Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Social differences section

I don't exactly like the list from Attwoods book. Is this really a correct citation? I thought Attwood didn't express such stereotypes as lacking empathy and all that? It should also be clear that those characteristics are not necesarily part of every Aspie. Like for instance, the article proposes that no Aspie can read emotions and so on. --Rdos 05:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the bit about Aspies not reading emotions, however as I an Aspie, I can tell you though we have difficult reading emotions, it can be learn't

82.34.227.37 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is an anectdotal account, but as an AS individual myself, who was diagnosed at the age of six in Vienna, by none other than Dr. Asperger himself, I must say that I take exception to a lot of the categorical assertions about what it is to have the condition that are made in the article. The idea that people with AS categorically lack empathy, that is the ability to feel, understand, or relate to the emotional states of others, seems rather absurd to me, as does the idea that we form attachments to objects more than people. This sounds like a description of sociopathy or garden-variety autism to me, rather than what is really the deficit in people with AS. I must say that I was a bit offended by it. Part of the problem may be a difficulty in what the exact definition of empathy is, specifically whether the term "empathy" refers more to the ability to feel and experience the emotions of others or the ability to sense those emotions using subconscious nonverbal cues. For my part, I can say that while I am obviously deficient at perceiving instinctively how nonverbal cues convey the emotional states of others and similarly at perceiving what the nonverbal cues I am providing are communicating, I have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding what those feelings are, how they might arise, or how they are likely to affect the perceptions or behavior of the individual in question. I can also say that when I have either managed to use my generic reasoning faculties to interpret the emotional state of another "the hard way", or have had the benefit of an explicit communication of that state, I seem to be as able as anyone else to feel what that person is feeling. Simply put, I cry during three-hankie movies like everybody else, but when the cues sending the emotional state messages are less obvious, I can often miss them unless I pay very close conscious attention. So I would say that the distinction between the *perception* of the emotional states of others and the *comprehension* of those states should be made more clearly in some parts of the article. In other words, I think the disability in AS is much more about communication than it is about cognition with respect to emotional states. Of course, I am only one person, and my case may be atypical, but I do seem to have exhibited all of the less ambiguously definable hallmarks of the condition, like motor clumsiness, peculiarities in speech, and obsessive interests.

Again, on the idea that people with AS do not form attachments to people but rather to things, I think this is the result of confusion on the part of those professionals who are trying to create categories of "autism" rather than being reflective of any reality about the condition of AS. Words fail me in describing how much I value the relationships I have with the people who are closest to me. My attachments to them are what sustains me through my at times rather difficult life. The idea that I would consider any physical thing in my life more important than these people is just bizarre to me. I think that people with AS, particularly those who cannot compensate for their disabilities very well, may often withdraw from human relationships out of despair, simply because it is so very frustrating and difficult for them to engage in those relationships successfully. I certainly know that my life has at times been dominated by abject misery due to a sense of isolation and loneliness resulting from my difficulties in sucessfully forming and maintaining much-needed reciprocal emotional bonds with others. I think that feeling among individuals with AS is very common, and as such gives the lie to the idea that AS is about the inability to form attachments from the perspecive of the AS sufferer as much as it is about the inability to form these attachments from the perspective of their prospective object.

Similarly, the idea that AS involves a failure to understand embarrassment (item 14 on the list) just seems wrong. The problem is not that someone with AS does not feel embarrassed when he or she makes a social blunder, but that he or she is not aware of the blunder in the first place. I would say that the life of an AS sufferer is typically full of severe embarrassment. I certainly know that mine has been.

Anyway, it appears that relative to the typical length of the posts here I am starting to perseverate in an Aspergerian fashion ;), but I feel that it would be good to clarify some of these distinctions, which appear to be made correctly in some parts of the article but are definitely not made in others.Blerb 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never writing from Einstein, or first person accounts

...to indicate he was anything other than a very gifted person in every area--including social skills--from a very early age.

It's a shame that parents with neuro-atypical children need to invent myths about Albert Einstein in order to make themselves feel better.

69.228.240.61 19:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you've omitted the word "seen" between never and writing in the above, so, FYI, I know I've seen Einstein referred to many times as having unusual traits, especially during his childhood. I would think some people might not mention such things commonly though, in an effort to ignore things they dont understand, or perhaps just think is not relevant to some other point. Bearpa 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you Google even gently, Einstein not only had Asperger's but was also dyslexic and schizophrenic. The same diagnoses have been applied postmortem to heroes throughout the ages, from Einstein and Newton to Churchill and Leonardo. Quite frankly, they are speculations and suppositions that would never have spread without the Internet to germinate them, and while they do provide hope and meaning to sufferers they are often plain wrong. For example, The Churchill Centre bluntly refutes any claim Sir Winston was dyslexic, and any Einstein biographer will tell you that old Albie had numerous friends, many lovers, was married twice and often wrote impassioned letters to the women in his life. If these are the signs of someone who has Asperger's, then my name is Abraham Lincoln. But I do think that links to claims should stay, so that anyone with half a clue can work out for themselves the difference between hard facts and accepted but unprovable conjecture. ThwartedEfforts 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling you have a prejudice to what you call "Neuro-atypical" people. Just because a person is different you shouldn't consider it an inferiority. Einstein had many eccentric habits, was an admitted alcoholic, and among other things nearly flunked several courses in both high school and college due to "insubordination" when he didn't agree with his teachers opinions. He additionally failed his first Algebra course due to not realizing it was algebra, which he had learned on his own. This is often an issue with people with Asperger's Syndrome, speaking from personal experience. Additionally, a note is that 80% of Americans have some sort of Psychiatric disorder that would benefit from treatment at some time during their life. 71.55.62.166 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand all this bickering. What does it matter if someone says Einstein was this way or that? He did have many social and mental quirks that were and are atypical, as well as many strengths, but what is the point of this arguing? Whatever the case may be, it's not right to lash out at anyone for reasons so petty as perceived offense in script written solely for referencial purposes. Your views, my good user who has only left your ip addresses (might I add, a bit foolishly), are directed at the wrong ears: no one here was purposely seeking to offend you. Why do you say such things to other people as these that you've written? Einstein won't thank you for your ridiculing these people who are merely stating what you refuse to believe as fact. They didn't say it as an attack on Einstein. Why do you perceive offense where there is none intended? Stop a moment; think about what these other people are saying. I am just now finding out that Asperger's syndrome is what I've been dealing with my whole life, but I'm grateful to these people for their consideration! I'm so glad that they have written these things! What they write, I take at face value, having no reason to be offended for they meant no offense. Please, don't be so quick to pounce on someone because they say something you don't like. Truth is truth whether we like it or not. You can choose how to react. Do you really think though, if I may rebuke you further for a moment, that your problems will go away by telling other people (in essence) that you hate them and they're stupid because they didn't say something exactly to your liking? Do you also throw your dinner back at mom when it isn't just the way you like it? What have you gained? What have you proved? Most of all, are you any closer at all to solving your own problems? Think before you speak. Your friends will love you more, and your enemies will be few. Don’t bother with a retort. Anything you say will only reinforce my point against you, and I'd rather spare you the embarrassment of making that mistake. Just think about it for a while. Don’t be angry. Just consider what I’ve said and, rather than revile it, try to see it for its intended purpose: your betterment as a person and a hope for your happiness, and secondarily a defense for these good people who you've spoken harshly toward.Brotherbain 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspie Parents

I find the section on Aspie parents overly negative. It seems to summarise as "they love their children, but unless their children are aspies themselves they'll end up damaging them".

My suspicion (and I'm aware this is POV as it stands, so some research is needed to back it up) is that the studies cited are concerned with adults with quite severe AS. But I would suggest that Aspie parents are a self-selecting group inasmuch as those of us most likely to become parents are those whose AS is quite mild.

Of course, I have an emotional investment in this as an Aspie parent of two sons. I score 40 on the AD spectrum questionaire thing, but I don't recognise myself in the criticisms in this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.173.106 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree about the inappropriate negativism in the Aspies as parents section. (No surprise there, I'm sure.) A healthy Aspie (see discussions above) should be able to parent as well as the best NT parents, whether her/his children are Aspie or not! My own non-Aspie mother did a lot of harm by constantly telling me (and treating me like) I was a "difficult child". However, my different thinking style was not the reason for her parenting inadequacies.

As someone with a minority thinking style who parented a kid with a minority thinking style, the only problems I had was with teachers who thought something was "wrong" with my kid. I constantly had to be a strong advocate in a system that doesn't know what to do with us. [Further reason the Aspergers-as-pathology model must go.]

--Renice 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Having had time to recheck the references given in that section, I find that one of them is alawyer. Nothing against lawyers per se, but clearly this is not an appropraite authority for an encyclopaedia article. The other appears to be a medic of some kind but the Aspie symptoms she talks about are clearly quite extreme - people who cannot see opposing points of view, empathise, or express their emotions. Most Aspies can do these things, although to a certain extent it's because we have learnt to do so - for example, I have taught myself (at my wife's instigation) to notice when people are getting bored when I start "banging on" about something that is fascinating to me but not to the rest of the species. And we vary anyway in what we can and can't do; I've never been unable to read emotions in peoples' faces, for example, perhaps because I had so much practice knowing when one of my teachers was about to blow!

I wonder how the section could best be edited to avoid giving anyone with any AS disorder the willies that they'll be a terrible, damaging parent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.35 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure the references cited are not scientific. This article is obviously the product of Judy Singer and her pity party friends. Judy is known for her assertion that being a great dancer is an autistic trait found in females, because her mother was a great dancer, and Judy's sure her mum was AS. Dyspraxia, motor clumsiness and left-right confusion are often found with AS, so I find this idea highly amusing. Has her mother ever been clinically diagnosed with AS? Is Judy currently AS, or is he NT at this point of time?

I think the whole article should be deleted until some half-credible epidemiological scientific studies are available to draw from, or at least some informed written opinions from leading clinicians on AS parenting can be found. There needs to be an acknowledgement that happy, fully functional AS parents heading happy families many exist "invisible" in unknown numbers, as they are unlikely to be diagnosed or known to clinicians.

Are we not going to mention the possibility that AS parents may be less likely to overlook intellectual giftedness in AS offspring, and may be better motivated and able to foster the full intellectual development of AS offspring? Is there any mention of the link between giftedness/high IQ (not savantism) and autism in this whole article? Are we not going to mention that gifted kids, AS kids and doubly exceptional (2E) kids are especially likely to be found among offspring of autistics, and all of these types present unusual and/or considerable parenting challenges? Just check the Wikipedia article for the challenging aspects of the gifted - sensory issues, extreme emotions, prone to depression, perfectionism, special educational needs that are often not met by schools etc. The gifted are a lot like the autistic (wonder why?) AS parents often have especially challenging kids, with no prior warning, and no assistance!

Are we not going to mention that the supposed negative effects of parenting from an AS parent mentioned in the article are highly similar to issues often reported by AS adults, suggesting the highly likely possibility that what we have here are aspie adult children of aspies who can't or won't face the fact that they are AS themselves, and wish to blame their AS parent for their woes, rather than looking at themselves? BELIEVE ME I've seen this happen IRL.

Are we not going to mention abuse and neglect of AS kids by NT parents? It only seems fair, even though it isn't the subject of this article. Believe me, I've seen it happen IRL.

Is the concept of the Broad Autistic Phenotype mentioned in this article? It is especially relevant to parenting and family relationships.

Are we not going to mention the impact of marital conflict on the ability of either NT or AS parents to parent?

Are we going to mention the possibility that AS parents may have LESS support (not more) from extended family and friends than most parents, due to less social ties and possible estrangement/abandonment from their own family?

It sounds like you're the best person to mention those things! You've clearly done the research.

Regarding your comment about "Judy Singer and her pity party friends": I don't know anything about Judy Singer, but what she says about some women dancers being autistic is not invalidated by a few cases of gross motor symptoms.

See what I say in #Self-diagnosis_Fad. and #"Disease" reverts. Basically, Aspergers and Autism are clusterings of phenotypes and metabolic symptoms. That's all, just statistical clustering. Because one expression of a phenotype is true doesn't mean another expression is not true. They can both be true. You can have a graceful Aspie and a clumsy Aspie. That's why this syndrome is so vexing. But it's also the key to solving the riddle of Aspergers.

Syndrome=s1, s2, s3, where s=symptom; Syndrome≠(s1 + s2 + s3)

--Renice 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the only people here having a "pity party" are Aspies who cannot accept the simple fact that their "minority thinking style" is a disability. There are some things AS parents simply may have trouble with. It's really that simple, and it's the height of irony that the very thing that makes Aspies different is also likely what makes them incapable of recognizing that they could have trouble being a good parent. Classic signs of AS like mind-blindness and the inability to control frustration, anger and rage are just that -- classic signs. They're also damaging to children under the control of the person with AS. Aspies can call it "just a difference" all they want -- but when that difference harms others, it becomes a disability. These are just simple facts that any rational person with any empathy at all would understand. It's flat-out disturbing to see people on the autistic spectrum insisting on a "right" to be parents, whether or not they can successfully raise psychologically healthy children!

Don't misunderstand, please -- it's quite possible that some Aspies can be good parents and are good parents now. AS is, as others have mentioned, very individualized. But it sure does seem to be a risk factor for big trouble. How can anyone in good conscience ignore that in the misguided name of "diversity" run completely amok?

