.


That is an entirely different argument altogether to what you appeared to be arguing at the outset and I wonder why you did not state this clearly earlier since it must have been clear to you that this was not something I necessarily disagreed with at all.


I do not know numbers either, although I suspect missed diagnosis misdiagnosis of someone who actually has an ASD, is more common than erroneous designation of someone without an ASD (as having an ASD).

[/quote]

Yes, I'll clarify that what I find amazing. It is the large number of professionals writing about AS/autism as if it has already been proven that they are on the same spectrum. It looks to me like a speculation that has become fact through repetition.

That is not really amazing though because they are on the same spectrum.


It is a fact.

The Autism Spectrum simply refers to conditions that are characterized by the Autistic triad of impairments, and both AS and Kanner type Autism are characterized by the Autistic triad of impairments. So as a matter of fact, they are both part of the same spectrum.

One doesn't need to exhibit all listed symptoms to be diagnosed, we are all unique.

Back to the original topic... Wish I had been diagnosed as a young girl, sadly the Brits were working on it long before it came to the US (1994) was too late for me. But am now very happy I know that I am an aspie and not a freak! *does a happy dance*

Moonnymph, I'm very glad you're happy but...it's not really a case of "Aspergers or Freak". We are what we are regardless of the ever changing labels that psychiatrists dream up.

So "The Autism Spectrum" is a human construct, defined by commitees of human beings. It has not been scientifically established through brain research. The Triad Of Impairments are not constructs in our brains, they are judgements of behaviour. Psychiatrists can simply redefine the criteria to *make* them share the same spectrum.

As the vast majority of Aspergers are introverted, we could just as simply juggle our definitions and our 'impairment lists' to put AS and Introversion on the same spectrum.

PS blindness is a spectrum too. It would not be at all helpful to refer to short sightedness as "Higher Functioning Blindness". Yet at the moment, this is the state of autism/AS research. Until there is some hard science backing up the claim that AS and autism are the same spectrum, this same mistake could be being made.

Exactly. Even worse, it makes most of their studies useful for little more than a Psychological Pub Quiz. Basically they don't have a clear, useful, group of people. The ideas underpinning the Triad of Impairments are very flawed and are often incorrect. We do not lack imagination ffs...

Bloody good point. Someone should point that out to the psychobabblists.

Of course it is. The issue is not whether or not the concept was one constructed by humans (I would hardly expect it to have been constructed by mice), but to what it extent it facilitates the efficient cognitive organization of reality.

I am not so certain of that. It was researchers (in particular Lorna Wing) who posited the spectrum concept, the DSM contents are decided by committee, but I would construe their role more as an acceptance/endorsement/recognition role than an a creative role.
Neither has fragile X, Down's Sydrome, Prada Willie Syndrome....the list could go on and on and on. It seems to me that you are very keen to posit standards not generally reached in medicine so you can point out AS research/knowledge does not meet these exceptional standards, as though this means something about AS in particular.
For instance you seem happy to accept that there are empirical biological tests with a very high degree of accuracy, for an illness caused by a seasonal flu virus, but apparently such tests cannot exist for AS unless you can get one just by walking into your GP's office and asking.

You also demand a 100% fail-proof biological test for AS, but there is no such test in medicine for any condition. I know someone who got a false positive result back for their daughter on a fragile X test, very distressing. No test in medicine is fool-proof. Nothing involving humans is fool proof.

No one has ever stated that there is a triad of constructs in our brains. Memory is not a construct in the brain either, but you do believe you can remember surely? What about amnesia? If there is no memory construct in the brain, can there be amnesia? I know of no amnesia construct in the brain.


And if it useful and productive to do so in response to new information/evidence/better ideas, then this is what they ought to do.

Keep in mind that "gravity" is a human construct, it has no known location, and can only be observed by its effects, but most people do not struggle to believe that it is a real phenomena.


For what purpose? On the basis of what evidence? What would this concept describe? We already have a construction to describe introversion. We call it "introversion".

High functioning, correctable vision impairment would not be inappropriate. Furthermore, if we did choose to refer to short-sightedness as high functioning blindness, would this mean that vision impairment is just a human construct, rather than a human construct that usefully helps us to organize reality cognitively.

What is the state of Autism/AS research?
Might I ask why you fancy that the state of research actually proves anything about the reality of some condition or other? In your opinion, did AIDS not exist prior to our discovery of the virus responsible? Why were we looking for such a thing in the first place if it did not exist before we "discovered" it?

They are on the same spectrum. If you mistake this for meaning they are the same condition, or have the same cause or anything other than that there is a concept of a spectrum whereby any condition with particular features is categorized on that spectrum, then you frankly do not understand the concept. You might as well ask for scientific evidence that someone's house, in which they happen to live, is their "home".

I am confused as to what you might think is meant by the "spectrum" or what you imagine it is supposed to be, to make the kind of objections you are making.

Spectrum definition: A range of values of a quantity or set of related quantities

So according to DSM IV, autism and aspergers are NOT on the same spectrum as the have there own, uniques defintions as 2 different disorders. Aspergers is not defined, in DSM IV, in terms of a "difference in the level of impairment of the attributes of autism".

"In contrast to Autistic Disorder, there are no clinically significant delays or deviances in language acquisition (e.g., single non-echoed words are used communicatively by age 2 years, and spontaneous communicative phrases are used by age 3 years)...although more subtle aspects of social communication (e.g., typical give and take in conversation) may be affected. "

I'll pre-empt the obvious response that I'm now using the DSM-IV criteria to demonstrate a point, when elsewhere I clearly believe them to be total psychobabble.