Are aspergers researching autism prevalent?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Prototype123

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
83
I was stringently diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome at age 15 and thus know better than anyone what aspergers does and does entail, and wheter it should be grouped with autism.

Would I be unique in the field of psychology to research my own condition?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Unique? Probably not. I'm not aware of researchers who explicitly self identify with an ASD diagnosis-it certainly doesn't come up in published research papers, with the author reporting their own diagnoses. However, work long enough in the field, attend enough conferences, etc., and you will come to see that the rates of diagnoses in the general population are somewhat mirrored in population of clinical researchers.

I'd suggest some caution regarding your statement about "knowing better than anyone what aspergers does or does not entail." While there are certainly some similarities across individuals, each experience is unique. Additional, as a researcher in the field, Your job will be to uncover truths about the state of things, and some of these objective truths you uncover through empiricism may run counter to the your subjective views resulting from personal experience. I would argue that your perspective may lead to more relevant or interesting research questions, but the answers to these questions don't care about your personal experiences (assuming good research designs).

Just curious- do you mind sharing your views on whether Aspergers should be grouped with autism? I have my opinions on the matter related to my work as a diagnostician and service provider, but am very interested in the views of someone such as yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
OP, I agree with ClinicalABA. DBT's founder, Marsha Linehan, has stated pretty publically that she believs she has borderline personality disorder, for which DBT is a treatment.
 
I am curious about your thoughts on autism being grouped with Aspergers, as well. I also would like to hear your perspective @ClinicalABA

It's an interesting issue. While I can see some validity in the "spectrum" approach of DSM-5, I don't see how the new level system is more precise. For example, there are clients who would have received an Autism Diagnosis under DSM-IV and those that would have received an Aspergers diagnosis under DSM-IV, both of whom would now recieve the same diagnosis (ASD, Level-1) under DSM-V. I also find the boarders between levels to not be as clear as they could be, and I struggle to be consistent with assigning a level to those kiddos who are close to those "borders." More research also need to be done regarding the persistence of level assignments within and between diagnosticians.

The new system also potentially creates a wider range of presentations that could be described with the same term (ASD), with the most impacted and the least impacted having the same diangosis, whereas previously there was an (admittedly fuzzy) distinction between the most impacted (Autism) and least (Aspergers). This has impacts on self labeling within the population (and I am interested to get the OP's perspective on this). Moreso than perhaps any other diagnosis, Asperger's is related to a self-identity and culture in which members often take great pride. We don't yet know (objectively speaking) the impact of telling this group that their label is no longer "official."

From a more practical standpoint, in many locations services are currently tied to the diagnosis of ASD. In some cases, the diagnosis can mean and additional 20-30 hours per week of services, compared to no diagnosis. I am very conservative with my diagnosing, and try to stick to the book as close as possible. I have had several kiddos (I see kids 4 and younger, with an average age of ~24 months) who are sub-threshold for ASD (often missing one of the "Criteria B" symptoms), but would likely benefit greatly from ABA services that, without the Dx, they have no means of accessing. Under DSM-IV, I may have given a PDD-NOS diagnosis, which may have qualified them for service. On the flip side, I know of clinicians who will err in the other direction, given the ASD diagnosis to a kid who doesn't meet criteria, just to get eligibility for ABA services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Under DSM-IV, I may have given a PDD-NOS diagnosis, which may have qualified them for service. On the flip side, I know of clinicians who will err in the other direction, given the ASD diagnosis to a kid who doesn't meet criteria, just to get eligibility for ABA services.

Specific to this, and I admit this is anecdotal, but one reason I support the change is that some families received PDD diagnoses when their children clearly met criteria for ASD. In my view, the clinician likely wanted to avoid a difficult feedback or conversation. There are certainly times when a child is in that gray area, maybe is overly quirky or has other social deficits, or their RRBs aren't so clear (what 8 year old boy isn't obsessed with minecraft?). But in general, I've found that many families and school districts had no idea what "PDD-NOS" meant, and kids were sometimes denied services because it wasn't clear that this fell within the Autism spectrum... I think the PDD-NOS diagnosis was great in theory, but in practice it did many kids a disservice.


Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
 
I was stringently diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome at age 15 and thus know better than anyone what aspergers does and does entail, and wheter it should be grouped with autism.

Would I be unique in the field of psychology to research my own condition?

Same person that said, "a) You don't need to be very bright to study psychology, and b) You don't need much of mathematic ability at all."

