Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Time to Archive?

Page takes forever to load and much above is less than polite. Sometimes it helps people cool down when prior heated exchanges are hidden away in an archive - just an suggestion per my limited point of view, not being a contributor to these pages Kiwi 18:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I support archiving, and express my deepest thanx and gratitude to all the wiki's who've helped me learn to channel heat into useful mechanical energy. I tend toward sharp and sudden opinion and you all have shown much kindness and patience. CeilingCrash 21:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Me too just seeing Kiwi post reminded me that "dial in no fly zones" of this length are NOT very fair...Ok, so which bouts of mudwrestling are we tired of? --Zeraeph 21:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived, per seeming consensus. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding High-Functioning Autism/Aspergers in Girls

• New York Times: What Autistic Girls Are Made Of Excellent review of applicable statistics and research and illustrative profiles of several autistic girls detailing their social interactions

I added this exceptional resource about high functioning autistic and Asperger girls, particularly the high functioning - someone may want to build this into a sub-section of its own

Kiwi 18:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Unfortunately, because it falls under "Links normally to be avoided" category 6, "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content,"[1] and I don't do site registrations, I won't be reading it. I'm willing to leave it there for a little while, on your word that it's a great article, but no promises about the long term. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a current article, and should be free for all for about a week. -- Cecropia 21:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to read it before my last post, and am unable to read it (without registration) now. My impression is that they don't treat all articles identically WRT registration. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Right off the bat I have a problem with the article: "Boys are three or four times as likely as girls to have classic autism (autism with mental retardation, which is now often referred to as cognitive impairment)." Classic autism? Where is the DSM for "classic autism"? Does the writer have any idea that, until VERY recently, they thought a lot of autistic people were retarded simply because no one knew how to communicate with them? Put an IQ test in, say, Mandarin, in front of me and I'm sure the results would come back that "Cecropia is retarded." (Actually, there are probanly more than a few people here who think that, but not because of autism). My daughter is diagnosed "Autistic Disorder." No "Aspergers," or "PDD," or any of the "better" diagnoses, and her IQ is currently 131. But I will admit it must be a "retarded" 131. The New York Times is "the newspaper of record." -- Cecropia 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh...shal we get rid of it then? I only fixed it in line with the way another, very reliable, editor fixed it on Autism. I am ashamed to say I didn't even check it - mea culpa... --Zeraeph 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The author is no expert, but rather a lawyer turned all-purpose journalist, she does work for Slate and other publications, writing on all sorts of topics.[2] It's quite possible that she gets a few things wrong. Any opinions from others who can access it? Poindexter Propellerhead 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone noted at Talk:Autism, this is a popular press piece. The New York Times, I have found with other subjects as well, may not be much better than WP:OR or even worse when they dabble in subjects beyond their competence. -- Cecropia 23:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I did NOT use this or suggest the use of this article as something to be used as a source for this topic, but because it focuses on the minority Autism/Asperger population that are female. It is not meant to suggest that every last word is gold-plated and foot-noted, only, as I said, that it used experts and research to substantiate what was written. I offered it as a source of what is currently known or theorized.

Usually articles of this type are not hidden from public view at the Times for many many months, though this being featured in the Sunday Magazine rather than within the Science section, it may not follow form...

Regardless, I include, below, a few explicit factual excerpts and the names of studies and research centers that would help people find other sources for the article. THIS is what this article is important for - that someone wrote on this splinter topic and went through so many interviews with autism/asperger research experts to do so.....

"According to The Centers for Disease Control, there are about 560,000 people under the age of 21 with autism in the United States. (Adults aren’t included because there is no good data on their numbers.) If 1 in 4 are female, the girls number about 140,000. The C.D.C. estimates that about 42 percent of them are of normal intelligence, putting their total at roughly 58,000 (with the caveat that these numbers are, at best, estimates).

Because there are so many fewer females with autism, they are “research orphans,” as Ami Klin, a psychology and psychiatry professor who directs Yale’s autism program, puts it. Scientists have tended to cull girls from studies because it is difficult to find sufficiently large numbers of them. Some of the drugs, for example, commonly used to treat symptoms of autism like anxiety and hyperactivity have rarely been tested on autistic girls.

The scant data make it impossible to draw firm conclusions about why their numbers are small and how autistic girls and boys with normal intelligence may differ. But a few researchers are trying to establish whether and how the disorder may vary by sex. This research and the observations of some clinicians who work with autistic girls suggest that because of biology and experience, and the interaction between the two, autism may express itself differently in girls. And that may have implications for their well-being.

The typical image of the autistic child is a boy who is lost in his own world and indifferent to other people. It is hard to generalize about autistic kids, boys or girls, but some clinicians who work with high-functioning autistic children say they often see girls who care a great deal about what their peers think. These girls want to connect with people outside their families, says Janet Lainhart, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Utah." But often they can’t. Lainhart says that this thwarted desire may trigger severe anxiety and depression."

personal comment - I found this (and other) description to strike home with me so hard that I am still reeling at how well it describes me. Additioanlly, mild to severe learning disabilities and verbal/emtional developmental delays litter my family --- My grandson is high-functioning autistic, my nephew has Asperger's, my young daughter with severe problems.

"This gender dynamic doesn’t necessarily affect girls with Asperger’s when they are very young; if anything, they often fare better than boys at an early age because they tend to be less disruptive. In 1993, Catherine Lord, a veteran autism researcher, published a study of 21 boys and 21 girls. She found that when the children were between the ages of 3 and 5, parents more frequently described the girls as imitating typical kids and seeking out social contacts. Yet by age 10, none of the girls had reciprocal friendships while some of the boys did. “The girls often have the potential to really develop relationships,’ says Lord, a psychology and psychiatry professor and director of the Autism and Communication Disorders Center at the University of Michigan. “But by middle school, a subset of them is literally dumbstruck by anxiety. (snip) Their behavior really doesn’t jibe with what’s expected of girls. And that makes their lives very hard.”"

"At the University of Texas Medical School, Katherine Loveland, a psychiatry professor, recently compared 700 autistic boys and 300 autistic girls and found that while the boys’ “abnormal communications” decreased as I.Q. scores rose, the girls’ did not. “Girls will have more trouble with social networks if they’re having greater difficulty with communication and language,” she says."

"In a new study published in May, a group of German researchers compared 23 high-functioning autistic girls with 23 high-functioning boys between the ages of 5 and 20, matching them for age, I.Q. and autism diagnosis. Parents reported more problems for girls involving peer relations, maturity, social independence and attention."

"The difficulty may continue into adulthood. While some men with Asperger’s marry and have families, women almost never do, psychiatrists observe. A 2004 study by two prominent British researchers, Michael Rutter and Patricia Howlin, followed 68 high-functioning autistics over more than two decades. The group included only seven women, too small a sample to reach solid conclusions about gender differences, Rutter and Howlin caution. But 15 men — 22 percent of the sample — rated “good” or “very good” for educational attainment, employment, relationships and independent living, while no women did. Two women rated “fair,” compared with 11 men, and the other five women were counted as “poor” or “very poor.”"

"Lainhart has been interested in the relationship between autism and depression. In a 1994 paper, Lainhart and John Hopkins researcher Susan Folstein pointed out that despite the 4-to-1 male-female ratio for autism, females made up half the autistic patients with mood disorders described in the medical literature."

"David Skuse, a psychiatry professor at the Institute of Child Health at University College London, has analyzed data from 1,000 children, 700 of them on the autistic spectrum. “Girls with autism are rarely fascinated with numbers and rarely have stores of arcane knowledge, and this is reflected in the interests of females in the general population,” Skuse explains. “The girls are strikingly different from the boys in this respect.”"

PS

The NYTimes.com was the VERY first place I ever registered on the web. Since they switched to certain content being subscription only, it is also the ONLY place on the web where I pay for content. As a registered user of the New York Times for 9 years, I can assure one and all that I have never once gotten so much as a single email from them. Since I became a "paying customer", the only times I hear from them is when my yearly subscription comes due. Kiwi 23:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To make this crystal clear -- I have presented NAMES, INSTITUTIONS, and even DATES OF RELEVANT RESEARCH. If someone wants to add any of this TO THE ARTICLE, it is (obviously) necessary to track down the needed valid original sources. Is that clear? This is a MAP, not the buried treasure where "x" marks the spot. :o) Kiwi 23:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa!! Chill :o) You posted it, I formatted without even checking I could get in cos I think it's a VERY good idea for a subtopic, and a great article as a discussion piece upon which to base that possibility. But let's not post it on the article? I guess it really isn't suitable? It would set a bad precedent we don't need. You obviously have LOADS of WP:RS with which to start a subtopic ANYWAY.

Let's just post it here...oh...I see you already did...so I won't again...--Zeraeph 00:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, my dear sweet lady. I was not the least perturbed at your removal of the link from the article pages concerned and my comments were neither directed at you nor caused by that removal. Please see my fuller apology on the other article talk page. Sincerely, Kiwi 00:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I knew you would understand completely. --Zeraeph 01:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I added some notes about this to Talk:Autism #Regarding Austism in Girls. Briefly, today's New York Times article has some major technical errors, but the topic is a good one and I tracked down many of the reporter's refereed-journal sources, which could be used in a Wikipedia article somewhere. Eubulides 15:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the article, but i think this is the most important topic and neglected topic in Asperger's/HFA : the females. Ironic, given it was Temple Grandin who first broke thru the NT-mind-blindess (behave, ceilingcrash!). Coming to understand female autism will not only sweep away much nonsense (like B. Cohen's "extreme maleness") but i believe force a rewrite in the current definition. Personally, I am fascinated by the way the 'feminine mystique' blooms in a mind that tends toward visual and is amped up. Also, my partner is an aspie female so i need a manual fast! :-b

Incidentally, sources like the NYT are often happy to release such articles as a "web reference".

I would prophesy the following : there are at least as many aspie women as their are men. Females are better able to compensate and pass for NT - they are going undiagnosed except for the ones with most pronounced difficulty : anxiety, social, etc. Selection Bias. Thus, fewer females but with greater problems. Thus spoke CeilingCrash.CeilingCrash 04:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides provided this to the discussion on Autism Talk.

