Is Aspergers worth killing yourself over?

[Kallan]

How many of us have gone to psychiatrists who insisted that asexuality was 'technically a disorder'. also Homosexuality and transgenderism was once considered a disorder. My question is, what is the mark of a disorder? Once you open the door that some of these 'disorders' may not actually be disorders it is perfectly legitimate to examine all disorders to see if they actually should be considered disorders.

[Brodertun]

How many of us have gone to psychiatrists who insisted that asexuality was 'technically a disorder'. also Homosexuality and transgenderism was once considered a disorder. My question is, what is the mark of a disorder? Once you open the door that some of these 'disorders' may not actually be disorders it is perfectly legitimate to examine all disorders to see if they actually should be considered disorders.

A homosexul can choose to live their life in a heterosexaul way, an asexual can choose to live their live in a sexual way. An aspie can not choose to live their life in a nt way - no matter how much they want to, they can't.

When you negate asperger's as a disorder you are in effect saying that aspies are capabable of being just like an NT, but that they just choose not to. With that view there is no reason for anyone to make allowances for the aspie. After all if its not seen as a disorder than one must believe it theis an intentional act to answer a rhetorical questions, to not make "common sense" connections, to not relate on an emotional level with the other person, to not follow the unwrritten and untaught social rules etc.

Without the NT making some allowances for the aspies "quirks" and "misunderstandings" there is no chance of a succesful relationship being formed, because every problem encountered will be attributed to a deliberateness or lack of paying attention, rather than a lack of ability to perform adaquately in that sitaution.

[Derp]

When you negate asperger's as a disorder you are in effect saying that aspies are capabable of being just like an NT, but that they just choose not to.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I've never tried to suggest that Aspies should be more like NTs. Why on earth would we want to do that? :P Seriously though, my strategy is very simple: be myself, and let other people think whatever the hell they want. I don't care how weird people think I am, they don't need to know why. Most people who bother to get to know me reasonably well seem to like me well enough, and for those who don't bother, I don't have time to worry about their opinions much.

And as for allowances, I don't ask for them. I just try my damnedest not to fuck up in social situations, and make apologies (not excuses) when I do. And if that doesn't work, well... *points to first paragraph*

Personally, I'd rather walk around a hurdle than have someone help me over it...

[Brodertun]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I've never tried to suggest that Aspies should be more like NTs. Why on earth would we want to do that? Seriously though, my strategy is very simple: be myself, and let other people think whatever the hell they want. I don't care how weird people think I am, they don't need to know why. Most people who bother to get to know me reasonably well seem to like me well enough, and for those who don't bother, I don't have time to worry about their opinions much.

For most aspie this is out of the question if they desire human relationships to any extent- look at things on here, even. Cijay is refusing to meet ajay because she feels he will hurt her feelings. With aspies like pobs and myself its pretty much impossible to have a conversation without hurting the other person's feelings. And if the person doesn't know that youre hurting them is neither intentional nor something that you could have avoided in the first place, then why would they want to take the time to get to know you in the first place? What reason would they have for wanting to spend time with you when you do nothing but offend them repeatedly and they have no way of knowing you are trying your very best to not offend them in the first place?

[Pobblebonk]

Yes, you can alter the physical environment to make life easier for blind people to get around, and likewise you can alter the social environment to make life easier for Aspies within it, but blindness doesn't cease to be a disability because you've made those provisions and neither does Aspergers. Humans' social environment is no less real than the physical environment, and just like the physical environment there are limits to how far it can be modified to accomodate those with a condition that makes it difficult for them to operate within it.

In other words, aspergers lacks compatibility with the current social environment (the current social evironment lacks compatibilty with aspergers)?

No, it lacks compatibility with the social environment, full stop. Any social environment, in exactly the same way as blind people have difficulty in any visual environment. You can modify an environment to make it safer for blind people to navigate, add braille writing and so forth, but what you can't do is take away the fact that it's a visual environment, and that it is de facto easier for sighted people to get by within it than it is for blind people. Likewise, however much you try to modify the social environment to accommodate Aspies, at the end of the day that is all you can do - make an effort to accommodate people whose condition makes them less able to function in that environment than the majority. Aspergers is a real disability in exactly the same way as blindness because those with the condition do suffer a particular impairment in a real-world environment. Just as light is a real thing out there in the world, so is the existence of unspoken rules and conventions governing interactions between people that Aspies have difficulty grasping, and it doesn't matter what those particular rules are, how you modify them, or how you help Aspies to understand them.

Phil

[Orbit]

Aspergers is a real disability in exactly the same way as blindness because those with the condition do suffer a particular impairment in a real-world environment.

