Aspies For Freedom

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:

Hi Cousin
Welcome to AFF.  I don't have an official diagnosis but based on a reflection of my life, my mother's descriptions of me as a child, and various reading, including this forum, I'm confident that I'm on the spectrum someplace. Probably PDD-NOS or NVLD if I had to label myself.  Much of what is said here I can relate to, and some of it I don't. But just about anyone could make the same statement because we're all individuals. This forum has been especialy good for "consciousness raising", a term used often in the 70s.  To answer Amy's questions, I'm still pondering, and have begun to "come out" which is one way of furthering the agenda of improving rights for autistics--show people real people.

Mental health problems in those on the autistic spectrum are often as a result of "normal" people's reactions to their autism!

Thanks to all for your prompt responses. They are helpful.

I self identify as a cousin or as having "aspie traits" because I have a nephew who has been diagnosed with Aspergers.  He is considered to be fairly "high functioning" even among aspies, but his traits affect his life much more than mine do. I have a tendency toward literalism, paradoxically combined with a a strong tendency toward word play. I am somewhat inept socially, but I do not have a problem talking with people one on one, even strangers, especially about topics which interest me. If I end up at a party with a lot of people I do not know, I do not try to strike up conversations with strangers.  I am more likely to end up sitting alone somewhere, but I do talk to anyone who approaches me. I do not have a big problem with sensory overload, but some types of touching bother me quite a bit. I have a flat affect, and do not experience big swings in mood. I did not get married until age 39, and had very few girl friends before that, although I am physically attractive and above average intelligence, and generally cheerful. That was always a mystery to me until recent years. I tend to be a systematizer, and view the world through an intellectual framework, rather than an emotional one. But I am capable of understanding what other people are thinking, at least in most situations.

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.

Amy, let me start by endorsing the following statement you made, and which I should have endorsed in my last post:

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?

I suspect that many people who have Aspie traits, but who are able to pass for "normal," are not fully committed to equal rights. Sometimes this may be the result of ignorance.  Other times it may result from a desire to avoid being labeled. While I have not been specifically active in the area of austistic rights in the past, I have always been supportive of equal rights for all minority groups, and an opponent of abusive treatment of anyone.

That said, I do still stand by my view of the way that spectrums work.  Consider a spectrum which ranges from absolute black on one end, to absolute white on the other end. Except for the very ends of the spectrum, every other portion of the spectrum will have at least some black and some white in it. I think that the analogy to human behavior is obvious.

Clearly, that does not "prove" that a human spectrum condition follows the same rules as an artificial construct like a spectrum.  The question of whether some degree of autism is present in all (or the vast majority) of humans is ultimately an empiracal question which will need to be decided by researchers. Until that research has been done, my personal belief is that the concept of a spectrum applies to human behavior.  My statement was not intended as a personal attack against you.

I think one needs to remember the basis of autism, which is not so much the behaviour of the person, but rather the aspects that cause the behaviour.

In order to be on the autistic spectrum, an individual must be affected by the "triad of impairments", which is a phenomenon unique to the "label" of autism.

Research has shown that a weak central coherence as well as theory of mind problems and specific problems with information processing are unique to autism and this is seen by professionals as a neurological handicap.

These last mentioned aspects cause an autistic individual to have communication problems, stereotyped behaviour patterns, social ineptness and the tendency of focusing on and developing very specific interests. These are the behaviours that are shared among 'cousins' and all other humans for that matter.

But autism, as such, is obviously a spectrum condition, which means some individuals on the spectrum are more affected by these problems than others.

Humans are either on the spectrum, or they are not, depending on the results of cognitive testing for autism. (This is very involved and needs to be executed by a professional like a neuro psychologist. It is also very tedious and expensive). However, the results can help the individual as it points out where their specific cognitive weaknesses are and how to work towards improvement. It also helps the person finding the right therapist, should therapy be necessary.

But.. just because a person is behaving awkwardly, has social problems and comes across eccentric does not put them onto the autistic spectrum.

So essentially, unless a person has a weak central coherence and matches the triad of impairments, he is not on the autistic spectrum.

That obviously does not mean he may not be a supporter of minority rights or become a member of such.

Hey Amy, we must have been typing our messages at the same time  :lol:   :lol:

But you beat me to it by about 14 minutes! Show's you how slooooooow my brain processes...  :lol:

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.

