The OP says just the right thing, in my view. People who ascribe themselves this syndrome are leaning on a crutch that will fail them. There is undoubtedly a medical mafia that has vested interests here. Let's just get over this fad for attributing syndromes here there and everywhere, as soon as possible, and revert to being human beings.
I am essentially saying all this in my post in the members' only forum:
'I have some strongly held convictions to express.
First, may I put a suggestion that any medical institutions distance themselves from any 'professional's' opinion that Newton, or anyone else who is not alive to undergo the standard assessment for the condition, had Asperger's syndrome. The reasons are explained in this post.
Second, may I advise you on how the medical profession's method of developing awareness about Asperger's Syndrome is being abused, in sites such as this:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/ ... mbles.html
(the link to Asperger's Syndrome takes no, or just a little, scrolling) which is designed to intimidate people who comment on the newsgroup sci.physics.relativity from contradicting Einstein's theory of relativity. Someone in the medical profession might also want to take the issue up with Google, on whose directory it is to be found usually as the first entry (by the design of the website administrator, Dirk van De Moortel) for a Google search under the name of any individual who features on this page.
There is anger of a different kind in this post, however. Don't take this post the wrong way, as I am aware that there are some very well-meaning people working in this area, and those reading this post probably aren't those whom it *really* ought to reach, and I am also aware that there is a lot of good and well-researched help in this field for people who genuinely benefit from it. But there is also an aspect that is not as it should be.
To begin, those who have been diagnosed with AS, I request that you to ask yourselves: do you *really* have any syndrome at all? (NB I don't immediately reject that some may justly be deemed as having a syndrome of some kind, incidentally; I'm just suggesing that people question the veracity of their diagnosis; I have my doubts as to whether the AS diagnosis would, for all cases, hold under close scrutiny.)
I myself was given, by one of the few, top international experts at the time (early/mid 1990's), who was a well-meaning type based at the Maudsley Institute, a medical opinion based on a conversation at that doctor's home and on notes from the regional psychologist who had referred me, and a National Health IQ test profile, and one or two other conversations, that I *had* this syndrome (was told that the psychologist was '99% certain', though the standard assessment that would been immensely expensive and had, for various unconnected reasons, not been undertaken). Incidentally, I notice the syndrome is otherwise considered, in medical terminology, a disorder; this is a term that is deployed in many areas of psychology, invariably, I have to say, rather arrogantly - take those creative people who, because of the naturally diverse nature of their mind, find it very hard to concentrate at school and are consequently told they have Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, and need medication; it is frankly rather patronizing.
While I know the doctor who gave me the opinion to have been far from incompetent, and apportion no personal blame, I subsequently learnt that this condition, AS, is characterized by restricted, stereotypical and repetitive patterns of behavour, as a reflection of the innate makeup of the subject. Well, at the risk of sounding as though I flatter myself (and I trust I will not be taken the wrong way in what follows) I can confidently inform the psychologists that I would be described by many as being at the extreme creative end of the spectrum of mental faculties, as is evidenced in my having ventured into manifold areas of writing (I specialized in comedy), not to mention art (I went to art college, and have made a living out of art), professional cartooning, acting and music (composing and performing); I have also been a travel writer (and have undertaken diverse activities in diverse parts of the world), I have even dabbled in being an inventor, interacting with intentors' agents, I am interested in as broad a range of intellectual interests as anyone I know (I am a published philosopher, in metaphysics - a field of insight that doesn't get any broader). I have always revelled in my ability to 'switch on' a way of making people laugh by way of ad-hoc eccentricity, mimicry or more general forms of comic behaviour; I have been considered a teacher and a listener; I have also engendered a reciprocal warmth with people around me, in many different circumstances (at work, at college, among friends etc.). I am essentially (and honestly without bragging) versatile, on account of a strong sense of empathy - an ability to project myself into the mind of others, as if sympathetically, and with reference to my very broad range of interests. That is surely the *opposite* of the one who has AS. Not that a bit of picking and choosing of the 'symptoms' couldn't, in the hands of some (and, I stress, not all!), cure that lack of any medical condition of mine; anything, I mean *anything* is possible in the medical profession (death-by-GP, profiteering out of widespead and unnecessary suffering, you name it, it's going on at this very moment! - but let's not get into that)....
Incidentally, when I reported the (unofficial) medical opinion that I had AS to my parents, it caused absolute hell in my family - but I shan't expand, here.
Doubtless, had I had the assessment for AS, I would have been assessed as having 'borderline symptoms', as I suspect would many who are very highly creative and intellectual to boot (like Newton for example, who like me was inevitably to be a 'misunderstood' type to person). This eventuality had been suggested to me as a probable outcome for my case by one of other forefront experts at the Maudsley. I do not immediately disrespect this doctor for the suggestion, but I am left asking myself, what kind of *syndrome* has *borderline* symptoms? Just about anything and everything in our psychological makeup is borderline anything and everything else. I don't doubt there may be bona fide syndromes, but think the waters are really rather muddy around Asperger's, which was long regarded as having limited value in terms of what one may classify medically.