Having that attitude and getting into a reputable program would be fairly unique.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
@ClinicalABA You're comment about the offering of services is what I suspect is behind a lot of the shift in diagnosis beyond just ASD. Its why (in part) the DSM-IV Task Force Chair wrote the 'publishing profits trumped public interest'. There was a ton of advocacy groups involved in the DSM-5 task forces and they did so in rather transparent ways, attempting to influence diagnostic requirements and conceptualizations. Diagnostic changes are built on reliability not validity and, more and more, on service availability. I like how Hagan and Guilmette (2015) describe it as a focus on 'outcome driven strategy to achieve particular financial, clinical, and administrative results' and linking with those services is particularly desirable for certain diagnoses (ID, ASD, etc.), albeit it for understandable reasons given the improved efficacy of early intervention in developmental disorders. This tinges a bit outside purely the ASD/Asperger's discussion, but I have questions about our confidence as a field about the level of diagnostic clarity we are able to reach given our increasing reliance on more and more fuzzy boundaries between disorders and symptoms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just curious- do you mind sharing your views on whether Aspergers should be grouped with autism? I have my opinions on the matter related to my work as a diagnostician and service provider, but am very interested in the views of someone such as yourself.

I believe that Aspergers differ in one but very important sense from high functioning autistics, and that is in their attitudes towards social interactions. Autistics shun from socialising in favour of lone wolf activities. They don't like forming friendships just for the sake of it (there would have to be a huge pay off to even concider it),while an asperger might very well seek to be social but fail at it. Again, a high functioning autistic is likely to fail too but the difference is that a prototypical autistic hates it...

My condition has always been far more consistent with High Functioning Autism. Running from my classmates when school ended and locking the door in my home was common practise. The mere concept of socialisation horrified me. I concidered it a great burden and was prone to extreme anxiety because of it. I did not want to form friendships, even with people I "liked". School OK, but on my free time, never... Never played with other kids as a toddler either.

My highest scores in the IQ testing were in picture completion, picture arrangement and coding - usually relative strenghts for HFAs. I scored scored in the low average in the verbal section of the test - again consistent with autism. But since block performance was low and language development normal, they rejected the HFA alternative, or simply concidered it a distinction without a difference. I later attended a high school were they did not make any distinctions between Asperger and HFA in my country. Please note that it was later discovered in one study that 25% of high functioning autistics scored low on the blocks, so it is by no means inconsistent with HFA, just not as common. And some HFAs later in life developed verbal skills comparable or even higher than their Visual IQ scores.

You might ask yourself at this point how I know that Aspergers don't mind socialising? Well, since not a single asperger individual in my school had a problem with it, I think it's sufficient to state that although plenty of Aspergers might seek it, they do however fail it. HFA don't want it, period.

Some researchers, such as Gillberg, contend that one may very well have characteristics more consistent with HFA instead of AS or vice versa, and that it should therefore take presidence. No problem there....The issue I have is that Aspergers is concidered to be autism, when in fact probably 60% of Aspergers don't mind socialising at all, if they have full access in advance what's ahead.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A year ago I had the diagnosis uppdated. The psychologist pleaded to stick with the Asperger label because of autisms negative connotations on the job market. But I can use whatever label I want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I believe that Aspergers differ in one but very important sense from high functioning autistics, and that is in their attitudes towards social interactions. Autistics shun from socialising in favour of lone wolf activities. They don't like forming friendships just for the sake of it (there would have to be a huge pay off to even concider it),while an asperger might very well seek to be social but fail at it. Again, a high functioning autistic is likely to fail too, but the difference is that a prototypical autistic hates it...

My condition has always been far more consistent with High Functioning Autism. Running from my classmates when school ended and locking the door in my home was common practise. The mere concept of socialisation horrified me. I concidered it a great burden and was prone to extreme anxiety because of it. I did not want to form friendships, even with people I "liked". School OK, but on my free time, never... Never played with other kids as a toddler either.

My highest scores in the IQ testing were in picture completion, picture arrangement and coding - usually relative strenghts for HFAs. I scored scored in the low average in the verbal section of the test - again consistent with autism. But since block performance was low and language development normal, they rejected the HFA alternative, or simply concidered it a distinction without a difference. I later attended a high school were they did not make any distinctions between Asperger and HFA in my country. Please note that it was later discovered in one study that 25% of high functioning autistics scored low on the blocks, so it is by no means inconsistent with HFA, just not as common. And some HFAs later in life developed verbal skills comparable or even higher than their Visual IQ scores.