The topic is an important one (snip) Anyone who'd like to write this up (snip) should go to the primary sources as well. I tracked some of them down:

• Bazelon alludes to PMID 8331044 and PMID 17489810 about sex differences in autism. Other recent research reports include doi:10.1177/1469004703074003 and doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0331-7, with results that don't always agree. As far as I know nobody has published a review in this area to try to make sense of the conflicting results.
• Bazelon writes about a recent study by Katherine Loveland comparing 700 autistic boys to 300 autistic girls. I couldn't find that study in either Pubmed or Loveland's institution's list of recent abstracts; perhaps it hasn't been published yet.
• Bazelon alludes to PMID 14982237, PMID 17630015, and PMID 7814308 as well. Autism cites the first one; Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders cites the 2nd one; the last one (which is way older) isn't cited in Wikipedia as far as I know.
• Bazelon alludes to a study by Skuse with 1000 children. I wasn't able to identify this (perhaps it's not yet published either?) but I admit by this time I was getting tired of checking.

imported from Autism Talk by Kiwi 08:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To write subtopic on autism/asperger in females

All the relevant beginning points are here - Talk:Sociological and cultural aspects of autism

On this topic talk page, there is also the recently deleted list of 24 traits commonly found among the population of those with autism/Asperger. The list is also waiting on the above talk page to be prepared for insertion into the article page of Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Kiwi 08:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I killed the long, long list

As has been pointed out before (see archive of prior talk page), this article is really, really long. As has been pointed out before, filling three or four screens with a list is not very consistent with a concise article. And then there were some questions about the quality of the list in the "Social" heading, as well. Anyway, that list is gone now. I believe that consensus favors my action, but if anyone thinks I totally blew it, feel free to revert it. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure myself either way (except that the article IS long...as is the discussion, which is easily fixed). It's not so much about whether the list should be deleted as whether other things should be retained MORE, because SOMETHING had to go. --Zeraeph 02:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am with Zeraeph: I liked the list but I am not sure if it was appropriate to the article. I am flirting with making a proposal to split the article but I am so against article proliferation and can't quite lock down what would be split so, unless genius strikes me, I am reluctantly in agreement. Alex Jackl 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi All. Pardon me for butting in. I am certainly no expert, but I looked at the list and feel that it would have a perfect home here - Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Just today, the external link to the NYTimes article was moved to this WP topic page (one I hadn't been aware of previously). Anyone care to take a look and perhaps import the list or at least import to the Talk page to discuss whether it should be there? Just a thought. Like people have said, the list is a good one, it is just that the article is too long and something had to go. (note: the NYTimes article was imported there despite the fact that high functioning (ie, Asperger) girls were the subjects of the research discussed) Kiwi 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Um ... what list was that ? CeilingCrash 04:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This list -

1. Difficulty reading the social and emotional messages in the eyes: those with AS don't look at eyes often, and when they do, they can't read them.
2. Making literal interpretation: Some AS individuals have trouble interpreting colloquialisms, sarcasm, and metaphors.
3. Being considered disrespectful and rude: prone to egocentric behavior such as being constantly late for appointments or walking away when another person is speaking to them, individuals with Asperger's miss cues and warning signs that this behavior is inappropriate.
4. Honesty and deception: children with Asperger's are often considered "too honest," and may even proclaim themselves to be "honest" or "frank" as a way of explaining their behavior. They have difficulty being deceptive, even at the expense of hurting someone's feelings.
5. Inadequate nonverbal communication: their facial expressions, hand gestures, and other forms of body language, are sometimes limited.
6. Becoming aware of making social errors: as children with Asperger's mature, and become aware of their inability to connect, their fear of making a social mistake, and their self-criticism when they do so, can lead to social phobia.
7. Differences in speech: they display less speech intonation than neurotypical persons. Their speech may be perceived as "flat." However, those with AS also possess superficial fluency in day-to-day conversation.
8. A sense of paranoia: because of their inability to connect, persons with Asperger's have trouble distinguishing the difference between the deliberate or accidental actions of others,feeling that other persons are perhaps smiling at them because of their actions, which can in turn lead to a feeling of paranoia.
9. Managing conflict: being unable to understand other points of view can lead to inflexibility and an inability to negotiate conflict resolution. Once the conflict is resolved, remorse may not be evident.
10. Sense of humor: although jokes can be grasped at an intellectual level, the emotional worth of humor, in some Asperger individuals, is not appreciated. Smiles and laughter may appear unnatural with some Aspergers.
11. Awareness of hurting the feelings of others: some Aspergers exhibit a lack of empathy, which often leads to unintentionally offensive or insensitive behaviors.
12. Repairing someone's feelings: lacking intutition about the feelings of others, people with AS have little understanding of how to console someone or how to make them feel better.
13. Recognizing signs of boredom: inability to understand other people's interests can lead AS persons to be inattentive to others. Conversely, people with AS often fail to notice when others are uninterested.People with AS are capable of holding one way conversations for hours at a time and appear not to notice that the other person has not reciprocated in the conversation.
14. Introspection and self-consciousness: individuals with AS have difficulty understanding their own feelings or their impact on the feelings of other people.
15. Clothing and personal hygiene: people with AS tend to be less affected by peer pressure than others. As a result, they often do what is comfortable and are unconcerned about their impact on others.When they become aware of their shortcomings, they often become obsessive with ensuring that their method of dressing is meticulous or they may form an obsession with what they perceive as their body odour or perspiration by showering or bathing a number of times per day.
16. Reciprocal love and grief: since people with AS have difficulty emotionally, their expressions of affection and grief are often short and weak.
17. Lack of participation in chitchat: they are not generally interested in, and do not participate in idle chat and gossip especially if the subject is not one they are generally interested in.
18. Preference of routine: they prefer routine work, and are not able to cope well to changes, even small ones. Such disruptions from routine can cause stress and anxiety.
19. Coping with criticism: people with AS are compelled to correct mistakes, even when they are made by someone in a position of authority, such as a teacher. For this reason, they can be unwittingly offensive.
20. Formal mannerisms and etiquette: their etiquette is formal, even within the family. Their speech may be interlaced with "thank you" or "please" or "good evening" more than necessary. Some persons with AS may even insist that other members of their family follow this ritual.
21. Speed and quality of social processing: because they respond through reasoning and not intuition, AS individuals tend to process social information more slowly than the norm, leading to uncomfortable pauses or delays in response. This means that although the AS individual will tend to make a more reasoned and balanced understanding and/or decision, it can lead to the AS individual being told to use their 'common sense' to solve problems, a concept they cannot understand or use in the way a neurotypical person can.Typically,they cannot do relatively simple tasks such as connecting a stereo system without constant repeating of the instructions.
22. Faithfulness towards family: people with AS are staunchly faithful to their friends and/or immediate members of their family.
23. Exhaustion: as people with AS begin to understand theory of mind, they must make a deliberate effort to process social information. This often leads to mental exhaustion.
24. Financial imprudence: although some people with AS can manage their own finances, in many cases linear thinking impedes their ability to make larger financial decisions, where they require the assistance of others.

Kiwi 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that list ! Yes, it seems out of place in this article, tho perhaps will end up somewhere else. CeilingCrash 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi CeilingCrash. I just exported it to the Talk page of Sociological_and_cultural_aspects_of_autism where it seems appropriate. Kiwi 05:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The list appears completely unsourced and speculative: if it is to find a home anywhere, it would need to be sourced to a WP:RS. I've just removed speculative text that has been unsourced for months, and tagged a few items that need sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The list was originally sourced to Attwood, Tony, Theory of Mind and Asperger's Syndrome, pp 11-42 in Baker, Linda and Welkowitz, Lawrence A.; eds. (2005). Asperger’s Syndrome: Intervening in Clinics, Schools, and Communities - People with Asperger's Syndrome Can Lead Productive Lives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. which seemed to get lost after Poindexter deleted it [3] as above. It was just long and less pertinent than a lot of other things. --Zeraeph 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref; has any one laid eyes on that source to verify? I've noticed that supposedly sourced text seems to grow after the fact in this article, and it's not always clear that new text additions come from the cited source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you mention it, I am not aware of anyone verifying it yet, and my nasty suspicious mind is never entirely happy with text that continues to grow after citation. However, it is all rather moot. I would be inclined to feel that a combination of Eubulides concerns about copyright and SO MUCH TEXT on Talk:Sociological and cultural aspects of autism‎, Poindexter's concerns about SO MUCH TEXT, full stop, mean that the text is gone for good anyway? I was reading it today, and some of that list seems a little bit "left of field" EVEN to the casual glance. Ok, if it was IMMACULATELY verifiable, peer reviewed, etc and an editor or so felt strongly about it, even so it would need including, but at this point that is hardly the case is it? --Zeraeph 15:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the index Box?

There is no index box at the top of the page - you know, where there are shortcuts to discussion topics. Who knows how to create one? Kiwi 05:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Ask, and it shall be given you!!! :o) But I wonder what it was I did that made it suddenly appear? Curious. Kiwi 05:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Social Differences section

I haven't looked at this in a while, and feel the content is POV and unbalanced. To be fair, it was the state of knowledge 7 or so years ago. Here's the trouble-spots I see :

In paragraph 2, we are reporting ToM as fact. ToM has, by my reading, more advocates on the 'con' side than the 'pro'. I have seen researchers suggest, in fact, that it is precisely possession of ToM that distinguishes Asp from Aut. I feel if we touch on ToM, we have to give both sides. (I can source these points.)

My other objection has to do with the source : I think that where a substantive new thesis is being advanced, we need a researcher (likely with a PMID). My insane rant about Attwood and peer review applies in this case, I believe. Extraordinary claims, sources and all. If we decide to leave ToM in, i'm sure we can re-source it (Baron_Cohen?)

In paragraph 3, we are reporting that 85% of Aspies 'have' Alexythimia. We don't have Alexythimia in the DSM; it's a 20 page t/f questionnaire. It seems more diffuse than the definition of Asperger itself so there is a net loss in clarity. Also, I can't spell it.

More to the point, neither study claims 85% of the ASD group was alexythimic. Alexythimia is measured on a 1-20 scale, with a cutoff of 6. 85% of the ASD group did not go over the cutoff. Rather, there WAS a correlation on the scale, which was contradicted by another test on the Bermond and Vorst alexithymia scale. It was also an odd kind of alexythimic correlation, "cognitive" rather than "affective".

Attwood's comment about alexithymia implies as a foregone conclusion that Aspies have anger management issues greater than those of the normal population; I know of no research asserting Aspies are angrier. Again, new thesis requires research.

I think we should take a fresh look at this section. Social issues are inherently not really medical issues; perhaps it would be best to drop the introduction of the terms ToM and Alexythimia and just make it a balanced, soft section that attempts no 'theories'.