---

Response from Judy Singer

Dont know who that was, but I'm appending my bit here. I'm new to this, so I hope I'm doing it right. I'm Judy Singer, and I heard that I was being misquoted. I have never said anything about my mother being a dancer, I have no idea where this comes from. I suspect it may have been intended as a facetious comment on my incapacity to make a reasoned argument, which was then read literally by someone with AS, (a common AS trait) and passed on as an actual quote.

For those for whom my work is not "scientific" enough, let me say first of all that I have an honours degree in social research, majoring in amongst other things, the philosophy of science. Sociologists and disability academics would dispute very strongly the notion that an epidemiological, quantitative, medical model is more accurate than a qualitative, social model. For a start, this would delegitimise the autistic self-advocacy movement. Anyone who reads my website will see that I bend over backwards to limit my claims to the self-selecting population of my support group. Nevertheless, the patterns of parenting behaviour that emerge, are significant in their similarities to each other, and in their close correlation with the actual symptoms of AS. I see my work as a pilot study for further research of all kinds, both quantitative and qualitative.

The person who described the group of children who have had harrowing treatment at the hands of parents who cannot touch them, empathise with them, look after their basic needs, shame them, and so on, as a "pity party", is to put it as mildly as I can, in violation of the talk page guidelines.

Perhaps I need to make a clearer distinction between low-functioning ASpies, High-functioning ASpies, and Self-styled aspies who may have some traits which have caused them to be oppressed.

Many of the parents who have caused our members so much pain and grief in their childhoods, were high-functioning, were highly successful academics, scientists, doctors, (pediatricians, and psychiatrists), yet! and lawyers. OTOH, if you do not have trouble reading the social cues of your child, if you do not peseverate at them or have temper tantrums, are easily affectionate, can generalise from instances, put your children about your obsessions and hoardings, etc etc, have claimed for yourself the identity of AS, or convinced a psychiatrist to apply a very broad definition of AS to give you a diagnosis, (again, erroneously ascribing scientific exactitude to the medical model ... If you have claimed on this basis, the right to speak on behalf of autistics, and to be personally upset that someone is challenging your parenting abilities, then I suggest that the definition of AS is getting way too broad. As for the criticisms of my omissions, eg why dont I mention all the abuse dealt out by NT parents,etc. I would suggest that there already are vast libraries of books on that very subject, but anyone is of course free to start another wiki entry.

Finally, for the information of the person who asked whether I was AS or NT, I describe myself as having some AS traits, clumsiness, and slowness to speech as a child, which caused me to be bullied and shamed, from which I understand the oppression only too well. I could on that basis obtain a dx of AS from a willing medical "expert", but I think to do so would detract from the needs of people, who have far more to contend with than I do. This is a big subject, the debate about identity politics, about the philosophy of science, and I cannot say more here. Oh yes, and my mother is a great dancer, and we get along really well now, because I have come to first understand, and then, through the support I got from ASpar, integrate the understanding that she had a disability, was actually struggling so hard in a world that didnt understand her, I came to see her courage, and love her for it. Singernotdancer 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The old "if an aspie disagrees with you say they aren't really an aspie" trick. It's the oldest trick in the book.

I have just re-read the DSM criteria for Asperger syndrome, I don't see any mention of "mindblindness", rage, violence, aggression or "inability to control frustration". So these are classic signs of AS? "Mindblindness" still has the status of a theory, not a diagnostic criterion, and while a bad temper is a common autistic characteristic, violence or aggression have no place in the existing criteria, and I do not believe there is any evidence from criminology to back up any assertion that autistics are any more likely to be violent offenders than anyone else. You obsessives want us to believe autistics are violent and abusive parents - then come up with some credible, scientific research. You know what I mean by "credible research"? Research done in universities by academics that may involve quantifying criminal offences or substantiated child abuse or neglect cases. CREDIBLE RESEARCH IS NEVER BASED ON SELF-SELECTED POPULATION SAMPLES, such as the groups of members of organizations such as ASpar or FAAS. An academic working in the humanities may not understand this, but anyone doing research in a science faculty is expected to understand the importance of basing research on unbiased samples. Some groups of online malcontents and some web sites and a document by a divorce lawyer do not make up a scientifically credible argument.

If you people really cared about the welfare of children you would be campaigning to get the children of drug addicts and alcoholics removed. The overwhelming majority of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect are due to these parents, and the authorities where I live do next to nothing. I know what genuine child emotional abuse, parental violence and child neglect look like - I see and hear it almost every day from the NT dopehead family in our street.

---

Judy again

First up, I was the author of the revised article on AS and parenting, but have nothing to do with the piece on AS and "marriage". I simply put it under its own subject heading, as "marriage" is hardly a precondition for reproduction. I personally think the section should be removed.

Several points about NPOV

I have never mentioned "mindblindness", as I am aware of the controversies over this term.

As a sociologist, I dispute the notion that the medical model of disability, and in this case, AS, is the ultimate authority on questions of what is AS. As far as I am aware, the DSM IV is not regarded highly by the autistic movement. I personally prefer much more nuanced diagnostic criteria, such as those of Tony Attwood or Roger Meyer of ASpires, which is even more credible because it is a definition created by someone with ASpergers. The psychiatric profession, with the exception of a few pioneers like Uta Frith, and Lorna Wing etc, are Johnny-come-latelies of AS research, which is the first disability made possible by the internet, and defined to a great extent by people with AS, and their families. It is we who to a large extent educated the medical profession, not the other way around. Disability studies has held for decade that all disabilities are to a certain extent social constructs. This is clearly true of AS, which wasn't even recognised until about a decade ago. There is no pure vein of AS "out there" waiting to be discovered like a gold vein running through bedrock, or like a bacterium, or a single gene, so that once it's sighted, everyone can go "aha!". What constitutes AS is a continually evolving debate and discourse. It's a spectrum or a cluster, remember, with no clear boundaries.

The entry on AS and parenting does not claim and never has claimed to be the result of "unbiased" research. Bias is not even an appropriate word to describe the testimony of people talking about their own childhood. They are telling like it was, that's all. We are a not a biased sample, but a skewed sample.

My article represents a pilot study and a recommendation for more research. ASpar has had about 150 members reporting serious neglect and mistreatment by parents consistent with a diagnosis of AS. This is a very significant self-selected sample. This is the raw material of research, where else does research come from? Further, what we in ASpar are doing, is Action Research in which a minority group researches the dominant paradigm which oppresses them. Autistics have been encouraged by identity politics to view themselves as the victims of oppressive NTs, not least by the ideas I pioneered when I first came up with the idea of Neurodiversity, but the reality is that many aspies in society are perfectly powerful, (nobody mention Bill Gates!) - our member's parents represent some of the cream of the West's scientific and intellectual establishment, academics, medical specialists, and of course, engineers. And there is nothing more powerful than the power of parents over their children. I am taken to task for not mentioning all the people who are happy with their aspie parents. As an action researcher from a hidden minority group, the hurt children of aspie parents, and btw, I am not exactly NT either! I am not required to represent the interests of those who hurt us. Nevertheless, I believe that ultimately we do represent the interests of ASpies as well as NT's and all shades in between. Our members are now all clear that our parents were not intentionally neglectful or abusive. Research by influential UK psychologist Maxine Aston http://www.maxineaston.co.uk has shown that the wellbeing of

Insert by CeilingCrash : Maxine Aston is not a psychologist, influential or otherwise. She has yet to complete her Master's Degree according to her website. Nit-picking, I know. CeilingCrash 07:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

families with an adult AS member improves once their is open communication about the impact of the disability. And I repeat again, that AS is a spectrum condition. That means that people who are only mildly impaired in their ability to empathise may be fine as parents. Those who are severely impaired however: draw your own conclusions. It's not exactly rocket science. Autistic people need help to parent.

The critic/s of my article appear to have no understanding of recent currents and controversies in social research, nor the critiques of disability activists and academics about the hegemony of the medical model and how they have come to abrogate the right to sort and categorise 'the Other". My critics have in addition used inflammatory language, which belies their respect for scholarly debate... "you people", "pity party", "notorious". "online malcontents" I hope they will desist and speak in respectful language. They are intent on silencing us, without even noticing that all we want is more resources and support for AS affected families. Singernotdancer 12:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Ms Singer How laughable is your suggestion that aspies have been encouraged by "identity politics" to identify NTs as our opressors. The first episode of schoolyard bullying or peer abuse that we typically experience is the only sign that most of us have needed to show us who our opressors are. I know aspies who describe the kind of person who is trouble for them with a list of stereotypically NT traits, and these are people who wouldn't have a clue what "identity politics" is. Have you read the recent article about eminent poet Les Murray,(who claims to be an aspie according to 2 articles in The Guardian)? I'm sure he, a conservative who has little time for sociological theory, has never had time for "identity politics" but he knows all about oppression in the schoolyard. I've no idea what "identity politics" is. My degree and other studies are in applied science and philosophy.

I'll be blunt. Ms Singer, you are using the alarming lack of scientific standards of the humanities and some social sciences as a way of evading my (our) demands for this Wikipedia article section to be based on anything that might be regarded as EVIDENCE, and by that I mean scientific evidence, the kind of thing that any research done by a scientist is supposed to yield. If you are one of those cultural relativist sociologist people who don't believe in science or don't understand scientific methodologies but won't admit it, then all the discussion in the world from those who stand on the side of reason can't help you. Such people are beyond help. I don't have time to waste.

The section on parenting as it stand is an UTTER DISGRACE AND IT VILLIFIES AUTISTIC PARENTS. It is totally dominated by a small, self-selected, most likely unrepresentative, possibly illegal (we do have laws in Australia about the villification of minority groups and the disabled don't we?) but persistent (obsessive) group. It presents a totally one sided and biased point of view. It is very narrow in it's focus on some of the emotional and social aspects of parenting, ignoring aspects of parenting to do with education, finance, decision-making and the essential practicalities of parenting. It wholly ignores positive aspects of parenting that are characteristic of aspie parents (I'll bet Judy the AS expert has no idea what they are).

---

I find it ironic that some autistics, who almost by definition cannot discern their effects on others, claim that they cannot be doing any harm because they cannot see any harm being done! There is a big difference between "I don't see the harm I'm doing" and "I'm not doing any harm".

The discussion is specifically about the long-term emotional and psychological damage that can be caused to children because of particular social and communication deficits in many parents with AS. Some Aspie parents may be fine with issues like financial support, education and other practical aspects of life for children (although many are not). It is the social, psychological and emotional development of a child that may suffer. Some Aspies seem not to be aware of the profound importance of this aspect of child rearing.

Abusive reactions like the one above kind of prove the point, don't they!

---

I have little reason to be sure that any of the (unknown, unnamed and uninvolved) parents who are supposed to be the subject of this article meet the criteria for a formal diagnosis of AS. Do we know that they were NOT delayed in their speech development in early childhood? (if not they may belong in an article about "Autistic Disorder" rather than an article on AS). Can we be sure that intellectual retardation, or disability or psychiatric illness in their offspring are not important factors complicating the picture? It isn't much fun for an aspie parent to be told by a teacher that their (undiagnosed autistic) child is subnormal, and it's their fault.

I don't have time for this discussion, and I don't have time to write someone else's encyclopaedia for free. I've got to drive kids to their various schools and gifted ed programmes in the morning. I'm not a professional autistic, my job is parenting. I've got a busy life to lead.

---

I think a lot of the (to me) excessively negative characterization of the parenting skills of people with AS may stem from the fact that whenever we are talking about a sample of people who have been retrospectively identified as having AS as adults based on the testimonials of their abused or neglected children, we are almost by definition talking about the worst cases. There are a lot of people out there with AS who are able to pass for normal because they have learned consciously how to do the things others know how to do instinctively. These people never get diagnosed and therefore never become a part of any of these studies. Although I have no doubt that these individuals probably go through various problems in their lives because of their disability, there is no reason to believe a priori that they will be particularly bad parents. Until a very large prospective study is done in which the people are first screened as children for AS traits based on objective diagnostic criteria and then followed through their lives, there will be no meaningful data on how a typical AS sufferer will fare as a parent. Also, it is far from clear based on what is written in this section if we are really talking about people with AS or not. Until these questions are resolved, I don't think that this scary list of bad things somebody who has AS may do to his or her child has any place in a supposedly authoritative article on the condition.Blerb 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Like I said before, my work is a pilot study and a recommendation for more research. Despite efforts like some of those above to delegitimise myself and my work, I am very confident that the majority of people on my site have parents with classic Aspergers and I look forward to confirmation of my thesis that parents with classic Aspergers, (unlike those who self-identify on the basis of a few traits), do indeed have a "parenting disability", and their families need a lot of support. In particular, it would seem logical to suppose that a person who cannot read emotional cues and body language will have a hard time parenting. Our members testimony bears this up.

This is not a call to victimise people with Asperger Syndrome, but a call for social services to support them and their families.

Singernotdancer

NB: There is a far larger and more voluble lobby of adults from the same generations as FAAAS and ASpar members who claim to have been permanently damaged as a direct result of social services intervention However, that is not my point because Wikipedia is NOT A SOAPBOX for me, any more than it is for anyone else. Please read WP:NOT for a better understanding of how this site works. I is inappropriate to use a Wikipedia article to propose solutions, or inform people what should, or must, be done, as most of the things I have just deleted from that section did. It is also inappropriate to post original research (see WP:OR for clearer details) --Zeraeph 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A better picture

I'm getting a better picture of Aspergers. And I do mean "picture" because I am a visual thinker, which is the most important "symptom" of this syndrome. And the most important pathologizing factor is the idea that picture thinking is a lower form of intelligence, a less developed form of thinking. My favorite response to this benighted notion is something Richard Feynmann said about the efficiency of picture thinking by describing where a car part was (I'll look for the quotation).

