Semantics once more - ASD vs ASC

Post Reply New Topic

I see here a few people who use the term "ASD", which stands for Autistic Spectrum Disorders.
I think that Simon Baron-Cohen was the one who termed the definition as "ASC" - Autistic Spectrum Conditions.

Just to point that out - some people already use ASC, and if we claim we aren't disordered, I think we better use that, and not ASD, which is somewhat degrading.

(Any thoughts?)

It's degrading if you think less of people who experience a disorder, otherwise, for those who are characterized by clinical Autism, it is simply accurate.

If you do not experience clinically significant impairment or distress, then ASC is probably more suitable, but for those who are experiencing a disorder (ie those exeriencing clinically significant impairment or distress), then disorder is accurate.

Last edited by pandd on 16 Feb 2010, 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

The question is whether autism is a disorder...
I have OCD, and I have no problem with people who call it a disorder, because it is. I don't think any less of people who experience disorders - if so, I would have to think less of myself...

I have no problem with calling your problems a "disorder". I don't think it's degrading to admit you have one. I have more than one. I just don't see my Autistic Spectrum Condition as a disorder... The same, I don't think people with ADHD are necessarily "disordered". But I have severe ADHD, I have to take medicine every day - so in my case, it's a serious disorder. I'm not ashamed of it.

Some people say that everyone has OCD traits - and it's only OCD when it's a disorder. So if I'm part of the autistic spectrum, and I don't feel disordered, why is it ASD? Why isn't it ASC, as I clearly have differences that are worth mentioning? I claim that thanks to my autism, I experienced and continue to experience some difficulties (especially as a kid), yet on the other hand I have advantages on NT people.
If we're pro-neurodiversity (perhaps you aren't, your right), shouldn't we point that ASC is a better term, and more accurate?

Let's say I am "ASD". And then I learn to live with it, and voila, no disorder. But I'm still synesthetic, I still experience tendency to look for patterns, I still search for the logic, I still display many autistic traits who aren't necessarily negative. Am I not an autist anymore? I just overcame the difficulties, which are sometimes caused by society.
(I still have a few problems, yes? It's hypothetical )

I do see clinical Autism as a disorder.

I am clinically impaired and have experienced clinically significant distress when attempting to participant in normal life activities.

I believe my comments very specifically addressed the issue of people who do not experience clinically significant impairment as a result of Autistic traits:
If you do not experience clinically significant impairment or distress, then ASC is probably more suitable, but for those who are experiencing a disorder (ie those exeriencing clinically significant impairment or distress), then disorder is accurate.

ASC is not a better or more accurate term for those with clinical Autism (that is Autism that gives rise to clinically significant impairment or distress).

First of all - I don't mean to disrespect your difficulties, if it sounds so. So sorry if it sounds like I'm degrading you - I'm not. I have disorders myself, as said. I don't think I'm any better than you, if I sounded like that - sorry!

Second - right now people use ASD/ASC for everyone in the spectrum. I think that in this case, ASC is more accurate - because a disorder is a condition as well, so it doesn't contradict you having a disorder.

And while I enjoy it right now, for times, I don't think it means I'm not "clinically autistic". My sensory sensitiveness, for example, is definitely clinial - such as other traits. I just found out that many of the things that made me suffer, well, only made me suffer because of society. Here I'm free to be "weird", and discuss my rituals, and it doesn't hurt me - for instance.
Other than that - yes, it still causes me some difficulties. But my way of thinking also gives me advantages over other people.

And just to clear this up again - I don't think that having a disorder is degrading. I'm not ashamed of mine. I just don't like the idea that autism is defined as a disorder automatically... I take medications for other conditions, I just don't think that autism is one of those problems.
So I'm really sorry if you got me wrong here.

Being congenitally blind is likely to give one some advantages over other people, but I would not on that basis rule out congenital blindness as a disorder.

I do not see any particular reason to lump in non-disorders with disorders as a genunine rule.