And is easier to spell. CeilingCrash 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CeilingCrash. Lets look at the facts instead. The main questionnaire used in that study was the TAS-20, and it is scored like this: The TAS-20 utilizes a five-point Likert scale with five of the items inversely scored. It is hand scored with a maximum score of 100. It uses cutoff scoring: equal to or less than 51 = non-alexithymia, equal to or greater than 61 = alexithymia. Scores of 52 to 60 = possible alexithymia. http://www.paniccare.org/id16.html I might add that the TAS-20 is one of the most highly validated and reliable instruments known to clinical psychology, and is definitely not "diffuse" (as you glibly and incorrectly characterized it). Alexithymia is a concise, four-point construct that is nowhere near as "diffuse" as the AS concept.

In other words there are three levels of alexithymia- mild alexithymia, moderate alexithymia, and severe alexithymia. The study by Hill & Berthoz 1996 indicates 85% of people with ASD's were in the moderate to severe range for alexithymia, although all were in the clinical range for AS. To give further evidence, in a 2004 study Uta Frith reports that not only does this overlap between alexithymia and AS exist, but that at least half of the (quote) "Asperger syndrome" group obtained such extreme scores on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) that "they would have been classified as severely impaired." See sources:

*Uta Frith, (2004) Emanuel Miller lecture: 'Confusions and controversies about Asperger syndrome', Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:4, pp 672–686.

*The study to which Frith refers is by: Hill, E., Berthoz, S., & Frith, U. (in press). Brief report: Cognitive processing of own emotions in individuals with autistic spectrum disorder and their relatives. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

Regarding the anger management issue mentioned by Tony Attwood, it is a clinically recognized fact that people suffering higher levels of alexithymia have difficulty modulating the flow of emotion, and are prone to "sudden outbursts of weeping or rage" (remember that a huge number of Aspies have moderate to severe alexithymia)- see the following sources to confirm the tendency to "weeping or rage":

*Nemiah, C.J., Freyberger, H., & Sifneos, P.E., ‘Alexithymia: A View of the Psychosomatic Process’ in O.W.Hill (1970) (ed), Modern Trends in Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol-2, p.432-33

*Krystal, H. Integration and Self-Healing: Affect, Trauma, Alexithymia (1988), p. 246

*McDougall, J. Theaters of the Mind 1985, p.169-70

*Taylor, G.J, Parker, J.D.A., & Bagby, R.M. Disorders of Affect Regulation- Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness (1997), p.29, p.246-47

Finally, you may actually have a point about the flimsiness of lack of ToM in AS. A recent study gives you a lot of back-up for your point. The fMRI study[4] throws the whole lack-of-ToM-in-AS into serious doubt. The findings suggest that alexithymia may be more responsible for the AS-behaviour that some people have been calling mind-blindness. Soulgany101 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• "In other words there are three levels of alexithymia- mild alexithymia, moderate alexithymia, and severe alexithymia. The study by Hill & Berthoz 1996 indicates 85% of people with ASD's were in the moderate to severe range for alexithymia"

In that same study, whose text can be found [[5]] , 17.1% of the control group of normal adults fell into that same category. This means that, take 6 Aspies at random and 5 normal people. By these figures, one of the aspies will do better than one of the normal ppl ! A 'condition' which sweeps up almost 20% of the entire population is meaningless. CeilingCrash 05:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

wrt to outbursts of rage - again - where is the research? Attwood's experience is clinical; a trait among a subgroup is established via research on randomly selected samples to eliminate selection bias. By your reasoning, 17% of the general population is prone to fits of rage or weeping.

This section is about the social impact of AS. The concept of Alex. is not serving the purpose of elucidating this issue. AS has a DSM definition, Alex does not. AS occurs in 1/160 ppl, Alex (by the source you provide) occurs in one out of five. This is what i meant by 'diffuse'. CeilingCrash 06:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

CC. That high numbers of people have an elevated level of alexithymia is not "meaningless" at all. It is highly significant according to researchers, particularly in the context of Asperger's syndrome. Please, spare me the attempts at your amateur conclusions and leave that for the qualified AS researchers who have stated that this matter is relevant. The info about alexithymia does belong in this entry about AS and is not something to be swept under the carpet with the hope that it not be mentioned on this page. Moving the information to another place on the page would suffice. Soulgany101 07:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. it will pay to remember that the info about alexithymia has helped many Aspies, and that it may be only you who doesn't personally like the information. In fact, it is worth saying here that it was an AS man who created most of the original Wikipedia 'Alexithymia' page because it answered a lot of questions he had about the communication difficulties he was experiencing with others, and he would vehemently disagree with your personal, amateur dismissal of this topic. Its important to remember you are not just speaking for yourself, but also for other Aspies who may be helped by this research. Soulgany101 07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The above objections are ad hominem. My factual and verifiable statements remain, to recap - the study quoted classifies almost 20% of the normal population as "alexithymic", alexithymia has no definition in the DSM, no established definition at all, in fact. I think other editors will agree that occum's razor applies - "do not multiply entities beyond necessity" - and the concept of alexthymia takes the article off-course. The question we should always ask is, "does this improve the article or not?" I suggest the social differences section avoid advancing terminology or theses that less formally established than asperger's itself, and just get to the point.

For example, "Aspies can be bullied in school, may make inappropriate comments", and such - being clear that we are now speaking outside the realm of formal research (unless someone can dig up actual formal research on people with asperger's interacting with other humans. that would be cool.)

Other editors? CeilingCrash 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(added by ceilingcrash) I would also like to suggest we use great caution in attributing negative qualities to Aspies. Aspies are alive, and I believe WP:Harm and WP:Living apply. Negative statements about aspies should be sourced to the utmost WP:RS, meaning a PMID, a randomized trial which has been peer-reviewed and reproduced. I am thinking of the "outbursts of rage" reference here. CeilingCrash 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexithymia

CeilingCrash. We can all quote facts, but its when you ad your POV that you get lost. Here's some more facts in answer to your POVs. Alexithymia is a universal feature in all human beings, and everyone who answers clinical alexithymia questionnaires will receive a score. In this sense alexithymia is like narcissism in that we all have at least a bit. The question is how high is that score. If it reaches into the moderate to severe range then it is "elevated", and this elevation can have serious personal and interpersonal consequences, particularly in the severe range that over half of AS people reach. These facts are mentioned on P.xiii of 'Disorders of Affect Regulation. Cambridge.

The study revealing an 85% figure for alexithymia in Asperger's individuals refers to those in the moderate to high range, which something like 17% of the general population also fits (remember that the "general" population also consists of Aspies, and people with eating disorders, PTSD etc. in which alexithymia is known to accompany).

If we look at the severe or high alexithymia range only, we still find that over half of all people with Asperger's syndrome are in this range. In a 2004 study Uta Frith reports that not only does this overlap exist, but that at least half of the Asperger syndrome group obtained such extreme scores on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) that "they would have been classified as severely impaired." 10% of the general population is also in this "severe/high" alexithymia range (remember that Aspies, eating disorders, PTSD etc comprise part of this "general" population too).

Regarding your laughable POV that alexithymia has no established definition at all, I can only put the universally accepted clinical construct here for you to see. The Alexithymia construct is much less contended than Asperger's syndrome (look at the many conflicting diagnostic criteria for AS!) and has been defined by the following four salient features for over 20 years:

• (i) difficulty identifying feelings and distinguishing between feelings and the bodily sensations of emotional arousal
• (ii) difficulty describing feelings to other people

• (iii) constricted imaginal processes, as evidenced by a paucity of fantasies
• (iv) a stimulus-bound, externally oriented cognitive style.

You also say that: the concept of alexithymia "advances terminology or theses that less formally established than asperger's itself." This is your completely incorrect POV. Alexithymia is extremely well established as a formal entity, and one better validated than AS itself. The fact that it is not in the DSM reflects that it is classified as a personality "Trait" and not a "disorder". The DSM deals with "disorders", not "traits". I will add that other extremely well validated psychopathologies such as 'psychopathy' as measured by the Hare Psychopathy Measure is also not mentioned in the DSM, although you will find it is used and clinically respected all over the world. In the introductory pages of the DSM it even declares that it is not the aim of editors to place all psychopathologies in the volume.... it is not designed to be exhaustive.

Finally, your POVing seems based not on these verifiable facts but on your singular concern about "attributing negative qualities to Aspies". So let me assure you on this point that a recognition of alexithymia in AS is a fact which can assist Aspies identify potential areas of personal and interpersonal difficulty, and to make steps to manage the involved issues more effectively. Knowledge is power. Alexithymia is a clinical fact, not some unscientific character assassination or portrayal as you seem to take it. And as clinical fact it certainly is worth mentioning. 124.185.134.29 22:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, but why are you discussing Alexithymia on the Asperger syndrome article? Some argue that they are related, but they aren't synonyms you know. --Zeraeph 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Z. Some people do think that alexithymia and AS are one and the same thing, but I do agree with you that this is not true. The original editor of the Wikipedia alexithymia page (who himself is an Aspie) seemed to think they were one and the same syndrome, which research does not support. The reason I'm talking about it here is to refute CC's erroneous POV's. But also because it is worth a "mention" here, as it is extremely relevant according to research. Because AS is only one of many syndromes/disorders in which alexithymia is found, I don't think it is worth accentuating this correlation on the Wikipedia Alexithymia page out of proportion to other syndromes. Therefore I've acually culled some of the references to AS on the alexithymia page because I think it was over-treated there. Nevertheless, the 85% figure in AS is the highest I've seen for any disorder, so it is definately the prime example for co-morbidity. 124.185.134.29 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Soulgany101 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh you are soulgany? You do realise that you aren't logged in?--Zeraeph 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh the machine must have logged me out. I'll put my log against that post now Soulgany101 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The way you guys carry on lately, turning up without a shred of log in, at all hours of the day and night, we might as well just declare this a "nude editing zone" and be done with it. Incidentally, I didn't think Magentagoddess was an Aspie?

For the rest...nice try :o) But I am afraid there is no more reason for the "accentuating the correlation" on the Asperger syndrome article than on the Alexithymia article. Both have their own articles, the connection between the two should be mentioned but let's not do WP:UNDUE please? Incidentally, you should probably scan WP:COI when you have a minute to make sure you stay on the right side of it? --Zeraeph 01:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Z. Diamonddavej is an Aspie (see his comment here: [6] ), and although not the first editor his was one of the most substantial earlier edits to the Alex page. He is the one I was referring to. As for "accentuation" I dont think that is necessary here either, as Frith, Hill, Fitzgerald, and a whole bunch of other researchers of Asperger's have themselves already accentuated the role of alexithymia in AS. Their conclusions would suffice on this page. At the same token I don't think that your attempt to hide/remove this info is in any way justifiable, or respectable. Soulgany101 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't have thought of editing an article 3 years after it it was begun as being "one of the earlier editors" myself, even if he is yet another of your personal aquaintances, with a tendency toward peculiar ideas (like faaas as a reliable resource for families and partners). :o) --Zeraeph 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to check in on this whole thing, alexithymia and ToM get a whole, what, 3 sentences or so? Considering that the article is overly long, I don't think that's disparate coverage - even an opinion held by a distinct minority probably warrants that much mention. I have no problem whatsoever with clarifying that the importance/reality of the topics are disputed, but I do think they should have some sort of mention, if only to deter future editors from doing a hasty job of reinserting them back into the article. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We are wasting our time and article space on this whole section. This section has become a dumping ground for material that is controversial, discredited or misinterpreted. The solution is simple : just say what we are trying to say and omit all these theories and neologisms.