In other words, brilliant people are picture thinkers (my favorite being Leonardo DaVinci). The problems start when there are mis-connections between input channels (the senses, i.e., visual, auditory, etc.), or with coding input cues (e.g., choosing to trust body language over verbal or facial expression -- if your survival depends on choosing one, the former is far more trustworthy so it's the instinctive choice), or with output channels (expression including emotions, voice tone, and interests/work).

It's likely picture thinkers learn language (which includes the mother tongue, as well as other languages such as mathematics, music, art, etiquette, fashion, even styles of humor, and religious-belief systems) systematically, as they learn everything about their world. To make sense of a chaotic sensory-overloaded world, some people need to focus on one system at a time, effectively shutting down or delimiting input and output channels.

One hypothesis for a cause of AS is underconnectivity between the right and left cerebral hemispheres. This makes sense when you understand that different input is processed in different brain regions. But the underconnectivity theory is not inclusive enough to explain every case. Mis-connects between channels could easily occur not just broadly between hemispheres (cf., Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain), but between any area of the brain that processes information for a particular sensory input.

If a processing area is injured or damaged by any one of a number of means, including physically, genetically, hormonally, metabolically, the extent of damage, its location, and whether it was direct (say homocysteine poisoning of the central nervous system) or indirect (an effect of homocyteine poisioning on a developing brain in utero, for example) causes variability in expression. When people can't shut out some channels of input, or shut down the 'wrong' channels, or can't communicate in appropriate channels of output, or confuse channels, they become anxious, ADD, OCD, depressed, etc. -- all symptoms of the endocannabinoid system.

An imbalance originating in the cannabinoid system can conversely cause Aspergers characteristics because of the way neurocircuitry works -- thoughts create neurocircuitry. It can be a chicken-or-the-egg problem, making it a very slippery condition to diagnose and treat -- and very dangerous to make generalizations about.

Some AS parents will need help parenting, depending on variable symptoms, and completely independent of an AS diagnosis. Overlap between bad parenting and some Aspergers behavior is coincidental. Just as some people like Feynmann can understand Physics and others cannot, some people can consider the needs of their children and others cannnot.
--Renice 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice from an Aspie parent

I was recently diagnosed with Aspergers (December 2006) and used this WIKI article to find out as much as I could about the condition. I have been really concerned about what I have read here with regards to parenting (having taken someone's point of view quite literally) and I have been double checking with my partner that I am doing OK as a parent every 5 minutes.

To put this in perspective - I am an at home dad with a near 2 year old in my care. I was present at his birth and cried at the miracle he was when I held him in my arms. I have a very stromg connection with my son and have attended baby signing classes with him and have already helped teach him to communicate well with words. He is a wonderful outgoing child with a happy demeanour. He has regular sleeps as a result of my hard work teaching him to go to sleep properly. He is potty trained without once being shouted at or chastised. He eats well (I cook him organic vegetables and he rarely gets pizza or junk food). He is the right size for his age. He isn't scared of the dark and happily goes to sleep in his own room. He rarely watches TV. Yes, I am able to see when he is upset and meet his needs. Yes, I am able to judge what is appropriate and what he understands and I have trained myself to understand a 2 year olds point of view.

Having briefly read this discussion, I think it is time for someone to tell the other side of the story.

My parenting method is about guideance and fairness. It is about respect and treating other human beings with equal respect. My philosphy is that no matter how young or old someone is, they know something that you don't know and you might just learn something from them. This does not mean he does not have a father figure or that I am a psychological sponge. I listen to what he has to tell me. He often sees something I have missed and tells me about it.

My son is not able to emotionally blackmail me and rarely throws tantrums as they are an ineffective way of getting what he wants. We have fun together and I am able to judge when he is ready for things well.

I choose to discard the material about Aspie parenting in this article and personally think it should be removed in its entirety.

I think that as an Aspie there are as many benefits for a child in my care as there are for him to be in the care of an NT mother.

I watch other people with their children and with my logic think "why the hell are they doing that, it makes no sense" - I think that NT people are too easily sucked into the CORRECT way of doing things - sucked into TV - marketing - the exact time a child should be ready to do this that and the other and I wonder if NT people should be allowed to have children at all. If we are making general comments here...

IT MAY BE THAT THE WAY NT PEOPLE TREAT THEIR KIDS IS DISGUSTING...

It is likely that the previous paragraphs will end up being deleted so I'll state some facts.

The entry on Aspie Parents in question caused me a great deal of distress and immediate alarm when I read it having recently being diagnosed with Aspergers and I think it is far too general and should be replaced with something more factual.

--80.43.126.0 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Aspergeuse

AGREE. If 'having Aspergers' means choosing reason over dogma, honesty over etiquette, respect over self-interest, loving correction over 'the rod', art over war, global visual thinking over linear language thinking, then I'd be a cheerful 'martyr' for that injurious label. --Renice 13:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree I am subjectively horrified by the entry on Aspie Parents, objectively, as a Wikipedian, I am even more horrified that degree of contested, agenda driven, POV has been allowed to remain in any article. There is not even a single medical or academic citation for the very serious, prejudicial, assertions being made. The whole section should be deleted until it can be replaced in accord with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --Zeraeph 14:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there are members in the community who feel damaged by Aspie parents, there is a need for, um... perhaps guidelines on when parents should seek help? --Renice 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But do they feel damaged because their parents are Aspies, or because their parents as individuals are dysfunctional or worse? I don't know...and unless I see real medical and/or academic citations for that, on way, or another, I am not going to know. Without those formal, verifiable, citations, and REAL information, the section really shouldn't be here. This does try to be an encyclopaedia, and really should stick to verifiable facts. There are a lot of Aspies who claim to have been damaged by NT parents, should we have a section to tell them when to seek help too? --Zeraeph 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah point taken. Actually I was thinking more along the lines of 'how to raise an Aspie' (these guidelines would be directed to NT parents, but would simultaneously illuminate/'model' good child-rearing behavior for Aspie parents). I think much of the section could be based on guidelines put forth by the Better Baby Institute (which I think is now known as The Institutes for The Achievement of Human Potential), among others.

For example, Aspies focus on a system in order to learn about the world. Parents can help Aspie children expand their models of the world by encouraging accelerated, multi-dimensional, and associative exploration of the child's expressed interests. (This shows respect for the child.) One way to do this is to answer questions as literally and factually as possible. When unable to answer an Aspie offspring's question, suggest that you both figure out how an answer might be found (a trip to the library or internet, for example <-- this respects the child's reliance on logic). Another way is to map common parables and metaphors to the child's chosen system - in this way the parent must act as a translator, which in turn is a way to point/sync to socially acceptable translation forms.

There are also ways to teach how to read facial expressions -- I studied how to draw expressions on cartoon characters, and was also sent to children's acting workshops, for example. Other Aspies here should be able to contribute some of their coping strategies/learning devices. As parents, Aspies can also learn to reward themselves and their child to make eye contact - use food for example (but not in the same way you would the actor Rin Tin Tin :>), but by having fun around a meal and enjoying each other's company in a setting where eye contact is natural and easy. --Renice 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think disrespectful rearing of Aspies includes forcing them to endure tediously rigid, super controlled, and slowly paced 'educational' programs, which are thinly disguised regimens to instill sheep-like behavior. Imagine 'revolution' :> --Renice 15:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I have cut that section back to cited, neutral basics. At present it only presents one side, but at least it doesn't present it in hyperbole and a manner that resembles a political rally. Any who object read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting a POV or instructing the world on what must, or should, be done. Wikipdia is only intended to present the verifiable facts of what is established and happening. --Zeraeph 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, having Aspergers my self, with parents who are also Aspergers, but a sister who isn't I think some guide lines are a good thing. What is wrong with that? I could say there are plenty of things my mum and especially my dad did/do as parents but I know, since I've got it, that thats just them, nothing I can really do, were happy and that. They only really know they have since I got diagnosed at 18, so its not like they thought they where doing anything, and they didn't really, just way they did things make me person I am now. But, since I know I have it (and they didn't) I can see where they went wrong a bit, and try and not do those things etc. Its just how we grow and learn, cos you can be sure that I will make mistakes and my kids (if I have them) will go "I wont do what dad did..." etc. How it is isn;t it. Can only equip people as best we can. Hell there are plenty of non-Asperger parents out there who are UTTER SHIT! --kicken18 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kicken18 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Couldn't agree more, any parents and ALL parents need all the guidelines they can get...it's just that Wikipedia isn't the right place to start posting those guidelines.--Zeraeph 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

can it be diagnosed with EEG ?

check this articles:

• http://psy.ucsd.edu/~lshenk/sciam.pdf
• http://psy.ucsd.edu/~lshenk/mirrorneuronpaper.pdf

it looks like mirror neurons activity can be observed with cheap and simple EEG, the "mu" waves are silent when "normal" person open and closes his hand and when he watch other person doing that, but the autistic person react in this way only when s/he performs the action himself, it looks like it is a very simple procedure available all over the world, an my question is - is that phenomenon has a diagnostic value or only statistical, can this procedure help in diagnosis of AS together with psychological inquiry ? pwjb 17:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out -- it is fascinating research that should some how be included. --Renice 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I would note that this research does appear to be preliminary and may neither be universal nor exclusive. It is still noteworthy and worth taking into consideration for addition IMO 71.55.62.166 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that such a procedure would be of any diagnostic use, at least not without a lot more research behind it. There are all sorts of studies implicating mirror neurons as the basis for all sorts of things, but most of them only demonstrate correlation, like the study you mentioned--the results may support whatever (sometimes quite ambitious) conclusions the researchers came up with, but not by a long shot prove them correct. One example of criticism of mirror neuron research is at http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:QVzh9PGGRA8J:www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/borg/If%2520mirror%2520neurons%2520are%2520the%2520answer_JoCS.rtf (Google html version). I'd say that as the investigations relating mirror neurons and AS are (at least the ones above) serious scientific endeavors, including the current status of research in this article should be seriously considered, as long as it included the "this research is very preliminary" clause. 66.73.166.19 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Traits for success in aspergers

I'm not sure where to put this, so I'm putting it here and would appreciate any necessary edits. To start, I have aspergers. I do not think it good to downplay the challenges of having aspergers in a NT society, but many people with Aspergers are far more successful than the article tends to indicate. I think the problem is that the Aspies with problems stand out more and tend to get diagnosed more. That does not mean that there are not many of us, like myself and many I know, who have been very succesful, both financially and romantically. Though there are many areas in which NT thinking is adaptively superior, there are also many areas in which Aspie thinking is adaptively superior. The trick to being a successful aspie is to specialize in things that aspies are better at. And there are many. So I think it would be valuable to change the tone of the article, pointing out that though Aspergers can be a handicap, it is not necessarily the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.83.83 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Are you CeilingCrash? Per WP:NPOV and WP:V, the purpose of this or any Wikipedia article is to reflect current knowledge on this subject, not to make its readers feel good. Besides, I think the article does a fine job of addressing the "positive aspects" of AS. Your viewpoint is one among many, and I think the article does a great job of addressing it. szyslak (t, c) 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

positive aspects

I hate to call into dispute an article that is, on its own terms, so well done. But there is a near-total omission of the positive aspects of aspergers, of the growing controversy over the term 'disorder', and the emerging scientific evidence that aspergers may actually be a great benefit to certain people and to society.

Over the last few years, people with aspergers (aspies as they like to be called) have formed online communities like http://www.aspiesforfreedom.org (mentioned in the article). On that site, there are thousands of members advocating the (extreme IMO) view that aspergers and autism are not diseases at all. Their sheer numbers suffice to establish an alternative POV. There is mention of this in the article, but given emerging scientific evidence and a large and rapidly growing group of dissenters, the controversy deserves top billing as a central issue.

The debate over 'disease' vs. 'difference' is not terribly factual and perhaps does not belong here. However, there is credible scientific evidence that some aspies exhibit superior mental functioning in several dimensions. It is well established that certain autistics can perform feats of memory far beyond normal human capacity. For instance, Stephen Wiltshire from the UK can draw an entire city from memory, nearly precisely down to individual window panes : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVqRT_kCOLI

It is not limited to simple recall; Hans Asperger himself wrote that, "To our own amazement, we have seen that autistic individuals, as long as they are intellectually intact, can almost always achieve professional success, usually in highly specialized academic professions, often in very high positions, with a preference for abstract content. We found a large number of people whose mathematical ability determines their professions; mathematicians, technologists, industrial chemists and high-ranking civil servants." -- Asperger H. Die ‘autischen Psychopathen’ im Kindesalter. Arch Psychiatrie Nervenkrankheiten 1944;17: 76-136

Asperger later made the rather shocking claim that "It seems that for success in science or art a dash of autism is essential."

There are new studies emerging supporting the correlation of autism/aspergers to giftedness; the correlation gets stronger the higher the bar is raised, including up to true genius. This is one such study of students at the Cambridge University, from 2001 :

"The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians." --Autism Dev Disord. 2001 Feb;31(1):5-17.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=11439754

Clearly there is a defensible POV that asperger/autism is not always detrimental, and may in many cases be beneficial and preferable to both its possessor and to society.

