Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

"Aspie"

The article uses the term "aspie" to refer to people with Asperger's. Is this an accepted term? Could it be perceived as inappropriate? I really don't know the answer to this, but it just sounds strange to me.

Yes Aspie is an entirely accepted, if perhaps less than scientific sounding, way to refer to a person diagnosed with Asberger's. In fact your use of "people with Asperger's" is in many ways more offensive as some people like myself do not consider themselves to "have" Asperger's but rather to "be" Asperger's. Symmetric Chaos 14:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an informal term, meant to sound less imposing (and possibly less judgemental) than "person with Asperger's Syndrome". By comparison you might want to note that the article Left-handed speaks of such people as "lefties". -- Writtenonsand 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys - I didn't read this first before making changes, but even in this light, unless we're going to explain the use of Aspie and provide sources to verify that this is commonly used and provides no offence to anyone then, for the moment, I'm taking them out. Some may still take offence or find the phrase unnecessarily informal, and as it doesn't aid in any way to use the phrase (in fact when reading the article I didn't know what it meant) I see no benefit in leaving it in. Tompagenet 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the section from Controversies in autism about autistic vs person with autism should be inserted here and in Autism to illustrate the concept and controversy. --Rdos 12:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

removed link

I removed

• Sula Wolff, Beyond Asperger Syndrome Links between Schizoid personality disorder, Asperger syndrome and schizophrenia

I believe it was one of the ones I cut when evaluating the links down to 15. Anyone else think this should stay? If so which one should it replace? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can keep this link. Several reasons:

It's me who added it to the article

It's a text by a renowned specialist

The article does not contain any other reference to SPD and schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which often overlap with AS

That's more of an argument for including a mention in the article itself rather than just an external link. Any thoughts anyone? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly woeth mentioning as long as you take care to avoid the perception that Schizoid personality disorder is not asperger's. Symmetric Chaos 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

dubious science fiction mention

This sentence bothers me:

There is a semi-jocular theory within science fiction fandom, for example, which argues that many of the distinctive traits of that subculture may be explained by the speculation that a significant portion thereof is composed of people with Asperger's.

It seems to be completely unreferenced. Also, it's not a paragraph :). Maybe we should just remove it.... any thoughts anyone? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is also in the science fiction fandom article. The theory has been tossed around in fandom for some time -- see this Google groups thread or this one, for example. The statement isn't that "sf fans=aspies" directly -- I don't think it should be deleted, just edited to fit well here. And we could post, I suppose, a reference to one of those Google Groups discussions to back up the statement that "there is a semi-jocular theory...." ManekiNeko | Talk 00:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

in copy-editing this section, i took some liberties with this sentence without realizing it was an express topic of conversation. i hope i didn't step on any toes. it seem to merit inclusion, and to fit vaguely with the following paragraph, so i merged them. in particular, it didn't seem to be an example of a previously mentioned concept, so i removed "for example". i also have the impression that "jocular" was the wrong word here, but perhaps i am mistaken. i thought that "somewhat" would fit better with standard english than "semi-".tej 01:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

WOW. Thanks for the edits. You pretty much solved the problem :). I'll go ahead and stick in the two links ManekiNeko noted for references :). Thanks!Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm comparatively new here and haven't participated in any debate here before, so if this isn't formatted right, I'm sorry.

I am becoming severely irritated at what I have added about the science-fiction/Asperger thing being removed as supposedly anti-Aspie. I am not, having both ADHD and a lesser case of AS myself, and with a son similarly afflicted.

I am anti-cultural bigotry. There is a long, established history of science fiction being regarded as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff", with a similar lack of regard for those who read it. This whole "that explains the science fiction weirdos -- they all have a personality deficit disorder" attitude is a slam which stains anyone who is a fan of the genre, and it is NOT "neutral point of view" to let a bigotry, even one held by a professional in the field, go unremarked-upon. Try substituting some other group for Star Trek fans in Attwood's remark, like Jews or blacks or Democrats, and see if it still sounds harmless.

Davidkevin 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Davidkevin

Explicitly describing it as bigotry still isn't NPOV or encyclopedic, in the least. This is not a grey area and it is not negotiable. You don't find such language on the page describing the Holocaust, for example, no matter how clear it seems to some (probably virtually all) people that words like "bigotry" apply. PurplePlatypus 00:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed it to the softer word "prejudice". I'm not trying to be inflammatory or non-encyclopedic in style but I think that this prejudice/bigotry exists, and to not at least note it is in fact not encyclopedic, in the larger sense of the word.

I see that you claim to have written most of the article. Look, I'm not trying to pee in your pool, pardon the phrase. I don't dispute any of the good work Dr. Attwood has done, and I'm not trying to mess up your article. But to haphazardly classify entire groups of people, "jokingly" or not, as having a serious personality deficit disorder, is at mininum careless on his part, and at worst, yes, bigotry, and it seems to me, perhaps naively, that an article on the topic which is intended to cover the entire topic, should have a mention of it in some fashion.

Davidkevin 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to deal with one admittedly fairly minor thing, I didn't write most of the article, though a fair chunk of it is my work. My biggest contribution was taking what was once an incredibly disorganized dog's breakfast of an article and editing it into something FA-worthy (it was already an FA before that, but the standards for featured articles changed and it was in danger of losing that status at one time). By no means did I do this single-handedly, but I think it's safe to say I was the single largest contributor. But I couldn't have done it if there hadn't been lots of good stuff there long before my arrival; it was just a bit haphazard. Many paragraphs in the article as it stands today are Frankenstein's monsters I assembled from bits that were in three or four different places before, but for the most part you can't tell they were stitched together in that way; they actually read better than the originals. (Others have since improved them even further, of course; I don't edit this article much anymore.) Just thought I'd take a moment to clear that up.

As for the content, I like the current wording a lot better. I'm not going to mess with it for now, but I won't stop anyone else doing so either; there seem to be a lot of good editors that watch this article. You and they will hit a consensus eventually, and it'll all be good. That's how Wikipedia works, when it's at its best. PurplePlatypus 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what Attwood said as bigotry. I'm a science fiction fan, a geek, and an Aspie -- and when Attwood says something like that, I nod and think "yup, he's probably right. No wonder so many of my friends are also geeks and SF fans. And no wonder I feel so at home among them." I think that reading "that explains the science fiction weirdos -- they all have a personality deficit disorder" into it is seeing a slam that isn't actually there. It's not bigotry, just an acknowledgement that SF is an area of interest well-suited to the Aspie mind. But no one said all SF fans are Aspies, nor do any of us here think that being an Aspie is a negative thing, really. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

When DOCTOR Attwood says something like that, I think "He's making medical diagnoses about thousands of people he's never even met, much less examined."

Whether we like it or not, having AS is regarded in the mainstream culture as having a mental disorder: AS disqualifies one from military service, from being a cop or a firefighter, from being electable to political office. The broad brush, even used with the intention of jest, is damaging -- if said about an individual, even in the same joking manner, it very well could be grounds for a libel or slander suit, and it strikes me that if it's wrong to disparage a stranger in this way, it's more wrong to disparage a bunch of strangers.