Not all aspies are completely blind. Some just see things blurry-like.

[Brodertun]

Aspergers is a real disability in exactly the same way as blindness because those with the condition do suffer a particular impairment in a real-world environment.

Not all aspies are completely blind. Some just see things blurry-like.

even those who see things blurry have significant impairments as the result of that blurryness - just like nearly blind people have significant visual problems that impair their ability to use their sight even when using strong glasses, enlarged objects, and specially tailored magnifying glasses

[Pobblebonk]

Nonetheless' date=' it is still a disability because it limits my options in a way people without that disability don't experience.[/quote']

Is my being bad at math a disability or disorder? It limits my options in a way people good at math aren't limited.

Once again that's taking the argument completely out of context. Note the word "tangible" in my post above the quoted section. Mathematics is a learned skill; competence in mathematics is a combination of training and interest as well as natural aptitude, and unless one's mathematical functioning is so poor that basic arithmetic and counting eludes you (in which case it would be a disability) poor mathematics skills don't impair functioning outside particular specialised environments.

A disability on the other hand limits one's intrinsic abilities to function in the real-world environment. While training may help overcome the drawbacks it causes, you can't cure a disability through training in the same way that a poor mathematician can become a competent or good one with sufficient education and experience in the subject. Whatever you do to accommodate them, a blind person will always be at a disadvantage compared with someone with full vision in any visual environment, and an Aspie will always be at a disadvantage compared with neurotypicals in any social environment.

Again - agree to disagree.

I agree that we disagree. :) But it can still be informative to share perspectives.

Ultimately, I'm seeing a double standard here. If someone were to look at me or if I were simply to tell them I have cerebral palsy, they wouldn't think of denying that I have a disability or arguing that it's not actually a disability. They wouldn't need to know how it affects my life or whether that life is "fulfilling", it is simply an empirical observation that I am disabled. Most people wouldn't regard acknowledging that fact as devaluing me in any way. There are minority groups like the "deaf rights" group who do indeed try to claim that deafness is "just different" and who would try to block efforts to cure it or at the very least try to have it "socially accepted" as something that doesn't require a cure, but most people (including most deaf people) regard that as offensive and insensitive. Anyone can see that Stephen Hawking is disabled, but no one would dream of suggesting that that somehow invalidates his achievements; on the contrary he is often hailed as an example of perseverence in the face of adversity.

Contrast that with how people are treating Aspergers, a psychological rather than a physical disorder and so not visible. People are trying to deny that it's a disorder in a way they'd never dream of doing with my physical disability, seemingly feeling threatened by the notion that it might be a disability as though that would somehow devalue its sufferers. No one entertains the notion that a physical disability is only a disability if you can show that it reduces your quality of life or prevents you from leading a fulfilling one. And the scientists and other high achievers who suffer from it? Are they, like Hawking, hailed as people who have overcome adversity and become leaders in their field through their particular struggle to overcome difficult odds? Far from it; on the contrary their achievements as individuals are devalued by those who try to give credit for said achievements on their Aspergers rather than on the individuals, even as those same people insist that the syndrome they're crediting for high achievement can't be blamed for any attendant problems those people suffer. If this were a thread started by the "deaf rights" lobby and a deaf person joined the discussion arguing their case that deafness was a genuine handicap that deserves to be taken seriously as a disability and allowed for/treated accordingly, chances are the majority of contributors would take his side. But when it's a psychological disorder like Aspergers and the same situation comes up, it seems it's far more politically correct to take the "deaf rights" stance.

Judging by some of the comments here, a lot of this stems from cynicism towards psychiatrists, who at least one poster has conflated with psychologists. If someone runs into a bad doctor who incorrectly diagnoses them with, say, cancer, the response isn't to conclude that cancer is a money-making invention of medical science or that it's a healthy condition that's unfairly stigmatised in an effort to force people to seek treatment. But that's exactly what people are saying about psychological disorders. A psychiatrist is not a psychologist - one is a medical practitioner who gives diagnoses, the other a scientist who investigates and identifies the existence of particular disorders and conditions.

Psychiatrists have a generally bad reputation; psychological disorders can be hard to diagnose and psychiatrists are notorious for trying to pigeonhole people into the categories they know about. In fact, doctors do exactly the same thing - physical disorders can manifest in many different ways, symptoms of one may be common to others and may or may not be diagnostic, and doctors will often inadvertently misdiagnose when they aren't aware of a particular condition or simply get it wrong. There is nothing fundamentally different either between psychological and physical disorders or between the way they are diagnosed, so why is there so much prejudice against accepting a psychological disorder for what it is when there's none against treating physical disorders as just that?