This is no academic matter as a genetic test for asperger's in a fetus will soon be available.

We have a very unusual and perhaps unique situation. The medical community has identified a disorder, is focussed on its symptoms and treatments, while new data is emerging that the condition can be a predictor of talent. To make things stranger, we have many people - myself, temple grandin, hundreds of posters on the AFF web site, who have an asperger's diagnosis yet state clearly they would not opt to be cured

These points are touched upon in the article to a limited extent, briefly, toward the end. But a quick scan shows roughly 95% of the text focusses on negative aspects, and the language itself is often subjective, for example "Narrow, intense interests". The word narrow has a negative shade of meaning, as in "Narrow minded." Does a child who spends a summer reading a book on relativity have a "Narrow" interest? Not if he grows up to unify the fields of nature. "Sustained, intense focus" would be a neutral way to express the same thing. This sort of colored language is pervasive in the article.

I suggest the following. If no one else wishes to, I offer to rewrite the article, giving both the 'disorder' view and the 'gifted divergence' view equal consideration. I ask the wikipedians for guidance in this as i'm a newbie. I realize there are some sticky points, e.g., the diagnostic criteria are in dispute and insist on certain defects by definition (and may be swept away by a purely genetic definition.)

It is clear, however, that the description of asperger's as a set of bothersome symptoms is woefully incomplete, that the issues i've mentioned fall well outside the medical profession's authorative domain, and a balanced view is called for.

I very much apologize for the length of this note, it's ... um ... an autistic trait :)

216.99.241.9 08:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC) CeilingCrash

CeilingCrash - I think you, me (the anonymous opener of the Aspie Parenting issue a couple of comments above) and the previous commenter have highlighted the over-negative aspects of the article well. I certainly think it needs a considerable re-write. Incidently, great chunks of it are plagiarised straight from the references given at the end, so more than a simple restatement are required.

I would suggest the following points need to inform a re-write:

1. Aspergers covers a wide range of levels of difference from neurotypicality (if there be such a word; I've just coined it anyway, Aspie word-player that I am). As I mentioned under the Aspie Parents issue, a lot of the negativity is based on assumptions about Aspies based on the most severe presenters of the condition.

2. Aspergers is equally validly viewed as a different way of thinking as a disability. The exact nature and severity of the symptoms in a given individual will make a massive difference to the impact of the condition in that individual, and therefore whether to that particular individual it is a disorder or simply their rather idiosyncratic way of being and thinking. Modern thinking on mental health, learning disabilities and developmental disorders concerns itself with impact rather than pathology. Obsessing about trains isn't a problem; banging on about them to everyone you bump into at a party might be. You can learn not to do that. Naturally, Aspies vary in the degree to which they can learn to compensate and cope with given aspects of their condition.

3. Insight is vital. I personally have found it much easier to compensate and cope since I found out what was different about me. Had Aspergers existed as an understood phenomenon when I was at school, for example, things might have been very different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.36 (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, especially with #2. I do not wish to advocate for aspies, nor to enter the disease/difference debate. The two views are not incompatible, autism debilitates some and empowers others, both aspects are thoroughly documented. This dual nature is central to the condition and rather than being an after-thought, is a necessary first principle in order to fully characterize this condition and convey the current state of scientific knowledge about it. CeilingCrash 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well but I am going to remove the "Neutrality disputed" tag as it is not a correct indicator of the issue. There is just an aspect that needs to be added to the article. I am an Aspie and have a son who has a serious ummm.. ?case? of Aspergers. Look forward to creating this article with y'all. Alex Jackl 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm heartened by the directions this discussion is going. Re CeilingCrash's comment that "the two views are not incompatible": I think an incompatibility has arisen from a vaguely applied label and its continuing misapplication. I think Simon Baron-Cohen begins to get at the issue when he says "Three types of people were revealed through our study: one for whom empathy is stronger than systemizing (Type E brains); another for whom systemizing is stronger than empathy (Type S brains); and a third for whom empathy and systemizing are equally strong (Type B brains)."[1]

It seems to me that what he is calling a "Type S brain", I've been calling a "healthy Aspie". (I'm now looking for sources that elucidate that notion.)

I think the problem is that different types of dysfunction, such as depression and ADD for instance, look different in different types of brains -- and we've made a connection between depression, for example, and AS that is myopic. That's where the biochemical research, such as on oxytocin, endocannabinoids, sex hormones, etc., comes in; dysfunction is when an individual of any brain type has outside-of-optimal levels of specific biochemicals. What isn't dysfunction is what has been called here, "positive aspects", i.e., what different brain-types, functioning at their best, contribute to society.

Btw, I would very much like to review a source for your comment, "...a genetic test for asperger's in a fetus will soon be available." Such a test would indeed bring up a lot of social engineering quandaries.

--Renice 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your warm welcome. Renice - yes, it was the possibility of genetic 'screening' which had an impact on me; to me, getting balanced and complete information out is now a moral issue. The scientific consensus appears to be they are "closing in". I didn't mean to give the impression that it is a fait accompli headed for the shelves soon.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2000/02/autism204.html

"Less than three years after beginning a search for genes that confer a risk of developing autism, Duke geneticist Margaret Pericak-Vance and her colleagues have found evidence of two defects that may be linked to the complex combination of behaviors called autistic spectrum disorder." ... "Pericak-Vance, director of the Duke Center for Human Genetics and lead investigator of the autism genetic studies at Duke, and her team located defects in tiny sections of chromosomes 15 and 7 ..."

The potential ethical problems were mentioned in the popular press,

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7899821

entitled "Would you allow bill gates to be born?" A singularly unfortunate headline, as I think the answer is a resounding NO irrespective of neurology :)

CeilingCrash 18:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CeilingCrash, you might want to make changes gradually, as this article is currently at featured quality and should remain so. If you want it to discuss a "gifted divergence" view of AS, you should work from reliable sources that discuss that view (published sources from the AS research and diagnosis communities are good), and stay close to what they say. You shouldn't add statements based primarily on personal experience or internet forum posts. Gazpacho 06:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Gazpacho, that is what I shall do. I understand that drastic changes, or changes that introduce conjecture (such as the post-mortem diagnoses of figures such as einstein) or opinion will work against the goal of a credible and complete account arrived at by consensus.

Major changes I will introduce here rather then just plunking them in.

On that note, I'm open to suggestions for a definition of asperger's which is reasonably brief and accounts for the dual aspects of enhanced and impaired ability, from a peer-reviewed source preferably.

It is my sense that we should remain agnostic on the disease/divergence issue and simply present the facts : aspergers does these good things and these bad things, here's the research.

In that vein I think the DSM criteria should remain, as well as most of the present article, tho possibly with rephrasing that removes apparent bias.

CeilingCrash 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 216.99.241.4 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of potential positive aspects of AS, I just want to point out that it is highly unlikely that the pervasive societal stereotype of the brilliant academic who is socially awkward and withdrawn would exist if there were no truth to the idea that AS is often associated with extraordinary talents and extraordinary intelligence.Blerb 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Disease" reverts

I request we discuss the "Disease" issue out here instead of reverting the Box all the time. I am on the side of that it is not a disease but is rather a condition i nthe way that having blue eyes is a "condition". However, it is a legitemate stance held by many that it is a "disease" or "defect" or something like that! Let's discuss a way to represent that more powerfully in the article WITHOUT deleting contributions that do actually add data. I can't do it right now but lets beef up the section that discusses that - cite some of the studies about the expanded capaities that Aspies have, etc. Alex Jackl 06:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is absolutely useless. It will take you to a web-page with new links that doesn't even describe it in any way. There are already categories to ICD and DSM, and that is quite enough. --Rdos 06:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just clicked through a bunch of them and don't know what you mean. I can tell you feel strongly about it but there is data there and it is similar in style to the other data in that box. Perhaps we can label the box "old-fashioned medical view of AS" or something like that. Though someone would need to wordsmith that a little bit better! :-) Alex Jackl 06:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just clicked through the other links - frankly I think the ICD-10 is more useless in terms of informational content. While I was clikcing through someone IP address with no history and no talk page cruised through an took out the link again so I restored it. I will not revert again but I renew my plea that the editors of this page discuss this from the orientation of two perspective son AS rather than a blood war. Alex Jackl 06:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, if you can reword it so it is clear that AS is no longer viewed as a disease, I'm all for it. Right now it screems out that AS is a disease, and it does so before you even get to read anything in the article. This is what I call POV-pushing. --Rdos 08:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually certain that it does make AS out to be a disease. From CTRL+Fing through the article, there are 4 occurrences of the word "disease". The first one is in the name of the database in the opening link. The second one is as follows:

In 1992, the tenth published edition of the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) included AS, making it a distinct diagnosis.[5] Later, in 1994, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic reference book also added AS.[4][42]

Further down the article, there are two more uses of the word, which are as follows:

Some professionals contend that, far from being a disease, AS is simply the pathologizing of neurodiversity that should be celebrated, understood and accommodated instead of treated or cured.

Autistic people have contributed to a shift in perception of autism spectrum disorders as complex syndromes rather than diseases that must be cured.

Nowhere in the article does it specifically say that AS is a disease, and the database being called DiseasesDB does not make AS a disease any more than including David Hayter in the IMDB does not particularly make him an actor. Dreaded Walrus 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As I say below under #Self-diagnosis_Fad., it is really important to remember that Aspergers is not a disease; it is a syndrome. A syndrome is a clustering of phenotypes and metabolic symptoms. It's a theoretical construct used to figure out the rules of a system.

No one has yet presented the rules for the clustering known as 'Aspergers'. However if you look at how this syndrome is different from and similar to other syndromes, it's possible to figure out what the underlying healthy 'Systemizer' phenotype is, and what happens when an adrenal process is off. Just one process needs to be off for an Aspergers diagnosis, as long as the underlying phenotype has been correctly identified.
--Renice 19:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a syndrome however can be addressed many ways. However, I would say it is a cluster of medically addressable conditions, more like being very short or very tall is a condition, than having blue eyes is a condition. As a Syndrome, AS does have it's disadvantages as well as it's advantages, along with medical, in this case Psychological and Psychiatric impacts of these issues. How one deals with such issues determines the end outcome.

However, I must also argue for the pure sake of discounting the philosophy that puts a negative stigma around the words "disorder", "disability" and "disease" that any abnormality, even one that is entirely negative within it's own context can be turned to a positive end once in the real world as dealing with the negatives in our lives makes us able to do more with the positives. This is regardless of if a condition has positives Even having long beautiful hair can be a stigma when you don't cover it while working around heavy machinery, thus a undeniably very positive condition can be turned negative, given enough foolishness. This is a no doubt something people need to consider when making such arguments about things being "good" or "bad". -- Francis Ruedii (anonymous) 71.55.62.166 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

please take it off the disese daterbase link, and i think your artcle does suggest it is a disease. --Rebeccarulz123 17:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disease database

IMHO, there should be NO mention of any disease in this article. There is general consensus that AS is not a disease, and so it should not say disease at the very top of the article. For me it is irrelevant if AS has an entry in the disease database (it shouldn't be in there), we still don't need to link it. --Rdos 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a legitemate stance- but it is not actually universally recognized quite the way you are describing.

1. The "disease database" is a poorly named database first off because it contains a host of "symptom groupings" many of which are not pathogen-induced. However - despite the poor naming abilities it is a database that has data about the condition we call "Asperger's Syndrome". To knock off a vlaid sourc eof data because of some poor naming decisions is not IMO good form.
2. There are limitations and issues to deal with with AS that makes it sometimes useful to look at as if it were a medical condition.
3. We can add content to the article which clarifies how sorry Neuro-typs should be that they are not Aspie!!!!! :-)

Alex Jackl 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I am aware, it is true that the current general consensus is that AS is not a disease, and it is also a view I personally hold.

However, I am also aware that not everything in the newspaper is news, not everything on the television requires vision, and not everything in the Diseases Database is a disease. (see [2])

The website is called Diseases Database, sure, but it contains many things that are not diseases, as mentioned in the link above.

I am for the link being included. (Bold text included not to shout, but rather to make any consensus of opinions clear.) :) --Dreaded Walrus 06:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

it causes you to think disease before you have even read it so get rid of it please --Rebeccarulz123 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Rewrite

Currently the opening paragraph is:

Asperger syndrome — also referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's, or just AS — is one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) that is characterized by deficiencies in social and communication skills. It is considered to be part of the autistic spectrum.

I am recommending the following change (a sa strawman- I don't have the wording quite right yet):

Asperger syndrome — also referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's, or just AS — is a pervasive developmental condition that has both positive and negative aspects. It is characterized by brilliance and focus on one hand and deficiencies in social and communication skills on the other. It is recognized by the medical community as one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) considered to be part of the autistic spectrum.

What do people think? Alex Jackl 13:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the right direction. Here's a 2nd stab at it:

"

Asperger syndrome — also referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's, or just AS — is a pervasive developmental [neurological?] condition related to autism. It manifests in highly individual ways and can have both positive and negative effects on a person. It is recognized by the medical community as one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) considered to be part of the autistic spectrum. Due to the mixed nature of its effects, it remains controversial among researchers, physicians, and [need neutral phrase for 'those diagnosed with it']

"

The word 'effects' seems not quite right ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CeilingCrash (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

CeilingCrash 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

A suggestion:

Asperger syndrome — also referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's, or simply AS — is believed to be a neurological polymorphism characterized by a systemizing thought process, in contrast to a more empathizing thinking style. Because of perceived deficiencies in social and communication skills, it is currently considered part of the autistic spectrum and one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD).