Davidkevin 00:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

David, you've also posted the above to my user page. I'll answer it here if you don't mind. Firstly, you do not quote your sources (other than the one in the Asperger syndrome article which doesn't support your claim) so according to the Wikipedia rules your additions have to go. I posted a question to your talk page in order to get some background and see if I'm wrong. From your response here, it appears that I am correct, so I would recommend that you take the axe you have to grind with Attwood somewhere else where it might do some good. Attwood's jocular speculation does not have anything to do with Asperger's syndrome. Please realise that Attwood does not represent Aspies. For all you know, I might disagree with him completely and could write pages why I believe he is wrong. I could, for example, take your advice, substitute one thing for another and replace your contribution to SF Fandom with the following: "There is a theory held by some mental health professionals who deal with fandom, including leading expert Dr. Tony Attwood, that many Aspies' personalities match those of SF fans, and therefore most Aspies are SF fans. This rather sweeping generalization is regarded by some as an offensive stereotype, reflecting cultural bigotry on the part of non-Aspie health professionals." But personal beliefs (your and mine) are not relevant to Wikipedia. Bottom line, I do not think the Asperger syndrome article is the place to discuss this and if the Attwood page is a good place, you should still quote your sources in order to let your criticism stand. Otherwise, next thing you know Attwood will be claiming this is libel and all that. Finally, I suggest that you study WP rules before adding POV stuff. And just maybe you could subscribe to WikiEN-L and lurk there for a while. And please forgive my brusqueness. Anywhere else I would rewrite and rewrite until it was totally NT but not here.  AvB ÷ talk 02:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, it isn't a two-way street: for a psychiatric professional to falsely characterize someone with AS as also being a Star Trek fan will not damage her or him. For a psychiatric professional to falsely characterize a Star Trek fan as having a pervasive personality disorder can be life-destroying. People can lose their security clearances, their jobs (not everybody works in IT, y'know), the control over their finances (as per recent stories in the Los Angeles Times about professional conservators), even the custody of their children.

Perhaps Dr. Attwood is really only kidding -- nonetheless, for someone who is regarded as a world authority in his speciality, at best it's careless, given that it can be taken seriously, given his stature, and given the damage which can result.

Davidkevin 08:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

David, it follows from my and your arguments that you and I are both correct, so I've changed the article to reflect both views. I hope you can agree with the change. I've removed your arguments, which - while both compelling and applicable to the opposite POV - only served to convince other editors and have no place in the article itself. If you agree, you may want to similarly update the SF fandom article. (The Attwood article still needs a better quote I think.) Thanks,  AvB ÷ talk 02:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can live with the current phrasing.

Then why revert it two weeks later? Did you find a source? Or are you Cyberstalking me? (now on Talk:Tony Attwood, User_talk:Davidkevin, and here AvB ÷ talk 13:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, I just removed the three words "or vice versa". After giving the matter further thought it occurred to me that a.) the reverse was inaccurate, and b.) constituted a "weasle-wording", which is mentioned as undesirable in the NPOV article you keep throwing at me.

Cyberstalking? You're nuts, lady. I don't know who you are, and I don't care who you are. I care very much about this *issue*, and evidently you do as well as we keep crossing paths on variations of it. But you, yourself? Baloney. (I must say I admire your nerve, though, as a false accusation such as that is greatly useful in diverting an argument from its merits into irrelevancies.)

Davidkevin 13:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

P. S.: I never heard of you until you starting going from article to article to article which I had edited deleting what I had written. If anyone is stalking anyone, it's more accurate to say that you're doing it to me than I am doing it to you, although I think it's more your need to see Dr. Attwood unsullied than any real stalking.

And, finally, false accusations of criminal behavior such as this are libelous. I respectfully request you retract or delete it and apologize immediately.

Davidkevin 14:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyberstalking is about harassment and excessive personal attacks, not about discussing edits that actually don't even need discussion but could have been reverted immediately.  AvB ÷ talk 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I retract what I said about your being nuts, and apologize. You're not nuts, you're just making an ad hominem attack in an attempt to manipulate the conflict.

By the definition of "wikistalking" given in the harassment article you just cited, your behavior is Wikistalking, not mine. Personally, I wish I had never had any contact with you whatsoever.

And while I'm not goofy enough to go through the hassle of attempting to file a lawsuit in international court (so you're safe there), it's not a violation of Wikipedia rules to make note again of the fact that you've libelled me. Common decency requires that you apologize and retract your remarks, and I again respectfully request that you do this immediately.

Davidkevin 14:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you do so yourself. I stand by everything I have said. Also, I take your mention of a lawsuit VERY SERIOUSLY indeed and take it as a direct threat. AvB ÷ talk 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't take it back after all: you *are* nuts. Anybody who can read "I'm not goofy enough to...file a lawsuit" as "I'm going to sue you" is delusional. I'm through talking to you. Bye bye, and remember to take your medicine.

Davidkevin 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen similar quotations from Dr. Attwood more than once in the last five years in other contexts on other web pages. I am in process of doing another websearch to find them, but so far have not; it may be that the pages I saw before have been taken down. Nonetheless, I will continue to search with several different engines, and you may rest assured that if and when I again find those other instances where he said that, I will post links to them here on Wikipedia.

OK, and by all means post findings here or write them into the article(s). See also my response on your Talk page.  AvB ÷ talk 13:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC out on the Tony Attwood article (see Talk:Tony Attwood) which deals with the same issue: whether or not Davidkevin's unsourced comment on Attwood's remark constitutes a violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV or other policies. The RfC outcome will affect other articles, especially the Asperger Syndrome article. I have withdrawn from the Attwood discussion and hope others will post their comments, positive or negative, at the bottom of this page. AvB ÷ talk 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the article once again libels thousands of people.

Why don't we just word it this way:

In addition, some (notably Tony Attwood) have suggested that aspects of the subcultures of some obsessive interests (for example in science fiction fandom or train spotting) may be explained by the conjecture that a significant portion thereof are mentally ill.

or

In addition, some (notably Tony Attwood) have suggested that aspects of the subcultures of some obsessive interests (for example in science fiction fandom or train spotting) may be explained by the conjecture that a significant portion thereof are nuttier than fruitcakes.

They're both just other ways of saying what it currently says.

Davidkevin 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See wikt:conjecture. Your claim is absurd. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think others have already explained why this doesn't make any sense. (And libel? Being called a possible Aspie is libel? It's something to be proud about, if you ask me.) Attwood didn't say that "sf fans = Aspies," or if he seemed to, I believe it is an out-of-context interpretation. He said Aspies are frequently sf fans, and yes, there are a lot of them. It's not the same thing. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's how I read it, too. He was simply putting it into context for a no-specialist audience, to my reading. But Davidkevin seems to be obsessed by this one comment. I'm sure there's a term for people who gat fixations on things other people regard as trivial, what could it be I wonder?... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Evidently you either did not read or have chosen to ignore what I wrote to you on my User Talk page, so I'm going to repeat it here:

I remain seriously concerned about Dr. Attwood's comments, regardless of how minor you personally perceive them to be. As an internationally known expert, his statements can be introduced into legal procedings which can destroy lives. People can lose security clearances, employment, child custody, or control over their own finances on the basis of false association between Star Trek and science fiction fandoms and Asperger Syndrome. Even if they are simply the *examples* of fixations you purport them to be, his casual use of them is careless, and his repeated use of them over the course of several years does lead one to think he believes they are significantly related. Science fiction has been referred to as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff" for many decades, and here is a mental health professional who is saying, in effect, yes, interest in that genre is evidence of mental illness. It is not a small matter.

As I said earlier on this page:

Whether we like it or not, having AS is regarded in the mainstream culture as having a mental disorder: AS disqualifies one from military service, from being a cop or a firefighter, from being electable to political office. The broad brush, even used with the intention of jest, is damaging -- if said about an individual, even in the same joking manner, it very well could be grounds for a libel or slander suit, and it strikes me that if it's wrong to disparage a stranger in this way, it's more wrong to disparage a bunch of strangers.

I am not "obsessed" with this issue, I have a serious concern about innocent people being maligned and even possibly harmed by mischaracterization of a pop culture interest as a mental disorder by an expert whose words can be misused. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, or you think it has no effect on your own lives, but for those to whom it has happened, or could happen, it matters quite a bit.

Since my efforts to mitigate this are considered unacceptable, I ask one of you to please rewrite this section to make it less damaging yet still fit within your notions of NPOV, as was done in the related entries. I don't believe that's too much to ask.