You might ask yourself at this point how I know that Aspergers don't mind socialising? Well, since not a single asperger individual in my school had a problem with it, I think it's sufficient to state that although plenty of Aspergers might seek it, they do however fail it. HFA don't want it, period.

Some researchers, such as Gillberg, contend that one may very well have characteristics more consistent with HFA instead of AS or vice versa, and that it should therefore take presidence. No problem there....The issue I have is that Aspergers is concidered to be autism, when in fact probably 60% of Aspergers don't mind socialising at all, if they have full access in advance what's ahead.
Your post is really pointing up some of the problems we have with diagnostic categories when we don't know etiologies and don't have agreement on operational definitions. I have always found the distinction between HFA, non-verbal learning disorders, and Aspergers to be quite interesting, but at this point, we don't have clear demarcations. Social anxiety is likely to cut across the categories and is likely correlated with the social difficulties that these individuals have. On the other hand, social anxiety also occurs in people with good social abilities and some people with social difficulties appear to have so little social awareness as to not have appropriate levels of social anxiety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How does the DSM-V dxs line up w the ICD-10 in regard to autism, AS, etc? I only use ICD-10 coding, though it is interesting to hear about the practical application of some of the changes in the DSM-V.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Your post is really pointing up some of the problems we have with diagnostic categories when we don't know etiologies and don't have agreement on operational definitions. I have always found the distinction between HFA, non-verbal learning disorders, and Aspergers to be quite interesting, but at this point, we don't have clear demarcations. Social anxiety is likely to cut across the categories and is likely correlated with the social difficulties that these individuals have. On the other hand, social anxiety also occurs in people with good social abilities and some people with social difficulties appear to have so little social awareness as to not have appropriate levels of social anxiety.

I had no interaction with other children. That's a fundamental difference. Aspergers are not like that at all. A cognitive language delay in autism is not a universally accepted definition, which is one of the reasons Aspergers has been (wrongly) lumped with autism. And yes, I do possess splinter skills (chess) which I am certain wouldn't manifest themselves without HFA.
 
Last edited:
I believe that Aspergers differ in one but very important sense from high functioning autistics, and that is in their attitudes towards social interactions. Autistics shun from socialising in favour of lone wolf activities. They don't like forming friendships just for the sake of it (there would have to be a huge pay off to even concider it),while an asperger might very well seek to be social but fail at it. Again, a high functioning autistic is likely to fail too but the difference is that a prototypical autistic hates it...

My condition has always been far more consistent with High Functioning Autism. Running from my classmates when school ended and locking the door in my home was common practise. The mere concept of socialisation horrified me. I concidered it a great burden and was prone to extreme anxiety because of it. I did not want to form friendships, even with people I "liked". School OK, but on my free time, never... Never played with other kids as a toddler either.

My highest scores in the IQ testing were in picture completion, picture arrangement and coding - usually relative strenghts for HFAs. I scored scored in the low average in the verbal section of the test - again consistent with autism. But since block performance was low and language development normal, they rejected the HFA alternative, or simply concidered it a distinction without a difference. I later attended a high school were they did not make any distinctions between Asperger and HFA in my country. Please note that it was later discovered in one study that 25% of high functioning autistics scored low on the blocks, so it is by no means inconsistent with HFA, just not as common. And some HFAs later in life developed verbal skills comparable or even higher than their Visual IQ scores.

You might ask yourself at this point how I know that Aspergers don't mind socialising? Well, since not a single asperger individual in my school had a problem with it, I think it's sufficient to state that although plenty of Aspergers might seek it, they do however fail it. HFA don't want it, period.

Some researchers, such as Gillberg, contend that one may very well have characteristics more consistent with HFA instead of AS or vice versa, and that it should therefore take presidence. No problem there....The issue I have is that Aspergers is concidered to be autism, when in fact probably 60% of Aspergers don't mind socialising at all, if they have full access in advance what's ahead.

Thanks for offering your perspective on this. It nice for me to get such insight and feedback from individuals with these diagnoses. The clients I work with are all very young (toddlers), and tend to not say very much, if anything at all. Your views are informative and welcome.