--Renice 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Wow. That is the definition I would most want. Can we get away with it? I am torn between what I would prefer to say (like your definition, if only i could write that well) and what will withstand withering attack from the enemy camp. I think your description is 100% correct, but am concerned that it does not reflect the current prevailing viewpoint, however screwed up that viewpoint may be. It seems to me that the current state of knowledge is in deep controversy. That our job is to report on both sides of the debate with credible source material.

So I worry about statements like "Because of perceived deficiencies ..." which seem to me to devalue the Disorder viewpoint.

My sense is our best short-term goal is to give equal time to both viewpoints - which have no inherent incompatibility - and let the chips fall where they may. To not give the impression that one view is rolling over another. And to make no assertion that isn't referenced. Hopefully in ten years the prevailing views will have shifted and your definition will reflect the centrist viewpoint.

Thoughts?

CeilingCrash 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This last one is too slanted in the other direction. "Percieved differences" is too POV. There ARE differences. That is just true. Just like Men and Women ARE different. What we need to deal with is what people make those differences mean, how they contextualize it- as a bad thing, etc. Here is my cut at CeilingCrash's:

Asperger syndrome — also referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's, or just AS — is a pervasive developmental condition related to autism. It manifests in highly individual ways and can have both positive and negative effects on a person. It is recognized by the medical community as one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) considered to be part of the autistic spectrum. Due to the mixed nature of its effects, it remains controversial among researchers, physicians, and people who have Asperger's Syndrome.

Alex Jackl 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I like, I can source everything said here. How about "diagnosed with" rather than "have", to express that the diagnostic label (and the implied context of illness) has been applied without necessarily concurring with it.

Nit-picking, I know. I can see terminology is going to be an ongoing challenge ... CeilingCrash 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I said "perceived deficiencies" not "differences" -- there are definitely differences, but the inability to socialize in a certain way is a 'perceived deficiency' -- still, I recognize that "perceived" has become a loaded word, even though I don't mean it quite that way. Also I think the notion that Asperger's is a polymorphism (or at least is caused by genetic polymorphism) is accepted by many in the scientific community: see http://www.google.com/search?q=polymorphism+%2B+Asperger. --Renice 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the dilemma here. We are doing this discussion (might be quiescent for a while) over at the Autism article and trying to get it back to feature status. The problem is, if you put every conditional phrase or word into the definition you defeat the purpose. You just can not get it all into one or two sentences and if you go on too long the reader's eyes may glaze over. Hey, I would never say that complexity is a vice, I would like to use all the words I can get but if there are too many nuances in the opening line, you will nuance your article right out of the reader's register.

The opening can be up to what, 4 paragraphs depending on the size of the article (we just got a peer review that is why I remember that much).

Couple of things to remember, Eddington said science is accurate except when it isn't, Einstein said, you only have to prove me wrong once, and as you are all aware the entire subject of autism and related maladies and just about everything else is very subjective (which is what you would expect if you understand the nature of science and medicine). While you can certainly point that out here, do you want to use the article to make a major but divergent point that might be said more efficiently elsewhere on the Wikipedia? Limit the opening to about 3-4 paragraphs of no more than 2 lines each, 3 if you have to, and get on with the details in the article and you will make it easier on your reader and keep this article where it is in the internal Wikipedia ratings (it is still a feature article, right?) Malangthon 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OKay- in light of all the comments I am going to make the change to the intorductory paragraph. If someone has an issue with that let's talk it out but it seems like we have a general agreement. He reis what I am going with based on all the above conversation:

Asperger syndrome — also referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's, or just AS — is a pervasive developmental condition related to autism. It manifests in highly individual ways and can have both positive and negative effects on a person. It is recognized by the medical community as one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) considered to be part of the autistic spectrum. Due to the mixed nature of its effects, it remains controversial among researchers, physicians, and people who are diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.

Alex Jackl 06:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay- I ended up making some changes as I put it in . They were all minor, but I felt necessary because I didn't want to lose information in the change. I wikilinked some of the key words as they were in the original opening paragraph. I realized we had also lost the line about social skills and communocation skills. I didn't want to lose it so I put it in as "It is typically characterized by issues with social and communication skills." Notice I replaced the word deficiencies with issues. OKay... let's see how it survives but I think this was a good change! Thanks everyone! Here is the new paragraph as I put it in:

Asperger syndrome — also referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's, or just AS — is a pervasive developmental condition related to autism. It manifests in highly individual ways and can have both positive and negative effects on a person. It is recognized by the medical community as one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) considered to be part of the autistic spectrum. It is typically characterized by issues with social and communication skills. Due to the mixed nature of its effects, it remains controversial among researchers, physicians, and people who are diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.

Alex Jackl 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• applause

I'm really pleased with how this turned out : concise, unbiased, informative and encyclopedic. I am also glad to see it went over with apparently unanimous consent.

Pronounciation

I think what i added was not vandalism. Does anyone kinow what the common pronounciation for Asperger's is? From friends etc, this is what i heard and so i am writing close to what i have heard it pronounced.

As-sper-jes

Can someone give a more clear pronounciation?

Simply south 15:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not with a straight face :) My doctor pronounces it ass'-purr-ger,

tho I believe the correct german is ahs'-purr-ger or ahs-purr'-ger.

CeilingCrash 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Crash- every medical professional we have worked with has pronounced it that way!Alex Jackl 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering, is it pronounced differently in different countries? Simply south 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a possibility. I am from the UK, and when I was in the process of being diagnosed, the psychiatrists and psychologists I interacted with called it Asperger's, and pronounced it "p" instead of b, and "j" instead of g. So it's definitely far from being pronouned as "Assburgers" where I'm from. I'd also never seen it spelt "Asperger syndrome", without the "'s" at the end of the first word, before coming to this article. Perhaps that is different in different places too? --Dreaded Walrus 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a German name, so it's a hard g. It's a common English language mistake to pronounce the g as a soft g (j) when it is followed by an e. The problem is the name's not English so the English language rules don't apply. --James Duggan 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The correct German pronunciation, FWIW, is with the A as in "about", the first E somewhere between the A in "lame" and the E in "deft", a gutteral R, a hard G sound, and the second E more like the U in "under". I guess that would work out to something like "Ahh-spare-gur".Blerb 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics

What's up with the Spock reference in this section; is that necessary/encyclopedic? Actually, the line that contains it seems like a somewhat fanciful revision of, or extrapolation from, DSM-IV criteria. I think it's imperative upon Wikipedians to resist the "look at me I have Asperger's!" internet meme, and report only what can be found in medical literature. It's the new "I have ADD".72.83.243.12 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Spock reference is only there to put it into context, I see nothing wrong with that. And of course it seems like it's from the DSM-IV, that's because it is. Look at the cite used at the beginning of that list. --James Duggan 07:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-diagnosis Fad.

Maybe the article should mention the current fad for certain types of people to claim to have Asperger's, based solely on reading about it on the internet and assuming they have it - either as a way of getting attention or as an excuse for their seemingly unusual behaviour? Looking at the percentage of Asperger's sufferers in the general population vs the number of internet users who claim to have it cannot be explained away by simply claiming that "Asperger's sufferers are more likely to use the internet."

There is a big difference between Asperger's syndrome and being a socially inept, boring, nerd. 85.210.176.200 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also- speaking as one who was (and in some instances still is) a boring, socially inept nerd- people with mild variances of the condition can actually train themselves to be fairly socially adept and even masterful. It is just that they need to learn the "hidden curriculum" by training rather than instinctively. I have been diagnosed with a mild form of AS and am a public speaker, executive and consultant and do very well in that arena.Alex Jackl 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex - Very interesting, thank you for that. --DearPrudence 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you partially. However remember to assume that other editors are editing in good faith and always start with they have something to contribute. Not everyone who claims to have ADD has ADD, just as not everyone who claims to have Asperger's has Aspergers. However- you just don't know. I struggle with it myself. When my son's specialist he was sent to mentioned the possibility I was credulous and I did think even the sepaicialist was playing the "condition du jour" game.

I myself was then diagnosed with it AFTER my son was diagnosed. I didn't beleive it myself. But my son's neurologist tested me, interviewed me and concluded that i had a VERY MILD form. I was skeptical, but when I got my mother to read some of the literature on it she cried- because I was spot on stereotypical Asperger's as a child, and she thought she had failed as a mother to raise me correctly. The Spock comment in the article made me laugh because I was so out of touch with how people would react and so obsessesed with Star Trek I went to school in a Spock Uniform in the seventh grade. Can you say "bully fodder"? I can still name the titles of all the episodes! LOL

The purpose of this little biographical moment is that you just don't know and be careful to assume anyone is or isn't - even though it may seem like a fad it may be more pervasive than you think! DO you have any citations or scholarly works that mention this fad or support the assertion that there are more people claiming to be Asperger's than claiming anything else? That would add value- but just asserting it form subjective experience probably shouldn't go in.... Alex Jackl 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex - me too, on both your comments here ;) I was never diagnosed as a child, because I was a kid before Aspergers was known. I was just a weird kid, with obsessions about dinosaurs, electronics, UFOs and astrophysics, who no-one liked very much because he was so irritating, having no idea about the "hidden curriculum", and little ability to work out when he was boring people. I remember my best friend at the time saying to me many times, after observing me innocently annoying the hell out of someone, "KRT, your problem is that you just don't understand people".

I learnt. Gradually. Now I'm married, have a good job (in IT, natch!) with two sons. I've met people since with considerably more problems than I ever had - obsessions worn proudly on their sleeves (or at least their badge collections), monotonous speaking voices - and actually count myself fortunate to have enough Aspie traits to be who I am, but not so many that I can't function relatively normally.

Which rambling brings me on to an important point. The worst problem many Aspie kids have with mainstream schooling is social - they are absolute bully fodder, bringout out bullying behaviour in classmates who would not usually exhibit such behaviour - mobbing would be a better description. Has much work been done on this, both in terms of preventing it and giving Aspie kids the resources and skills to avoid it and to cope with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.35 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

No, there is no difference between AS and being a nerd, geek, socially inept and getting the dx of social phobia. These things are RELATED. --Rdos 12:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense and you know it. Lots of people are socially inept without being anywhere near diagnosable. PurplePlatypus 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly nonsense. These are the results of placing social phobia in Aspie-quiz. Turns out social phobia is just as loaded on the autism spectrum as AS is. If they are diagnosable or not is a different question. --Rdos 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are Aspies so worried about people who self-diagnose? Is Munchausen syndrome threatening? Why do you trust a medical 'expert' over your own instincts? In worrying, you are acting like scared animals -- because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, Aspies can tell each other apart. You can call it 'assortative mating' if you want, but figuring out why and how Aspies recognize each other is a lot more interesting.

In the meanwhile, keep reminding yourself: Aspergers is a SYNDROME. A syndrome is a clustering of phenotypes and metabolic symptoms. It's a theoretical construct used to figure out the rules of a system. No one has yet presented the rules for the clustering known as 'Aspergers', but they're not that hard.

Here's an exercise that will shake out the non-Aspies: While singing "One of these things is not like the other things" to yourself, sort through Category:Syndromes. It's easiest if you use your own symptoms as a sort of filter. If you're a Systemizer, you'll start to see a pattern.

While sorting, apply the rules of these systems:

• evolution: Life survives through diversity.
• ethology: Instinctive behavior occurs in all members of a species under specified circumstances.
• neurobiology:
  • Thoughts create neurocircuitry.
  • Different styles of thinking/communicating/learning can be learned, but only one is innate.
• metabolism: An organism becomes ill when it cannot correctly metabolize certain substances that come into its system.
• medicine: A syndrome is a clustering of phenotypes and metabolic symptoms.
• astrobiology: Everything needed by life on this earth, can be found on this earth.

By the way, the rules above should also be applied to everything in the article. Throw out all the hunches about what a certain behavior might lead to based on what someone thinks they know about 'healthy' people. Back up everything with empirical evidence -- you can't sort the evidence unless the examples are true.
--Renice 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aspergian_Wikipedians is fairly strong evidence for there being a self-diagnosis trend —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.193.238.6 (talk • contribs).

But not every one on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aspergian_Wikipedians is self diagnosed. Some people like myself have actually been diagnosed with the condition, rather than being self diagnosed. So it's therefore wrong to assume that everyone that publicly declares that they have Asperger's is in fact self diagnosed.Natski-asnd8 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Of course, there is a possibility that some people on there will be self-diagnosed, but if we exclude the users there who may well be self-diagnosed, then User:128.193.238.6's argument is tantamount to saying that anyone who knows that they have the condition automatically are self-diagnosed. If I added myself to an official government register of people with, say, cancer, having been diagnosed as having it by a GP, would that automatically mean I self-diagnosed? It's a ridiculous argument with no basis in logic. --Dreaded Walrus 09:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A few of people on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aspergian_Wikipedians may be self-diagnosed, but you can claim the whole lot is self-diagnosed. There are people like me who have been officially diagnosed at a young age (in my case, i was 9) Doc Strange 13:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, anyone who self-diagnoses and then puts themselves on a list is by definition a bit suspect - one thing that Aspies DON'T do is join clubs!! --Ndaisley 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (only partly in jest)

section on Social Impact

Deleted this: During adolescence and young adulthood, the person with AS should guard keenly against peer pressure. At this stage of life this pressure can be quite heavy and often takes the form of pressure to drink heavily with others, or engage in other licentious behaviour such as drug abuse. Care should also be taken against being drawn into non-mainstream religious groups such as Scientology, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons who are liable to do spiritual damage; and against being taken in by scams, or non-mainstream political groups, particularly extreme leftist ones.