Davidkevin 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Innocent people? Innocent of what David? Of having Asperger Syndrome? I'm reading your comment as saying having Asperger Syndrome = being guilty of a crime and in this case YOU are the one who is libelling a whole bunch of strangers.

It already is in the article in NPOV terms. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply repeating a potentially damaging mischaracterization without noting any objection or minimalization is an interesting definition of NPOV.

Look, if you're angry at me for my persistence about this, I'm sorry, but if so I sincerely hope you're not letting that cloud your judgment. What you're defining as NPOV now is not how you defined it in this context on 28 January.

Davidkevin 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all science fiction fans are Aspies. I am an Aspie and I do love science fiction, but I also know several people who also love science fiction and yet aren't Aspies. This needs to be cited. We can't be discriminating against science fiction and Aspies here. Scorpionman 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not all SciFi fans are Aspies but statisticly Aspies a likely to be SciFi fans. Symmetric Chaos 15:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe Tony Attwood noted that Aspies identify with Data (Star Trek), which makes a lot of sense. That's something interesting that could be mentioned in the article. Neurodivergent 19:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a great point Neuro and could serve to explain at some level why so many Aspie's enjoy science fiction (especialy Star Trek which has the logical Vulcans and Data) due to the fact that a persons position is not decided by social "ass kissing" but rather by expertise and ability. Symmetric Chaos 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As a random Aspie reading this, and a science fiction fan, it seems pretty darn clear the 2 groups overlap. What's wrong about mentioning it? The fact that it confrims some people in their silly prejudices is not enough reason to ignore the truth.

And, I, like others, do not see Aspergers as something to be ashamed of. I'd like a cite to "keeping us out of the military, police, etc".

Charles

Proposal: move page (rename) to "Asperger syndrome"

It seems that academic and psychiatric authorities (eg national institute of neurological disorders and stroke, part of the nih, at http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/detail_asperger.htm) prefer to call it "Asperger syndrome" rather than "Asperger's syndrome." I have seen parallel mentions on reputable sites of "Asperger syndrome" and "Asperger's disorder." (ie, the possessive apostrophe is only used with "disorder," not "syndrome." I suggest we move the page to reflect this. When I was trying to figure out which way was most correct, I came to Wikipedia; so I think we should try to be as accurate as possible, even if it's a rather quibbling change.tej

I agree - in fact despite not being mentioned in wikipedia much Asperger syndrome still gets more google hits. I'll wait a day for possible objections - so if anyone objects please say so now :) - otherwise I'll move it tomarro. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tej. Though I saw it called both Asperger Syndrome and Asperger's Syndrome in the course of my research, the former seems to be significantly more common, especially in material from the last few years. Asperger's Disorder is preferred by the one practicing psychiatrist I've mentioned it to but I would prefer to steer clear of that for reasons related to the "Shift away from view as a disease" material in the article. PurplePlatypus 21:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, the move function doesn't work for this page. I see that it's been added to the list of requests for administrator-assisted moves. Who knows how long that will take, but hopefully some wikigod will take care of it.tej 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

i'm glad to see the move happened. does anyone know why the normal "move" function didn't work? i can't find a good explanation.tej 08:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the redirect page had a history (more than one edit) - so I had to delete that, then move, then restore the history of both this and the talk page. That's in addition to moving/redirecting the FAC page and the three talk archives. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits to sowell quackery

the second I find who keeps changing my edits about that quack sowell..Shit..their in for it..! (unsigned comment by 68.193.45.148)

Your edits are making the article's content more biased. This is why they keep getting reverted. We need to present both sides of the issue, as it is currently a controversial issue. Sowell may be a quack but there are a lot of people who may believe what he does, so it should be mentioned in the article. ManekiNeko | Talk 00:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It may be unbiased but it's still quackery

Sowell is not a doctor or a autism expert in anyway. [personal attack removed --fvw]. I WILL keep changing it and if you ban my IP i'll do under a different IP.

So what? Autism experts and doctors have an agenda. They want to keep their jobs. That's why we see the research crap coming out of there, like "extreme maleness" theories, viral infections, brain damage and you name it. --Rdos 08:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And then we'll ban that IP and keep reverting you. Discuss your changes or give up, you will not get your way by blindly reverting. --fvw* 02:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any particular need to mention Sowell either. This anon guy may be obnoxious, but he's also right as far as I can see. PurplePlatypus 03:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read Sowell, and from what I see here, I certainly wouldn't agree with Sowell, but the content does not seem to be inappropriate to me -- it seems to be a reasonable presentation of the POV those who don't think autism is involved. The fact that I (and many here, clearly) may think Sowell's idea is hogwash isn't relevant to whether his ideas should be mentioned here. What is relevant is whether Sowell is in any way notable enough to be mentioned in this context, I think. If he is, I thought his theory was addressed fairly. I don't know if he is or isn't that notable as I was trusting other editors on that issue. The content didn't have a whiff of linkspamming or anything like that -- I really do think it was written up in a neutral way. ManekiNeko | Talk 09:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Purple.

This could be the start of something beautiful.lolJoeMele 04:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing the bit if people here want to do so. Just responding to the general sentiment.. --fvw* 10:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

HEY FOLKS!!! JOE HIMSELF HAS NOW BEEN THROWN OUT OF AFF. He was one of their stalwarts. These purges are getting like Stalin and Trotsky now. That must give you all some second thoughts. (from an Edinburgh libraries public computer, 12:54 Oct 7. )

Hey, Tern, how's the weather in Edinburgh? Funny how the edits coming from the public library IP, 193.39.159.3 are on topics you edited with the Tern account. ManekiNeko | Talk 12:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think we should vote on sowell part

so what about a vote on removing that part on sowell... (unsigned post by 68.193.45.148)

Actually it seems like there's a consensus to remove it... Anyone agree/disagree? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree -- I don't understand why presenting an alternate viewpoint should not be done. (However, as I mentioned, I have not read Sowell, and I do not know what sort of reputation he has in this area. Maybe the whole world thinks he is a quack. And based on the presentation of his ideas here, I certainly don't agree with him.) It still seems that people are trying to remove the content specifically because they don't agree with Sowell, and that is POV. That is my concern here. However, if I'm the only one who feels that way, so be it. I will go by the consensus and won't revert. I just think presenting conflicting ideas in controversial topics neutrally is generally a Good Thing. 68.193.45.148, I think based on your edits you are perhaps leaning a bit towards POV (trying to add the list of suspected autistic celebrities, wanting Sowell's anti-AS ideas removed), and I sympathize with your intent (as an aspie myself who does not support pro-cure ideas, etc.), but I just don't see Wikipedia as the place to make that point. But being rigid about objectivity is undoubtedly one of my more aspieish traits... ManekiNeko | Talk 11:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus or not, NPOV requires the article to mention alternative theories. Since psychiatry is not very inclined to present alternative, non-dysfunction theories, there has to be a lot lower threshold of published material on competing theories. Remember that even BS Sensory Integration Dysfunction has a published record, but no confirmative research. i vote for keep --Rdos 08:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't around when this discussion was talking place, but I notice that there are no Sowell references in the article anymore. I've read his main book on the subject. While probably non-scientific, I think it's of general interest. I'd say a mention of that probably belongs in the high functioning autism article. Sowell deals with kids who have speech delay. Aspie kids don't have speech delay ("clinically significant" speech delay according to the DSM, whatever that means.) In any case, it should be noted that he's an economist. His observations are based on the fact that his son was a late talker, and I guess he didn't like his son labeled autistic or retarded. His son I believe is now a software engineer, which Sowell takes as proof that he's of course not autistic. (I'm a software engineer too.) I've heard rumors that his son does in fact appear to be autistic. Sowell's criteria for distinguishing between HFA kids and "Einstein Syndrome" kids is vague, ad hoc and uncientific; basically this: (1) They have several engineers or musicians as close relatives and (2) They understand at least some of what they are told. Sowell I believe tracks the progress of many kids who have been referred to him. It's silly to suppose that his group of kids are, in any significant proportion, going to grow up to be like Einstein or Edison. However, his results may be of interest in other respects. I don't recall the exact claim, but I believe most of his kids start to speak within 2 years of the parents starting to worry (without so much as speech therapy most of them). Isn't that pretty much equivalent to the results of some ABA studies? (ABA has not been validated by double-blind studies and it's unclear how kids are selected). Now imagine that these kids had been referred to Lovaas instead of Sowell. He also refers to research of a professor, Camarata I believe is the name -- if this professor has some published results, that would be more scientifically relevant as well. Neurodivergent 14:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, while we were discussing whether to keep the Sowell references in the article, 68.193.45.148 seemed to agree to leave the material in while a discussion was ongoing in here, but then deleted the material only a few minutes later while it was still being discussed. I was tired of dealing with him so I didn't put it back that time. Since no one else has either, I guess one could say that consensus is that the material isn't necessary. But I did find it inappropriate to delete it under those circumstances. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