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

So I pose the question. Hypothetically speaking, what would you say to someone who was diagnosed with asbergers said that it did not impair their ability to perform social functions or any of the other activities that asbergers would impair, but that it simply was very difficult and took more energy or time to do?

How are you defining "impair", if not as making something very difficult and taking more energy or time to do? Making something more difficult than it otherwise would be is what "impair" means. So the question seems to make no sense.

Phil

[Kallan]

I suppose a better word would be inhibit. If they did not feel that their asbergers inhibit them. What would you say to a person with asbergers who did not consider it a disorder or a disability?

What if someone viewed it as an asset? Much the way I view my bi-polarity and Attention deficit as assets?

[Brodertun]

I suppose a better word would be inhibit. If they did not feel that their asbergers inhibit them. What would you say to a person with asbergers who did not consider it a disorder or a disability?

What if someone viewed it as an asset? Much the way I view my bi-polarity and Attention deficit as assets?

I consider my asperger's to be an asset. However that in no way means that I negate the fact that it is a disability and significantly limits me in some areas (*see my post above where I went into more detail on this exact same thing).

[Brodertun]

I suppose a better word would be inhibit. If they did not feel that their asbergers inhibit them. What would you say to a person with asbergers who did not consider it a disorder or a disability?

What if someone viewed it as an asset? Much the way I view my bi-polarity and Attention deficit as assets?

I consider my asperger's to be an asset. However that in no way means that I negate the fact that it is a disability and significantly limits me in some areas (*see my post above where I went into more detail on this exact same thing).

[Pobblebonk]

Triple:

You description of Asbergers sounds like my experiences with culture shock. I know the two are probably unrelated but I just thought that was interesting. I know that Asbergers is a mild form of Autism.

I think that's a somewhat misleading way to put it; as Triple A's account (and others she's told me in the past) indicates' date=' for her Aspergers is not mild and is not a minor problem. In my case it probably is somewhat milder, but still impairs my functioning in serious ways. Aspergers is sometimes referred to as "high-functioning autism", which means that Aspies have many of the characteristics and difficulties of true autistics but don't suffer from the intellectual limitations/low IQ associated with autism to a greater extent than the population at large. As such, Aspergers is not actually a form of autism in the strictest sense, so it is erroneous to think of it as falling along a sliding scale of autism with Aspies at the 'mild' end and low-IQ autistics who can't physically function in society at the 'strong' end. So there's no way of directly comparing between the two - a 'strong' Aspie may exhibit more pronounced difficulties in, for instance, reading social cues than a 'mild' autistic.

I've known people with mild autism (stronger than asbergers). Most of them do have some sort of exceptional talent (ala rain man), and they found that these talents disapeared when they were on medication. I found this to be true of myself and bi-Polar 'disorder'. The main reason I view bi-polar as not being a disorder is because while it makes some things more difficult it is compensated with creativity and energy. I do not view ADD as a disorder for the same reason, my difficulty in focusing is directly tied to my skill at tactical thinking and much of my other insight. For me the bennefits of these ways of being far outweigh the downsides, and therefore I am not sure they can be called disorders.

The thing this line of reasoning misses is that, like any other disorder, psychological disorders are diagnosed based on a wide range of symptoms. It is entirely possible that someone might possess many of the 'upsides' to, for instance, Aspergers without being an Aspie, and conversely it may not be the case that Aspies necessarily have those positive traits. Triple A, for instance, notes that she has great difficulty thinking 'outside the box' at all - I likewise used to suffer from having little 'common sense' in everyday situations. However, the way of thinking I attribute to my Aspie characteristics does give me an insight as an 'outsider' looking in on society that the majority of people don't have and that I value - it helps me to think outside the box to a greater extent than many "NTs". Yet I sense, and I think she senses from when we've talked about it in the past, that Triple A doesn't gain the benefit of having that sort of perspective in the way I do. Contrary to popular belief, most autistics are not savants - it surprises me that you say most of the ones you know are. The majority are low-functioning in every respect, without special talents. And while Aspies' tendency towards obsessiveness in a particular area can make them experts with an "exceptional talent", that talent is as likely to be stamp collecting as quantum mechanics, while you find many non-Aspies who are similarly talented. Just as many people without bipolar disorder are both creative and energetic.