'nuff said. Malangthon 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have aspergers and i would never be encouraged to drink heavilly with others dcrug abuse or nay of the religious groups. i think its wrong you think that when i never would do tht and i have aspergers, you nps dont know what your on about, do you really know us!! you cant see what goes on in our heads! --Rebeccarulz123 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

updating article

It seems this article needs some updating. Asperger syndrome is now recognized by a consensus of experts as a common disorder with an incidence of 1 out of 150. In addition, Dr. Lim at Yale has collected impressive evidence of the genes that cause it. At the University of Pittsburgh and at Carnegie Mellon University they have found compelling evidence that the processing disorder is caused by a decreased amount of white matter (not gray) in the brain which affects associational neurons. This was done by functional MRI on a large number of patients and is pretty much irrefutable. This is no longer a "disease du jour" and people in education and particularly in medicine need to know this. Drlareau 15:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

overdiagnosis and disease de jour

Graham 87 made the revert to delete:

• "Asperger's Syndrome is the new ADD, which was the new bipolar disorder, which was the new hypoglycemia, which was the new neurosis, which was the new hysteria, which was the new imbalance of bodily humors, which was the new possession by demons, which was the new cursed by witches, etc., etc. Being a big boring dork does not automatically mean you have AS!"

The deleted text was inappropriate as Graham87 states but the controversy is very real as it has been for ADD (aka ADHD, aka MBD, aka hyperkinesia, aka hyperkinetic syndrome aka . . .), and homosexuality and alcoholism and epilepsy and (add your own here) and the myriad other maladies of the serious social stigma type. "Disease of the Month" is a good source for those who want to see the chaos and confusion of the name game and a good research of the literature. Anyone here have access to a good med library? Check out the issues on Attention Deficit Disorder and see what I mean. The point, if not the wording, is important in an article like this. Malangthon 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is the "disease de jour" as you put it, everything about that statement was wrong, from the placing, to the wording, to the lack of reference. I hadn't realized it before, but your right in that this article doesn't properly talk about how it's become the diagnosis du jour and the prevelance of self-diagnoses. When I get time, I will search out some stuff that we could use as citation. --James Duggan 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost deleted that paragraph, why is it there? doesn't seem NPOV, does seem like original research/writing, no citations, has roughly nothing to do with the article moreso then it would with many other conditions

An addition to the Asperger's Syndrome article

I want to make a contribution to the article on Asperger's Syndrome. I lack the technical expertise to do that appropriately, but I've been told on the Help Desk to just go ahead and post my text and some kind Wikipedian might come along and finish the job for me. So, here goes...

This is an ADDITION to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome#Non-clinical_perspective>.

EXISTING LANGUAGE: Some professionals contend that, far from being a disease, AS is simply the pathologizing of neurodiversity that should be celebrated, understood and accommodated instead of treated or cured.[60]

TO BE ADDED: Others relate AS to the concept of personality originated by psychiatrist Carl Jung [reference?] and extended by Myers and Briggs [reference?]. MacKenzie identified ISTJ as the most likely type to exhibit autistic-like behaviors. [see citation below] Duke pointed out similarities between the I and J preferences and ASD, but specifically excluded the whole type ISTJ [see citation below], while Chester asserted that, "In terms of function pairs, NT is more likely than ST to be seen as having Asperger's Disorder," He also said, "For whole types, I_TPs appear to be at a greater risk of being diagnosed with Asperger's Disorder than any other type, especially as children." [see citation below]

Note: The three new citations are all available from the Center for Applications of Psychological Type <www.capt.org>.

~ ~ ~

Chester, R. G. (2006, December). Asperger's syndrome and psychological type. Journal of Psychological Type, 66(12), 114-137.

Duke, L. R. (2005). Autism and learning styles: An assessment of children with high-functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome using the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children-Revised. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the graduate school of the Texas Woman's University, College of Arts and Sciences, Denton, TX.

MacKenzie, E. H. (2004, July). Using type to understand the autistic experience. Paper presented at APT-XV, the Fifteenth Biennial International Conference of the Association for Psychological Type, Toronto, ON.

R.G.C. (Note: I am the author of the first paper cited above.) 4.242.162.201 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to add the material as outlined above. You can see the changes I made by clicking here. If the additions are not what you had in mind, please make a note about what is incorrect. To the other editors of the article: I am not familiar with this article, so I apologize if certain aspects of this edit (such as reference method/formatting) do not match with this article's conventions.--GregRM 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• * * * *

Thanks GregRM. Looks good!

R.G.C.

4.242.162.51 21:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Treatment section, I feel it is not neutral POV. There is no cure for Asperger's Syndrome, therefore the following sentence should be deleted: "The techniques described above will work for most people with AS but the syndrome cannot be completely cured."

Can someone please explain to me what the next sentence means? As it stands it is unintelligible and should also be deleted: "AS can be modified and coping strategies can be put in place."

None of the treatments listed do a thing to modify AS, ie, change the wiring of the brain. It always seemed to me that the whole point of treatment was to take away our coping skills, or at least teach us to hide them, and force us to conform to society with or without consent.

The ABA ethics debate, and the Canadian Supreme Court's rejection of it, was swept under the rug. In order to be encyclopedic and retain NPOV, it must be covered in the main article.Berkeleysappho 10:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first line "The techniques described above will work for most people with AS but the syndrome cannot be completely cured" can be reworded to something about the treatments helping us to cope better in an NT society. With the second line, "AS can be modified and coping strategies can be put in place", you're right in that it can't be modified, and the coping can be mentioned in the first line. Maybe combining both sentences it into "The techniques described above will not cure AS, but help those diagnosed with AS better cope (function?) in society", or something along those lines. --James Duggan 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I like the suggestion and support that change. Alex Jackl 06:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Aspergers and Relationships

I didn't notice much mention of aspies marrying other aspies. There are a few well-known both-autistic couples (I noticed that the Newports have an autobiography in the bookshops), and quite a few reported aspie couples on various internet groups etc. I think Oliver Sacks briefly described an entire autistic family in his book "Anthropologist from Mars".

The scientific concept of "assortative mating" is especially relevant, as aspie-aspie marriages are a specialized and extreme form of assortative mating. The scientific article cited below by Constantino and Todd gives reason to expect that autistics may be especially attracted to other autistics, and therefore AS-AS marriages may be more common and possibly more successful than previously thought, as the study found that in a general population sample, there was evidence of assortative mating with respect to scores on the Social Responsiveness Scale, which is a "measure of autistic social impairment". I think this means that people with top "social skills" tend to marry those who also have top social skills, and those with autistic levels of social skills tend to marry similar etc etc. From paper "... it is possible that mate selection occurs on the basis of social impairment, social competence, or other characteristics that closely correlate with SRS scores." In other words, men who don't like to talk about their emotions tend to favour women who don't either! I think Baron-Cohen may also subscibe to this idea as well, as assortative mating with regard to systemizing is the starting point for his theory explaining what causes autism, and in his theory of systemizing and empathizinig brain types, the systemizing one is the more prone to or closest to being socially impaired.

I think this could point to a very important factor affecting the potential success of marriage relationshipsamong all people, including autistics. If people tend to naturally match-up with those who are similar in SRS scores or brain type, can we therefore assume that these choices are wise or optimal ones, and that compatibility through similarity results in the most successful relationships? (I don't know it this question can be tested scientifically, as a controlled trial would be impossible to do). Considerations like this one are of critical importance to people with AS who have special problems finding relationships that work. More research needs to be done of successful marriages involving aspies, to find out why they work. (Only an aspie such as myself would have a go at systemizing romance!).

http://cog.brown.edu:16080/courses/cg63/AutismGeneticTransmission.pdf Intergenerational transmission of subthreshold autistic traits in the general population. Biological Psychiatry, Volume 57, Issue 6, Pages 655-660 J. Constantino, R. Todd

Is homosexuality mentioned in this article? Am I imagining things or are an unusual proportion of aspie women lesbians or bi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.212.112 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I know of no studies that correlate sexual preference with Aspergers, nor have I seen it in my own experience. Are there any studies that correlate high Fetal Testosterone levels with homosexuality in women? I do believe S B-C is correct that FT is a determining factor in the autism spectrum, but not in quite the way he suspects.

My understanding of the assortative mating theory is that if you mate two people with the Asperger/Autism phenotype, the expression of that phenotype will worsen over generations -- Anticipation (genetics). It's S B-C's explanation for an apparent epidemic of autism.

The argument is fallacious; the evidence is that parents of autistic children tend to both be Systemizers, and that's simply not enough.

Just off the top of my head, I would offer these types of studies in rebuttal:

• Study links a set of genes involved with immune function, with partner selection in humans. http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-77933.html

• Study demonstrates that inbreeding is not affecting the Scandinavian wolf population as badly as expected. ("For each level of inbreeding it appears to be the wolves with the highest amount of genetic variation that establish themselves as breeders.") http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-76329.html

The answer regarding the validity of Assortative Mating lies in describing the healthy phenotype. See my other posts on this page.

--Renice 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, homoesexuality and unusual sexual preferences is related to ASDs, but this PC-article cannot include it because it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal AFAIK (yet). FT-"theory" doesn't seem very likely because there is neither an autism epidemic nor is there more males on the higher-functioining end of the autism spectrum. --Rdos 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The point that I was making above has nothing to do with inbreeding, I was writing about the fact that assortative mating does happen, and the implications of this in understanding autism and relationships. I was not discussing the possible reproductive EFFECTS of assortative mating, which is a separate subject. In any case, the idea that "inbreeding" sets of a progressive increase in disbility down the generations does not make any sense (to any person who understands the basics of genetics). In the 1900s in Europe there was a popular theory of "degeneration" associated with the eugenics movement that included unscientific ideas about inbreeding among "undesirables" predicting a possible decline of the human race. It's pure bunk, but it is still part of popular folklore about human genetics. I don't believe Baron-Cohen believes in the idea of an autism epidemic, but he'd be the best person to say.

I think you people are forgetting that most teenage boys with Asperger's are 5-7 years behind same-age girls in maturity. They never regain that gap and most become shy, "weirdos" in unskilled jobs or on social security. There are a lot of Aspie men who are victims of both rumors about them being gay or phedophiles and of violence and threats, just because they are very shy and prefer to be alone.

Excuse me, you have really insulted me. How dare you say we are likely to be gay or phaedopiles. Thats really horrible, Analso how dare you say we will not be abled to get a good marridge and we will have a unskilled jobs and we are weirdos. Excuse me, bur people with as tend to have low self esteem anyway ( mine is building up but it dosnt help with people like you saying these things ) I am trying hard to believe in myself and my future. When i grow up i want to write books or be editor for a magizine or write for magazine or be journalist or go into cooking buisnis Or maybe act. Im not quite sure altho i defintly want to write books and be an author, although i will need a side job too. I cant believe you have that low faith in us. I WILL get a good job and marridge and maybe have kids as well. Ive had a couple of boyfriends, one for 6 months a year ago.. and one for 2 months last december, although they both didnt work out. But im young, Im 15 and if i believe i believe i CAN do anything i wanna do. i dont need Nps telling me i cant.--Rebeccarulz123 19:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Please slow down, Rebecca. He didn't say that. He said that they're victims, because of rumours about them, that stem from them being perceived as different. That's the point; Aspies come across as odd to neurotypicals, and the neurotypicals then mis-label them. It's their way of coping. Philip Trueman 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop grouping gays and paedophiles together? I understand that the point is both groups are often viewed negatively, and so someone who doesn't belong to either group probably doesn't want to be labelled as such, but it's still insulting to suggest that homosexuals are in any way related to paedophiles. --DearPrudence 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this. I'm an Aspie, I'm 34 and I've nearly been attacked by homophobes several times. I actually find the nonsense about Aspies and relationships offending! How many men with Asperger's ever get girlfriends? Less than 1%? There are so few men with Asperger's in relationships that it's absurd to even discuss it.

Yearh the rumors are stupid. And yearh you shouldnt put gays and paedopiles in the same group. And i find it offending too.--Rebeccarulz123 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm simply saying is that some dimwits believe that I'm that because I'm not interested in women at all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.167.125.92 (talk • contribs).

Ive never found that. Because although i hav aspergers i am interested in boys shouldnt stop me omg!!!!!!! --Rebeccarulz123 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Less than 1%", where did THAT daft piece of pseudo-statistics come from? *chuckles* Let's just say it CERTAINLY doesn't apply to any of the Aspies I know. --Zeraeph 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[Troll removed by ceilingcrash] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.167.118.130 (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2007

There are plenty of aspies in relationships of course, of both genders and various orientations. You can go talk to a bunch if you like on the aspieforfreedom or wrongplanet websites given in the links section.

Hey Rebecca ... wanna catch a movie or ... build a helicopter out of legos or somethin'? ;)

Oops you're 15, i don't want to end up on that new tv show. Never mind!

I think it's important not to psyche yourself out of the game, especially males. No, you are not going to successfully compete with jocks at their own game. But females also do a lot of maturing between ages 14 and 25, and where once jocks had the advantage, the aspie "independence of mind", sense of humor, honesty and even earning potential can turn the tables.