I do not for instance see any value in conflating personality styles with personality disorders and calling these all "personality conditions" and insisting on not differentiating linguistically between (for instance) Avoidant Personality Disorder and an avoidant personality style. Personalities also exist on a spectrum, and there are clinical and non-clinical variations; arguments could be made that Personality Disorders also give advantages, but that does not mean that they are non-clinical, nor that they should be conflated with personality style variants, either linguistically or in popular perception.

On the other hand - personality disorders are sometimes omitted in new versions of the DSM.

I'm not saying you shouldn't differentiate people who need more help than others. But I am saying is that if my autism and your autism have the same roots - this should be remembered. And when people talk about everyone on the spectrum, it's not accurate to call it a disorder. Again, my opinion.

Avoidant personality style can be an expression of clinical conditions, by the way. Some people don't "qualified" for being diagnosed with Avoidant Personality Disorder, but have some difficulties which make him avoid others - perhaps for the same reasons. As far as I know, at least.

I don't think I have "autistic personality". I don't think that synesthesia has to do with personality, for example. Or my tendency not to look others in the eye. Does it make things difficult for me? Less and less. Am I less autistic, in your opinion?
I think I'm autistic in the same level, as my natural tendencies and sensory system are the same. I just got over the difficult parts. I'm still not like an NT, that's clear. My way of thinking can't be changed.

The reason to "lump in" all autism, is to show that there is a connection, and that autism for itself means more than what people think it means. If the autistic genes, once found, appear in people who display autistic characters, but aren't "disordered", it means something. Especially if they DID go through a hard time in their teen years, for example. Right now I'm happy that I socialise much better, and still I cannot disconnect myself from those traits. It's who I am. Only autistic people describe thinking and actions as I do, for example. And it may cause more difficulties ahead - so what, will then I be BACK to being autistic? I don't think so.

Of course, as said on another thread, each individual should be treated differently, if at all. Not because he's less or more autistic, but because he's an individual.

Not in any way that is relevant to this discussion. The DSM is produced by APA and the Personality Disorder section includes all the personality disorders recognized by APA at the time of publication.


I have never claimed that is it accurate to describe people who are not characterized by a clinical condition as being characterized by a clinical condition. On the contrary, I have stated and reiterated that for people not experincing a clinical disorder "ASC" is probably more appropriate.

Borderline Personality Disorder and borderline personality style could be described as having the same roots;. it still does not make sense to me, to refer to Personality Disorders as Personality Conditions.

If there is a reason for the avoidance, then it is not unreasonable. Diagnoses of this kind are based on observable behaviour due to a problem with technology (this is the best we can do for now). That does not mean that the behavior itself is the disorder. For any condition in the DSM, the behavioral makers used to diagnose must occur in circumstances where the behavior is not culturally endorsed or expected in those circumstances. Hence, criteria indicators of clincial depression in the course of a loved-one's fatal illness are actually not necessary symptoms of clinical depression if they are culturally normal in that context. Behaviors that might be construed as Avoidant indicators for the purposes of the APD diagnosis, are not appropriately interpreted as such if there is an alternative explanation for the behavior.

Personality, learning style, non-disorder variant, non-pathological atypical condition; I really do not mind what terminology you apply to your own experience.


Synesthesia is not Autism though. Most people with Autism do not have synesthesia; many people with synesthesia do not have Autism. It is not diagnostic for Autism.


Actually there are people without Autism who have this tendency in the absence of any clinical disorder, so it's not unrealistic to suggest that in the instance of someone who does not have an ASD, nor any other clinical disorder that causes this tendency, that it is a personality trait. Actually, I am unsure what else it might be described as.


I do not have any opinion about that.


The same reason does not make it sensible to using the phrase "personality disorder" in favour of "personality condition" in order to show the connection that exists between non disorder personality conditions and personality disorders.


It means something if they are not found in non-disordered people.
We already know that there is not a single genetic cause (at least one genetic cause has been identified and it does not characterize everyone with Autism. There is no reason to assume that Autism can be caused by genes alone. Autism may require environmental triggers in some or all cases.