In the specific case of Aspergers syndrome, the condition diagnosed as such is one in which social functioning is significantly impaired in some way - having savant-level abilities doesn't make one an Aspie or an autistic, nor does a particular way of looking at the world. Rather these are personality traits that are commonly associated with Asperger's syndrome; to some degree some of them may be contingent on negative traits of the syndrome (such as my ability to look at society from an 'outside' perspective, which is tied to my inability to understand social conventions) in some people, but the syndrome is defined by the negative effects it has on social interaction. And at the end of the day whether you have a disorder isn't a cost-benefit analysis; if your functioning is impaired you have a disorder, regardless of any contingent benefits that may "compensate" in other ways. If Stephen Hawking didn't have the disability he did, he may not have needed to strive so hard to achieve his goals, and as a result he may have been simply a well-respected scientist rather than a highly-respected scientist who incidentally made a lot of money as a celebrity in the process. On balance, this may "compensate" for the fact that he has a disability, and is directly contingent on his having that disability. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a disability.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

Pobb and Trip,

And that is why the disagreement I DO have is in the use of the word 'disorder' because it even FURTHER socially isolates aspies by insisting to NT's that our difficulties make us less 'normal' than the difficulties an NT would have in any other area of life.

And this I think is where I get politically strident. Which is odd since being disabled has never been something I've flagged up or been in any way an activist about. But I do very strongly feel that if you're going to avoid using a term because you expect it to invoke prejudice, you're validating that prejudice - "I don't like disabled people" "Well, in that case think of me as 'different' rather than 'disabled'". No way. "I don't like disabled people" "Sod off then, I am what I am and I'm making no excuses for it". Your argument sounds as though you're encouraging people to go into the closet about having a disability, just as people who suffer prejudice over their sexuality often feel forced to conceal it in order to gain social acceptance (in fact it's my feelings on sexuality that lead to this way of thinking).

I can't stress this enough: THAT IS NOT THE WAY (though I'm trying, what with bold caps and everything...) You might gain acceptance of sorts through trying to conform, through validating the prejudice that people ought to be "normal" by clamouring "See, we're normal after all". You don't gain tolerance for your differences and you don't gain equality.

Again, it's analogous to the situation homosexuals often experience (and while I've never experienced homophobia myself, I feel strongly about the subject because I've had good friends who have suffered because of it). They want to be treated equally, but they don't treat themselves equally, and that's where they need to start. Gay people will never truly be treated equally until they have the confidence to talk about their boyfriends (if they're male) as casually as a straight man would talk about his girlfriend, until the concept of 'being in the closet' over being gay is as alien as the concept of being in the closet over being straight. That's when it becomes 'normal', when people stop feeling a need both for pride movements to show how different they are and to hide themselves as though they have some dirty secret.

Telling the world "I'm not disabled, I'm normal" says only "It's not normal to be disabled", even "It's not acceptable to be disabled" - the most insidious form of prejudice, that from within the disabled community itself. The alternative is to tell people "I have this disorder. It affects the way I relate to others in this, that and the other way" - a statement that "This is who I am. The ball's in your court now". I completely refuse to accept the prejudice that using the words "disorder" or "disability" implies abnormality or that people who are disabled are any less as people than those who aren't.

The term "disabled" means only that - "less able". That in the ways my disability affects me, I am less able to function than other people; in the case of cerebral palsy, less dextrous. In the case of Aspergers, less understanding of social interactions. This is simply a factual observation - people without Aspergers are better-able to cope in social situations than I am or than other Aspies are. That is, after all, what defines Asperger's syndrome in the first place. I utterly abhor the politically correct fad that there's no such thing as being disabled, just "differently able". The only thing that's different about the way I interact with others compared with the majority is that I'm not as good at it, I am strictly less able to do it.

Yes, people fall along a scale, and Aspergers may well characterise those who happen to be naturally less able to socialise than others. This isn't relevant. It's still a disorder for those people however 'natural' it is. Sickle-cell anaemia is a disorder regardless of the fact that it's 'natural'. People differ in their susceptibility to depression; this doesn't mean that clinical depression is not a disorder.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

How many of us have gone to psychiatrists who insisted that asexuality was 'technically a disorder'. also Homosexuality and transgenderism was once considered a disorder.

My posts do tend to be sufficiently long that points can me missed' date=' but I already dealt with the asexuality/homosexuality one in a response to Alucard. These do not impair people - an asexual is physically capable of having sex, and a homosexual is physically capable of having sex with members of the opposite sex, to exactly the same degree as anyone else in the general population. Arguing that something isn't a disorder because historical (or current) prejudice led to things that aren't disorders being classified as such is spurious, and suggests that the issue for you is more about reacting against authority than thinking about what characterises a genuine disorder. Something isn't a disorder just because some quack says it is, and so pointing to said quacks' past mistakes is irrelevant. It's a disorder because it's a genuine impairment of some form, which Aspergers is acknowledged to be by everyone here among others (no one has yet suggested that it doesn't inhibit social interaction in some way) and which simply isn't true of homosexuality or asexuality.

