I have this friend

Post Reply New Topic

I'm starting to see everyone around me and from my past now as having AS, now I know what to look for. I had this friend who was quirky (and deep down thought of herself as odd), who was very clumsy, who took things too literally (to the extent I thought there was something neurological at work, maybe the damage done from when she had an autoimmune disease). Her voice was completely monotone. I believe she had OCD. One story from when she was young for example, was how she literally brushed her teeth away. She was obsessed about her teeth and brushed them for 40 minutes at a time. Now she just has a line of black all the way round where she's had fillings. She also had a very short attention span.

Apart from that, she wasn't just sociable, she was the life and soul of the party. She had amazing confidence. It wasn't a learnt behaviour, she'd always been like that since a little girl. She made friends easily. Her face was full of life. She'd laugh and joke and be completely relaxed around strangers. She wouldn't disappear into her own world, she'd always be switched on. She wouldn't get worn out by socialising, she'd love talking and hanging out with people.

On the one hand she's an ASer, on the other she's an NT. When the social issue is so central to AS, do you think she still quite possibly has aspergers?

The more I read the more I think "aspergers" and other boxed diagnoses don't do it justice. I read something about autism, AS, tics, OCD, that entire spectrum of related disorders and problems, all being connected to a certain region of the brain. It may be comparable to a random shotgun effect, in that when this area is affected, while there may be commonalities, the distribution of problems can also be completely random, meaning someone can have all kinds of combinations of problems, all to varying degrees. Seen like this, "aspergers" becomes a school of thought based upon its founder, which doesn't do justice to what we're now learning about the brain and how all the pieces fit together. For example, Hans Asperger talks about "lack of imagination", when this is probably not the best way to describe AS, given the talents someone with AS can have. Yet "lack of imagination" is still a term used, because Asperger's way of thinking and interpretting still influences us today. It's like an old scientific theory being swallowed up by a newer one. It's not that the old theory is wrong, but it is incomplete and seen in the light of new understanding, is misleading and doesn't have the same depth of insight. I hear people arguing over autism and AS, with autism being linked to delays in development, whereas someone with AS won't have the same delays. Yet there are exceptions to this, so the rule doesn't fit. I hear people arguing over autistic OCD and non-autistic OCD, saying one's related to repetitive behaviour that's caused by anxiety, the other to repetitive behaviour that's there to make you feel better. The distinction doesn't make any sense to me. It could be that OCD stands alone, in that you might have it if you're autistic, you might not, but whether you have it or not, it's caused by the same thing.

By breaking up that area of brain responsible for this wide spectrum of behaviour, we may be able to say things like, "You're fine socially, you can understand nuances of expression and social subtexts, but we see the effect this gene cluster has had here, means you will have mild problems empathising, regulating your tone of voice and OCD. In the old way of thinking, we'd have to say you're 40% AS and 60% NT." It's this line of thought that gives me reason to dissolve the boundaries of AS and all the boxed diagnoses, in search of an understanding that doesn't chase it's own tail by wrapping itself up in outdated definitions and ways of thinking. The problem is compounded by people's attitudes and how we come to identify with a way of thinking, which we see as defining us.

I agree, but we§ll have to remember that all autism-related DXs are based upon the autistic spectrum. Being diagnosed with AS doesn't necessarily mean you fit all the diagnosis criteria. It's all just a matter of breaking down the stereotypes.

Wow!

She has OCD? She brushed her teeth for over 40 minutes a day? How could she possibly have to have so many fillings?

I believe she has AS, but it's interesting to heard that some people partly have AS and they are partly NT.

Well, roadwarrior, there's a lot that's of interest in your post!

It's really interesting, isn't it, once you know what you're looking for? You can see lots of spectrum tendencies in 'apparently NT' people.

40min tooth brushing certainly sounds like OCD. It sounds like she's on the spectrum somewhere. I also know someone who is profoundly AS who is amazingly able to put on a very sociable act - no one would ever guess what lies underneath. This person isn't sociable or even talkative about deep things in the privacy of their own home with close people, and just can't do imaginative, connected, abstract thinking in any shape or form.

I think that the key is 'act' - to some degree or other, we all behave as others expect, or as we expect ourselves to. Parties and stuff are really easy for many people - you just have to run a 'bright shiny person' script of superficialities, you don't have to spend any time thinking introspectively and talking about how or who you really are.

Another element here is confidence. The person I'm thinking of has so little insight into their own inner world and none at all about their spectrum status. From my observations, that means no angst about how they appear to the world, no thought at all about how many people's feelings they offend or hurt etc. Of course one can be ultra confident if one has no idea that what one says or does can affect others. (Seems to me that most people on this forum are very aware and are very upset to think that they might have caused upset to anyone).

Re your more general hypotheses about how the spectrum is evaluated, I more or less agree. It does seem to be a scatter-gun effect: with some people having bits of that and bits of this, rather than there being a one-size-fits-all effect. AS is a very new 'diagnosis' (hate to pathologise it because it also brings many good characteristics!) so the assessors/medics are still wrangling about exactly what it is. Wish they'd catch up with us!

I read somewhere that Hans Asperger himself was AS. What if he was essentially just describing himself? How much research did he do amongst others? How accurate then could Dr Wing's later development of AS identification be? And, anyway, aren't they all, even now, just seeing spectrum people who somehow 'cause bother' to those around them? The medics are still not seeing the majority of spectrum folk, just the tip of the iceberg.

whoops - gone off topic a bit. Sorry!

Hmmm.

The rise in autism has to do with the fact that contemporary society needs to have a pathological label for all the misfits. And laws to control us.

That's an interesting interpretation. So, AS is the new schizophrenia or personality disorder or psychosis that can get you banged-up? But, as AS folks seem to be amongst the more law-abiding, how could the increase in autism dxs benefit the powers that be in contemporary society?

Just asking!

Mainly, each dx means the potential for more drain on the public purse in support services. It's my experience that the medics etc who dx are really reluctant to dx anyone on the 'higher' end of the spectrum. AS folks, at least, have such a hard time generally even getting a referral to a specialist.

Though I agree that there seems to be a horrible growing tendency to pathologise everything and everybody who doesn't appear to conform to some very narrow, 'approved' stereotypes.

(sorry road warrior, going off your topic completely!)