why not?

so should i remove it... (unsigned post by 68.193.45.148)

Patience... give people a few days to respond. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 11:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright..I removed it,there is consenus it doesn't belong why is it there?

I made the edit to the sowell part. I thought this time there was a bit of consenus on it but nooo.. It get's reverted! Who keeps doing this? (unsigned comment by 68.193.45.148)

The history for the page will show who is doing it. Several people have done it; not just one. Be patient, though. Give people a chance to comment. (For example, I was unable to get to Wikipedia to post a response to your "vote" request until now.) By the way, you should sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of each one. Thanks! ManekiNeko | Talk 11:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

alrirght...Geez

there are a couple of soultions to this.That list it include in the back of "a gift or a curse" I'm going to take out I didn't know about that source rule witht names .I still think that the sowell has got to go but I'll hold off for a while Alright! Does any one think it has relevence? Relavance is certianlly more important that NPOV if you ask me...and the section i had with the links on gift and curse why does that get removed god...I'm new...for just a bit's sparing please 68.193.45.148 11:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for signing your post! :) Clearly our edits are overlapping at the moment here and on the article page. I reverted the article just now for two reasons -- you probably figured out that one reason is that we are in here discussing this issue right now. So I rv'ed that for the moment so we can at least discuss this for a bit longer if anyone wants to contribute. (As I mentioned above, I will go by what consensus says -- it's just that no one had really responded yet to Ryan's request for disagreement, and now that I have... well, I hope we can have a discussion.) Also, the list of rumored autistic celebrities is a separate issue -- those shouldn't be posted here without sources. (Not just random websites, either.) So that had to be reverted as well. That's been discussed here on the Talk page in the past, I think. If there are other changes to your stuff that you are asking about, I'm not sure because I didn't do them, but maybe someone else will answer. ManekiNeko | Talk 11:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

PS.

I don't know about this.I did actually do these edts i'll check it once and leave it.'kay..I'll just leave it.

Wow, yeah, it looks like someone else started vandalizing the article right after we were talking about it here... things have been getting wacky out there! ManekiNeko | Talk 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the part I introduced in "a gift and a curse" but I didn't leave it just going to leave most things alone untill they are discussed.It's for the good of the wiki!68.193.45.148 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The part about the speculative diagnoses was discussed at this section. User:Stevenj unilaterally removed all the speculative diagnoses that were there, and noone objected, (in fact I was quite relieved personally!), so they were removed forever. The list you added was similar to what was there before, so I thought you knew about the previous discussion. And yes, the last couple of hours have been interesting: I've recently gotten back from a family party, so I've just found out about the new spree of vandalism. - Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Geek syndrome section

I found several very offensive claims here. First it was claimed that there were consesus that geeks were only occasionally "aflicted" by AS. People wanting to reinstall this need to show the published research on this. Knowing *one* or a couple of geeks that are not AS is not sufficient. I also removed the claims that self-diagnosis is dangerous. Many self-diagnosed would find this offensive. --Rdos 08:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Self-diagnosis is problematic and error prone, in general. I don't think there is any serious dispute about that. PurplePlatypus 09:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please back up that statement in published research, specifically when it comes to ASD. This is a POV statement, and thus should not be part of a featured article. As I mentioned the profiles of self-diagnosed and diagnosed AS show little difference in the Aspie-quiz. In fact, it seems like people on radical asperger-sites have *higher* scores, probably because they know themselves better. I'd say medical diagnosis in itself is dangerous, because it relieves the indivual of self-identifying problems. I vote for remove. --Rdos 09:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Old discussion, but I can't help noting that an external diagnosis of a 'spectrum disorder' is problematic and error prone. Psychiatrists pretend that they can tell what's going on in the mind of others, but this is ridiculous. Ultimately the affected person is the only one who can determine if he is or is not something. Any other determination is clearly unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscience. Neurodivergent 19:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss before doing something drastic like wide-scale POV changes - this is a featured article. I agree with PurplePlatypus about self-diagnosis - its a rather widely known thing and is not POV. Also, please don't add back the neanderthal theory - if you have an alternative feel free to suggest that - thanks! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, this is ridiculous. Weren't you the one that demanded published evidences for each and every claim in the Neanderthal theory? Now you propose that 'widely known' (obviously by Ryan and PurplePlatypus) is something we should just accept, and despite that I presented the evidence that there is no difference between diagnosed and self-identified AS. It might be true in other areas, like real medical diagnosis like cancer, but has no relevance for AS. In fact, diagnosis are done by questioning the person to be diagnosed and family. There is no biological test for AS. It's all about behavior. --Rdos 18:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Ryan also reverted the supposed "truth" that Geeks are only superficially AS. He'd better provide some (published) evidences for this too. If not, I'm tempted to put a POV check tag on the whole article --Rdos 18:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

With respect to self-diagnosis, at least, my view is that you have the burden of proof exactly backwards. It's the person making the surprising and almost bizarre claim (self-diagnosis is not problematic) that needs to provide citations, not the person reporting the mainstream view. The problematic nature of self-diagnosis is mentioned in passing in a number of the AS-related articles and books I've read, but I don't have the references handy (they were all borrowed from my university library). But none should be needed - the claim was considered obvious and commonplace enough by Gillberg and whomever else to not need citations in those publications, so I don't see why it would need any here. I would be very surprised if you could find a psychologist who does think self-diagnosis is reliable. (You did mention one test, but I have no idea whether that was a controlled experiment in a scientific journal or a self-selecting survey on a random web site, and in any event, there is no single reliable test for AS - as you correctly point out, the process of diagnosis is more nuanced than that.)