Amy, your analogy to a cake is helpful, and I think you have expressed your ideas on this very clearly.  But the idea of a cake does not exclude the idea that everyone (or most people) have elements of autism in them. It is not the case that cakes either have a particular ingredient in them or do not have the ingredient.  Instead, each ingredient  can be present in varying amounts, ranging from a pinch to several cups.  This ties into the idea I expresed in my original post that

"There may in fact be several or even many spectrums which are involved and different people may fall on different parts of each spectrum."

In other words, each ingredient in the cake may be a different spectrum.  I think that  Energeia may have been expressing the same idea with the comment that

"The spectrum might come in with respect to severity of impairments -- mild to debilitating."

If the vast majority of people have some amount of each of the three diagnostic ingredients, then they could be said to have some amount of autism

Again however, this is ultimately an emperical question, and not one which can be resolved by armchair debates. The view I have put forward is consistent with my own view of the world, which I see as a very complex interaction of large numbers of variables, most of which change greatly in intensity under different circumstances. However, I have been wrong in the past, and could be wrong again here. There is a lot that we do not know about the functioning of the human brain.

I also understand that there are good practical reasons for the diagnostic criteria, and that 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.

Overall, this discussion has been very enlightening for me, and I hope for others. Thanks for all who participated.

Cousin, you might want to read this paper (below). It is very interesting and it is based on the latest studies on autism. As some of us mentioned before, the "triad of impairments" is only a guideline of described behaviour to detect possible autism in a person. However, as it is based on human behaviour, all humans will express some of this behaviour to a more or lesser degree. The diagnostic criteria for autism will be changed in the near future, as scientists feel the current specifications are not touching on the core aspects of autism.

This paper basically explains that the "cake of autism" has an ingredient missing.

This thread also has a link to an interesting dissertation on autism, touching on the same issue:
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/phpBB2/v...highlight=

Weak Central Coherence and Its Relations to Theory of Mind and Anxiety in Autism
Authors: Courtney Burnette1; Peter Mundy2; Jessica Meyer3; Steven Sutton2; Amy Vaughan2; David Charak2

Source: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Volume 35, Number 1, February 2005, pp. 63-73(11)
Publisher:Springer

Abstract:

Recent theory and research suggests that weak central coherence, a specific perceptual-cognitive style, underlies the central disturbance in autism. This study sought to provide a test of the weak central coherence hypothesis. In addition, this study explored the relations between the weak central coherence hypothesis, theory of mind skills, and social-emotional functioning in a group of high functioning children with autism. Results revealed equivocal support for the weak central coherence hypothesis, but found moderate correlations between verbal weak central coherence and theory of mind measures. No significant findings were observed between weak central coherence measures and social-emotional functioning.

Document Type: Research article

Affiliations: 1: Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/kl...1/00001035

Hope this helps to clarify the "cake ingredients"  :smile:

Hopefully this valuable research by Uta Frith will mark autism as a "condition" rather than a "disorder" as it is currently seen by the majority of population and in the mental healthcare profession.

If a weak central coherence is not regarded as being a deficit, then it can't be a disorder as such..  :razz:

I'm just wondering though... where does Learning Disability fit into the equation as it is narrowly associated with autism. Eg. Mathematics disorder, reading disorder, dyslexia, etc. - I have all of these. Are they "disorders"?

Other associated disorders are anxiety disorders, dyspraxia, hyperactivity, mood disorders, obsessive behaviour. I have a big problem with first and last mentioned, but in my case obsessiveness is directly linked with my anxiety. I also have tricholomania, which is obsessive behaviour linked with my anxiety.

In my therapy, it was established that all my mental health problems are linked to my inability of global processing. ie. I would stress about something I can't put into relation to the situation, causing me to experience intense anxiety that in turn invokes obsessive behaviour as a form of self soothing stim. But thanks to medication, these panic attacks are now under control.

The brain is a wonderfully complex organ.  There is a lot already discovered which is still left for me to learn about it, and a lot for all of us yet to discover about it. Karms and Stella, both of your articles and links were helpful.  Thanks. :smile:

What if we have extra "ingredients"? Seriously, I think we are missing whatever mechanism exists in the brains of NTs that allows us to "turn off" when we are confronted with irritating stimuli; or perhaps our turn off threshhold is set at a different level to most.

This exists on a spectrum even within autism as some of us are more or less bothered by various stimuli.

Another dimension that has been used in psychology is "high screeners" -vs- "low screeners" (independently of any considerations about autism) but as it has been years since I studied psychology, I am not sure which researchers posited this theory.

Quickduck, why don't you seek an official diagnosis, at least for purposes of clarification?

I think humans have a drive towards categorising and naming as a way of understanding their world better.