Also, completely unsubstantiated folklore is that aspie males are unusually handsome, and look younger than their chronological age. True or not, i had this statement laminated and carry it with me ... CeilingCrash 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends who they are competing with the jocks FOR...google "fionajade" some time, not ALL lady Aspies wear dungarees and look like hobbits y'know. ;o) --Zeraeph 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right... And we all know women like obese, immature, shy junior high dropouts, wich we all know make up 99% of all male Aspies.

Aspergers and synchronization

Solution.

--Renice 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment added to article

The following text was added to the article - I've placed it here and added a {{npov-section}} template:

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion page. This section may contain claims that are based on ancedotes which are unrepresentative, "research" conducted by people who are not scientists or clinicians, and personal accounts from highly biased points of view. ASpar and FAAS are organizations that do not represent autistic people, and have a poor reputation within some aspie communities. ASpar and FAAS also do not represent the perspective of aspie and non-aspie members of happy, successful families that have aspie parents. This article appears to be almost completely lacking in input from the perspective of aspie parents or the aspie community.

If changes can be discussed here, that'd be good. Disputes should always be discussed at the talk page. Graham87 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that

I think we might even want to take those sections out of the article until we can come to agreement on them on the talk page. I think the two sections should exist they just need to be seriously re-written from NPOV. I can't do it right now but the author of those sections clearly has a POV about Aspies as spouses and parents that is inconsistant with many people's views. The POV needs to be toned down without losing the value that IS there. Maybe I will take a cut at it over the weekend. Alex Jackl 08:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added some comments in the section on AS and parenting. Singernotdancer 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to work on those sections. Clearly people did not want them removed but it is not encyclopedic. Alex Jackl 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Creativity

I removed the reference to poor creativity as it s (a) unsourced, (b) not generally believed, (c) flies directly counter to my experience and what I have read. Perhaps you were saying something other than that... Most authors talk about the rich imaginary world that AS kids develop. I developed that and my son is so deep in it I worry about pulling him into reality once in a while. Does anyone have any thoughts on that? Alex Jackl 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "unoriginal" thing is another instance of folklore achieving the status of fact. Perhaps it's grounded in experience with severely impaired autistic people; but in my experience just the opposite is true - aspies seem to have wild imaginations. This is important for educators to realize (at least as a possibility), as many aspies fare best in self-directed study where they blaze their own trail.

I read somewhere, but i can't recall the author, "It is not that aspies are capable of original thought. It's this - aspies are incapable of unoriginal thought." You could even view the social "impairments" as a simple refusal to imitate.

This is probably a little too pro aspie :) But your point is well taken.

CeilingCrash 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

People with Asperger's (I have it) often have above average creativity and imagination, it's how they express it that differs from the neurologically typical. Individuals with low-functioning autism may have lower levels of creativity, but I don't know enough about severe autism to say. Just so you know, that bit you read about aspies being incapable of original thought is wrong; again, that may be referring to low-functioning levels of classic autism. And perhaps what you mean by "a little to pro-aspie" is that what you say borders on being POV (I don't think it was, not for a talk page, at least, but whatever). Thomasiscool 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Above average" is far too general, and I've never read that. An aspie might however have the ability to focus intensely and for long periods on projects that interest them, which might reflect in both the quality and quantity of their creative work. BTW AS is different from high-functioning autism, and while within the autism spectrum, is not regarded as autism as such. --Michael Johnson 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you support the claim that AS is different from HFA? elmindreda 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AS is a good example of a form of HFA. And what Michael Johnson put about creativity is more or less what I meant. However, I do seem to remember reading something about aspies having an above average level of creativity. If I find anything more on this, I'll reference it. Thomasiscool 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it (from articles here and other reading) HFA has delayed language development, while AS has normal language development. I'm not clear on other points, but everything I've read makes a distinction. But hey, I'm new to this, I've only discovered AS and that I am it in the last few weeks. Refer to this article and to High-functioning autism. --Michael Johnson 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From that, it would seem that AS and HFA are closely related, but not really the same thing. Many of the symptoms are the same, but there are differences. I think there's dispute as to whether AS is a form of Autism, or if they're just related. Thomasiscool 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Learning as I go - another thing I read recently was that HFA are interested in "objects" while AS are interested in "people", in other words want to develop relationships. --Michael Johnson 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting opening paragraph

WWallacee rewrote the opening paragraph, using the world "illness." Please see the discussion we had here relating to that paragraph, and introduce major changes in discussion first. Thanx. CeilingCrash 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

my daughter has aspergers and is bipolar

in the past 9 yrs my daughter has be hospitalize 30 times, she has been going to counselors doctors has had her medicine changed so many times.is there any other kind of help to help with these disorders?need some kind of help. please my daughter is 15. signed karen edenhauser —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.38.93 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Karen - this is not the place to seek advice, health professionals and support groups are far more appropiate. But as a general comment I wouldn't be looking at Aspergers - the bipolar issues are not consequental to Aspergers, and probably are what you should be addressing. The "average" person with Aspergers is likely to have some personallity quirks and maybe some annoying habits, and may have difficulty building relationships, completing education, or holding jobs. This may result in depression - but the Aspergers itself is rarely disaballing (at least in the way your daughter seems to be), and cannot be treated medically. (You can "train" to overcome percieved disadvantages, though). So as I said I'd be looking at the bipolar issues. Hope that helps. --Michael Johnson 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually bipolar is considered comorbid with AS, and prescribing meds for it can be problematic -- see http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/1/184-a for example.

Further, we cannot say that AS is untreatable medically because there can be different causes for the same symptoms (AS is a theoretical construct of a constellation of symptoms, many of which stem from imbalances in the endocannabinoid system). One cause of AS that has been hypothesized is underconnectivity between the right and left cerebral hemispheres, which may be caused by either physical, hormonal, or metabolic injury and damage. --Renice 14:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I believe that one of the metabolic mechanisms that is responsible for a percentage of AS cases is the poor metabolism of methionine, which results in high homocysteine levels in either the blood system or the central nervous system.

Levels for the former are assessed with a simple blood test (which probably should receive at least as much priority as cholesterol testing). However assessing CNS levels for homocysteine is more difficult (see lumbar puncture).

Homocysteine poisoning of either the cardio-vascular system or the CNS will result in individual or family histories of heart disease and stroke, respectively. In my research so far, gluten antibodies may be one of the earliest possible markers -- again, a simple blood test (which unfortunately has a high number of false negatives, but is positive in a statistically significant number of diabetes and malabsorption cases, btw, making the test a 'twofer').

To complicate the problem, the methionine metabolism defect may be passed on genetically, or it can affect brain development in utero if the gestating mother is affected. This makes it impossible to screen for a single genetic cause in an affected individual because the cause may be indirect. In either case, I don't think there's any way to know what percentage of AS cases are related to methionine metabolism disorders. --Renice 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

proposed category renaming

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders -- Can "People on the autistic spectrum" be an acceptable name for this category? Currently only three people have commented; the discussion needs more voices. — coelacan — 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that. I have put in my two cents. (If it's a penny for your thoughts, yet people put in their two cents worth, someone, somewhere, must be making a profit :p). --James Duggan 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Isnt a disabiltiy or disease

Aspergers isnt a disabilty or disease. i have it and it isnt. its just a difference. words like disorder and condition shouldnt be used either. many people with aspergers have good iqs can do well in a normal school (like me) and such. it shouldnt stop you from doing anything you wanna do.

i must amit i became really angry after reading your article. How would you like it if there was Aspergia. for instance, with people lke you with high social skills, good co ordination, inability to understand others, think its ok to be obsessive about Football but nothing else...etc, the minority and you found it hard to get jobs, and were Paid less. Why should that be? we are capable of good work. Thats sooo unfair when it isnt a disability anyway. Theres also that thing about not being abled to get married or stay married. I believe thats a load of rubbish. Of corse we will be abled to keep a good marridge. We do not need Nps telling us this when they do not understand anyway. we are the only people who understand. Please reply to this.Rebeccarulz123 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many of the people that work on this article have AS, myself included. Unfortunately, there is no one specific proper term to describe AS. We have talked about the usage of those terms and haven't been able to find a way to properly describe it. Also, a lot of our references and resources use those terms, so we end up using them by default. Personally, I look past those terms since they don't really mean anything anymore (AS isn't the only diagnosis with that problem). Until the entire community comes up with better terminology, we're pretty much stuck with these terms being used. I personally think the article does a good job of showing all sides of AS, much better than it was a year ago. --James Duggan 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Point i think is that these terms being used creatures a really negative approach of AS. i mean how can you put diseases at the top of it, I think it misguides people. I remember when i was younger, i used to be really worried about the term disabled being used and kept asking my mum if i should use the 'disabled toilets' This really shouldnt stop you doing anything, like getting a job., my form teacher has faifh in me anyways! No, i have to say i was very disapointed with your article. I honestly have to say, that just because some refences and resorces use them dosnt mean you should! The resorces were probably created by narrow minded people, and you have to find some thing more positive about As, rather than showing it in a bad light, saying we probably wont be abled to get married/stay married/ get jobs/ keep jobs/ get paid less.--Rebeccarulz123 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have AS too, and I definitely sympathize with your remarks. You should have seen the introductory paragraph a few months ago ! The problem is, this is an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to provide the current, accepted state of knowledge - however screwed up it may be.

Asperger's is considered by some to be an illness, by others to be a divergence from the norm, and by still others to be a superior configuration of the brain. We use the word 'condition' because it was the most neutral one we could think of that accounts for different, credible views.

Saying "Asperger's is not a disease" is advocating a POV. It doesn't matter how valid that POV may be, the point is there is a large number of credible dissenters. Saying Asperger's IS a disease is ALSO a POV, because THAT has lots of credible dissenters too. So we try to drive up the middle. When two POV's have significant backing, the encyclopedic thing to do is present them both. The first paragraph reaches for that balance, the rest of the article is being reworked gradually.

By way of illustration, until 1973 homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder in the USA. Most people today find this offensive and absurd. But if we were writing in 1968, we would dutifully report that "homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder as defined by ..." We would balance that with the opposite view.

When a topic is controversial, there are at least two sides. Usually one right, and one wrong. Our purpose here is not to editorialize, we are obligated to present views we vehemently disagree with along with ours, ensuring both can be credibly sourced, and leaving the reader to decide for themselves.

CeilingCrash 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes in wording, removing subjective bias

I think it is clear there are big chunks of language here that express subjective derision rather than objective fact. I'd like to start with this one :

People with AS typically have a highly pedantic way of speaking, using a far more formal language register than appropriate for a context. A five-year-old child with this condition may regularly speak in language that could easily have come from a university textbook, especially concerning his or her special area of interest.

This is essentially an insulting way of saying "People with AS tend toward more formal language and to develop complex language skills at an early age."

Whether one considers this 'pedantic' or not is purely subjective and dependent on social context and expectations. To quote websters,

  pe·dan·tic     
      1. ostentatious in one's learning.  
      2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.  

The five-year-old may indeed be using language much more complex and formal than is 'appropriate' for the social context. However, this may simply be because he is in kindergarten surrounded by normal five year olds ! The 5-year-old may belong in a different setting altogether, it may be the setting that is inappropriate for him, not the other way around (almost certainly the case in this example. Having this kid read The Cat in The Hat would be educational malpractice.)

I think many parents and educators would be extremely pleased with a 5-year-old using college-level english. Another 13 years of education is expended getting the normal kids to do exactly that. This is talent, not pathology. If it is felt this kid should 'hold back' or otherwise imitate the lower functional level of his peers - aside from being a indefensible expression of anti-intellectualism - it is pure personal commentary that has no place in an encyclopedia.

The point is we need not judge the 'appropriateness' of this difference; we should simply report it.

I propose neutralizing this description and reporting on the objective fact alone.

(This is part of a pattern which pervades the existing source material for Asperger's. Asperger's is a mix of good and bad. The bad is described as "inability", and the good is described as "inappropriate". So the aspie can't win. Most important for our purposes, the language obscures the facts.)

Thoughts?

CeilingCrash 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What do reliable third party sources says about this pattern? If they describe it as inappropriate or pedantic, then we should report that description. Nandesuka 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the paragraph you point to cites Attwood. If that is how Attwood describes their speech, then it is absolutely inappropriate to change what he is saying to match our own delicate sensibilities. It looks like like Attwood does indeed use that language, see here. On page 80, in the section entitled "Pedantic Speech", Attwood cites two other studies as describing the AS speech pattern as "pedantic or overly format" (Kerbeshian, Burd and Fisher 1990, Ghaziuddin and Gerstein 1996). Given that this seems properly attributed to an academic source, I think that rewriting it to suit ourselves would be improper in the extreme. Nandesuka 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that sensibilities - ours or Attwood's or anyone else's, are not factual. A person's verbal functioning can be measured. Appropriateness cannot. It is a difference in 'kind' and not 'credibility'. The question is - is this language factual? Objective? Encyclopedic? Or is it commentary?

I do not feel we are under any obligation to use terminology that amounts to commentary, regardless of the source, when we can simply extract the objective fact beneath it. Not because it ruffles our feathers. Because it is not our purpose to editorialize one way or another. And that's what we're doing when we repeat this language. Far from inappropriate, I feel it is our mandate here to select sources and language that relay objective fact.