Your question does not make sense to me. Either you have clinical impairment whether or not it currently matters to you, or you do not, therefore it cannot make things difficult later. Clinical impairment is not a function of how well adapted one's circumstances are to the impairment (that might be better described as 'effective impairment"). A person experiencing hypo-mania might be very happy with their situation and it might even give them some advantages in particular contexts (such as their current circumstances), but however they feel about it, and however it might play out in some particular circumstance, hypo-mania is still construed as entailing clinically significant impairment.

I voted "other". I like "autistic spectrum". "Disorder" doesn't apply to the whole spectrum. And "condition" is only real necessary, it seems to me, if one wants to abbreviate and needs to differentiate between "autistic spectrum" and "Asperger's syndrome" -- add "condition" to the first and you get ASC and AS, rather than two different AS's. But I'd rather just stick with "autistic spectrum" rather than using an unfamiliar abbreviation.

Of course, it depends on the conversation. If one is talking about being diagnosed with something, ASD works okay. It works if one wants to talk about the various diagnoses on the spectrum. It doesn't work for talking about the whole spectrum.

I put other because I like them both the same. I personally like them over what I heard one person use

Autism
Spectrome
syndrome

you can figure out the acranym

ASD

ASC all the same to me

ASD even has it's own place on the keyboard.

I accept that - although I think most statistics don't ask people if they feel it's a disorder.
Maybe I'm wrong, anyway I accept your general point of view on this one.


Correct me if I'm wrong - you can avoid places due to clinical anxiety, and still not be diagnosed with APD.


It's not diagnostic, but it's much more common in autistics as far as I'm know, perhaps I'm wrong.


Trust me, without getting to my whole personal description - it's only an example. I have far too many traits associated with autism for it to be a coincidence.


Well, if we're trying to show (some of us) that it has to do with genes, perhaps, than there is a need to point that out. But I think it has to do more to neurology and research of the brain rather the DSM.

HOWEVER, there is a very subjective thin line between when it is a disorder. Right now I'm okay. If I will HAVE to use the phone, it's a disorder, if no one can do that for me, for instance. Yet, it doesn't interrupt me in my life, at least not currently.

So really, is there any point in a definition like this?
It caused me problems. Now it doesn't. In the future, it might cause me again.
Yet, I don't see it as a disorder, for certain reasons.
Was I ASD ten years ago, and now I'm ASC, and in a few years time I will be ASD again?


Okay, but if all autistic people share those triggers and genes, and as you said so, NT people don't - it means something. That's up to us to research.
You dismiss this theory, what I read tell me otherwise. But you're free to do so, your opinion.


So that's my psychiatrist told me "hypomania isn't necessarily a bad thing"?
What's the impairment in being creative and energetic? When it's too much, there's pills. But it can be much better than "normal" mood. I'm speaking out of personal experience here - as long as you feel okay, and you are one with reality, no problems. More than one doctor confirmed this to me.

Of course. One can have suicidal thoughts or commit suicidal gestures without being diagnosed with BPD, and one can experience highs and lows without being diagnosed with bi-polar mood disorder...

Can you explain why you think this is relevant? Surely you realize that there is a lot more to APD than merely avoiding one or more particular places in the course of clinical anxiety?

Many things are more common in the Autistic population than they are outside the Autistic population, but these things are not symptoms or diagnositic indicators; they occur outside Autism and are not generally construed as traits or characteristics of Autism. Insomnia is more common in Autistic people than the general population, as is a slew of specific learning disabilities, seizures disorders......the list could go on.

The majority of Autistic people do not experience synesthesia, it is not diagnostic, neither its absence or presence is particularly indicative of whether or not someone is Autistic.


I have no idea what you think the relevance of this comment is. If someone has traits that occur in Autism that meet or exceed the diagnostic criteria, and experiences clinical impairment or distress as a result, then it is appropriate to describe this as an ASD. If they do no suffer the impairment or distress, then what would you call it since disorder is not appropriate? I do not care what word you use if you consider "personality" not apt (although frankly I cannot see what the difference between non-pathological AS traits and either a personality or learning style would be).