I would further suggest this entire section should be removed, and this debate shows why. This is an encyclopedia article about Asperger's, our sources should be of a quality suitable for medical topics. If we have nothing concise or definitive to say about a subtopic, we shd not attempt to say it. Quite bluntly, every source without a PMID should be considered to be resourced or removed. Where is the section about Neurology versus Psychology? Visual Diagnostic Tests? The Baron Cohen Screening Tool? The new visual studies being done at yale? Each of these topics is more deserving of this space than the current 'social differences.'

Let's improve the quality of this article. Let's have better sources, less speculation, and focus on content that is above reproach. For example, see the opening section Poindexter and others rewrote a while back. It is rock solid - the statements are balanced and the sources are as good as they ever get. Let's do the rest of the article that way and figure out what new section we should come up with.

We need to decide, or call in additional ppl to break the deadlock. Wiki policies suggest we err on the side of exclusion. I just wanna move on, but my objections to this material seriously degrades the quality of the article, I feel. 24.34.190.34 03:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving most of the section into the new article on social stuff seems like it might be appropriate, I was just trying to limit my scope to the 3 or so sentences on contested subjects. There probably needs to be some discussion of the social side, since that's a big part of the diagnostic criteria, but it needn't be very detailed, and could point to a main article elsewhere. If you'd like to work on a rewrite/move project, like we did with the opening paragraphs, I'd be more than happy to collaborate. Poindexter Propellerhead 04:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

PP. As always you are the voice of moderation. I agree with the potential benefit of creating a social section. Only concern I would have is that ToM, and alexithymia are usually considered psychological traits (at least alexithymia is). Therefore there needs to be a bit of sorting about which topics would be covered in the 'social issues' page, and which should belong in the main psychological profile here. I've personally got no material to add, and feel there is more than enough resources to use for anyone with the nerve to co-edit. As for me I'll stand aside and let you and others do what you will. Soulgany101 05:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agreee with Poindexter, except for adding that the unsourced speculation in the social differences section should be consigned, not to the soicial differences article, but rather to oblivion. --Zeraeph 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where there is unsourced speculation, absolutely. But if you search PubMed for "Asperger" + "theory of mind," you get 47 matches, and there are more to be found with different keywords. Some of those papers do not present evidence which seems to support ToM, but some do. Searching PubMed for "Asperger" and "Alexithymia" gets 17 matches. They may or may not be dumb ideas, but that's a distinct issue from whether they're notable enough ideas to warrant mention at all. I regularly post edits which I personally disagree with, because I'm frequently out of the academic mainstream; but our job as editors usually isn't. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but there really a lot of uncited speculative remarks tacked on to the context of cited text in there, let's see if I can show you a few, revert if you hate it. --Zeraeph 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to be briefer and clearer, and to refrain from editorial comment on content as much as possible. I have no problem with posting edits i find objectionable, and i don't think any active posters here do. We recognize if we are POV, the content will come under attack. Let me address each point -

Alexithymia. There is clinical mention of alexithymia, as well as clinical data. The term and its connection to AS is credible. However, the implication that certain behaviors arise of out of this connection is NOT. We have no credible source saying, "Because AS's are alexythymic, they tend to act X." We have Attwood speculating this may be the case, but we have nobody asserting that it is. If someone can find a researched WP:RS that says "AS -> Alexythimia -> impact on social behavior" I will drop this issue. We cannot synthesize "AS->Alexythymia" and "Alexythymia->certain behaviors" without sourcing that synthesis. This would be true on the face it, in this case it is especially a concern because the text of the "85%" study states that a certain *kind* of alexithymia was detected, "cognitive" as opposed to "affective." Alexythimia in and of itself is not a "Social Issue" - it is a personality trait - and we cannot draw this conclusion without sourcing it. Additionally, the term "alexithymic" as used here should be defined (in the lower 17 percentile of the normal bell curve on the Toronto Test.

Theory of Mind : We have consensus here this theory is, at the very least, highly controversial. In order to introduce this idea, we would have to introduce the controversy. Also, in and of itself it is not a Social Issue, it is an attribute of an individual. What effects this may have on social relations is not for us to synthesize, however obvious we may find them to be.

This section was forming syntheses without sourcing them to anything beyond speculation involving the word "may".

That is really where i was coming from on the whole thing. PP and Z and all - should be do a rewrite of the Social Section next? If I had my druthers (I rarely get them. Typically, I am allowed a single druther for a brief time.) I think it would be very exciting and informative to open up a section on the neuropsych tests which are used to detect Asperger's. Mostly tests of image processing. The embedded image test, various others. Finish up with new work the Yale Child Study group is doing with moving images, and their hypothesis that social impairments result from perceptual integrative impairments (not looking in the eyes of others, as an toddler.)

That is, begin to infuse the neurological side of things, which appears destined to take over the whole subject.

I would prefer to move the Social Section out, so we could hold everything to the same high PMD standard. If research can be found/emerges that "Aspies experience these social consequences due to this feature of Asperger's", bring it on.

CeilingCrash 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me...I don't feel comfortable with Alexithymia and ToM as "social" issues anyway. --Zeraeph 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this one is on PubMed yet: Alexithymia in Autism Spectrum Disorders: an fMRI Investigation Soulgany101 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nice dear...now you can pop it in in any accurate reference to Autistic Spectrum disorders it covers, but not Asperger's, because, unfortunately, they did not specify the numbers or proportions, so either 1 or 99% could have AS and the best we can do is guess. :o) --Zeraeph 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, you DO know that we NEVER *guess* on Wikipedia? --Zeraeph 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, there are about 100 correlations being reported, reputed, withdrawn and re-appearing in the literature between Asperger's, ADHD, Depression, OCD, yes - Alexithymia, and on and on. In psychiatry, there is enormous interplay among various categories - probably because they are rooted in common neurological mechanisms. (For example, seratonin levels can be responsible for anxiety, depression, and OCD.) The task of this article is to define and describe AS in and of itself.

If it is proposed we discuss Alex. in this article, we would need to justify elevating Alex. out of the scores of other conditions for special attn.

Further, we cannot infer attributes of AS thru Alexithymia or any other co-occurring condition. Here's why  : In my left hand, I have a study that alcoholics cause traffic accidents. In my right, I have another that people who become blind are 5 times as likely to abuse alcohol as a result of the trauma. I present my synthesis : People who become blind cause traffic accidents.

Except - er, the blind can't drive. When we attempt these inferences, we are deliberately discarding information (from "we have a drunk blind person" to "we have a drunk"), including the subsample ("the blind drunk") into a larger group ("the drunk") and assuming the attributes of the larger group apply uniformly to the subgroup.

Consensus on this issue has been reached. And that goes double for all my sock puppets. CC 208.49.146.130 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the blind CAN drive, they just aren't very good at it. :o)

Good point though, because that kind of inference always causes distortion, and what place is there for distortion in an encyclopaedia?

I am also UTTERLY bewildered as to why nobody seems so see the absolute inappropriatenes of posting acres of Alexithymia discussion here and vice versa?

Now LOG IN before SG comes back from his lunch in the nip too. --Zeraeph 16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Major new research released

A team of Autistic and NT doctors, physicians and researchers has just published a new study, "The Nature of Autistic Intelligence." These researchers are hell-bent on revolution within the medical field and apparently (i haven't got the article yet) have - ahem! - scientific studies (remember those!?) indicating the autistic brain has been universally misunderstood in the past.

I want to be careful about advancing my own POV on this issue, i hope we can get an active discussion going once i can get hold of the paper (which i'll put here or something).

Here's an article about the study anyway, it is quite a bombshell : http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28489

Still no word on shutting CeilingCrash the hell up, word has it the Volkmar group is working on that one ... CeilingCrash 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the actual study: PMID 17680932 Asperger's isn't mentioned; I believe this could be considered for the autism article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

new research shows superior intelligence in autism

It will be interesting to see how NT's react to this turning of the tables.

That article I mentioned above detected a cluster of supernormal intelligence (1/3 landing into "high" as opposed to 5% of the normal population) across the autistic spectrum, and found rather amusingly that Auties are not stuck at the detail level, rather they can shift rapidly from details to the big picture, while it is NT's who are stuck at the "big picture" level. It goes on to discuss a unique fluidity to autistic thought.

This may spawn a sea-change in the professional view that an Autistic is a defective NT.

One of the team members has gone on to state that Auties are not mind-blind, intention-blind, or anything-blind; they are simply using a different language.

Viva La Revolution.

(CeilingCrash will be insufferable until further notice.) CeilingCrash 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly news[7] to all of us, but good to have reliable sources building up. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

einstien had aspergers,

The abstract (PMID 17680932) says that the scores of subjects with autism on a particular test (Raven's) were higher than their WISC scores: "Their scores were, on average, 30 percentile points, and in some cases more than 70 percentile points, higher than their scores on the Wechsler scales of intelligence." That is not the same as saying they have superior intelligence; just that one test measures intelligence their intelligence differently than the WISC. If you have the full text of the study, perhaps it says more, but the abstract (at least) doesn't reflect the commentary above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The ABC link above mentions, "The average boost in score is 30 points, Mottron says, enough to put someone previously considered mentally retarded into the normal range and the average to gifted status," which again, doesn't say more intelligent than average, just a different measure of intelligence that shows better results than WISC. I'm not sure there's anything earth-shattering here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As the abstract points out, it was previously believed that unusually high scores on some tests were considered some sort of anomalous side effect of a disability. Now it appears that there is nothing anomalous about it, but rather that the IQ tests used may have been unsuited for the purpose. So test scores which had seemed freakishly high now make sense, without having to resort to some mysterious phenomenon to explain them. If this idea holds up through additional research, and becomes generally accepted, it will also mean a redefinition of AS, since pace of intellectual development is part of that definition. Lastly, because a number of studies have tested people with AS against control groups, groups with HFA, and so on, based on matching IQ test scores, several old research topics may require reexamination. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Autistic Vision : new section draft

A first swipe at a new section on psychoneurological differences in vision between Aspies and NT's. I am hoping that other editors are bold in their revisions :

straw man section ----------

Since 1980 there has been a shift in the view of Autism from a psychological to a neuropsychological perspective. Once presumed to be a result of a lack of maternal attention as a child (the "Ice Box Mother" theory), the Autistic spectrum is now understood to be at least partly of genetic origin, and to be associated with fundamental differences in sensory perception, integration, and recall.