Incidentally, if I thought self-diagnosis were reliable, my own user page would say right out that I have AS, not that I "may or may not". PurplePlatypus 03:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You and Ryan are entitled to your POV regarding self-diagnosis. The problem is the wording (which is not neutral) and the fact that self-identification tests have been removed from the article. This makes this a POV-issue. If for example, there were links to popular self-identification tests, like the AQ-test and/or Aspie-quiz, it would not be a problem. I suggest a proper section about diagnosis. In this section you can put both the idea that some find self-diagnosis problematic, can present the most useful aspect of professional assessment (support from society) and give links to self-identification. THat would solve the problem of NPOV. --Rdos 06:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue completely. It is not my POV. It is fact, or as close as you're going to get in an area like psychology. NPOV does NOT mean we have to be neutral between ideas that are accepted by virtually all professionals in the relevant field, and ideas that are considered ridiculous by same. PurplePlatypus 07:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that self-diagnosis being "problematic" is an AS-related thing, necessarily -- it's considered problematic in general in psychological and medical fields. We aren't supposed to rely on self-diagnosis most of the time when we have physical illness, either. However the term "dangerous" that was in the article always bothered me a bit -- it was as if it was implying that self-diagnosis would cause spontaneous combustion or something. :) I don't think it is necessary to say self-diagnosis is dangerous in the article. The way it reads now, saying that there was a "rash of self-diagnoses" but not saying whether those were good, bad, correct, or incorrect, seems like a good way to deal with it. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Fact? Not many things in psychology are facts. For example, if Simon Baron-Cohen thought this was a 'fact', why did he construct the AQ-test? Why did Tony Atwood write the paper "The Discovery of Aspie"? Why put up the Australian AS-scale? The Aspie-quiz draws sources of questions from 9 different sources, most which are from professionals in the field. IOW, I think it is highly unlikely this is a 'fact' agreed upon by most professionals. --Rdos 08:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about Attwood or the Australian scale, but Baron-Cohen did not create the AQ test specifically for self-diagnosis if I understand my reading correctly. And in fact he makes an effort to explain that a high score does not necessarily indicate that one is autistic. Having said that, though, I believe that self-dx'ed aspies are quite often right, but of course I wouldn't want to see that in the article unless there's a good citation. (I keep hearing that Attwood said something about this... did he? Anyone know the citation?) ManekiNeko | Talk 23:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Purple. Rather then those being removed, why not suggest a different wording? Your first attempt "no consensus" was better - but you need to realize that consensus doesn't mean every single person, rather it means a vast super-majority (80%?) which is true in this case. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The consesus issue cannot be resolved, because there is no research in the field. --Rdos 08:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the issue of burden of proof. It is the article that is proposing something (self-diagnosis being problematic, Geeks not being AS). I'm not advocating for inserting that self-diagnosis is fine and all Geeks are Asperger's. I think these claims should be removed. Therefore, I think the burden of proof lies on the people that are proposing unsupported ideas. --Rdos 06:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let me come at this whole issue from a different angle.

I assume from your above comments that you agree with this much: Geeks universally (or very commonly) being AS is a clear example of a claim that would need citations. What you may or may not have noticed, however, is that the way the article currently reads (after your deletions) is tantamount to making this claim.

Similarly, even if I assume for the sake of argument that you are correct that about not being able to make claims one way or the other about self-diagnosis (even though I think that's BS), the article as it stands strongly implies that self-diagnosis is not problematic, and even by your arguments (let alone mine) this is just as POV and unsourced as the reverse claim.

For these reasons, I will ascede to removing these specific claims from the article if, and only if, a more neutral way to end the geek paragraph can be found, one that does not carry these implications. Any suggestions? PurplePlatypus 04:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The current version might very well be POV in the other direction. Since Ryan already had reverted my changes once, I didn't put much effort in the new change. I did give a suggestion on how to deal with the self-diagnosis issue above. At any rate, it hardly belongs in the Geek section. I suggest you change the Geek section yourself so it becomes more NPOV. --Rdos 05:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Why me? I thought it was okay the way it was. (Besides, I wrote, drastically rearranged or otherwise significantly influenced about half of the article as it is; I kinda feel like I should let others have a turn, especially since the sections I haven't touched are ones where others are clearly more knowledgable.) PurplePlatypus

Well, I tweaked it slightly. I think it is neutral now. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah - there were some real issues were that. Be very careful people about equating computers as a definate trait of Asperger's syndrome :). Anyway, its pretty neutral now, though I'm still working on the last sentence a bit. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, and more to the point - what do you guys think? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, now I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you. (I agree that computer geekness is not necessarily Aspie, though -- good catch there.) But I don't agree with the change of:

"In common with those with Asperger's Syndrome, geeks may exhibit an extreme professional or casual interest in computers, science, engineering and related fields, and may be introverted or prioritize work over other aspects of life. However, no determination has yet been made of whether the "Geek Syndrome" personality type has any direct relation to autism."

to:

"Although geeks may exhibit an extreme professional or casual interest in computers, science, engineering and related fields, and may be introverted or prioritize work over other aspects of life such as those with Asperger's syndrome, there is a general consensus among professionals that most geeks are arguably "variant normal" and do not exhibit autistic-spectrum behaviors. However, there are some that disagree and believe the rise of Asperger's syndrome is somewhat of a social movement, rather then a lifelong condition."

The "general consensus" needs a citation, I believe -- because I just don't think there has been all that much research, if any, on the issue. (Citations to prove me wrong are welcome.) :) And I don't know what you are saying, exactly, by "there are some that disagree and believe the rise of Asperger's syndrome is somewhat of a social movement, rather then a lifelong condition" -- and that definitely needs a citation too, in this context. Who are the "some that disagree"? I think my variation -- "no determination has yet been made of whether the "Geek Syndrome" personality type has any direct relation to autism" -- is more NPOV in that it's basically saying the true neutral statement: no one knows whether there is a connection. I'm not saying there is or there isn't. No one knows. It hasn't been proven, but no one's disproven it either.

I would probably rephrase it as follows: 'Like some people with Asperger's Syndrome, geeks may exhibit an extreme professional or casual interest in computers, science, engineering and related fields, and may be introverted or prioritize work over other aspects of life. However, no determination has yet been made of whether the "Geek Syndrome" personality type has a direct relation to autism, or is simply a "variant normal" type that is not part of the autistic spectrum.' And perhaps the bit about the social movement, too, but I would like to see a citation and some clarity there. Thanks for listening. ManekiNeko | Talk 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your version and put it in. Thanks a lot for that :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! And I just went in and fixed a spelling error (of sorts) in my version. Silly me. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 01:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Self identification

I saw that Ryan reverted a link to the AQ test. I suppose (reading the other discussion about Geeks), he think self-diagnosis is a horrible thing. However, this too is a NPOV-issue. Many people are interested in self-tests for AS. For instance, more than 1000 people take the Aspie-quiz each month. Therefore, I think there should be a section about this, or a separate article on the subject. Suggestions are welcome. --Rdos 04:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a link to the Geek Syndrome article and even a mention that the AQ test may be found with the article. So it's not completely inaccessible. I don't really think that it's Wikipedia's place to provide self-diagnosis links, though -- do we do this for other syndromes and conditions? It seems maybe less than encyclopedic. OTOH if the test is mentioned in the article a link to it is not a bad thing. ManekiNeko | Talk 04:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No we don't have this for other syndromes (I've looked at a ton of them) and WP:NOT a how-to guide. We'd be treading on thin water if we did so. Besides, the link to the wired magazine article is there in the references - we need to keep the links to major organizations etc. otherwise it turns into the linkfarm thing again. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, describing the AQ as a "self-test for AS" is, at best, a gross and misleading oversimplification. PurplePlatypus 05:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- I think Dr. Baron-Cohen would probably be horrified! ManekiNeko | Talk 05:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether Baron-Cohen would be horrified or not is quite beside the point. His AQ-test also isn't very well designed as it only is asking about negative aspects of AS. I also doubt he has done a proper evaluation of it. There are many other tests that seems more reliable like the Aspie-quiz and Geek-test. As for other "syndromes" and conditions not having links to self-tests, for instance look at INTP. The people believing in self-identification also frequently are the ones that believe AS is mostly a personality type, and as such is possible to self-identificate, just like temperament types. --Rdos 04:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Baron-Cohen has done serious studies including the AQ test. But the results weren't "If you score highly on the test, you have AS" -- more like "If you score highly on the test, you might want to get evaluated for AS, because Aspies score highly on the test as well." There is a difference. Thinking of the test as the super-duper Aspie test is simplifying it way too much. As far as the Aspie-quiz and Geek test, have studies been done on the reliability of those tests? Re: INTP, I don't think of that as a syndrome or condition, really. Though admittedly there is a fine line there... (forgot to sign when I posted this, so here's a sig now) ManekiNeko | Talk 09:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the first version of the Aspie-quiz was evaluated using a control group which selected several available diagnosis. The NT-cntrol group was first people that selected "I don't know", then it used various neutral web-sites through the referral mechanism. There is an extensive evaluation at: [1]. The evaluation of version II is not ready yet. I do not agree with you that Aspie and AS is not basically the same thing. --Rdos 04:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a new article about self-identification, but it really should be merged. --Rdos 03:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