Getting back to your original post regarding research- I think you have a potentially good research question here related to differing attitudes towards social interaction between those diagnosed with Aspegers and those diagnosed with Autism. Your diagnosis and circumstances have led you to form a belief, for which you have acquired some anecdotal support. If you want to approach this as a researcher, your next step would be to search for some non-anecdotal support, such as searching the empirical literature for studies looking at this (or similar) research questions. You may find that others have researched this very question, and reached similar conclusions to yourself. You may find that they have reached different conclusions. You may also find that nobody has asked this question, and perhaps it will be you who does the seminal study on this topic! Whatever the case, it's an exciting line of inquiry which can be guided and shaped, in part, by your personal experiences. That's pretty cool, if you ask me! Whatever the case may be, you need to keep in mind that at this point you have some subjective beliefs based on personal experiences, given some validation through discussions with others similar to you. As you (hopefully!) move forward in your research career, you'll come see that subjective experience and anecdotal reports are relatively weak sources of evidence (though great sources of questions), subject to many biases. More controlled experimentation will be necessary to objectively answer your question. That's where all the hard work and fun comes in! Best of luck with it all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Maybe I am wrong and Asperger syndrome is simply less severe autism. The social disinterestedness in autism is striking though. It's so pronounced. The aspies I have encountered exhibited social quirkiness more than aversion. The two groups could be lone wolfs for different reasons.
 
Th
Maybe I am wrong and Asperger syndrome is simply less severe autism. The social disinterestedness in autism is striking though. It's so pronounced. The aspies I have encountered exhibited social quirkiness more than aversion. The two groups could be lone wolfs for different reasons.
Thing is, you can't know if you're objectively right or wrong (nor can we) without looking for research or doing it ourselves if it doesn't exist. Your hypothesis interesting and worthy of additional investigation. The fact that it comes from such personal experiences makes it, IMO, very interesting, though also potential subject to more bias.
 
Maybe I am wrong and Asperger syndrome is simply less severe autism. The social disinterestedness in autism is striking though. It's so pronounced. The aspies I have encountered exhibited social quirkiness more than aversion. The two groups could be lone wolfs for different reasons.

I thought you know better than ANYONE what aspergers does and does not entail.
 
I thought you know better than ANYONE what aspergers does and does not entail.

But I have not encountered enough high functioning autistic individuals. My 4 year old cousin is autistic as well, but his appears to be much more severe than mine.
 
But I have not encountered enough high functioning autistic individuals. My 4 year old cousin is autistic as well, but his appears to be much more severe than mine.
Again- you keep looking towards personal experience for proof of population level phenomenon. Good research doesn't work that way.

One other potential problem with your hypothesis is that, under DSM-IV, social deficit criteria for Autism and Aspergers were pretty much exactly the same. Any differences in diagnostic practices related to quality/quantity of social interaction would have had to result from "off the books" practices of the diagnostician. Basically, under the old system, the presence or absence of deficits in communication were all that differentiated the diagnoses- autism required communication deficits, aspergers required their absence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Again- you keep looking towards personal experience for proof of population level phenomenon. Good research doesn't work that way.
Basically, under the old system, the presence or absence of deficits in communication were all that differentiated the diagnoses- autism required communication deficits, aspergers required their absence.

Nobody can investigate an entire population., that's why we use relevant sample sizes. Since a diagnosis actually entails traits, you wouldn't need to investigate every single one of them. As to your other point, although it is true that it is diagnostically defined and therefore subject to criticism, it makes sense distinguishing people via communication deficits. That's a crucial difference in reaction to stimuli, if it's as distinct as in autistic individuals. It's madness to disregard it and only focus on intellectual cognitive profiles, when no distinct intellectual profile of Autism and Asperger has been established. Some have learning disorders, some are good at visuo-spatial reasoning, some are verbally gifted, it's all a mix. Yet that has been the primary focus so far.
 
Last edited:
The communication deficts are genetic, not environmental. That's the hole point. Intellectual cognitive profiles are however largely environmental, such as visual spatial propensity and resulting proficiency.
 
What I find interesting about the diagnosis is that the traits which comprise it (or any other diagnoses that I'm aware of) have never been statistically studied to create a group of what is known to co-occur. They (the traits) are changed based on a consensus for better inter-rater reliability. It always seems to me that we put the cart before the horse and assume a diagnosis is group to certain way without having any empirical evidence of it.

And I'm not sure that your suggestion that intellectual ability is largely environmental is one that is strongly supported.
 