Transsexuality is a more complex issue; no doubt it's politically incorrect to say so (and, given that the word 'correct' is qualified with the word 'politically', the very term "politically correct" is tantamount to the admission that what is 'politically' correct is not actually correct in any other sense of the word), but having some idea of the struggles two transsexual friends of mine had in coping with their situation, I would be inclined to suggest that it may be a disorder. It is a condition that sufferers typically feel requires corrective therapy to provide them with a body matching their mental gender; as with Aspergers and deaf people there are those who insist that it isn't a disorder based on personal experience that they have no problem with it but for many, even in the absence of social stigma, it's traumatic to be in that situation; my transsexual friend who I know went through with a sex change operation found it so liberating she told me she felt alive again following a period going through a severe identity crisis. However, at the same time it's difficult to pinpoint exactly how being transsexual constitutes an impairment so as I regard disorders it wouldn't technically qualify in spite of the trauma it causes.

My question is, what is the mark of a disorder? Once you open the door that some of these 'disorders' may not actually be disorders it is perfectly legitimate to examine all disorders to see if they actually should be considered disorders.

You don't need to open any door. It's perfectly legitimate to examine all disorders to see whether they qualify and indeed is desirable to do so. This is exactly what people aren't doing if they try to argue uncritically that, simply because X isn't a disorder, Y isn't either. The point is that, upon examination, Aspergers does in fact qualify because it is a syndrome that impairs one's functioning in a social environment - and, like it or not, people can't survive without engaging in at least some form of interaction with others in their society. The social world is as real and unavoidable to an Aspie as the visual physical world is to a blind person.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

Aspergers is a real disability in exactly the same way as blindness because those with the condition do suffer a particular impairment in a real-world environment.

Not all aspies are completely blind. Some just see things blurry-like.

And not all short-sighted people are completely blind, but shortsightedness is still a disability, albeit such an easily-correctable one in the modern world that it is rarely thought of as such. Blindness makes a more suitable analogy because it isn't so easily-corrected, and even mild Aspergers is a lot harder to compensate for than shortsightedness. The point being made is about the reality of the difficulty Aspies face, not its magnitude.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

And as for allowances' date=' I don't ask for them. I just try my damnedest not to fuck up in social situations, and make apologies (not excuses) when I do. And if that doesn't work, well... *points to first paragraph*[/quote']

My approach is exactly the same - the last person making excuses helps is the disabled person themselves. Is this an issue here; are we resorting to stereotypes that we can't refer to ourselves as disabled because disabled people go around using their disability as an excuse for their shortcomings? I for one am wholly capable of separating a reason from an excuse - my Aspergers syndrome is the reason I hurt a friend a few years ago and lost that friendship, as well as the reason I've never been able to understand what I did wrong or how to rectify it. I have never once used it as an excuse for what happened; the simple fact is, it was my actions that caused the loss of that friendship and it's my responsibility that it happened. It is not an excuse to make the point that it would not have happened had I not had Aspergers - that's merely a factual account of a severe negative effect Aspergers has had on my life, without in any way obviating myself of responsibility for what happened. It's a matter of self-awareness, just as it is to do something wrong and then come to understand which of your personality traits led you to do it.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

I suppose a better word would be inhibit. If they did not feel that their asbergers inhibit them. What would you say to a person with asbergers who did not consider it a disorder or a disability?

What if someone viewed it as an asset? Much the way I view my bi-polarity and Attention deficit as assets?

I would say exactly what I've been saying all along - whether or not something is a disorder isn't a matter of popular consent. Someone can have cancer without it being malignant or killing them, but just because they can't tell it's affecting them that doesn't mean it isn't an illness. The simple fact is, if that person tries to operate in a social environment they will be at a disadvantage compared with those without Aspergers - if they aren't, rather by definition they don't have Aspergers syndrome. They may or may not regard that disadvantage as significant; they may not even notice it (it's only since becoming aware that I'm a likely Aspie that I've become more aware of mistakes I'm making, for instance; a lot of the time when I make mistakes, people accommodate them without comment), but that's wholly beside the point. As I mentioned in reference to my cerebral palsy, no one would consider that they'd need to elicit my feelings on whether I see it as a disadvantage or an inhibition in order to class it as a disability.

