Aspies For Freedom

Have you found out much information on AS? There's lot of stuff on the autism wiki http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/wiki
Also have you tried the AQ test on the Wired website? Its a rough guide for really, not in anyway diagnostic.
Some people never get a diagnosis, there are pros and cons to it.

Oh Amy! Just the AQ test?

OK, alright, if (and I will, I just don't know when) I ever get out of this funk which seems to be my normal state, I'll straighten out your wiki. But haven't I shown you the way to more relevent, already available, tests? Have I wasted my time?

I'm link lazy.

what i mean is that i feel i should get a professional opinion, but i wouldn't know where to go/who to talk to.  also, what's the link to the AQ test on wired?

So here it is again:

http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/phpBB2/v...c92a621940

but please note that there's a lot of good discussion here, as well as links to similar stuff on other sites, and one post with a dozen or so other tests which also add to the picture, so if anyone really wants to know if you've got AS or not, then put the bloody work in!!!.

If you are happy to just take the word of whoever happens to be your local expert, then you may well qualify for the DSM definition (which is a load of junk) which is just one of several, some based on Lorna Wing's biased interpretation of Asperger's papers, but others, like the UK diagnosis, which are much closer to both Asperger's and Attwood's observations.

If you only want to take the tests, then here are some qualifiers:

The AQ test does delve into classic autism (as it was understood before Asperger's or Kanner's time, and which both clearly drew from; it's more recent interpretations which have derailed this understanding, without which you will never get a clear view of the issues here!) but is rather clumsy, asking questions from an NTs point of view ("how difficult do you find it to remember telephone numbers?"; my initial response was "why would anyone want to?"! Similarly, there's "how difficult do you find it to maintain eye-contact?" which presupposes that there is some merit in such activity; real Aspies would beg to differ!). There's also the fact that there is no fine distinction in the marking, nor does it take account of adaption to experience (one's AQ tends to get lower as one learns how better to interact with other humans).

The EQ test, taken seperately seems inept and a bit irrelevant (but interestingly, there has been a correlation between the observed behaviour and attitudes of certain claimants of AS, and their unusually high EQs) but the SQ is a better one, and the real info comes from their ratio to each other (read the threads to find a link to the appropriate graph).

The Chandler & Macleod is a cut down version of a much more involved test, and by the admission of the guy who runs the company, is a bit "Mickey Mouse", yet has proved remarkably consistent (even if it is a bitch to take; don't dwell too much on exact meanings, just go with the flow...). Moreso, the "autistic" element (now called " artistic" for fairly obvious PC reasons) is based on the earliest understanding of the word, and refers to an aspect of temperament (after all, it comes from the Greek for "self", which in turn arose from the wrong assumption by early observers that, as people are social creatures, preoccupied with "people" things, then those who display no interest in other people must {?} be preoccupied with the "self"; happily it's now understood that Aspies are predominantly "thing" oriented, not "people" oriented, hence our superior performance in technical fields).

Lastly, you should do this for your own benefit (and if you want to kid youself, by tweaking the scores, that's your problem). The earliest posted scores where probably a true reflection (but some on other sites have since mysteriously "dissappeared") but as they became better known and undertood, there's been a tendency for "creative" reporting in certain quarters; one can spot the fakes given sufficient experience, but until you've got a good grasp on this, it's best not to take posted scores too seriously.

Specifically Jos, if you can derive some benefit from a DSM certificate, then go for it by all means. If though, you lean more towards the Attwood academician type of "normal looking, but strange" Aspie (or Asperger's "little proffessors") then be aware it's a distortion which doesn't actually measure one's degree of classic autism (which is where the body-language issues and generally different outlooks and ambitions stem from). You may well conclude that, like many, you are actually better qualified to do the research, and reach the proper conclusions, than some NT clinician who most probably hasn't begun to grasp the real issues.

[Amy, is there any chance we could do a sticky for this stuff, or better still a seperate section? I don't mind distilling it into a more managable synopsis (but not tonight :sleep: ; I'm off to bediebyes...) but I'm getting real tired of having to dredge up the same thing over and over and over  and zzzzzzzzz....]

Waaaahhhhh! Cut off in my prime :evil: !

That was me (in case you didn't guess?) which may be due to my updating of all my "security" features (prior to SP2) which I suppose is why the buttons now stay orange? Err no, actually, they all just went neutral...including for those threads I aint read yet! The wonders of modern technology !

And guess what? I just tried the link...and got the message "the topic...does not exist"!


AAARRRRGGGGHH!!!!! :pooh:  |-) ...I'm outta here; good night everyone.

what about the meyer's list of characteristics?  that's the one which finally convinced me i had AS.

http://www.geocities.com/petexlnt/meyer.html

Well you've got me there! As a compendium of just about everything ever mentioned in relationship to anyone's definition of AS, or anyone's writing on the subject, or any understanding of the term "Apie", I don't understand how any normal human could escape concluding they "fit", especially as there is no rating of how many points one needs!

There were a great number of conflicting characteristics there, many of which are by no means a noted symptom of classic autism, so as a "definition" it's even worse than the DSM's (which sucks).

The notable characteristic to my mind was how NT centric it was; "feels a need to help novices and newcomers" (= "is helpful, especially to those most in need") is supposed to indicate a fault of some kind? "Has difficulty estimating time to complete a task"? Who cares? The "rubbish on time" mentality which pervades management types is the bane of engineers everywhere (and not just Aspie engineers).

