One of the wikipedia articles dealing with Aspergers refers to the term "cousins" for persons who are not diagnosed with Aspergers but who share some of the symptoms of that diagnosis. I did not find any articles on this site which deals with this issue, although there are some forum postings which address it to some extent.
It seems to me that if the idea of an autism spectrum is to be taken seriously, there should not be a need to draw lines, and to say that some people are inside the line, and others are outside of the line. There is simply a continuum from one end of the spectrum to the other. There may in fact be several or even many spectrums which are involved and different people may fall on different parts of each spectrum. I understand that there is a desire by many people to create categories, and to try to divide the world into clearly delineated categories. The real world is not that dichotomous.
A lot of the postings on this forum deal with the question of who is or is not on the spectrum. I would like to see an article which discusses the idea that labeling people as being inside or out side of an arbitrary line is not helpful, and that each person should be dealt with as a unique individual. I would like to hear from others on this idea.
:wink:
You are right to say that there are no natural cut-off points in the autism spectrum.
However, it is necessary to create diagnostic categories in order to gain access to special education, services, social support and welfare benefits where this is desirable and necessary.
Thanks for posting cousin. Do you consider yourself to be a cousin, and if so, what parts of autism do you have?
Personally, I usually refer to people as having 'aspie traits' if they have some elements of aspergers, rather than use the term cousin, as I think its less well known, and cousin is a common word in use so could cause confusion.
You said -
It seems to me that if the idea of an autism spectrum is to be taken seriously, there should not be a need to draw lines, and to say that some people are inside the line, and others are outside of the line.
Professionals in autism have declared that autism is a spectrum condition, so it is 'official' and certainly is taken seriously. I think most of us agree that it is a spectrum condition. There is a set criteria for autism and aspergers, and without diagnosis a lot of us would not get specific help such as help in school, as Stella said. Autism and aspergers are technically an impairment, so if someone is not impaired, and just has some traits, they will not get, and will not need a diagnosis. That's the medical reason for diagnosis.
In the real world of course, there are people with mild traits, strong traits, some people actually get diagnosed with traits, but not a full diagnosis, and people abilities can get better or worse with age.
A cut off point is used diagnostically. Online people can self diagnose, and that is not questioned, it is up to the individual to determine how they feel.
Someone coulf self diagnose as a cousin, though that is rare. If you posted here and said that show you felt, I think people would be accepting of that, the same as of NTs who post here.
There is simply a continuum from one end of the spectrum to the other. There may in fact be several or even many spectrums which are involved and different people may fall on different parts of each spectrum. I understand that there is a desire by many people to create categories, and to try to divide the world into clearly delineated categories. The real world is not that dichotomous.
At some point though, that continuum becomes 'normal'. Some people feel that everyone is a bit autistic, I do not hold that view at all. Everyone is not a bit gay, everyone is not a bit diabetic, everyone is not a bit of a football fan.
A lot of the postings on this forum deal with the question of who is or is not on the spectrum. I would like to see an article which discusses the idea that labeling people as being inside or out side of an arbitrary line is not helpful, and that each person should be dealt with as a unique individual. I would like to hear from others on this idea.
In an ideal world we would never need labels, but as it stands now, we do need many labels. Each person should be dealt with as an individual, that is right.
I wonder though, how people who are cousins, or just have traits, stand on the issues of minority rights, on Autistic Pride Day, and on abuse of autistics.
Do they feel separated from those issues, or do they feel fully a part of it and support changing the world?
Amy wrote:
In an ideal world we would never need labels, but as it stands now, we do need many labels. Each person should be dealt with as an individual, that is right.
--> cousin:
I just thought of saying that I hate the "labelling phenomenon" personally, however as Amy said above, there is a place for it.
Consider this view to make things clear from our angle: It would be very unfair for an autistic/AS person to be considered "pathological", "mentally ill" or "stupid" by society, where actually he/she has a different neurological type of functioning. Once this is diagnosed and pointed out, people become understanding of that person because they realise he/she has a physical "handicap" causing their behaviour, rather than having some kind of "mental" or "behavioural" problem.