Phil

[Brodertun]

And as for allowances, I don't ask for them. I just try my damnedest not to fuck up in social situations, and make apologies (not excuses) when I do. And if that doesn't work, well... *points to first paragraph*

My approach is exactly the same - the last person making excuses helps is the disabled person themselves. Is this an issue here; are we resorting to stereotypes that we can't refer to ourselves as disabled because disabled people go around using their disability as an excuse for their shortcomings? I for one am wholly capable of separating a reason from an excuse - my Aspergers syndrome is the reason I hurt a friend a few years ago and lost that friendship, as well as the reason I've never been able to understand what I did wrong or how to rectify it. I have never once used it as an excuse for what happened; the simple fact is, it was my actions that caused the loss of that friendship and it's my responsibility that it happened. It is not an excuse to make the point that it would not have happened had I not had Aspergers - that's merely a factual account of a severe negative effect Aspergers has had on my life, without in any way obviating myself of responsibility for what happened. It's a matter of self-awareness, just as it is to do something wrong and then come to understand which of your personality traits led you to do it.

Phil

Reading this makes me suppose my response above is liable to be misinterpreted. I'm not saying "i have aspergers so i can get away with this and if you don't like it so what." However what i am saying is an explanation for why no matter how many times you repeat what you are saying I am unable to figure out what is you ARE saying, and my angering you is nothing even resembling a deliberate attempt to do so.

If I were to ask Cacille to on a mountain bike ride, would it be considered wrong for her to say, "I can't do that. I'm in a wheelchair?" If it isn't than why would it be wrong for me to explain why I can't perform to the standard level in social situations?

[Orbit]

Blindness makes a more suitable analogy because it isn't so easily-corrected, and even mild Aspergers is a lot harder to compensate for than shortsightedness.

You prefer blindness because it suits YOUR argument.

The point being made is about the reality of the difficulty Aspies face, not its magnitude.

I understand that is you point being made and it is being disputed. You may not agree, but in order to call something a 'disorder' it's ALL about the magnitude of the challenges that qualify it for the magnitude of disfunction.

[Brodertun]

You prefer blindness because it suits YOUR argument.

Orbit,

Why is it you feel there is something wrong with pobs using blindness when both blindness and asperger's prevents one's ability do to something regardless of how much training/rearanning, etc is done, wheras you see nothing wrong with your using things such as poor math ability for yours, when that can be improved upon by getting additional math help?

You may not agree, but in order to call something a 'disorder' it's ALL about the magnitude of the challenges that qualify it for the magnitude of disfunction.

Perhaps for you, but I prefer to use official definitions of terms that are widely accepted and agreed upon in educated circles as opposed to someone on an internet's forums own personal definition.

*Ps are you aware that another name for asperger's syndrome is asperger's disorder?

[Orbit]

Why is it you feel there is something wrong with pobs using blindness when both blindness and asperger's prevents one's ability do to something regardless of how much training/rearanning, etc is done, wheras you see nothing wrong with your using things such as poor math ability for yours, when that can be improved upon by getting additional math help?

*L* Perhaps you forget that I used blind first, my friend. ;) But I qualified it because EVERYONE agrees that there is a autistic SPECTRUM - and so I referred to some with aspergers having vision impairment and seeing blurry.

When Pobb puts everyone with Aspergers and Autism into the same 'blind box' - I just think that's short sighted. (pun intended)

[Pobblebonk]

Blindness makes a more suitable analogy because it isn't so easily-corrected' date=' and even mild Aspergers is a lot harder to compensate for than shortsightedness. [/quote']

You prefer blindness because it suits YOUR argument.

That's the thing about arguments, you see. You use the examples appropriate to that argument to support it. The other side complaining that you're doing just that doesn't constitute a refutation, even with a capitalised pronoun. Blindness does indeed suit my argument in a way that shortsightedness doesn't so effectively - because the argument I'm making is about a point of principle regarding how you define a disability, and blindness is simply more convenient because no one disputes that it is a disability. Citing shortsightedness does nothing to invalidate the point I'm making, since shortsightedness too is a disability that requires special provisions to compensate for it; it just happens to be less useful as an example because, unlike blindness, it differs from Aspergers in being readily correctable with artificial aids.

The point being made is about the reality of the difficulty Aspies face' date=' not its magnitude.[/quote']

I understand that is you point being made and it is being disputed. You may not agree, but in order to call something a 'disorder' it's ALL about the magnitude of the challenges that qualify it for the magnitude of disfunction.

Again, capitalising random words is of limited use in persuading someone, I'm afraid. I've gone into quite some detail about the reasons for considering something a disorder and the grounds on which Aspergers qualifies; you can indeed agree to disagree, but if you actually want to dispute it you need to present a better case than an unsubstantiated statement that "it's ALL about the magnitude of the challenges..."