PAGE MOVED

Just to let everyone know I moved the page as outlined above. It was extremely involved and exausting though. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up the page to match the new title. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 10:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

asperger and vocational choices

any research anywhere about what professions have significantly higher proportions of people with asperger? from what i read in the article one could surmise science, applied research and technology are fields in which some with asperger would thrive. i have close friends and family in this category and wondered if there is any research? Tiksustoo 17:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to see that too, but as I noted in the Prevalence section, there isn't much systematic research on Asperger adults (dammit). There is a study that shows that of those with AS who go to university, most are in math and the hard sciences (to nobody's great surprise - what I would like to know is how many of the ones in arts are in philosophy, but the study didn't say). There were also some comments in one of the books I consulted to the effect that more Aspies than you'd think settle into undemanding, repetitive jobs, such as most factory work, because apparently they mind the repetiveness a lot less than most non-autistics. Which on a personal note, is so far from accurately describing me that it's one of the reasons I'm not that sure that I'm an aspie myself. PurplePlatypus 05:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A mention in one book is hardly conclusive and besides Asperger's is a spectrum not a highly specific diagnosis. Symmetric Chaos 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Meyers-Briggs: theory or fact?

--As of May 2005 LukeH added that Meyers-Briggs Personalities like INTJ and INTP can correlate to the Asperger's. Where's the evidence behind it? I know all about INTP/INTJ and I am an aspie, a high-functioning one at that, but an aspie. Where's the evidence necessary to maintain this article's integrity? Should we move the statement until evidence is shown? Wikipedia is not for personal theories. It is for published and reported science and data.

I also think this was discussed previously in the archived discussions, but not resolved.

It seems quite likely that INTP and Aspie are correlated, but it has hardly been proved by research. The Aspie-quiz I had 10 participants from an INTP-related site, and they scored above normal. However, this is a too small sample. However, judging by the description of INTP, it very well describes an Aspie. --Rdos 08:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the result you describe isn't so much the sample's size (which, unintuitively, could be sufficient if the difference were big enough) as its nonrandom, self-selecting nature. But yeah, that section has been bothering me for a while too; it should probably be nuked as non-verifiable unless someone can show otherwise. It almost went away when I did my big reorganization, back when this article was a FARC. I can't remember why I kept it; I suspect it was because I thought one specific user might make a stink if I didn't. PurplePlatypus 04:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"whereas high-functioning autism ... INFJ" -- I've seen elsewhere INFJ associated with Asperger's and INTJ associated with autism, but I've found no source material for this. Where did this claim come from?

Eponymous diseases

User 68.4.112.118 deleted the link to the category Eponymous Diseases. I didn't see any reason for this, so I reverted it. Now that I think about it, it may be that he/she had an issue with calling AS a "disease." But since the editor didn't leave a summary there is no way to know. Anyway, it's back for now. I didn't think of the "disease" angle possibly being a problem until I'd already reverted it. What do you guys think? ManekiNeko | Talk 10:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect "disease", not "eponymous", was the reason, but as far as I can see the category should stay until someone makes a case otherwise here. PurplePlatypus 04:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I do think "disease" is an incorrect term in this case, and it does bother me, but it seems to me that the intent of that category is to include conditions and syndromes such as AS. ManekiNeko | Talk 21:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

other famous aspergerites

Bill Gates and Glenn Gould. Just stick those somewhere if you feel the need.

Only if you've got a reference for it. This has been discussed to death (and both of those have been mentioned before, especially Gates); the prevailing view is to hold such speculations to a rather high standard of verifiability. PurplePlatypus 04:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

About the afore mentioned

There was a few years ago a website that had an article about Gates having Aspergers syndrome but it's not up anymore that I know of.--Che Perez 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are rumors he was diagnosed, but there are similar rumors about Spielberg. If they are in fact diagnosed and not disclosing that, I can only conclude they are ashamed of themselves, which is a shame. It's the gay equivalent of being "in the closet". I understand Gates stims more than most Aspies, is socially ackward, and was into computers at a very young age. It's not a huge leap of reason to suggest he's Aspie. (An argument could be made that he doesn't fit the DSM-IV criteria in the strictest sense because he's successful). Neurodivergent 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree slightly with the above. I am a successful aspie, and know many others. Being aspergers is no handicap to being successful. Frankly, if you can navigate the NT world, I think Aspergers lends itself to being highly succesful. 65.96.190.185 04:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bravo

I myself have Asperger's Syndrome. This is a good article, don't argue about changing it. It is fine the way it is. JONJONAUG 16:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a great article. I also have Asberger's. Cryomaniac 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Accurate

A kid on my school bus says he has Asperger's Syndrome, and this article describes him perfectly. His obsession is Star Wars and TV (mainly Comedy Central).

Wonderful Article

This is one of the best articles I've ever seen about Asperger's, and I've seen plenty. Being Asperger's myself, and having a son (now 17) also with Asperger's (Don't tell me genetics doesn't play a major role.), we have a lot of first-hand experience to draw from, and this article rings very true. Great work.

Eidetic memory

I have Asperger syndrome, and am fairly active in self-advocacy. I don't personally know anyone who has an eidetic memory, though certainly some of us have a very strong memory for our areas of interest (in the same way a non-Autistic person who spent many hours a day in a mentally involving hobby or job would be likely to remember details that would be seen as minor by the general population). I think saying eidetic memory is in any way "usual" is decidedly pushing it. -- Pakaran 20:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Someone has placed a merge proposal on the article. My opinion: that's quite silly. Asperger's is mentioned in the Autism article, as it should be, but there is really no question that the topic deserves its own article which can provide more detailed information. Merging the content of the AS article with the Autism one would make a huge article (they are both already huge enough!). Not to mention that both are featured articles in their own right. I don't understand why it was felt necessary to suggest a merge in this case. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The merge proposal is ludicrous. PurplePlatypus 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a proposal would need some very good arguments indeed even if this hadn't been a featured article. I see this as vandalism. Besides, I'd say that a one-sided merge proposal is rather strange (s/he didn't place a merge proposal on the Autism article). The other edits by the same anonymous user were also problematic so I've reverted the article to the previous version. However, since I'm a relative newbie editor, any advice would be appreciated (e.g. do I need to do anything else or is the reversion enough?). Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just gone over today's edits by user (172.213.9.73). Although I had to correct one more edit (see DiGeorge syndrome), most edits were useful so I think any vandalism was not intended. The merge proposal may have been another way of saying that Asperger syndrome and classical autism belong together.  AvB ÷ talk 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks to all writing and fxing up this article. I have this disorder and could not have written a better article. Everything in there is true. There is nothing for me to edit! --Winter 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Spielberg source / Famous Aspies