I could go on (but real Aspies will know what I mean anyway) but sufficeth to say that this one should be deep sixed as a definition of either AS or Aspie. It might just pass muster as an indication of who's human, but not "establishment", but that's hardly a sound scientific way of defining anything; it's akin to defining "bears", as all mammals which aren't "horses".

me.  i care.  i can't bear inefficiency, mine or others.  but then i haven't got a bee in my bonnet about "management types"

What has inefficiency got to do with it? Work efficiently as you like, and a job still determines it's own duration; what purpose to try and estimate in advance how long it should take?

If you'd been forced as often as I have to take short cuts and produce second rate results, just to satisfy the ego of some guy who then didn't even look at the product until a week or more after his "deadline" (by which time I could easily have got it right) then you might have ended up with a similar aversion to such jerks...but then again, maybe not; imagining that rushing a job unnecessarily so as to produce inferior results (or leaving a task which has to be redone, which always takes longer than getting it right first time) is somehow "efficient" does smack somewhat of a peculiarly NT insanity.

Even worse, when typical managers encounter a need to completely revamp a project, they avoid any suggestion of critisism (in their eyes anyway) by referring to it as a "seperate" project...for which a whole new set of dynamic, thrusting, deadlines are produced. Anyone who can convince himself that getting a product successfully to market in two "stages" mitigates the fact that it takes longer and costs more, has either got shit for brains, or else efficiency, or profit, are not high on their list of priorities.

Managers as a rule are not notably stupid, so this kind of impasse might suggest just why they are so keen on not employing anyone capable of Aspie think? After all, even that "myriad definition" proposal doesn't suggest that Aspies are either vain, greedy, nor selfish.

Uschi, I'm sure I never meant to imply anything different, but your logic is somewhat circular here; it's been proposed as an indication of what makes people certifiably AS, because it includes a lot of characteristics which are found among people who consider themselves AS? So how then did they determine they were AS beforehand?

I have some fundamental problems with this notion; for one, it reinforces the confusion introduced with the DSM way of using many demonstrably contradictory measures, to put people in the same "category". This is the scientific equivalent of trying to knock square pegs into round holes (and vice-versa, simultaneously)! Any "definition" in every other field I've encountered gives equal emphasis to identifying what seperates one classification from another; to continue my analogy, bears and pigs, apart from being mammals, are omniverous, they are covered in hair, they tend to be of roughly equivalent intelligence and size, and in the wild have a similar mode of survival and preference for habitat, and have the unpleasent tendency to carry parasites which can also attack humans, as they themselves are known to do, in similarly fearless mode...they have a lot in common, but is a pig a bear? No, they are quite different and few would mistake one for the other!

Another issue is this trend to use absolutes instead of relative values, and to pretend an isolated incidence is proof of a disposition, without regard to provocation. Example; if you are prone to tantrums, this is evidence of being an Aspie? The original understanding of autism suggests quite the opposite; a tendency to withdraw and not get emotionally involved, a sense of detachment where social expectations are concerned; this can't be news to any of you who have read about autism, and especially those who have studied Asperger's papers (albeit in translation for many of us)?

So why, in this age of wall to wall spoilt brats is "tantrums" even given consideration as a symptom? When you consider the frustration real Aspies face, of being continually misunderstood, through no fault of their own, and without any clue as to why it happens, the only surprising thing is that we are nor continually in a state of high dudgeon! This is especially true given what is called "modern" parenting, where any sign of "difference" is sure to be a frequent excuse for parental self indulgeance. Forget "tantrums" as evidence of AS, it's pure hokum!

A major problem relating to relative values, which should be evident, is the way most people reading the above standard could find that it fits them; it's hardly surprising that if you make a list of common "failings" which the establishment media try to tell us is "unacceptable" (like personal hygene, relative again; some autistics don't have any aversion to human waste, but many NTs don't seem to have any more aversion to their own BO, but who decided we have to shower every day to be deemed acceptable? I don't sweat that much, and live alone, so is it really so wrong to try and conserve the worlds resources by not squandering so much drinkable water to deprive my skin of natural oils, and give my clothes an over frequent hammering in the washing machine?). Most NTs don't behave as they deem naturally, they respond more to what is expected of them...but by who? Given the requisit freedom, most NTs would give rein to their need to twitch, or speak their minds, as Aspies tend to do naturally, to their cost; so which of these behaviours is "unnatural"?

I'll wrap up (to a round of applause no doubt) by asking: Uschi, didn't you notice how biased the phrasing of the various statements where? It must have been clear to you it was compiled by an NT?

it's the combination of points, though.  just like any other characteristics.  give me a medical encyclopaedia, and i'm sure i have symptoms of beri-beri, lassa fever, leprosy and testicular hernia.  but not the whole thing.  my NT friend did the "test" (meyers) and she ticked quite a few of the "boxes" too.  but nowhere near as many as i did.  sure, lots of the characteristics might be due to shyness, parkinson's disease, rampant insanity, as far as i know.  but it's the synergistic combination.

i like the meyer's list of characteristics.

p.s. if i DO develop testicular hernia, i stand to make an awful lot of money... hahahahaha!  

In other words it's all bollocks, so what 's you're point vetivert? And how many of your friends had access to your vast library?

that's the point, gwynfryn.  i.e., it isn't if you have a few of the characteristics, it's the range of characteristics and the combination which is used in anything in order to "diagnose".  a headache is a headache.  headache + sore throat might be flu.  headache + sore throat + swollen neck + fever + vision problems might be meningitis.  does that explain it better?