Say we take shortsightedness as the example; all the points I've made still stand. Shortsightedness is a disability, it impairs one's ability to function and requires the use of artificial aids as a compensatory measure, which depending on severity may or may not be completely successful at alleviating the disability while they're being worn. But the shortsighted person is still at a disadvantage; they rely on having their glasses/contacts and have a reduced ability to function if those happen to be damaged or destroyed, or in any situation in which they aren't wearing their visual aids.

Phil

[DannyKitty]

I have Asperger's. It was a the love of an amazing girl with Asperger's that stopped me from wanting to kill myself. 'Nuff said.

[Pobblebonk]

Why is it you feel there is something wrong with pobs using blindness when both blindness and asperger's prevents one's ability do to something regardless of how much training/rearanning' date=' etc is done, wheras you see nothing wrong with your using things such as poor math ability for yours, when that can be improved upon by getting additional math help?[/quote']

*L* Perhaps you forget that I used blind first, my friend. ;) But I qualified it because EVERYONE agrees that there is a autistic SPECTRUM - and so I referred to some with aspergers having vision impairment and seeing blurry.

And here's an interesting thing, isn't it? Was it you or someone else who pointed out that Aspergers represented a point on a spectrum of social interaction rather than a disorder? Yet here we have an example that shows the two aren't mutually exclusive - blindness and shortsightedness fall along a spectrum of visual acuity, yet no one disputes that blindness is a disorder 'because it's one end of a SPECTRUM'.

When Pobb puts everyone with Aspergers and Autism into the same 'blind box' - I just think that's short sighted. (pun intended)

While I just see it as a distraction from the point being made - it's not relevant to my case that autism or Aspergers fall along a spectrum, and so likewise it isn't relevant that blindness/shortsightedness does. The term "blind" is more convenient than "blind or shortsighted", but if you want to envision me talking about the entire range of vision disorders feel free to do so - the point remains unchanged regardless of whether we're discussing a spectrum or a single point along it.

Phil

[School Of Fish]

Yeah, in general little analysis is ever done in news reporting these days.

They just repeat things. As much as I think that David Ickes is a nutcase, I think his take on newscasters is dead on.

"If newscasters were being honest, here's how a newscast would go from Downing street-- Hi there, this is David Ickes for the BBC. Now with world news: I haven't got a flippin' clue what's going on in the world! I just went over to this building over here, and all these officials told me to say things, and now I come over here, and now I'm supposed to repeat what they told me. I haven't got a clue if its true or not!"

This horrifies me. People with Asperger's do not have their brains 'ravaged' unless they are being mistreated because of it - like ANYONE might fall into depression if they couldn't pursue the career they wanted and their multiple divorced famous family was so insensitive that they would think their daughter better off dead.

Bacharach, Dickinson say daughter commits suicide in California

Associated Press

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. - Nikki Bacharach, daughter of songwriter Burt Bacharach and actress Angie Dickinson, committed suicide, Bacharach and Dickinson said in a statement Friday.

Nikki Bacharach, 40, suffered from Asperger's Disorder, a form of autism. She killed herself Thursday night at her condo in Thousand Oaks, said Linda Dozoretz, a spokeswoman for the family.

"She quietly and peacefully committed suicide to escape the ravages to her brain brought on by Asperger's," the statement said.

Nikki Bacharach died of suffocation using a plastic bag and helium, said Mike Feiler of the Ventura County coroner's office.

Born prematurely in 1966, Lea Nikki Bacharach studied geology at Cal Lutheran University, but could not pursue a career in the field because of poor eyesight.

"She loved kitties, and earthquakes, glacial calving, meteor showers, science, blue skies and sunsets, and Tahiti," the statement said.

Nikki Bacharach was the only child of Burt Bacharach, 77, and Dickinson, 75, who were married from 1965 to 1981.

It was the second marriage for both Bacharach, the Oscar-winning composer of "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head," and "What the World Needs Now is Love," and Dickinson, star of the film "Dress to Kill" and the TV show "Police Woman."

Bacharach has three children from other marriages.

Autism is a developmental disorder. Asperger's Disorder, also known as Asperger's syndrome, is sometimes called high-functioning autism.

It is tragic that this view of asperger's is being put out there to the masses who know so little about it. It's almost setting people up to be treated as if they are suffering because of some mind numbing disease instead of discrimination because they think differently.

It seems like anyone who doesn't fit into the mold of some ridiculous concept of 'normal' gets labeled with some kind of disease or disorder that has to be cured or blotted out through eugenic abortion.

Why can't people just be different?