For example, we have already written the opening paragraph some months ago, rejecting the American DSM's definition in favor a more objective rewording.

If we wish to say somewhere else "Attwood says ..." then OK, but I don't see the point in that unless we are speaking of the controversy itself.

CeilingCrash 17:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary-sourced encyclopdia. Unless you can find some reliable, verifiable source that supports your position that "pedantic" in this context is "not factual," you have no basis for that change. Nandesuka 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The word, as defined in webster's, is never factual nor objective in any context whatsoever. This is true a priori. It's as if someone wrote "Jerry Seinfeld is a very funny comedian", and another objected "funny is not factual", and yet a third said "unless you can find reliable, verifiable source that supports your position that 'funny' is not factual ..." You won't find it because the only source that weighs in on the meaning of words are dictionaries.

Stated more simply, no objective definition or test exists for 'funny', 'pedantic', or any other adjective infused with personal and cultural values. If a kid has a vocubulary of 15,000 words, that is a fact. If his use of that vocabulary is 'ostenatious' or 'pedantic', that is a POV. (And a very misguided one at that.) CeilingCrash 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that the English language is by nature imprecise. You need to find language that best expresses the data and information you are trying to communicate. As someone with a mild expression of AS, and my son having a far more serious/intense/advanced case, I think it is an accurate description to say "pedantic" and "ostentatious". It is no accident that Tony Attwood uses that language. My son has a gifted vocabulary- he knows and uses words that are far beyond his peers. He ALSO is extremely pedantic and ostentatious in his speech patterns. He speaks things in rote and as a structured grouping of words that for him are a unit, if that makes sense. I have no problem with that language for now since it is prevalent in the literature and it does describe an "aspect" of the grouping of attributes we describe as "Asperger's Syndrome." Alex Jackl 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. The issue is that (multiple) reliable tertiary sources describe "pedantic speech". I understand that you feel that this description is imprecise, but your feelings are not an appropriate resource for this article: original research is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines. That is a core foundational principle of the encyclopedia. Whether or not a given speech pattern is a matter of opinion, but that primary sources describe certain AS speech patterns as "pedantic or overly formal" is not an opinon. It's a fact. And you don't get to exclude facts from an article just because you don't like them. Nandesuka 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I made clear that my feelings (or anyone elses) are totally irrelevant; that my goal was the removal of subjective language. (I should also point out Attwood is not a linguist so his characterization is not authoritative.) It is not 'original research' to observe that certain language does not report verifiable fact. Put another way - suppose it were *true*, in the opinion of every living human, that every person with asperger's spoke pedantically. Suppose the people with asperger's even agreed. The term is *still* an entirely subjective characterization, which no person can invoke authoritatively.

When a term is inherently subjective, it cannot be meaningfully removed from its source (subject). This is a fine distinction, but we cannot objectively say 'apples are delicious' but must instead say "Bob finds them delicious" or "everyone finds them delicious". The term describes Bob as much as apples.

So in an encyclopedia, we can certainly say "Bob likes apples." We should not assert "Apples are delicious", with an attribution to Bob, however. The second lays claim to an objective fact.

For another example, many literary critics think The Great Gatsby was Fitzgerald's best work. They are credible sources, nearly unanimous in this view. We can certainly say "critics generally agree that ..."

But when we state "The Great Gatsby is Fitzgerald's best work" with attribution to those sources, we have confused citation with attribution, and gone from fact to POV. Attribution says "X is true and this guy proved it." Citation says "this guy said X".

At the very least we should say people with Asperger's display speech patterns 'described by many researchers as pedantic.'

I am ready to back off this issue altogether in the absence of any agreement from the community. (I'll be back to fight another day :) I have always been impressed with the intelligence and civility with which wikipedians disagree and this time is no exception. *knocks over king in deference to the community ...

141.149.168.130 04:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

However, nobody has expressed

Hyperlexia

The "hyperlexic" reference seems to refer more to hypergraphia. Fredsmith2 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense and more nonsense

This article is a mishmash of mealy mouthed, half-realized, self-interested, compromising crud. It's pretty clear the overriding goal of this article is not factual accuracy, but relativism to the point of uselessness. If you're too self interested to contribute something that isn't compromised nonsense, get out of the way and keep your grubby fingers off. The fact that you SUPPOSEDLY have Asperger's Syndrome is not a credential, so stop treating it as such as so many of you like to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.7.89 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2007

If you are going to launch into an attack- at least have the courtesy to sign your post! :-) Exactly what is it that you object to in the article. I agree it isn't perfect- but what is. Can you share with us what exactly you object to? You were...umm.. less than specific! Or were you just trolling for a response? Alex Jackl 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I generally feel that good faith should be assumed, it appears that User:70.121.7.89 might have just been attempting to stir things up, looking at his recent edits over the last 8 hours or so, particularly the aggressive way he has responded to other users here, and here. --Dreaded Walrus 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a pure academic exercise, I wonder how something can be BOTH self-interested AND compromised? When I go trolling (usually sunday afternoon after church), I always find it best to keep to keep my view consistent : caustic consistence, I call it.

I realize trolling styles do differ. I shouldn't imply that the way I troll is better or worse than anybody else's, just offering it up as something to consider.

And not to overly criticize, but "mealy-mouthed" went out of style in 1950 or so, I would opt for "two-faced" or simply "@ssclown".

CeilingCrash 15:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And if it was "mealy-mouthed" (which i have never heard of until now), it wouldn't have been a featured article...Trolls: you can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em Doc Strange 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to Paragraph 3

I'd like to suggest adding to the line, "Many individuals with AS can adopt strategies for coping and do lead fulfilling lives - being gainfully employed, getting married or having successful relationships, and having families."

In addition to being gainfully employed, I think we should mention that some people with AS achieve at world-class levels. These are the sources I have in mind :

The Field's Medalist, Richard Borcherds was diagnosed as having AS by Simon Baron Cohen (inventor of the famous Cambridge Asperger Self Test, otherwise known as the Autism Quotient). (The Field's Medal is an award in mathematics awarded much more rarely than the Nobel Prize.)

A popular article is here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4103969,00.html

(I would find a more authoritative attribution for the article.)

...

Additionally, Baron-Cohen did a study of extremely talented mathematics students at Cambridge University (winners of the mathematical olympiad), and found an astonishing 6% met the DSM criteria for Asperger's (compared with a population mean of somewhere < 1%). He also found a general strong correlation to AQ and ability in mathematics and physics.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k872618310261272/

(Journal of autism and developmental disorders (J. autism dev. disord.) ISSN 0162-3257

...

Hans Asperger said in his seminal PhD thesis,

‘To our own amazement, we have seen that autistic individuals, as long as they are intellectually intact, can almost always achieve professional success, usually in highly specialized academic professions, often in very high positions, with a preference for abstract content. We found a large number of people whose mathematical ability determines their professions; mathematicians, technologists, industrial chemists and high-ranking civil servants.’

Asperger H. Die ‘autischen Psychopathen’ im Kindesalter. Arch Psychiatrie Nervenkrankheiten 1944;17: 76-136.

Later Asperger went so far as to write: ‘It seems that for success in science or art a dash of autism is essential. For success the necessary ingredients may be an ability to turn away from the everyday world, from the simple practical, an ability to rethink a subject with originality so as to create in new untrodden ways, with all abilities canalised into the one speciality’.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=539373

I'd want to add language much briefer than all my above babbling, just wanted to give some extra justification for discussion.

Thoughts?

CeilingCrash 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections? I shall wait a bit longer. I propose the following replacement :

---

FROM "Many individuals with AS can adopt strategies for coping and do lead fulfilling lives - being gainfully employed, getting married or having successful relationships, and having families."

TO "Many individuals with AS can adopt strategies for coping and lead fulfilling and productive lives - achieving professional success, getting married or having successful relationships, and having families. A correlation has been found between AS and mathematical talent in particular[71]. A fundamental breakthrough in mathematics - proving the Poincare Conjecture - has been credited to Giorgi Perleman, who is diagnosed with AS. The Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to another person with AS [sources to Perleman diagnosis, to 2002 Noble Prize in Economics to Vernon Smith]"

---

Again, my purpose here is not politics or social engineering. My personal motivation may be in fact to 'defend' those with AS, however that motivation is irrelevant. The only question which matters here, to my way of thinking anyway, is a) is the information credible and b) is it important? As for A), this is about as credible as it gets, with sources from Asperger himself to Simon Cohen concurring in no uncertain terms. (Larger studies would be welcome.) As for B), the 'prognosis' of AS - what is possible for a person with AS, what the limits are - if any - is of primary concern for educators, parents, and those with AS themselves.

CeilingCrash 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Second pass, tightened the language a bit :

---

Many individuals with AS can adopt strategies for coping and lead fulfilling and productive lives - having successful relationships with partners, raising families, and achieving professional success. In particular a correlation has been found between AS and mathematical talent [ ]. Achievements of those diagnosed with AS include the Fields Medal for proving the Poincare Conjecture [ ] as well as the Nobel Prize in Economics [ ]. Aside from mathematics, children with AS are often seen to develop language skills in advance of their peers [*].

• Ami Klin, Ph.D., and Fred R. Volkmar, M.D

Asperger's Syndrome Guidelines for Assessment and Diagnosis, P 4.

http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/asdiagnosis.pdf

---

CeilingCrash 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any support for this in paragraph 3? I know there are no objections but i hesitate to add the change w/o any support either. 141.149.168.130 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objections- it seems okay. I am not enthusiastic about it but I can't rouse up any sources, cogent objections, and it is an improvement. So rock on if you think it works! Alex Jackl 14:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cassandra phenomenon

I came across this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, and, with some time to kill, decided to see if there were any citations. Those I found related to the partners of Aspies. As a fully diagnosed, lifestyle practitioner, of the way of Asperger I am not sure how I feel about it the concept subjectively (as in, I am horrified by any agenda that even suggests threatening to witchunt partners and parents by diagnosis, and yet, I am not sure I have always been an whole, life-affirming, bundle of laughs to relate to myself). As a Wikipedian I am not sure how I feel about the validity and verifiability of the concept, nor even it's notability. So I posted a brief summary (all I can find seems fuzzy and ill defined) and I am hoping others will take a look at it, add any information they can verify to the article and discuss any opinions they reach about the future of the article on the talk page? --Zeraeph 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important, as they say in American Baseball, for the "amateurs to clear the field." Most references of the term lead to Maxine Aston, who holds no graduate degree of any kind and had a bad marriage herself to an aspie. The latter doesn't disqualify her, but she does not submit to peer review; rather she writes for the popular press and thus is about as authoritative as Dr Phil. Except he's really a doctor.

(http://www.maxineaston.co.uk/)

I think Dr Attwood's description is informative. Personally, as an often-invisible condition, i don't doubt the partner's of asperger's have unique difficulties. I would be curious to hear more from qualified professionals on the topic.

In social situations with friends and family, two-way misinterpretations of signals can occur, Attwood said. When the partner tries to talk about the situation, he or she may experience what Attwood called the Cassandra Phenomenon. In Greek mythology, Cassandra was given the gift of prophecy, but fated to have no one believe her. "With Asperger's, life is a stage," Attwood said. "The curtain goes up while they are in public and down when they are at home. Because other people do not see the problem, they question your sanity - you are on your own. In some families, denial has held the family together for generations, and you want to bring down the scaffolding." As a result, the neuro-typical partner may actually need more support than the one with Asperger's. Therefore, contact with other partners through newsletters, a support group, or an Internet site is vital.

CeilingCrash 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this is exactly the sort of information I was hoping for to help me make my own mind up. Any chance you could post some of it to the Talk:Cassandra syndrome talk page to get some discussion going about whether an article is valid and what form it should take?

Sometimes I wonder of there shouldn't be a generic "Disgruntled ex-partners syndrome"! I'd love to be able to use a reference to Attwood instead but couldn't pin a specific down, any ideas? --Zeraeph 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

eighty percent divorce rate is not sourced

This paragraph does not satisfy Wikipedia's policies for attribution as it provides no reliable sources

---

AS and marriage/ relationships

(text removed, see history)

---

In footnote #98, the claim to an eighty percent divorce rate cited here

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=868

redirects us to unreferenced "Dutch research":

"Dutch research suggests that the divorce rate for people with Asperger syndrome is around 80 per cent."

There is no journal or author cited. Incidentally, I could not find it after searching myself.

The implication of predisposition to domestic violence in footnote #100 refers to an article on a website posted by Sheila Jennings Linehan, who is an attorney without subject matter credentials, makes no reference to clinical data, and is posting to a website that is without professional editorial oversight.

http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=364&a=8122

This leaves us only some annoying book reading which doesn't seem terribly informative (and refers to an entire book without a page number.)

I am going to remove this paragraph in accordance with Wikipedia's policy, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page.[2] This applies to any material related to living persons ..." While this rule falls under the category of Biographies, I interpret the phrase "any material related to living persons" to apply in this case, as this is "any material" and the "people with Asperger syndrome" are very much alive.

Let's watch our sources to maintain the historical high quality of this article.

CeilingCrash 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do *shudders*. AS may have been a late starter in the English speaking world, but it has made up for that, there is PLENTY of formal, medical and academic research, and no excuse for using anything else. It's late, and I admit I am in a foul mood, but I am honestly tempted to revert the whole thing back to what it was just after FAR. --Zeraeph 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with CeilingCrash and Zeraeph. Remove it all and let God sort it out. :-) Alex Jackl 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)