Here's my problem with all of this:

You've stated that you don't have to be bright to become a psychologist. Then you turn around and indicate that your own personal experience supersedes the scientific process. Compare those two ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What I find interesting about the diagnosis is that the traits which comprise it (or any other diagnoses that I'm aware of) have never been statistically studied to create a group of what is known to co-occur. They (the traits) are changed based on a consensus for better inter-rater reliability. It always seems to me that we put the cart before the horse and assume a diagnosis is group to certain way without having any empirical evidence of it.

Actually, autism is easily detectable due to the communication "deficit" or more accurately put: extreme deviation from the norm. The issue is with Asperger....

And I'm not sure that your suggestion that intellectual ability is largely environmental is one that is strongly supported.

Only 50% of your intelligence hereditary. The other 50% is attributed to the environment, and an autistic individual might very well have limited exposure to certain things, making him/her proficient in puzzle like things (or whatever the interest might be) and less afluent in others. This wouldn't be a problem for a neurotypical individual who won't go into isolation, receives proper exposure and embraces the elements accordingly.

Also note that on the extreme spectrum is critical periods, and when they pass one can never achieve the same level as it would have been originally. This has been verified with an isolated girl who never received verbal stimulation. She could never develop a full functional grammar, despite all the efforts made.

The probability of finding an individual in that case prone to language deficit is very low. The most probable explanation is lack of exposure during critical periods.

As to visual spatial ability- there was a cat study in which it only was exposed to linjear lines during it's critical periods and as a result could not perceive vertical lines when taken out of isolation. But that's on the extreme...
 
Last edited:
Here's my problem with all of this:

You've stated that you don't have to be bright to become a psychologist. Then you turn around and indicate that your own personal experience supersedes the scientific process. Compare those two ideas.

There is no connection between the two. I have never expressed any negative views on the scientific validity of psychological research. The issue I raised in this thread concerns the scientific studies and their relevance (not validity) in establishing distinctions between Autism and Asperger.

I contend that autism has more to do with socio-cognitive aspects of sensory processing than anything measured in an IQ test. The distribution of giftedness within Aspergers syndrome is the same as for the neurotypical population.
 
I contend that autism has more to do with socio-cognitive aspects of sensory processing than anything measured in an IQ test. The distribution of giftedness within Aspergers syndrome is the same as for the neurotypical population.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and interest in this topic, and hope you go on to do more research in this area. I think what we are all trying to say is that at this point in the game you have a contention, based on your experiences. It could be right, it could be wrong- the only way to know is through controlled research. Maybe this research has already been done- I'm not aware of it, but I really have looked for it either. Nobody should argue with you whether or not it's a question worth asking, and absent supporting evidence from the research, nobody can argue if you are correct or not. What we can argue is that your evidence for your contention is, as you've presented it here, is anecdotal and subjective. I encourage you to do more formal investigation- do a literature search, look through some journals, etc., to see what's out there on the topic. Get some more training and experience in research designs and statistics. Learn more, so that we may learn more from you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I appreciate your enthusiasm and interest in this topic, and hope you go on to do more research in this area. I think what we are all trying to say is that at this point in the game you have a contention, based on your experiences. It could be right, it could be wrong- the only way to know is through controlled research. Maybe this research has already been done- I'm not aware of it, but I really have looked for it either. Nobody should argue with you whether or not it's a question worth asking, and absent supporting evidence from the research, nobody can argue if you are correct or not. What we can argue is that your evidence for your contention is, as you've presented it here, is anecdotal and subjective. I encourage you to do more formal investigation- do a literature search, look through some journals, etc., to see what's out there on the topic. Get some more training and experience in research designs and statistics. Learn more, so that we may learn more from you.

I have taken part of the studies. The closest we got to the question I posed is testing HFA and AS on theory of mind, as well as general questionnaires. It was discovered that their was no distinction between the two groups, aside from that autistics scored even worse than aspergers on theory of mind (both did poorly). I have yet to see what the general questionnaries actually included, but I know some questions were of the kind: "Do you adhere to restricted routines and interests"... There is definite overlap on several points.
 
Last edited:


Social Behaviour

"Szatmari et al (op.cit) examined the issue of responsiveness among children between birth and five years (among children who were aged between eight and eighteen years at the time of the study), and noted that Asperger children were more likely to have been socially responsive to carers and other adults, to have shared their interests, and shown an affection towards and interest in their peers."


