As we all know, Autism was discovered in the 1950s by two Austrians; Leo Kanner who was a psychiatrist and physician, and Hans Asperger, who was paediatrician. Asperger had studied on the high-functioning end of Autism and Kanner studied on the medium to low functioning. The far high-functioning end of the Autism spectrum was named after Hans Asperger, which led to the three main types of Autism; AS, HFA and LFA. Now there are a couple of problems I think there is. Firstly, there is little difference between AS and HFA, they might as well be the same condition. Secondly, many NTs don’t consider Aspies to be Autisitc, which is rubbish because the condition is on the spectrum. Then I thought, why don’t they divide Autism in two categories; Asperger Syndrome (AS and HFA) and Kanner Syndrome (LFA). So if you tell a NT you Autistic, he/she would say ‘Aspergic or Kanneric?’ I think it will work better if they just divide the Autism Spectrum into two main categories.
I believe it was anbuend who pointed out that both Kanners and Asperger had participants in their studies who could today be classified as high-functioning and participants who could be classified as low-functioning.
I believe it was anbuend who pointed out that both Kanners and Asperger had participants in their studies who could today be classified as high-functioning and participants who could be classified as low-functioning.
Anbuend? Is that a real word?
I thought it was 1943 and 1944, respectively.
I thought it was 1943 and 1944, respectively.
You were right Mercurygrrl, I checked it on wikipedia. Also they both worked together on lookin upon the spectrum. It just that Asperger looked upon the high-functioning side and Kanner on the low-functioning side.
I believe it was anbuend who pointed out that both Kanners and Asperger had participants in their studies who could today be classified as high-functioning and participants who could be classified as low-functioning.
Anbuend? Is that a real word?
I just found out that Anbuend is one of the members here. Anbuend, if you reading this, sorry about what I said. 
So if you tell a NT you Autistic, he/she would say ‘Aspergic or Kanneric?’ I think it will work better if they just divide the Autism Spectrum into two main categories.
In your dreams! 
What needs to be done is to increase awareness of the Autistic Spectrum as a whole, with the emphasis on the Spectrum part of it, and that people on the Spectrum have varied skills and abilities, just like people not on the Spectrum do!
You are never, never, going to have your average guy or gal in the street saying, "Oh, Aspergic or Kanneric?" Sorry, not in your wildest dreams...
All but one of Kanner's patients could speak, some of them spoke early. All who were tested (including the one who couldn't speak) had normal or high IQs. By today's standards, pretty much all of Kanner's patients as children would be considered high-functioning, except possibly the non-speaking one, and even she had an IQ of 96 and an estimated IQ (whatever on earth that is) of higher than that, which makes her high-functioning by some of today's standards. (Since the definition varies anyway.)
Well if both Asperger's and Kanner's patients weren't any different from each other then why there is a condition called Asperger Syndrome? I don't mean to talk crap but AS and HFA isn't that different from each other.
I think some says that AS folks are mostly verbal thinkers while HFAs are mostly visual.
Joel, that's because they're more different in early childhood, when the speech delay is apparent. Autism is listed under childhood disorders; and when you insist on looking only at children, it's easier to categorize them by their early history.
What happened was that Kanner's patients were considered the standard for autism at first.
Then an additional huge amount of people were added onto the autism spectrum who would now be called "low functioning".
In that time, there was sometimes talk of distinction between "Kanner's" and "autistic PDD", or "Kanner's" and "other childhood schizophrenia", and other things like that, where "Kanner's" generally actually meant, among other things, "high functioning" by certain modern definitions.
Then, as the two groups became more and more blended, the idea of a person not speaking or interacting at all, ever, became more and more prominent as a stereotype of autism (even though there are very few people meeting that description, if any fully meeting it at all, given that non-speaking autistic children are shown now to have other communication).
And then, in the early 1980s, someone discovered Asperger's work and translated it to English for the first time (note also that Asperger studied children who were slightly older than Kanner did, which also influences how they looked at various periods in their lives).
And then "Asperger" became a new shorthand for "high-functioning", and things got all muddled and mixed around, and then eventually "Asperger's syndrome" became a shorthand for "autism with normal verbal skills from an early age", even though that is not necessarily what Asperger studied and even though some of Kanner's patients would today be diagnosed with Asperger's. And then "Kanner's" became more and more synonymous with what would now be called "low functioning" even though... yeah. Very few if any of Kanner's patients would today be said to meet that description (except possibly after long institutionalization, which would do it to nearly anyone).
It's not like both people's papers were read in the same times and the same historical contexts and then compared and changed into two different syndromes. They were read in totally different historical contexts, after definitions had already shifted and changed and moved around and blended, and the use of the two names did not correspond to their original papers.
Which is why I generally don't use them as diagnostic terms. Things have become so confused that using their names will never mean what people think it means.