[Pobblebonk]

Yeah' date=' in general little analysis is ever done in news reporting these days.[/quote']

Well, that's why it's news reporting and why newspapers, websites and channels set aside special sections for news analysis. It's not terribly fair to criticise something for not doing something it's not supposed to. A report is meant to be exactly that - an account of what's been said or done on the subject being reported. At least in theory, this avoids bias by removing the subjective nature of analysis. It's not intended to be a statement of gospel truth, and if people are inclined to believe, in the old cliche, "The Telegraph said it so it must be true", that's their issue rather than the journalists'.

However, as this thread shows it seems not to prevent people from reading subjective messages into news reports that simply aren't there - "The report said the parents thought Aspergers was to blame. The report also gave background on the girl saying she was shortsighted. Therefore the report is biased because it's assuming Aspergers was to blame, not shortsightedness." But of course it isn't, and that is a non sequitur. The report didn't attribute her suicide to shortsightedness because no one the reporter interviewed (so far as we know) did so and it's not the reporter's job to speculate.

Of course if there were some reason for thinking that the reporter selectively reported comments shedding bad light on Aspergers and ignored any blaming shortsightedness or the woman's failure to meet her career goals, it would be perfectly reasonable to cry foul. But I see no sign of that here - it's perfectly legitimate in a case of this nature to report the reaction of surviving relatives, and that's all that's been done. It seems there are people out there who will read political messages or discrimination into everything, regardless of whether or not it actually exists.

I don't know, I read and hear so much from people who seem to think it's somehow clever or unusual to actually look at things critically - is it really that radical just to take what's been said as, well, something that's been said, without making a value judgment as to whether it's true or not? On this thread someone suggested that "once you open the door" to questioning the reality of some disorders" you can question the reality of others - why was the door ever closed? Political mudslinging that seems to focus on the idea that it's radical to believe that something the government said might not be true or that government officials expressing an opinion misleads people into thinking that that opinion's correct go right over my head. From the other side I've read comments that "this is true because such-and-such said it" or heard the conclusions of this or that lobby group parroted as 'fact', which is very nearly as aggravating as the "Hey, I'm really clever because I don't take X, Y or Z at face value" attitude from people who seem to feel a need to prove they can think for themselves by objecting to someone something's said or written. There's nothing revolutionary about either holding an opinion or disagreeing with a stated account, or am I missing something? Is it really that unusual?

Phil

Phil

[Orbit]

There's nothing revolutionary about either holding an opinion or disagreeing with a stated account, or am I missing something? Is it really that unusual?

I think you're reading into things too much. ;)

[Melly06]

I have to admit, I didn't read all of the posts in this section (am short on time right now), and I don't have much to add... But I did want to say that while I don't have a full-blown case of Asperger's, I seem to have some asperger-like traits. On internet tests measuring asperger's (which may or may not be all that valid) I usually score significantly higher than the control group but not as high as people who've actually been diagnosed with asperger's. However, I don't feel "normal," especially in social situations, and I can't say it's all because of asexuality either. It has affected me in some negative ways. I can imagine that someone who does have asperger's might feel limited in some ways and at times discouraged about his/her life. Even I have to make an effort to not get too discouraged about certain things.

[P.V.P.]

My opinion on asperger's is similar to what they say about hyposexuality on AVENwiki: it's only a problem insofar as you feel it is a problem. If it's bothering you, go ahead and seek help. If just a specific trait or tendency is bothering you, then you can just seek help for that trait or tendency.

I think I once heard that psychiatry officially takes this kind of attitude toward other psychiatric conditions like ADD or social anxiety: part of the requirement for diagnosis is that whatever-it-is is *intefering with your happiness in life.* The exception to that rule would be something like sociopathy and psychopathy, where it's determined that your tendencies are harmful enough to others that they should be treated anyway. Most aspies don't seem to do much more "harm" to others than to annoy or offend some people due to their inability to take hints, and they vary in the degree to which they do this and the degree to which they feel it messes with their lives. My bf, who has (seemingly sub-clinical) aspie tendencies, puts off some people, but finds others who can handle him just fine...and that doesn't sound too different from the kind of situation anyone could be in.

As for the issue of whether personality traits may be more responsible for the suffering of aspies than core symptoms...by comparing myself (completely NT perception style with no sensory oversensitivities or trouble reading body language or anything, but possessing some stereotypical aspie-ish personality traits) to my boyfriend (who has at least a few core aspie symptoms), I know there's more to the challenges of AS than just personality. I had more than my share of mutual misunderstandings and mishaps growing up, and can still be a little too blunt or oblivious at times, but my ability to read body language and to desensitize to overwhelming and confusing stimuli - my core NT traits - seem to make it considerably easier for me to get along in a variety of situations than it is for my boyfriend. I seem to have an easier time with both internal and external damage control than a true aspie would.