Unfortunately, the symptoms and behavior of autism is often confused with other "mimicking" conditions and disorders out there, and it becomes necessary to draw a clear line between what behaviour is caused by hard wired neurological condition and what by psychological condition.
This of course does not make autistic/AS individuals immune to having psychological problems. However, mental health problems in those on the autistic spectrum are often as a result of their autism.
I tend to disagree with Amy on one point. Human sexuality is very much a spectrum. Surveys of human sexual behavior show that there are many shades of behavior, and that we do not all fit into the pre-defined categories which society has carved out for us. Sure, some individuals are at the extreme end of the spectrum away from homosexuality, but there are many people in the middle of that spectrum as well.
Well you agree that not all people are a little bit 'insert any condition/personality/sexuality here'?
I know you are not attacking me.
I enjoy friendly intelligent debate. :smile:
I think your metaphor of black to white spectrum doesn't apply with autism, and also my reason for thinking that everyone is not a bit autistic, is that autism is not one thing.
To use a representation, autism is a recipe of the things on the diagnostic criteria, only people who have the 3 elements of that recipe are autistic, this is usually deemed by the 'triad of impairments'. If someone only has traits its like making a cake with just a few of the ingredients. Its different.
Everyone in the world does not have the whole recipe for autism, they may have some traits, but traits are not autism. If autism is the cake, some NTs will have flour, some may have sugar, but thats not a cake, and its not a little bit of cake.
Maybe people actually mean that a lot of people can have traits that autistic people have. Which is actually quite different than everyone is a bit autistic.
To me its like saying everyone is a bit deceased because sometimes people close their eyes. Some elements that appear similar do not make a condition.
I can swim but I'm not a fish. I'm not even a mermaid.
I'm not very good with the metaphor type thing but I hope my thoughts come across.
Some people may think 'why does it matter if people think everyone is a bit autistic'. I think it matters because that type of thinking has been used in the past to allow abuses of human rights to continue and to dismiss our needs and the needs of others.
If people think that everyone is basically the same, and that they know how we feel, then they expect autistic children to understand that being locked in a time out means that they need to calm down, of course we see often that the children are experiencing terror, anxiety, confusion and have no idea how to calm down when locked into a cupboard on their own.
That's just one example.
Another would be the expectation from society that inside an autistic person is a 'normal' person who wants to be released.
Amy, the cake metaphor is good--a very different image than a color spectrum. The spectrum might come in with respect to severity of impairments -- mild to debilitating.
However, based on what I've read, the triad of impairments does not seem to me to be precisely defined. Also, whether difficulties in one or more of the areas of social interaction, communication or imagination are sufficiently noteworthy as to count as impairments might be context-dependent. When I told a longstanding friend that I believed I was mildly autistic, her response was to say that I was incredibly left-brained but did not meet the criteria. When I described my childhood to her, she said, "well, maybe you were then, but you're not now."
If the brain is plastic, then even if the developmental wiring is different in autistics, I think that something like compensatory rewiring can happen--the brain, and the person, find or learn alternative approaches to interaction, communication and imagination such that abilities are gained--the abilities might be different from what neurotypical folks have, but they are nonetheless abilities. Example: lack of empathy does not preclude a person from being a highly attentive listener.
There are as yet no bio-medical tests for autism, so the diagnostic concept of ASD is wholly based on observed behaviour in social interactions etc.
If we imagine a hypothetical person who somehow had the famous Triad of Impairments but compensated for them in such a way that the Impairments were no longer perceptible to a trained observer such as a clinician, then that person could not be said to be autistic as things stand at the moment.
AFF does not want to pick an unnecessary fight with the mental health professionals. That is fair enough, and I am not insisting upon it.
AFF does not want to pick an unnecessary fight with anyone.
But it is for us, and not NTs, to decide what is necessary, what ought to be fought against, and what ought to be encouraged.