When I inquired on phone helplines about dyslexia (to go off on a slight tangent, I regret), as for a time I thought I might be dyslexic, having always had difficulty reading (again, something that I now attributable to having a nonlinear, diverse, creative, as opposed to focused mind), one of the medical doctors told me it sounded as though I might be a 'borderline' case, while the chair of one of the associations, who was not qualified medically at all but was dyslexic, refuted this notion simply with the statement that 'this is nonsense - either you have it or you don't'. A sentiment applicable to all syndromes, by definition, I imagine.
When when I read this:
'Baron-Cohen, who is based at Cambridge University, and mathematician Ioan James of Oxford University assessed the personality traits of Newton to see if he exhibited three key symptoms of Asperger syndrome: obsessive interests, difficulty in social relationships, and problems communicating. Newton seems like a classic case'
I had precisely the same feeling of rage as when I heard the ludicrous, 'pop' psychology, vested-interest-in-self-promotion claim that Mozart was a classic case of that rare and physically (in terms of involuntary bodily actions) dramatic condition, Tourette's syndrome, simply because he swore a lot! No acquaintance of Mozart has to my knowledge (and I have read a fair bit about his life) reported any other of the symptoms in any determinably evidential phrasing, but that is now the popular view: Mozart had Tourette's. And now it's that Newton had Asperger's. What might Kant be given? I imagine someone will be turning their mind to claiming him, quickly, with the syndrome of their specialism, before he is claimed by someone with another such!
What is this outright fixation that many of those wanting to make a name for themselves in psychology have, with saying things about geniuses? Can't they just accept that the intensively creative, searching mind of the genius (a mind which surely would preclude a diagnosis of AS - just observe Newton's many interests, starting with alchemy) renders those individuals fundamentally different, and ought to be put in no such boxes? It all remainds me of how atheist scientists try every trick in the book to explain things that do not conform to a mechanistic view of nature, and in so doing contort the public's view of reality, simply to justify their world view. That is not the scientific method (which seems to have been unofficially ditched even in academia, now, owing to vested interests).
I recall I had a lot of problems with social interaction, when I was in my 'teens and twenties (and to some extent, now also), and sunk into a deep depression as a result, and that was when I was referred. I was for ever trying to form an axiology - a theory of values - because I didn't understand other people's values. I was very ill at ease socially; basically, I was riddled with a kind of existentialist angst (anxiety centred on the thought that existence is finite), which had a much more intense manifestation than I could detect in others. Realizing I was fundamentally different I wanted the whole problem, of what made other people behave in the way that they do, a way that seemed to me to be generally lacking in any solid grounding in reason and moral sentiment, sorted out in mind. Why? It was not down to any syndrome. No, it was two things: one, an innate nervousness associated with what you might call the artistic temperament; and two, the fact that I had - if I may be permitted - a rather deeper perspective on things than those around me, a perspective which incidentally has blossomed in my endeavours in moral philosophy. *That* was the root of the existentialist angst. Philosophy - particularly of the intuitve, unstructured ilk, as opposed to such an area as symbolic logic - is a field one rarely sees psychologists venturing into, and still less, I rather fear (and I intend no offence, and make no absolute generalizations), understanding to any great depth, and yet less do they seem to approach any understanding the psychology of one who is naturally disposed towards it - as it is just not the kind of thing that meshes with their manner of thinking, which is more one of interpretation by way of contrived methods. So when someone falls outside of the psychologists' box, the answer is now, it seems, to ascribe a syndrome to them; and with all these 'new' (or, rather, revived) syndromes that have come to light, the psychologist can almost pick the one that fits, like buying a suit, off a shelf, that could pass as tailored to the individual. Soon, the more self-interested individuals in the psychology profession will be looking at the geniuses and contriving new syndromes *from the observations they make about geniuses' behaviour*; any such method, of course, may be highly dubious but it makes the casual 'pop' psychology buyer or 'net surfer feel better about themselves by granting them an implicit licence to consider the revered geniuses as having a disorder, or at least something that will readily be interpreted as such.
I find much of the subject matter of my discussion, above, to be verging on, and in some cases nothing short of the exemplification of professional malpractice (though make no accusations). I have encountered it previously, in more self-evidently disturbing forms in the medical profession, whether the specialism be in psychology or phsysiology. I have a very good friend who is a qualified clinical psychiatrist, himself one I would consider a creative and intellectual genius who left the profession of psychiatry because he felt that the whole idea of reducing anomalies in psychiatric data to syndromes was to reduce the human to the status of an animal - it was the kind of ideology that, in its politicized form, he had risked his life to overthrow under the former totalitarian regime of his home country. He had specialized in autism, and had become angry with the work at the Maudsley Institute. He told me he often felt he himself was autistic (a feeling that, interestingly, the Maudsley Institute people I had encountered told me they too would attribute to themselves), by at least some of the criteria that the medical profession deploys, at such times as when he could not communicate his feelings to his wife. Yet if I remember correctly he also believed that, out of autistics and 'nonautistics', the autistics have the less deviant form of insight, and also that ultimately he himself was not autistic - he did not properly fall into this category, being interested in such a wide variety of different things. In my view he is simply a genius, and, on account of the inevitable concomitant idiosyncrasies of the subject, genius by is by its very nature associated with 'anomalies' of patterns of behaviour of ways of thinking, some of which inevitably overlap with anomalies associated with some of the syndromes that are flying around.