There's a reference in the IMDB database which IMHO warrants inclusion in the Asperger syndrome article. Stephen Spielberg's entry says loud and clear: "Diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome." Comments anyone? Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We're going to need something better than that - IMDB can be unreliable at times. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to back up RN, it seems to be this exact point has been made before and someone listed several really dumb errors in IMDB. (It wasn't me and I don't think I even participated in the discussion.) Nobody seems to know where IMDB got their information, which I take to be the key question. PurplePlatypus 07:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! One of the reasons I'm asking is that I'm still a relative newbie here on WP and thought I'd check if I'd got a handle on the part of the NPOV rule I've interpreted as follows: WP does not report the truth as the editor knows it but as reported in the various media/etc. Even if it's wrong (unless other citable sources or common sense dictate otherwise). But that's just one interpretation of one rule, and I have already seen there's more than meets the eye on WP so any additional pointers from more experienced editors (present company included) would be much appreciated.  AvB ÷ talk 11:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You have indeed hit on a point that is difficult, subjective and sometimes a source of disagreement. I don't have a 100% satisfactory response to your point about "as reported in various media/etc"; Wikipedia runs on consensus, so if enough people disagree with RN and myself (and their reasons for doing so aren't total crap), then IMDB magically becomes a valid source. Personally I view them much the same way whoever wrote some of Wikipedia's FAQs suggests viewing Wikipedia itself; a good starting point for your research but not something to be relied upon as your sole source. I guess it comes down to how reliable one views a particular source as being. One example that is used often; we would not use the website of an extremist political group as a source, except for the purpose of reporting the views of that group specifically. But it must be admitted that this one may not be so clear-cut. PurplePlatypus 07:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, which I find very helpful. FWIW, from my own Internet searches I get the impression that this started out as a speculation around March 2002. I now agree that it would be better to leave this info out (or if it is mentioned in a WP article, to cite IMDB as its source). One would certainly expect that any reliable confirmation originally not available on the Internet (from e.g. a magazine interview) would have been picked up and posted all over the place by now, so we only have the one source, the IMDB. As pointed out elsewhere, Spielberg himself is probably aware of the info but has done nothing to dispel it so perhaps he agrees that he has AS traits. He probably doesn't find the AS label in any way offensive. Thanks again :-)  AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

should be easy to just write to gates and spielebergs PR people and get a statement?Tiksustoo 00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Although this option looks attractive, one of the Wikipedia rules explicitly forbids original research, and for good reason. AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New edit moved from article to talk for discussion

User:207.99.90.253 wrote:

Proponents of the extreme male brain theory often refer to systemizing vs emotionalising intelligence rather than male vs female intelligece in order to avoid possible confusion that autistic people are extremely masculine. Studies published in Science have shown that men fall almost universaly into the systemizing category and women almost universally into the emotializing category.

I started cleaning this up a bit, then realized it had already been said in the first paragraph of the Extreme male brain theory section. Any comments would be welcome. This is the cleaned-up version:

Proponents of the extreme male brain theory often refer to systemizing vs empathizing/emotionalising intelligence rather than male vs female intelligence. This may avoid possible confusion that autistic people are extremely masculine. A study (PMID: 16272115) published in Science has shown that females are stronger empathizers and males are stronger systemizers.

 AvB ÷ talk 15:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of my comment was to point out that the "extreme male brain" section focuses heavily on male v female which is not what the theory really states. User:207.99.90.25312:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Why not add it to the article? (But don't forget policies/guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:CITE.) Also, could you please sign your Talk page edits? Simply add a space and four tildes before clicking on Save. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted my interpretation of User:207.99.90.253's edit back into the article. Please improve at will, as always. AvB ÷ talk 10:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody agree with my viewpoint that the paragraph talking about "females with Asperger syndrome do not necessarily come across as particularly masculine personalities" should be removed entirely? This interpretation of the extreme male brain theory seems to me to be obviously not how it was intended to be interpreted. The theory is all about the thought differences between an "average" man and an "average" woman and what would happen if these differences were taken to an extreme. It's much more to do with empathising and systemising than it is to do with actual personalities and interests. In fact the actual autism article calls it the "empathising-systemising" theory to avoid misunderstandings and I believe that a description of the theory more similar to that in the autism article would help avoid confusion.

To balance this out slightly the paragraph below it (the "Proponents of the extreme male brain theory often refer to systemizing vs empathizing..." paragraph) could be padded out a bit with some more detailed explanation.Raoulharris 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your take on the theory. However, this paragraph describes a (minority) response to the theory. I see you're new to Wikipedia so I'll try to explain a bit further. If such a minority is large or notable enough (see e.g. WP:CITE and WP:V), Wikipedia needs to document its existence and probably the counter-responses it may elicit (see WP:NPOV). Before removing the paragraph and repairing the rest, you may want to check the discussion page and its archives to see whether or not the existence of the minority has been verified. If not, you may even play the devil's advocate and try to find reputable external sources that report the variant view. Bottom line - you can remove the paragraph unless reputable sources reporting the minority view are presented. (Also, ideally, things should be balanced out by the description of the theory itself...) AvB ÷ talk 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But do you think then that it could be made more clear that it is a minority view in the article? Or don't you think that would be a good idea?Raoul Harris 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Perhaps others would like to comment on this and also on Raoul's idea to remove the paragraph altogether? Anyone aware of reputable sources reporting on this particular criticism of Baron-Cohen's "extreme male brain" theory? Thanks.  AvB ÷ talk 12:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no response for three days! Time to remove, I think. AvB ÷ talk 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph removed (see above), section slightly rewritten, sources checked and added. AvB ÷ talk 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"autistic psychopathy"

Would it be useful to say that autism ahs nothing to do with the usual meaning of psychopathy? Apokrif 06:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Asberger certainly had an unfortunate choice of words but it is a historical fact that he refered to Asberger's as Autistic psycopathy based on apparet lack of emotion and a clear anti-social personality. 207.99.90.253 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

See discussion in Talk:Psychopathy#Other meaning of "psychopathy", it looks like the word has another meaning in German, which is close to "psychosis" or cluster A personality disorder. Apokrif 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my response which shows an uncharacteristic lack of research. However, it does seem strange that from an out side view Asberger's would seem to fit many criteria for psycopathy.207.99.90.253 12:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism from the pro-cure camp

After being on wikipedia for half-a-year, the self-identification article has been nominated for deletion, and has indeed been deleted. The last time this one-sided view of autism / AS showed it's ugly face was when the Neanderthal theory of autism were deleted. It seems like every new idea coming from autistics is voted for deletion by pro-cure neurotypicals. So much for the NPOV of wikipedia, and especially the horrible side-taking of the autism and Asperger's articles. IMHO, both should loose their featured status. --Rdos 16:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the article was nominated for deletion by an Aspie. And at least one other Aspie voted to delete it. I rather doubt either of them are "pro-cure", and they aren't NT. You might wish to be careful when you toss such accusations around. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a pro-cure vs. anti-cure conflict. I think this is an inclusionists vs. deletionists conflict. Q0 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree there's no conspiracy to sensor certain POVs. But I'd think at least one self-identification test, Simon Baron Cohen's AQ Test, meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and should appear somewhere. Neurodivergent 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've nominated this article as biased. The reasons for this is obvious. For a long time I've tried to remove unverified theories and speculations about autism / Aspergers, or installing differing views. All this have been constantly reverted. The last attack by these biased people that didn't want self-identification part of this article, is to delete the separate article I've created instead of improving on it. --Rdos 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, and provide relevant links and diffs? I'm removing the NPOV tag for now - feel free to reinsert after you've presented some evidence. AvB ÷ talk 08:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd gladly present my evidences. First, the section "Possible causes and origns" is terribly biased. It presents underconnectivity theory, extreme male brain theory, pre-operational autism theory, mirror neuron deficiency theory and the social construct theory. None of these theories have any evidences in favor of them, at least not that are consistent with the whole autism spectrum. Many of them are considered as "outdated". The most obvious theory, that of neurodiversity is not presented, but is assumed to be part of the "social construct theory", which I find highly ambigious.

I agree that the social construct theory is sometimes confused with the neurodiversity view. I thought they were equivalent myself at one point. One is a scientific theory. The other is a philosophy or an ideology.

Not necesarily so. The neurodiversity philosophy can be explained in terms of theory. It is even important as a framework in which more specific theories that is compatible with the neurodiversity concept.--Rdos 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Social construct theory says something very specific: Asperger syndrome does not exist as a natural-objective entity. And this is falsifiable.