The "weak central coherence" theory of autism seems not to have enjoyed the acceptance, standing, or validation its promoters had hoped for last year, as the abstract below of the very latest research by Uta Frith suggests:
J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Feb 1;:1-21 [Epub ahead of print]
The Weak Coherence Account: Detail-focused Cognitive Style in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Happe F, Frith U.
Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.
"Weak central coherence" refers to the detail-focused processing style proposed to characterise autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The original suggestion of a core deficit in central processing resulting in failure to extract global form/meaning, has been challenged in three ways. First, it may represent an outcome of superiority in local processing. Second, it may be a processing bias, rather than deficit. Third, weak coherence may occur alongside, rather than explain, deficits in social cognition. A review of over 50 empirical studies of coherence suggests robust findings of local bias in ASD, with mixed findings regarding weak global processing. Local bias appears not to be a mere side-effect of executive dysfunction, and may be independent of theory of mind deficits. Possible computational and neural models are discussed.
PMID: 16450045
Recently, I started to consider myself more of an aspie ‘cousin’ than a pure aspie type. While I’m certainly on the spectrum somewhere--my autistic traits can’t be that pronounced or else they would have been picked up earlier.
Most of my life I’ve been considered a shy, socially awkward person. Anxious and disorganised--I’m easily distracted away from ‘real life’ into my obsessional interests.
(Yes, very easily distracted…right now, my wife talking on the phone behind me--I’m finding it incredibly difficult to type this post).
But how autistic do you have to be to call yourself an aspie?
Since I’m self-diagnosed it safer for me to call myself a ‘cousin’.
Wpuld it be possible to get an official diagnosis, just to be completely sure? Still, I think it makes a lot of sense to call yourself a cousin at this stage.
Hybrid is a good word...and would also seem appropriate to discribe me.
Anyhow, I'd like to add... some people (even these days) don't get "picked up" and/or diagnosed until 25 or 30. That you hadn't been "picked up" on earlier does not mean you couldn't qualify for an Asperger's diagnosis now.
AS shows up differently in every single person. Notice how the Math/academic freaks don't often have significant executive dysfunction, for instance. So perhaps instead of getting the "classic AS gifts" in our package, we get executive dysfunction instead. And perhaps, then, since we're less focused on academics, we seem more socially-oriented than the more typical Aspies. One trait/gift switched off, another trait/deficit switches on.
Perhaps only now are the atypical Aspies (like you and I) being observed properly.
Although I’m sure in my own mind that I’m on the spectrum somewhere--I suppose I’m a little worried that I wouldn’t be able to convince a GP; and therefore I wouldn’t get referred to a specialist.
And then even if I did get a referral…and if I am indeed an atypical aspie or aspie cousin…how would they classify me? I’d probably get told I have aspie traits but am not actually aspie (which is sort of what I know already). It just seems an awful lot of effort for very little gain.
Anyhow, I'd like to add... some people (even these days) don't get "picked up" and/or diagnosed until 25 or 30. That you hadn't been "picked up" on earlier does not mean you couldn't qualify for an Asperger's diagnosis now.
I don’t think I particularly lack traits that people with AS have; only that the traits I do have may be expressed differently than they are in standard AS. But it’s tricky--I suppose calling myself an aspie cousin is just more convenient than trying to get a diagnosis of AS. I don’t think people can really be put into distinct categories--everyone is different.
Anyhow, I'd like to add... some people (even these days) don't get "picked up" and/or diagnosed until 25 or 30. That you hadn't been "picked up" on earlier does not mean you couldn't qualify for an Asperger's diagnosis now.
I don’t think I particularly lack traits that people with AS have; only that the traits I do have may be expressed differently than they are in standard AS. But it’s tricky--I suppose calling myself an aspie cousin is just more convenient than trying to get a diagnosis of AS. I don’t think people can really be put into distinct categories--everyone is different.
This is why I said atypical Asperger's may fit people like you and me pretty well. But atypical AS is still AS... you know what I mean??
Atypical sounds about right to me...and yes, I suppose it's still is AS.