Difficulty recognizing faces has long been observed in people on the Autistic spectrum. It was originally proposed that this deficit was due to "weak central coherence" - that Autistics lack the ability to synthesize details into a "big picture", also called a lack of "global processing". It has since been shown that Autistics do not have this deficit and may, in fact, exceed their peers in the ability to move fluidly between global and local scale. This has lead researchers to seek new explanations at the level of sensory perception and integration. Additional visual differences have also been reported. In many of these - contrary to expectation - people on the Autistic spectrum exhibit superior ability. This had led to new diagnostic tools, differentiators between Asperger's, Autism and other disorders, spawned new research into the brain structure of Autistics, and is being used to form new educational programs.

  Autistics are better able to identify faces that are upside-down in photographs.

  Autistic (including AS) adults and children outperform their peers on the Embedded Image Test, a task where a geometric figure is sought within a complex image.
  (this source both reproduces this result and refutes the "central coherence" hypothesis :)
  http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/1997_JolliffeBC_embeddedfigures.pdf

  Autistic children and adults exhibit superior performance in a test for Visual Search.

  Autistic children and adults are less prone to misremember visual information.  [source]

  Autistic children have inferior performance analyzing a moving visual field.

The Yale Child Study group is conducting research where autistic and AS children are shown video. A laser reflected from their cornea records which areas they are focussed on. Fred Volks is investigating the hypothesis that face-blindness, and difficulty interpreting facial expressions, are a result of different visual processing in the brains of children on the ASD. http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/581/3/893

---

(i've got sources for this which i'll insert at the end. i'm sticking to rock solid sources to avoid controversy)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CeilingCrash (talk • contribs)

(Work with us here cc, SIGN the posts :o) ) NEAT :o) I once read an ENTIRE readers digest article in the dentist that clearly attributed some aspects of Autism to auditory processing and even mentioned a clinic in Geneva that specialised in auditory retraining...made sense to me, might be interesting to find some WP:RS for that?--Zeraeph 22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting. My guess - and I don't think it's original to me - is that autism is a natural readaptation of neurology; there is brain-space allocated for rapid sensory processing which was an evolutionary advantage as tribal hunter/gatherers. Nature is experimenting with releasing this brain-space for other purposes, resulting in this puzzling mix of deficits and abilities; note the abilities are almost universally advantageous in an industrial society. CeilingCrash 01:35, 12 August 2007

---

pass 2 --------------------------------

Since 1980 there has been a shift in the view of Autism from a psychological to a neuropsychological perspective. Once presumed to be a result of a lack of maternal attention as a child (the "Ice Box Mother" theory[1]), the Autistic spectrum is now understood to be at least partly of genetic origin[e69], and to be associated with fundamental differences in sensory perception, integration, and recall.

Difficulty recognizing faces has long been observed in people on the Autistic spectrum. It was originally proposed that this deficit was due to "weak central coherence" - that Autistics lack the ability to synthesize details into a "big picture", also called a lack of "global processing". It has since been shown that Autistics do not have this deficit and may, in fact, exceed their peers in the ability to move fluidly between global and local scale. This has lead researchers to seek new explanations at the level of sensory perception and integration. Additional visual differences have also been reported. In many of these - contrary to expectation - people on the Autistic spectrum exhibit superior ability. This had led to new diagnostic tools, differentiators between Asperger's, Autism and other disorders, spawned new research into the brain structure of Autistics, and is being used to form new educational programs.

  Autistics are better able to identify faces that are upside-down in photographs.

  Autistic (including AS) adults and children outperform their peers on the Embedded Image Test, a task where a geometric figure is sought within a complex image.
  (this source both reproduces this result and refutes the "central coherence" hypothesis :)
  http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/1997_JolliffeBC_embeddedfigures.pdf

  Autistic children and adults exhibit superior performance in a test for Visual Search.

  Autistic children and adults are less prone to misremember visual information.  [source]

  Autistic children have inferior performance analyzing a moving visual field.

The Yale Child Study group is conducting research where autistic and AS children are shown video. A laser reflected from their cornea records which areas they are focussed on. Fred Volks is investigating the hypothesis that face-blindness, and difficulty interpreting facial expressions, are a result of different visual processing in the brains of children on the ASD. http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/581/3/893

---

references ------------

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_mother

[2] Existing 69

(UTC)

Scrolling ref box removed

Please note WP:CITE: Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

einstien had aspergers

there is actually proof that einstien had aspergers, eg. he dident talk directly to people, if he wrote request in a letter and the request did not happen, he got someone else to write a letter, he lost his temper at school, and lots of other things, i think that aspergers is autism in a person with a supergenius IQ

It is certainly plausible that einstein was Aspie, as was Mozart and others. Special talents (see sources for the opening paragraph) have been undeniably linked to Asperger's; the Poincare Conjecture was recently proved by an Aspie.

It is very difficult to get the world to recognize the talents of living Aspies,

so I personally don't make much of historical figures since they cannot be tested. DNA tests may change that in the future. CC

Lead

The WP:LEAD of a featured article should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, covering all major topics (treatment, diagnosis, classification, history, etc.) in about four summary paragraphs. Since the last featured version, the lead had become top-heavy, loaded with detail while neglecting coverage of some sections of the article. I moved large chunks of text from the lead to the appropriate sections, and brought back summary statements from the featured version, while also cleaning up some references that had gotten mangled over the past year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reverting back, the lede was developed after extensive discussion among a number of editors. The goal was not to ensure featured article status; but rather to give a NPOV overview of Asperger's. Asperger's is very different than other medical issues because it is very recent (1994 in the USA) and very controversial. The current state of knowledge is not going to resemble that of other medical topics. CC CeilingCrash 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines at WP:LEAD don't apply only to featured articles; they apply to all articles. The content is all still there, just in appropriate sections so that the lead is a summary. Also—I doubt this need to be said, but anyway—intentionally undermining the featured status of an article would not seem to fall under good faith editing practice on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be reverted, that version was worked out over a period of 6 weeks (2 June-17 July, see talk page Archive 11), every part of it was discussed in advance on the talk page in detail, and there was no dissent; I have a hard time thinking of more solidly-documented examples of consensus on Wikipedia. I'm not agreeing that it was too top heavy before, but it was 20 lines before, and now it's 21, so if that really is a problem then we don't seem any closer to a solution. If you think it needs major changes, that's fine, but I think they ought to be discussed here beforehand, like we did when writing it. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the consensus, since I also opined in those discussions. The lead should summarize the article; the previous text is still all there, but the previous lead did not even discuss treatment, causes, history, other aspects of the article. It focused almost exclusively on controversial aspects, which is undue weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you did, although I didn't want to bring it up. A day into the discussion you added the following comment before going silent for several weeks:

Comment. I see several mentions above that this article is at FAR or up for FAR. The article is not at WP:FAR; I only mentioned
a list of items that should be addressed so it wouldn't be necessary to bring the article to FAR, as it has deteriorated 
significantly since it last passed FAR. You can access the version that passed by clicking on the link in the Article Milestones
at the top of the talk page. Hopefully editors can address the list I gave above, and the article won't need a review.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And I think all agreed with the general sentiment; much of the article had deteriorated into a graceless patchwork of edits. So, in full view of all, we went through the bother of discussing all of the changes, and determining what we could agree was an accurate and balanced treatment of the subject. We wanted to be bold, but with contentious subjects the line between boldness and being a dick can be very thin, so we hammered it all out in a collaborative fashion. I haven't looked over the changes in enough detail to be sure whether I have significant objections to the changes in content, but I do object to tossing out weeks of collaboration without prior discussion. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That content did not change; I moved some of that text from the lead to other parts of the article, and brought back a few broad summarizing statements from the featured version for the lead. You might want to review the text since nothing that was created during those discussions was deleted; it's all there, but the lead now touches on all aspects of the article, rather than focusing only on controversy. It may be a lot to digest at once; perhaps if you view my edits one by one you can tell me if any of them are problematic. PS: sometimes in writing new text, editors may forget to write the article, putting everything into the lead instead. The lead needs to summarize the entire article, touching on all points, not just controversy; the body can expand on the concepts in more detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am probably going to get hair ripped out from all sides for this, but apart from the fact that I really, REALLY would like to see:

It manifests in individual ways and can have both positive and negative effects on a person's life.

go back into the lead (but with less citations, SIX citations looks just a tad defensive :o) ), I honestly cannot see a big deal here. The two versions aren't so very different, and I don't think anybody should be expanding on ANYTHING in the lead really.

Having said that, I was happy with both versions, and took no part in the discussions, so I should probably shut the feck up at this point, except to point out that, with one tiny edit I just wiped out a nasty bit of negative POV you ALL missed...so maybe, just MAYBE neither version is QUITE perfect yet and a little discussion now could come up with an even better, third, version? --Zeraeph 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No POV intended: I just grabbed the text from the previous featured version. Yes, the six citations in the second sentence were a bit of overkill. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

This edit is the negative POV removed; it was in the article before I moved text around, and is not the result of any of my edits. I'm confused about why that statement is POV, since the diagnosis of AS requires, by definition, A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, and B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities.[8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was your edit, I just said everybody missed it, including you. Which seems to me to show that there was still work to do on both versions :o) --Zeraeph 06:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's always been a lot of work remaining to be done here; that's why I posted the long list a few months ago, hoping to avoid yet a third FAR, and I think the article is within featured range now, albeit still needing attention. I'm still missing the POV; DSM-IV, ICD-10, Szatmari and Gillberg Diagnostic Criteria all contain impairment in social interaction and repetitive behaviors. That is, every published criteria contains those features, so why the change from "includes" to "can include"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a less negative POV way of saying the same thing, I am just surprised nobody disputed it in either version and see it as a sign (and example) that there is still work to do. --Zeraeph 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (late signing, mea culpa!)