"A follow up study by the same team of researchers, using samples of children identified by current and more formal diagnostic criteria, demonstrated that both groups showed deficits, compared to normally developing children, on most dimensions of social and communicative skills, and any differences were in terms of greater social interactive skills on the part of the Asperger sample."

http://www.mugsy.org/connor54.htm
 
This was a clever experiment:

The use by Ghaziuddin and Gerstein (1996) of taped examples of speech, evaluated by speech therapists unaware of the diagnostic label attached to the children in question, suggested that pedantic speech was more common among adolescents with Asperger Syndrome
 
This thread is highlighting a lot of the issues I have with "me-search." There's nothing wrong with researching something you have personal experience with--most people I know who research LGB issues aren't straight, I know some suicide researchers who are suicide loss survivors, etc. These people can do great work and their passion for the issue often helps that, but you have to be willing to objectively look at the problem and data, even if it contradicts your personal experience. When people are unable to do that, we get problems.

And this definitely doesn't just occur with regards to diagnosis or psychopathology. For example, I knew someone with strong anti-Catholic biases who studied issues related to spiritual support and had a strong tendency to reject anything positive that participants in their qualitative studies said about getting support from the Catholic church. That's an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This thread is highlighting a lot of the issues I have with "me-search." There's nothing wrong with researching something you have personal experience with--most people I know who research LGB issues aren't straight, I know some suicide researchers who are suicide loss survivors, etc. These people can do great work and their passion for the issue often helps that, but you have to be willing to objectively look at the problem and data, even if it contradicts your personal experience. When people are unable to do that, we get problems.

And this definitely doesn't just occur with regards to diagnosis or psychopathology. For example, I knew someone with strong anti-Catholic biases who studied issues related to spiritual support and had a strong tendency to reject anything positive that participants in their qualitative studies said about getting support from the Catholic church. That's an issue.

How and why would I be biased in one way or the other when it comes to a pervasive disorder?
 
Also, I didn't ask if it was a good idea, I asked if it has occured so far. The answer seems to be no, which is pretty interesting if true.
 
Why would you be bias about something personally relevant to you that you have a lot of investment in? I'll leave you to work that one out, but that's why they call it me-search.

No, that wasn't the answer at all. The answer was it happens all the time since the first reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why would you be bias about something personally relevant to you that you have a lot of investment in? I'll leave you to work that one out, but that's why they call it me-search.

No, that wasn't the answer at all. The answer was it happens all the time since the first reply.

I don't have any investment in it. The question was aspergers researching autism, not mesearch as a whole. A borderline individual researching borderline is not what I asked. Aspergers is a much more complex disorder. Being emotionally unstable has never prevented people from scientific research.
 
Last edited:
There is no connection between the two. I have never expressed any negative views on the scientific validity of psychological research.

Yeah, I figured you didn't see the conflict between your opinions despite claiming to be more bright than most psychologists.

You stated your personal experience makes you better informed than anyone in this subject, including the vast number of scientists who actually created the research base.

So either you have such a great opinion of yourself that you assume your personal experience has greater generalizable validity to the population or you are ignorant of how the scientific method works.

I'd recommend ameliorating one of those problems.
 
Yeah, I figured you didn't see the conflict between your opinions despite claiming to be more bright than most psychologists.

You stated your personal experience makes you better informed than anyone in this subject, including the vast number of scientists who actually created the research base.
.

Well yeah. It may have to do with the fact that I actually live the experience of having high functioning autism. The neurotypical researchers can only extrapolate conclusions based on different cognitive studies. Their reasonings are theoretical. They don't have the condition and can thus only speculate.
 
This is why I don't recommend mesearch. I understand the "why", but at times it is a threat to objectivity.

What would I be subjectively biased for or against? You would have to explain that first and foremost.
 
It seems my objection has not gone unnoticed:

Here is an interview with Tony Atwood, Clinical psychologist, researching Autism/Asperger:

ADAM FEINSTEIN: In my experience, those with a diagnosis of high-functioning autism do not, on the whole, seem to have that same drive to make friends and so do not feel those intense emotions such as depression or dejection which you mentioned - or is that too simplistic?

Tony Atwoods answer is ambigious and does not adress the question....

"One of the things that I notice is that those who were diagnosed with classic autism when they were younger - they had major problems with communication, socialisation and play - progressed to a level where they and others view them as an enormous success. They are now able to achieve things which previously would never have been thought possible. So they are happy by what they compare themselves with. But those with Asperger’s syndrome who compare themselves with the neurotypical will have more depression and dejection. So quite often, those with classic autism who have progressed to high-functioning autism and success are happier, and people will see them as a success."