I repeat that much work and well-meaning help that is done in this field does not warrant my criticism, but please undertake to rectify some of the things I have taken issue with here, those of you who are in the profession. And to all who have been told they have Asperger's syndrome, I advise caution and the retaining of a healthy streak of skepticism.'
attention-tunnel wrote:
I argue that there is NO scientific evidence that Asperger/Autism is a 'disorder' or a 'disability'. That Asperger/Autism cannot be seen as a biological disorder is argued already (see
http://www.autismandcomputing.org.uk/mind.htm ). However, I argue that the only reason Asperger/Autism is label a disorder is a sociological and an economic reason. Like any other species, the human species exhibits biological diversity, too.
Recently, Wired Magazine reported that Gene treatment turns monkeys into workaholics. According to researchers, they stopped monkeys from procrastinating in order to study mental illness. (The original article can be found here:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,128 ... _tophead_5 ).
I suggest to turn 'procrastinating' organisms into workaholics is pretty much the agenda in medical science today. One could argue that Bergerac's & co is not diagnosed because people do not comply to social conventions in the fits place. Rather, people are grown and educated - and treated by psychiatrist - to make them a productive (=profitable) member of our (economic) society. We are not 'disabled' biologically, but 'economically'.
Being economically fit is important. There are studies in the US showing that racism does not root primarily in people's skin color, but people's money. In the end, in western capitalist economies, there is a great social reassure imposing money to be the ultimate judging criteria, with all its advantages and disadvantages.
I do not intend to make a principle argument about capitalism being bad or good. I am just afraid that people will go and try to 'cure' autism and grasper's as long as we are not people integrated in society that make money. This is how illness is defined in our society today.
It is explicit in the DSM-IV: "impaired function" .. to make money! It is obvious, that to 'measure' something like 'impaired function' happens in a social context and an economic framework. It is a cultural process. And it has been shown that adjustment to such social factors leads to people on the autism spectrum coping with life much better (for striking examples see
http://www.autismandcomputing.org.uk/NAS/index.htm and
http://news.google.com/news?q=Nature%20 ... a=N&tab=wn ).
I am afraid, that if they apply gene treatment to turn procrastinating monkeys into Workaholics, what will be next for us?? We need a society that accepts and accommodates neurological different people without branding them sick for their difference. We need neurodiversity!
How are Aspies different from NTs?! I am not of the opinion that Aspies and NTs have fundamentally different values. Rather, for differences in thinking and communication style, Aspies are much less socialized in any culture, heather be it NT culture or Aspie culture.
For instance, Jordan argues "Individuals with autism may be more different from one another than others because of their lack of socialization into a common culture."
Attwood agrees, and calls the lack of integration in a culture a discovery criteria: 2) free of sexist, "age-ist", or culturaly biases"
Although some claim that Aspies in this world have always existed, and of course have - like NTs - seek to meet people like themselves. There are indeed Aspergias existing all over the world already. Except that today, we call these people Aspies, and ten years ago we did not know the term yet.
For instance, Temple Grandin calls NASA the greatest sheltered workshop for Aspies, and Wired Magazine come up with their own explanation of Aspie in their article "The Geek Syndrome". Lots of people make it into successfully careers, and most of them never heard the label Asperger.
The rising diagnosis of Asperger during the last decade indicates to me changes in society, that by an increase in competition an flexibility on the job markets, social skills might become more important to get the job you want. Of course in such a world it makes sense for people struggling with life to receive help.
Imagine if Asperger would be more common that NTs: You would have to call Aspies NTs, because majority is what is called typical, and you would have to call the NTs some other disorder, because they are minority). What possobile consequences would that have?
It is fine being NT or Aspie, that people naturally seek people like themselves no matter what kind. Except that Aspies - like any minority - has greater problems finding people alike they can relate to. However, this should not lead to discrimination of minorities, no matter what the minority. And especially not by the medical community.
Doctors are not bad, they want to help. But until recently, they have no idea how Asperger looks from the inside. They would not think of treating Bill Gates for Asperger. Not that he might be or not be Asperger. But he makes money. He does not need to seek help in economic terms. On the contrary, most people would spontaneously like to be the 'next Bill Gates' – in terms of being the wealthiest person on earth. Gates and other potential Aspies invented the computer, and now we find people alike and communicate with them in our own ways. That's fine. It changes culture, too.
Still, I am afraid, that the bottom line of us being recognized as in need of help and labeled disabled, is when we don't make money. If we would make money, no one might ever care.
In conclusion, I propose to remove the term 'disorder' at the top of the website 'Wrong Planet Syndrome. Lets call it neurodiversity instead. There is no scientifically evidence that would justify people with Asperger to be called 'disabled' only because they have different skill profilles. We should claim neurodiversity instead. For a more scientific discussion, see
http://www.autismandcomputing.org.uk/mind.htm
07 Sep 2004, 10:55 pm
which bloggers made much ado about.
mwa ha ha.. er.. but i digress.