---

The difference in language is stark and immediate. We went from

"Asperger syndrome (...) is a condition on the autistic spectrum. It manifests in individual ways and can have both positive and negative effects on

to

Asperger syndrome (...) is one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), and is characterized by deficiencies in

The lede was painstakingly balanced between the two schools of thought, pathology versus neurodiversity. To the extent the two versions are similar, there is no reason for the change. To the extent they are different, the difference should be discussed. I would add that Sandy's work on this article has been otherwise an big improvement. CeilingCrash 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(The thrust behind this is that there is enormous debate as to the DSM criteria, which are likely to change soon. This is by no means a settled disorder, and everyone from Asperger himself to Attwood has questioned whether this is a disorder at all.)

That's why there are SIX sources on this point.CeilingCrash 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet, for some strange reason, the diagnostic confusion and differing criterion was specifically mentioned in the featured version, dropped from the revised version, and added back by me :-) It is an important point, one that not everyone knows; the new text obscured this issue completely in a lot of controversy that wasn't clearly explained. The basics should be summarized in the lead, and expounded in the text. Basic info is that there are differing diagnostic criterion. Basic info is that AS is one of five PDDs. The controversy is still mentioned, differences in diagnostic criterion had been dropped and was added back. Regarding the rest of my cleanup work, I don't know how the refs got so far out of hand; some of them had actual errors (wrong authors, dead links, etc.) The original text is still present, but now with corrected refs, so if changes are decided upon, pls move text around rather than reverting to the older versions that had messed up refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of the six refs, I can't decipher that any one of those refs says what the text says, so it looks like synthesis (original research), backed by a string of refs. Does anyone have a quote from any one of those sources which supports the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources support the text. The points are not synthesized, rather mentioned together with no new thesis advanced.

The basic info is that AS is a neurological condition which, at this time, is characterized by controversy first and foremost.

Some clinicians are calling for its removal from the DSM, others seek a new set of criteria, yet others propose it be completely recast in terms of neurology. Not a one I am aware of advocates the DSM description as it is now. These are not my POV's, Attwood has written "Is Asperger's a Disorder", Asperger wrote "not all difference is disease", Baron Cohen ... well, you look it up !!! A crisp and dry lede does not befit a topic in such a state of massive flux.

Frankly I don't have time to go through all this again. I will NOT go dig out the quotes for you from those references, you can read for yourself, they assert positive aspects of AS. They come from the field's leading authorities, and are very clear.

I wanted to expand the article with new neurological research. My question is this - do you feel we are required to re-debate this content with you, months after it was reached by consensus? You will notice we did not undo your work, rather we discussed it. Might you return the courtesy ? This is my final comment on reverting the lede.CeilingCrash 05:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "redebating", remember Wikipedia is never forever, but always a work in progress. Maybe Sandy shouldn't have just gone ahead and changed all that without some discussion, BUT, on the other hand, if she sees problems with the lead, and she obviously does, she shouldn't be expected to "shut up and get used to it" she should be able to express and discuss that. --Zeraeph 06:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) CC, any reader can request a quote at any time if sources don't appear to support the text; I don't find that sentence supported by the sources, and would like for someone to provide a supporting quote from one of the journal articles for which I don't have the full text. I suspect it has six sources attached because no single source really supports the text—the appearance is one of synthesis. If you want to reintroduce something like that sentence to the lead, it would be best if the single sentence was strongly supported by a solid reliable source. As it is, the article relies too heavily on self-published and non-reliable sources, but I've never challenged that.

I encourage you to have a look at WP:LEAD, which to my knowledge having followed it for over a year, is not a disputed or rarely followed guideline. Note that I have deleted none of the new or questioned text, even though some of it doesn't appear to be well sourced or based on reliable sources; I've merely moved text around so that the lead conforms more closely to guidelines. The lead should summarize the entire article, should be able to stand-alone and provide an overview of the entire topic, invites the reader to explore the greater detail in the article, and prepares the reader for the detail that follows. If a reader sees nothing but the lead, they should have a good stand-alone overview of all important aspects, of which controversy is one. The lead as written previously was not a summary of the entire article and was not carefully balanced. It contained three paragraphs of detail about controversial aspects of the diagnosis, while completely overlooking most of the rest of the topics. There was no balance; there was no overview. Further, the three paragraphs weren't a summary of text that was discussed elsewhere in the article; they were items only debated in the lead. A reader seeking a basic overview of AS got only controversial aspects, but nothing of the other basics about treatment, diagnosis, history, causes, epidemiology, prognosis, etc. That is not a description of a carefully balanced lead; it describes a lead that not only does not summarize the article, but is biased towards describing controversy. Please read WP:LEAD. AIDS, for example, is controversial, but its lead contains a bit of history, causes, epidemiology, treatment, prognosis, etc. A summary of each important section need not be dry; in fact, it should be compelling, but a summary it should be rather than three paragraphs of detail on one issue (controversy) not discussed in greater detail elsewhere in the article. The lead from the featured version was developed over more than a month, with consensus from many involved editors—not the two or three who developed the recent lead. It did not reflect either balance or wide consensus that has been suggested here. At any rate, all of that new text has been preserved in the article, even when not well supported by sources and even when not reflecting wider medical consensus. When developing new text, editors often focus on the lead and forget to write the article, and then summarize all aspects of the article back to the lead. I encourage you to focus on developing those themes within the article (they weren't in the article at all before), and then coming up with single clauses or sentences well supported by sources that can be summarized back to the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources

Another problem with using personal websites and other non-reliable self-published sources is that the links may go dead. PubMed sources are not only peer-reviewed; they endure. Does anyone know what became of AS-IF? To begin with, it was a personal webpage, which should never have been used as a source, and now it appears to be dead. Here's a link from the internet archive; can anyone access this site and does anyone know if it has been taken down? It was used to source several statements, even though it is not a reliable source, and now it seems to be gone.

• ^ a b c AS-IF.org. Asperger Syndrome Information and features: Definition. Retrieved June 29, 2006.
• ^ AS-IF.org. Asperger Syndrome Information and features: Overlap. Retrieved July 6, 2006.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't care whether it is live or not, I just checked it, let's lose it...it isn't even CLOSE to WP:RS (have I been in a COMA or something?). --Zeraeph 10:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PS The only appropriate use I can see for a ref like that is as a live link to text quoted from a print WP:RS, like using "behavenet" as a hyperlink under a citation to DSM. --Zeraeph 10:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of the lead

I just now read Asperger syndrome's lead in detail for the first time and have some suggestions for improvement. I wrote this review without looking at the comments in #Lead above, but in reading those comments now I don't see any reason to change the review. This review is of the most-recent version as of this writing.

• The word "neurobiological" is out of place in the lead. The lead talks about "five neurobiological pervasive development disorders", with the implication that some PDDs are not neurobiological. And the word "neurobiological" is weird here. Just remove it. It's not needed.

Now moot. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done (It was just as out of place where it moved to)--Zeraeph 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's better not to start the lead with PDDs. The lead should start with what Asperger's is: that's what the reader cares about. The lead can mention the broader category later.

Now moot. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The first sentence's summary of the characteristics of Asperger's is misleading. DSM-IV-TR talks about impairment in social interaction, not "deficiencies in social and communication skills". The "communication skills" gives a misleading impression that language skills must be lacking.

Now moot. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that is still in the classification section. It came from the NIH source, which uses that wording. (The NIH often gets it wrong.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done--Zeraeph 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The first sentence says Asperger's is characterized by "standard language development". This is also incorrect: DSM-IV-TR says only that there be "no clinically significant general delay in language" and it gives examples that allow delay in some areas.

Now moot. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The first sentence says Asperger's is characterized by "normal to above normal intelligence", while failing to note that this is by definition: i.e., if there is significant delay in cognitive development, then by definition it is not Asperger's.

? Not quite sure what to do with this; we are giving the definition, so it should be true by definition. Suggestions, anyone? Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm stumped as well on how to fix that one; perhaps Eubulides will be encouraged to help with the fix if he pops back in for a look here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• DSM-IV-TR gives "restrictive, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities" as one of the two main characteristic signs of Asperger's, but the first sentence completely omits this. Ouch!

•  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The second sentence says that Asperger's "can" (but presumably need not) "include repetitive behavior patterns and impairment in social interaction". But the presumption is incorrect. Both signs are characteristic of Asperger's; they are not optional. This claim needs rewording.

 Done Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The 3rd sentence "However, Asperger's differs from 'classic' autism in that non-social aspects of intellectual development generally proceed at a normal or accelerated rate." cites a source that does not justify the "normal or accelerated rate" claim. The source merely says there is "no clinically significant delay in cognitive development". The text should be reworded to match the source better.

•  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, "AS is most commonly diagnosed in children but is also found in adults." is confusing and misleading. It makes it sound like AS commonly goes into remission. It should be reworded to make it clear that AS is normally considered to be a lifelong condition.

• The sentence "Assistance for core symptoms of AS consists of therapies that address poor communication skills, obsessive or repetitive routines, and physical clumsiness" gives an overly optimistic appraisal of AS therapies. Please change "address" to "attempt to address".

Now moot. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done--Zeraeph 18:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3 says "The diagnosis of AS is complicated by the lack of a standard diagnostic screen, and the use of several different screening instruments." This is redundant. If several instruments are used, there is no standard. Please reword to remove the redundancy.

 Done Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Paragraph 3 says "The diagnosis of AS is complicated by … the use of several different … sets of diagnostic criteria." This may have been a problem back in the 1990s but I don't see why it is a problem now, since DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 are now standards and they pretty much agree. This claim should be removed, or if it is still a justifiable claim then it should be sourced.

? Apparently this needs some clarification; Mayes was asking "Does DSM-IV Asperger's disorder exist?" after the publication of DSM-IV-TR, ditto for Szatmari's criticisms, and Baron-Cohen's complaints are from 2005. So I guess we need to elaborate on how it is still a problem... ? Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• "The exact cause of AS is unknown." This is too brief about causes. It should be expanded to at least one normal-length sentence, and perhaps two or three. The cause of AS is an important and controversial topic. Please drop the word "exact" while you're at it.

• "the prevalence is not firmly established, due partly to the use of differing sets of diagnostic criteria" I am skeptical of the suggestion that circa-1990 disagreements in diagnostic criteria are the most important reason that prevalence is not firmly established. Please remove the claim or provide a recent citation.

? This sentence does not exist in the current copy, nor can I figure out what circa-1990 cite he might be discussing, the 5 cites I know of on this subject are from 1997-2005. I am thinking that the apparent deletion or rewriting of this sentence has addressed this, but reasonable minds may differ. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• "the broader category of high-functioning autism". The "broader" implies that high-functioning autism is a superset of AS, which is controversial. Perhaps it is meant to imply that more people have HFA than AS? If so, please reword to make this clear, and provide a citation. If not, please just remove the "broader".