I do not care what word you prefer use to describe a cluster of persistent traits/coping styles/learning styles/propensities that are non-pathological and do not constitute a disorder. I had to use some word or phrase to communicate my point and I assumed that the ones I chose would be recognized and sense-making to readers of the text. If you personally do not like that word/s or phrase/s (used by me) to describe the "non-pathological variant" you are describing, then by all means provide some other suitable word or phrase and everywhere you see "personality" occur in my earlier texts (in this thread), just pretend it says whatever word or phrase you would prefer be used to refer to the referrant referred to.


I honestly cannot make sense of this comment. Show what has to do with genes? The personality styles and personality disorders that are believed to entail genetics, or Autism which is believed to entail genetics? What is it you think has more to do with neurology and research of the brain rather than the DSM, and quite why do you seem to posit these two things as mutually exclusive or not particularly correlated rather than mutually co-influencing?

Your comments indicate that you do not comprehend the meaning of impairment in this context.
Clinical impairment is not sensibly measured so that two people with identical symptoms and identical incapacities are then differentiated on the basis of whether each wants to use their phone or has someone else handy to use it for them. That makes as much sense as diagnosing an allergy to peanuts in one person and not another, because although both experience life-threatening allergic reactions when they consume peanuts, only one of them actually likes and wants to eat peanuts.

When we measure if someone is dyslexic, we do not stop to ask "but do they actually want to read books, and are they ever in circumstances where there is no one who could read to them?" When we investigate if someone's leg is dysfunctional we do not decide that if they cannot use it, the leg is actually quite fine so long as they do not want to use it. We do not consider that near-sighted people are intermittently clinically impaired depending on whether their eyes are currently open. Clinical impairment is not about whether or not you wish or are attempting to do X, but rather about whether or not X is something you should be able to do, yet either are excessively challenged in doing, or cannot do at all.


I doubt there is any point to such a definition...but I also think that this definition is simply a misunderstanding on your part, so it's neither here nor there.
The current evidence indicates that there is probably not a common genetic cause for all Autisms.

I have not dismissed any theory (relevant to this issue) that I am aware of. I find it unlikely that there is a single common genetic causal component universal to all Autisms. This is not all the same as "dismissing" theories.

What I have read tells me that fragile X is very likely to play a significant causal role in some Autisms, but that many people with Autism do not have fragile X.



So precisely which three potential symptoms of hypo mania do you believe do not entail clinically significant impairment?

Frankly, the advice that if a person currrently experiencing a hypo manic episode feels okay that they have no problems, is highly problematic as most people experiencing a hypo-manic episode, including those making decisions that they regret when no longer hypo-manic, feel much better than ok. Feeling much better than ok is quite common in the course of a hypo manic episode.

My mistake, didn't understand you correctly.


Again, I experience clinical symptoms - I once suffered from them, now I don't.


If they tend to occur more in the autistic population, perhaps there's a reason.


The point is, I did experience clinical impairment, I don't anymore.


I think if some traits tend to occur together, perhaps its genetic.


Yet you can overcome some impairments, and if some of them don't bother you, why is it a disorder?

That's like saying people who can't identify colours in music are disordered. They lack an ability that I have. So what? It doesn't make it a disorder.


More energy, more happiness, more creativity, more good things. They didn't impair me until I couldn't sleep and wanted to.

"ASC" covers what "ASD" does without the presumption of how the condition effects the individual.

Having a "condition" is factually descriptive, without being presumptuously negative, meanwhile not excluding the possibility that the condition can be debilitating.

ASC "trumps" ASD, with logic.

That's my thinking anyway.

I think the Autism diagnosis should just be eliminated, and replaced with several diagnoses that describe its individual characteristics, such as lack of executive function, hypersensitivity, speech impairment, etc. Instead of being classified as a syndrome, each symptom could be classified as its own individual disorder. These "disorders" would more often than not be co-morbid with one another, but still be considered separate conditions. The syndrome itself would cease to exist, so it'd be for the best if the forum disbanded to avoid perpetuating "false" ideas and help to kill off any stereotypes that began before the changes to the diagnostic criteria. There is no such thing as a syndrome, some conditions are just often co-morbid with other conditions.