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?

I checked 111/135.  Those points sum up my personality perfectly!

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!  

thanks everyone for responding.  i took the 'meyer' test (http://www.geocities.com/petexlnt/meyer.html).  got a 52.  i'm definitely an aspie, and i think that's cool.

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?

It seems as if this confusion over diagnosis is not a really new thing...