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• "While neither AS nor HFA have universally accepted definitions" is misleading. AS has a standard definition; HFA does not. This should be made clear.

 Done Poindexter Propellerhead 02:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• "most diagnostic manuals distinguish the two". This is incorrect. Neither DSM-IV-TR nor ICD-10 mentions HFA, so neither standard diagnostic manual distinguishes AS from HFA. I presume this is talking about the distinction between AS and autism, but if so, that should be made clear.

 Done Partially reworded already, will adjust a little more momentarily. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• "However, at least one diagnostic guide takes the opposite position; that delayed onset of speech favors a diagnosis of AS." The cited source contradicts this claim. This claim is incorrect; please remove it.

 Done The old cite was to a list of all the main diagnostic criteria, so at a glance it did not appear to support it. The problem was fixed by citing a different copy of Gillberg's criteria alone, so that it is easier to see that Gillberg listed delayed speech as one of the diagnostic criteria for AS. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Tests have shown no significant difference between patients diagnosed with AS and those diagnosed with HFA. Even among those who feel that the differences between AS and HFA are significant…" This wording gives the mistaken impression that the dissenters against distinguishing AS from autism have reliable scientific evidence but the opinion that they are distinguishable does not. Please reword so that the dispute is presented neutrally.

• There is way too much discussion in the lead about the HFA versus AS controversy. There should be just one or at most two ordinary sentences about this. The rest of the controversy should be summarized in the main text. And even the main text need not cover the controversy in detail, as it can refer to Controversies about functioning labels in the autism spectrum for the blow-by-blow.

• Just looking at the table of contents, it is apparent that the lead does not cover the article well. Several topics covered by the table of contents are barely mentioned in the lead. Part of the problem, as I've mentioned above, is that the HFA-AS controversy is way too long: it should be one or two sentences, instead of being over half the lead. Please see Multiple sclerosis and Down syndrome for example leads that do a much better job of summarizing their articles.

Although I intended to review the whole article I'm afraid that I did not have time to get past the lead, except for one sentence in "Diagnosis", which states "The diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual are criticized for being vague and subjective." and gives two citations. The first, Timini 2004, criticizes the DSM criterion for autism, not Asperger's, and so is not relevant here; it should be removed. The second, Ehlers & Gillberg 1993, predates DSM-IV-TR and so cannot be fairly said to criticize it. This sentence should be given citations that support it, or should be removed.

Hope this helps. Eubulides 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This analysis, unfortunately, is symptomatic not only of the lead, but most of the article, whether the text that was developed during the last review or the new text. Very little in this article is truly supported by reliable sources, and the article has a gaping weakness in that it relies very heavily on self-published non-referreed sources like Attwood, Myles, and self-published websites, and even then, text doesn't always accurately reflect the source used. Almost every single sentence in the article is subject to the sorts of problems listed above. The article does not stay true to reliably-sourced published info. The highest quality sources are not used, and text is rarely accurate to the sources used. By correcting the refs, I hope to provide a starting place for reliably-sourced edits. I'm still hoping to avoid another FAR, but this article basically warrants a factually inaccurate tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the problem, in both the current and previous featured version is, This may have been a problem back in the 1990s but I don't see why it is a problem now, since DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 are now standards and they pretty much agree. The article gives undue weight to controversy and self-published theories, while not recognizing or addressing fundamentals of DSM-IV and ICD-10 definitions. Some progress has been made, which brought the article within striking range of featured status and squeaked it by FAR, but there are still undue weight and factual accuracy problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally, I wouldn't agree about DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as the only valid standards in AS, but I AM alarmed at the use of self-published, unreliable and even INACCURATE sources...c'mon guys...sauce for the goose and all that...you wouldn't tolerate those kind of sources from *curebies*, *parents* and *partners* on a POV binge...BECAUSE they are:

1. Against protocol
2. Usually full of dodgey rubbish

To be honest, I am kinda shocked that they are there. It's all well keeping the article neutral and representative, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means STRICTLY LIMITED TO VERIFIABLE INFORMATION. Can we straighten this out please? --Zeraeph 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the text Eubulides looked at is new (and problematic), but a lot of it is from the last featured version. It's apparent that version shouldn't have passed FAR either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(have I been in a COMA or something?) I don't think you've been in a coma; it's just a difficult balancing act. During the last review, certain changes were forced into the text by a number of editors, apparently without a lot of focus on staying true to reliable sources. Although I'm alarmed at the level of factual inaccuracy Eubulides has found in the lead, if I may be so bold, I suggest for now that someone utilize Eubulides' list to patch up the lead, and then turn focus instead to the article. The article needs to be gone through line by line to replace non-reliable sources, and make sure the text is true to the sources. Once that is done, the lead can be rewritten as a summary. Overfocus on the lead is common in Wiki editing. I have never actually written any of the text, preferring to leave that to the article's regular editors who may be more familiar with the full body of literature. My hope is that by keeping the article clean in terms of references, manual of style, ce, section headings, etc., they will be encouraged to stick true to the sources and make the necessary text corrections; I largely confine my edits to manual of style and reference cleanup, and moving text around for flow and guideline conformance (lead). Unfortunately, in the last go-round, it appears that a lot of the writing was just factually wrong, and less than reliable sources crept in. Eubulides can evaluate that better than I since he has access to the peer-reviewed sources that I don't always have. I'm a bit alarmed at what he has uncovered; the problem is worse than I thought. In the last FAR, I was "assuming good faith" and accepting the text as factual. Since we now know it's not, a section by section review may be needed. Perhaps someone can patch up the lead according to Eubulides' list, and then focus can be on fixing the text, rewriting a new lead at the end? I'm confident regular editors here can do this; I'd still like to avoid a third FAR for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I cannot see a single thing wrong with using the list Eubulides was kind enough to write out to check the lead. Ok, if people don't agree with any point, they don't agree, and should say so, and we should all discuss that, buyt we should use the list...on my way out the door (and an expensive car crash, but that's OFF Wiki, except, I WISH I'd stuck around and had an edit war instead :o( ) I managed to make two tiny tweaks that changed little in real terms, and crossed two items off the list.

I genuinely believe that, at present, we have a group of editors (including Sandy) who are honestly only really interested in producing the best, NPOV article they can, which means we all want the same thing, so we should be co-operating.

It may be a hard truth, but if Sandy can pull the citations apart in a friendly way, it would be TWICE as easy for the next POV pusher to pull them apart FAR worse, in a a...er...*less friendly way*. Getting the article right is phase one, getting it unassailable is phase two (and Sandy's core competance). There is no point in having the right words if any idiot with basic literacy skills and his own website can drive a regiment of tanks through the citations. --Zeraeph 17:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For patching up the basic definition in the lead,

1. Here's the emed introduction: Asperger disorder is a form of pervasive developmental disorder characterized by severe persistent impairment in social interactions, repetitive behavior patterns, and restricted interests. Unlike an autistic disorder, no significant delay occurs in language development or cognitive development. Asperger disorder is generally evident in children older than 3 years and primarily occurs in boys.
2. Here's the NIH introduction, which is the source of the current wording of "language and communication skills", apparently: AS is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of a distinct group of neurological conditions characterized by a greater or lesser degree of impairment in language and communication skills, as well as repetitive or restrictive patterns of thought and behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources in the previous version

If you wanna clip the DSM criteria, that's a simple job.

The previous version had the best possible sources : Baron Cohen's Cambridge study (showing superior mathematical ability), Volksmar of the Yale Child Study group saying, not that these kids showed no verbal deficit, but that they "talked before they could walk" - they all post-date the DSM. If you want to give the current state of knowledge, you are not going to find it in the DSM, you are going to find it coming from the verifiable, peer-reviewed publications of the authorities in this field.

Given the apparent reluctance to even read the sources yourselves, i suggest you cut-and-paste the DSM. When the DSM gets around to including the new state of knowledge, you can cut-and-paste that too. Peace out, i'm done here. CeilingCrash 14:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, CC; are you saying to add DSM criterion cut and paste? That's a serious copyvio; we need to paraphrase. I'm also confused about your reference to the previous version, since none of that text has been deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't even GO there, my life hasn't recovered yet from the LAST run in with Chad Thompson of the APA. Those guys are SERIOUS about copyright (bemuses the heck out of me, you would have thought they wanted it advertised accurate). While I am here, WHAT is with these "single name" citations...y'know, like "Smith and Jones, pp. 3,046, July, 1066" that are sprouting everywhere, that HAS to STOP...please...($800!!!! And he rammed ME...all I DID was leave a little red paint on his silver car...but "when the justice is gone, there's always force" :o( Prob'ly cost him $10 for cutting fluid... )--Zeraeph 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Although I'm alarmed at the level of factual inaccuracy Eubulides has found in the lead, if I may be so bold, I suggest for now that someone utilize Eubulides' list to patch up the lead, and then turn focus instead to the article." Yes, we knew that the old lead was factually inaccurate, which was why we spent many long hours replacing it. So I have another idea. I'm reverting it to the form which did not contain many of those inaccuracies, and going from there. We put a ton of time into writing that version, and did not roll it out until over other editors had had weeks to voice any complaints. As for why there were six cites for one sentence, see the talk page archives, there was no trace of OR, rather there was at least two mentions that we were doing that because there is a minority who vehemently insist, contrary to almost every authority on the subject, that AS has no positive traits. As for the changes and the critique:

The word "neurobiological" is out of place in the lead...
It's better not to start the lead with PDDs...
The first sentence's summary of the characteristics of Asperger's is misleading...
The first sentence says Asperger's is characterized by "standard language development"...
The first sentence says Asperger's is characterized by "normal to above normal intelligence", while failing to note that this is
by definition...
The second sentence says that Asperger's "can" (but presumably need not) "include repetitive behavior patterns and impairment in 
social interaction". But the presumption is incorrect. Both signs are characteristic of Asperger's; they are not optional...

Those are six problems, in the first two sentences alone, which had been eliminated, but now are back.