That's all great but has nothing to do with the question..

http://www.lookingupautism.org/Articles/TonyAttwood.html
 
Well yeah. It may have to do with the fact that I actually live the experience of having high functioning autism. The neurotypical researchers can only extrapolate conclusions based on different cognitive studies. Their reasonings are theoretical. They don't have the condition and can thus only speculate.

You understand autism as a sample of one. Researchers attempt to understand autism using samples of 10's, 100's or 1000's. In general, the larger the sample, the more accurate the conclusion. While your own experience has value, it does not add any value from which someone can draw any scientific conclusions.
The potential bias seems to be floating around in the assumption that your own experience must be the same as others with the same diagnosis. Even if it's true, we cannot assume it is. Researchers who share the same experience as those they study often have a hard time separating themselves from the research. A powerful influence that can even operate unconsciously. So when you state that you could not be subjectively biased, you're already showing signs that you're not even looking. That's a huge problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If one assume there is nothing uniform about autism, there would be no point in A) labelling it and B) researching it. Autism is very homogenous. The differences emerging among are due to personality differences, as well as unrelated genetic diversity. A high functioning autistic individual, such as myself, is more competent than a researcher to single out the fundamental features of autism.
 
The potential bias seems to be floating around in the assumption that your own experience must be the same as others with the same diagnosis. Even if it's true, we cannot assume it is. Researchers who share the same experience as those they study often have a hard time separating themselves from the research. A powerful influence that can even operate unconsciously. So when you state that you could not be subjectively biased, you're already showing signs that you're not even looking. That's a huge problem.

This is the gist of what I was referring to with my post. Having personal experience with the diagnosis may provide some additional insight, though it also introduces the possibility of an additional blind-spot. I see it often with substance abuse treatment and also with eating disorder treatment.
 
There are times in my own experiences were I have failed to restrain my autistic nature. One can liken it to the "reptilian brain". It's there but repressed. I have caused more bad than good during these events and acted principally instead of pragmatically. I would have no problem however objectively evaluating other autistic individuals on the higher functioning end.
 
Asperger syndrome is still a formal diagnosis in the WHO ICD - does that have any diagnostic bearing? Is the DSM mandatory guideline for a clinical psychologist?

Is the diagnosis dead?
 
Asperger syndrome is still a formal diagnosis in the WHO ICD - does that have any diagnostic bearing? Is the DSM mandatory guideline for a clinical psychologist?

Is the diagnosis dead?

ICD is typically the diagnostic code set used for billing; DSM-5 has ICD-10 codes for its diagnoses, but they don't always translate one-to-one. Psychologists will typically use the verbiage from DSM, but it depends, sometimes on entirely administrative rules/regulations. Novel research in the field is probably the best way to determine if a diagnosis is truly "dead," and I don't know if that's yet the consensus in the field.

Edit: The change in diagnosis can of course affect research going forward, though. Many US studies will use DSM (rather than ICD) diagnostic criteria, although that doesn't necessarily preclude use of the Asperger's label.
 
Last edited:
If one assume there is nothing uniform about autism, there would be no point in A) labelling it and B) researching it. Autism is very homogenous. The differences emerging among are due to personality differences, as well as unrelated genetic diversity. A high functioning autistic individual, such as myself, is more competent than a researcher to single out the fundamental features of autism.
Autism is homogenous? I didn't think we even know what causes autism and if there are different types with different etiologies. Besides how can we know when they keep changing the labels and we are using different descriptions for clinical, billing, and research.

I actually think researching an area that is of personal interest to you is a good thing. The process of becoming that researcher will require the ability to have some cognitive flexibility or open-mindedness to other perspectives and conflicting findings. The more personal it is then often the more difficult that can be.
 
Asperger syndrome is still a formal diagnosis in the WHO ICD - does that have any diagnostic bearing? Is the DSM mandatory guideline for a clinical psychologist?

Is the diagnosis dead?

No. It seems to depend on setting, billing, and sometimes preference whether or not the DSM is utilized over and/or in conjunction with the icd-10. I personally haven't used DSM diagnosis since leaving grad training. I work in a medical setting and everything is ICD based due to setting and billing, though it may be different in other settings. I personally find the DSM-V to be of limited use, though I guess it will still be taught in grad programs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top