CC has already visited my talk page, demoralized enough that he's washing his hands of this article over the matter. Nobody is going to have ANY interest in fixing the rest of the article if the fixes that have already been made won't stay in place. So I'm reverting this not just because the former version fixed a lot of problems, but because consensus here is fragile and hard-won, and major changes which ignore that are simply too harmful to morale. If someone cannot stand the old version, then I propose that we ask for mediation. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and sources disputed

Nice move, Poindexter. By reverting, you wiped out hours of work on cleaning up the references and manual of style issues, merely to change two paragraphs in the lead, which you could have copied back in. If you wanted to restore the prior lead, you could have simply moved those paragraphs back, thereby preserving clean refs. Whatever. This article no longer warrants featured status; it is speculative, uses non-reliable sources, and is not comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I made sure and left in several changes which you made, which were uncontroversial improvements, and am going through the list of edits looking for more of the same; I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Nor do I think that your criticism of the opening is invalid, not at all! I agree that there were areas which should have been mentioned but weren't, and that emphases are out of kilter. I'm working on it now, and will post my recommendations for changes on the talk page, where others will point out problems with my ideas, I will eat a little crow, and the version which everyone can agree upon will go forward. I think we all appreciate your good intentions, your concern with the article's shortcomings, and want to address the problems which you've brought up. Given a little time I'm sure that we can do it, and do it in such a way that every regular editor of this page is content with the result. Yes, we are quirky about consensus, but quirkiness comes easily to this subject. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On May 28, 2007 (see archives) I detailed a list of issues with this article. I respected the text developed by editors here after I left that list, merely moving excess detail and controversy from the lead to different sections while bringing back summary text from the featured version which had been deleted from the lead. I spent hours cleaning up the references, and didn't remove any of the new text. The article uses unreliable sources, doesn't accurately reflect sources, the lead is not a summary per WP:LEAD, the lead is biased, the article is not comprehensive, the article is not neutral, and there are other Manual of Style issues now because of the revert. The article is now unstable, with another editor reverting and removing several days of cleanup work (note that I didn't remove any other editors' work). If anyone wants to work on these issues, pls ping me. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Give us a little time, I'm going over it all as fast as I can. I don't doubt that some happy hybrid version will be the eventual result. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Punching air* YES!!!--Zeraeph 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Now here is what I said BEFORE the edit conflict hit:

C'mon all, I am the one who had the car crash and is sitting here, well oiled with Shiraz, white, shaking and irrational, not yez. This is NOT a good way to carry on.

Sandy, maybe it was my head (not exactly A1 right now), but it doesn't seem as simple as changing a couple of paras, still, I have done my best to restore the rest of the clean up (that should NEVER have been reverted - PP WHAT were you THINKING???) WITH the changed lead I am sure there are still duplications, I just cannot see them like that *snap fingers*, wish I could.

Still, maybe the guys felt the same way about you reverting the lead that you felt about them incidentally (no less - that is REALLY heavy dissing where I live) reverting your hard work on the rest?

The way I see it, this is a VOCATIONAL issue...being the hot head on a hair trigger is MY job...I do it well and reliably, so please, in future, leave that to me? Huh?

There are obviously issues on both sides, that is why we have Talk:Asperger syndrome, to iron them out.

Sandy is a darn good editor, she doesn't invent concerns about sources and accuracy from thin air, I have tried to catch her out myself on that and never even got close, so if she says there are concerns, there are...but on the other hand, the guys here have honestly been at pains to do everything "by the book". That is worth something too...in fact it is worth A LOT...

I honestly see both sides so clearly and vividly that I don't HAVE an easy resolution to suggest...except...DISCUSS...please...--Zeraeph 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Allright, I'll try to explain this again. ALL of the prior text was still in the article. It only needed to be moved back to the lead, if that was consensus. It was correctly referenced and cleaned up, but I didn't touch the text. Your revert of Poindexter's revert did not corectly restore the refs, and besides removing my dispute tags, the article now has mangled refs, incomplete refs, and missing refs, in addition to duplicate text. It takes hours of tedious, time consuming, manual work to check and clean up references; that work is gone by the revert and partial restore. All that needed to be done to restore the prior lead was to move the text back; it was all there, with clean refs. The article is disputed; I'm not going to revert war to put my tags back, but it's not clear if editors here intend to work together, or engage in edit warring instead. Please note, Poindexter, that I respected the work done here and didn't delete any of the text; returning the courtesy would have been kind. That text was all preserved, merely moved. On the other hand, the last two reverts wiped out my tedious ref cleanup work. If you all want me to restore the prior lead correctly, I can do that, preserving the clean refs. However, it will likely receive an even stronger critique from Eubulides and others, because it has larger problems than the featured version. Say the word, and I'll restore it correctly, so the refs aren't mangled, but the article will still be disputed with that kind of lead. If editors want to work together, we can do that. Otherwise, the dispute tags need to go back and I've got plenty of other articles to work on. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What I was honestly trying to do was to copy and paste the prior lead while leaving the rest intact at [9]...obviously I screwed up (cut me slack, I really am in shock here). Poindexter wants the prior lead restored, I'm easy, but I want to keep your cleanup, can you please restore the prior lead correctly (for now) and if you would prefer, you can post it on a subpage, give me the link, and I will post it myself? --Zeraeph 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I could see that was what you tried to do, but you missed :-) Good intentions count :-) And now, PP is making it worse, rather than discussing. I can fix it in less than five minutes, but you need to get PP to agree, as I will not engage in revert wars. And, the lead s/he wants restored is problematic and will need to be worked out. Or I can add back the dispute tags tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, just great; now we have new editors "removing dead links" which I just updated to corrected live links last night. Nice job, PP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah c'mon, after $800 I need the light relief...mind you, the link IS dead [10] let's keep checking it for the next week or so and if it STAYS dead we can pull it (remember, everything does have a "moment of death" and that MAY have passed)?

I totally agree with working out the lead (real concerns are real concerns). But I have no say in what PP does, I have already said that I want to see vthis discussed, and I hope PP will respect that. --Zeraeph 23:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PS I mean PLEASE fix it in 5 minutes --Zeraeph 23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not revert warring; PP has to agree. So far, s/he has reverted and not discussed, and the refs are getting even further mangled (yes, I know that link is dead. I just cleaned it last night.) Sorry about the $800 wreck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, NOW I understand, still there was a nutter in the meanwhile so I can revert back to original removal.

Don't worry too much about edit warring on that, you really WOULD only be doing what I was trying to do in first place (and messed up), and, if you prefer, I will post it for you myself.

I only wish it WAS $800 for a wreck, in fact it was $800 for leaving a little contrasting paint on a car that JUST HAPPENED to belong to an avaricious soul :o( But it HAS rattled me...--Zeraeph 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears now that PP intends to keep editing and not come to the talk page to discuss his/her reverts. I'm going to unwatch this article now (edit warring is not an environment I intend to frequent) and work in other areas; I'll come back tomorrow to re-add dispute tags which should not have been deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, although with an edit to the talk page every 5 minutes for somewhat more than an hour, trying to do anything else means that I will get behind on the talk page. I am attempting to restore much of what was lost in the revert, just as Zeraeph is doing - I just have to sort out what Zeraeph already got to, and what may have been missed. Please do clarify what sources you're contesting with the tag, as I'm unclear on that. Out of the first 30 cites, everything is peer-reviewed with the exception of 3 or 4 secondary sources which were in the earlier form of the article (cites 4, 5, 6 and 17), and a few cites to various Attwood publications. There may be bad sourcing in later parts, but I'm not there yet... Anyway, my question is, does anyone have any problems with the 4 secondary sources or Attwood for cites? Poindexter Propellerhead 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and to be open to discussion --Zeraeph 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see Attwood references eliminated, where he is not publishing for peer review. I must admit, however, he is a world-reknowned authority and i have no serious objection to him. As for quality of sources, I'd also point out that Baron Cohen and Volksmar are world-famous luminaries, better sources than them do not exist to my knowledge.

Speaking of Baron-Cohen, he is developing a new diagnostic criteria, and has come out critical of the DSM, indicating, among other things, it is not suitable for adults and is too broad :

     http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2006_BCetal_AAA.pdf

CC24.34.190.34 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we start incorporating this? --Zeraeph 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph. I pleased you are open to discussing the layour and detail of the Asperger's article. Could you please do the same on the Alexithymia page and desist from your present blanking rage on the alexithymia page too. Soulgany101 02:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I TRIED to discuss it and you ignored me (if memory serves me you told me I should put your sources in for you. I would, but my crystal ball is on the blink right now :o( ) --Zeraeph 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately the page there has an edit block placed on it, which should stop your blanking rage. Please discuss details properly in future (no, you didn't discuss it, period). I hope you don't do the same thing here. Soulgany101 03:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this [11] qualifies as "discussing it" as does this [12], easiliy enough resolved, I would have thought?

I also think we discuss Alexithymia on Talk:Alexithymia--Zeraeph 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Making two tiny remarks and immediately deleting massive tracts of the entry ON THE SAME DAY is hardly discussing it. LOL. Pull everyone's other leg. But yes I agree this discussion should be moved to the alexithymia talk page. I mentioned it here because I thought you may attempt a blanking frenzy here too in the present unsettled context. See you on the other page Soulgany101 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss Alexithymia on Talk:Alexithymia--Zeraeph 04:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seems to like DSM's criteria; Baron-Cohen finds them impossibly broad, Mayes (et al) found them impossibly narrow, and when Volkmar tried to come to DSM's rescue, he found that only a third of AS diagnoses appeared to violate DSM. And that's without touching the specifics, like significance of language delay (which has been disputed in many papers and championed by virtually none). Thus First and Pincus reported that, in going from IV to IV-TR, "For some disorders, such as learning disorders, there were no changes, and for others, such as Asperger's disorder, virtually the entire text was rewritten." Yet the IV-TR version is getting ripped just about as badly as the IV one was. It's hard to see how this could end well for the DSM. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So let's get that reality impeccably cited and INTO the article? Yes? --Zeraeph 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just altered one sentence slightly to accomodate, and used the above paper + Mayes as cites. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Was that before, or after the AGF peculiar person? Trying nto keep track here. --Zeraeph 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a few minutes ago, right here.[13] Poindexter Propellerhead 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit reconciliation

As of right now, there are no significant differences between the pre-revert form and the current form, other than the opening paragraphs.[14] Poindexter Propellerhead 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing: I looked over both of the recent versions of the article, and noted that the only difference in the current version are some peer-reviewed articles from PubMed, and one secondary source, this one.[15] Since there would appear to be no differences in the cites other than that, I will move it from being a cite to being an external link, and, hopefully, that puts an end to contention about the sources for the opening paragraphs. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the case. Yesterday, while you all were edit and revert warring, the text in question could have been moved, along with clean citations, back to the lead in one edit taking a few minutes. Today, it will take longer to sort through the subsequent edits to clean up the refs for the second time. Your revert of ref cleanup was rude and inconsiderate when all you had to do was move the paragraphs you wanted from within the body of the article back to the lead, which would have preserved the ref cleanup. I'll be putting the article in use to clean up the refs again; I hope another editor returns to you someday the courtesy you've shown here. Your excuse that you couldn't be bothered to read the talk page during several hours in which you were editing and revert warring is flimsy at best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)