Yes, that is why it is very different from neurodiversity. Neurodiversity acknowledges the existance of the differences with social construct theory does not.--Rdos 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but it looks like social construct theory is right so far. That is, there is no single gene or set of genes which could be said to predict a diagnosis or lack thereof. Of all the autism genes identified so far, it's possible for someone to have them, and not be diagnosable as autistic; and it's possible for someone not to have them, and be diagnosable. We can only speak of probabilities, and make generalizations. Almost anything said about autistics could be characterized as a "stereotype". It's possible for people to be "not quite autistic" as well as "only a little" autistic; and if you were to compare the brains of the two, you would not find significant differences. A behavioral spectrum exists; but the spectrum split is crearly arbitrary and ever-changing. Neurodivergent 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the neanderthal theory, which has been removed, clearly anticipates that no single or small amount of genes will ever be linked to autism. Introgressive hybridisation will result on a huge amount of genes, and the genes could potentially be different in different populations as well if they were introgressed separately. It is only the presented theories and simple explanations that so far is loosing credibility. The neanderthal theory clearly also predicts the neurodiversity philosophy. --Rdos 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Neanderthal theory was removed because it was deemed 'original research'. I would've argued that it is only original research if you specifically wrote it for the purpose of including it in Wikipedia, which I assume is not the case. (Though the fact that the author of the theory is the one trying to include it is probably what tipped the balance against it). Then the argument for exclusion might have been that the citation is not formal enough or not unbiased enough. In either case I think it's possible to give precedent examples of notable citations in Wikipedia that follow the pattern of citing websites when that's the only source of notable information. Biased sources can simply be noted as biased.Neurodivergent 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As to its merits, I think there are some problems with that theory, but it's scientific. That is, it's falsifiable empirically (through genetic tests, though I'm not sure that's practical). A good argument against its scientific standing, however, is that there's no published body of work behind it. I have read some references to Neanderthal behavior as 'autistic'. Neurodivergent 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not incompatible with neurodiversity, however. Neurodivergent 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(For example, Down's syndrome is not a social construct in this sense). Neurodiversity says: It doesn't matter if Asperger syndrome exists as an objective entity - it's not necessarily pathological either way. Neurodivergent 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That said, I think the definition of NPOV is that all views (majority and minority) should be presented - and no view should be presented forcefully as the true one. If some views are not presented, feel free to add them. I don't believe a POV tag is warranted currently. Neurodivergent 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Second, differing views originally part of this article have been removed one by one. The neanderthal theory was originally part of this article, was later moved to a separate article, and voted for deletion twice until it got deleted. Self-diagnosis were first added to the article, subsequently removed, and moved to a separate article, and later VfDed and deleted. I'm sure others could provide more examples of this conduct.

Third, there is still troublesome references to disintegrative disorders and the article has been placed in "childhood psychiatric disorders" and "eponymous diseases".

I've removed the "eponymous diseases" category tag - Asperger's is a syndrome, and whether or not it is a disease remains to be seen. Looking over the entire category, AS does not seem to fit in with the rest anyway. As an alternative you may want to find out if renaming the category to "eponymous diseases and syndromes" would be feasible. On the other hand, "childhood psychiatric disorders" has to stay since it fits per definition (DSM) and quite a few of the other childhood psych disorders are linked with the autistic spectrum. AvB ÷ talk 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing the Childhood disintegrative disorder link. (No idea how to do it though). Rationale: This disorder "has some similarity to autism," but it doesn't sound much like AS and the article itself does not mention AS. But you'll probably need consensus on the talk page to remove the link, and it may not take all that long for someone to come along and dispute the edit. Probably not worth it. AvB ÷ talk 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you need more evidences? --Rdos 13:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Relevant diffs would be helpful. People usually do not feel motivated to spend hours digging up process history in order to form an opinion whether or not WP policies have been violated.AvB ÷ talk 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now reading up on your Neanderthal theory. WP:NOR will probably be the main obstacle to an own article but so far I am all for mentioning it in the AS and Autism articles (just a one-liner presenting your web site as an interesting but unpublished paper). It is by no means clear that the theory will not stand up under closer scrutiny. Just my opinion of course. AvB ÷ talk 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that Neurodivergent have moved neurodiversity into a new paragraph of "causes". I don't think the wording is too good, and would suggest a different one. I'm not sure if social construct theory needs to be mentioned here, as it is already mentioned in its own section and is mentioned with theories. --Rdos 05:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Causes and origin section

I've categorized the causes into different models. I think this is more proper, at least to get the neurodiversity thinking into this section. I'm not sure where to place the "extreme maleness theory". While I have strong dislike for it, I still realize it might be more of a neurodiversity model than a pathology / disease model. Possibly the social construct theory should be changed to social construct model instead, and described as such. I don't really think social construct is a theory as it proposes no actual theory as to how the various traits of AS could be caused by cultural forces. I suppose the "refrigerator mother theory" could be a social construct model theory. --Rdos 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Theory?

The Asbergers Syndrome page contains many possible causes all of which are classified as "theory". However scientificly a theory means that a possibility has been proven beyond all doubt. This clearly cannot be true of all the "theories" and I suggest a change Symmetric Chaos 12:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. (The theory article explains a bit, but that could be improved). In general, for something to be scientific, it should be falsifiable, have some empirical evidence to back it up, make predictions, follow the Occam's Razor heuristic, be tentative, and so on. Neurodivergent 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The theory article says that a theory is what best passes a established criteria 4 or 5 explinations cannot all pass the best. 207.99.90.253 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All that means is that theories in the autism field are very tentative and not backed up very well at this point. Also, it's possible for many different theories to explain different aspects of something. For example, extreme male brain and social construct explain different things and are not incompatible. (In evolution, consider the theory of natural selection vs. the theory of genetic drift). Also, autism is likely a blanket term in addition to a social construct, so it's not surprising that it's full of different models. Some models really may explain what it is in a small portion of the cases. Neurodivergent 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is very likely that all of the presented theories will be more or less wrong, not only because all of them cannot be passed as the best, but because they all are more or less inconsistent with each others and does not explain more than a tiny part of the autism spectrum --Rdos 06:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh . . . Symmetric Chaos 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Aspies' attractions to the opposite sex

I'm trying to verify if people with Asperger's are more likely to never grow out of the attraction to children of the opposite sex after they grow beyond childhood themselves (or are more likely to grow out of this attraction more slowly than others). I'd like to know if this has a connection in any way to Asperger's. Don't reply to my User Talk page, just here. I have this article on my watchlist so not to worry. --Shultz 12:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your wording seems distrbingly careless and implies a prevelance of pedophlia in Aspies. This is NOT to my knowledge of the last 16 years true. However I and many people who are Aspie do find it easier to comunicate with children. Personaly I feel that children have a realistic excuse for not understanding concepts that I believe my peers should. Unless you want to start an angry discussion I suggest you elaborate on your meaning. Symmetric Chaos 12:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for the prevalance; I was asking if Aspies are more likely to never (or more slowly) grow out of that kind of attraction. Symmetric, I will be more than happy to elaborate further if we can find a private place for it. A place where no one else will see our conversation would be ideal. --Shultz 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're getting creepy. The whole point of my response was that the use of the word attraction implies sexual attraction rather than moving this conversation to a private place I think you should wait and see what kind of response your query recieves. Symmetric Chaos 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Further elaborating would require explaining more about myself, which I do not plan on disclosing here, where everyone else can see. Do you know of a place to discuss my further elaboration in private? --Shultz 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. I've heard many describe slower maturation in Aspies, perhaps not being fully mature until their mid-30s. It would be a logical consequence of this slower maturation if males also were attracted to much younger girls. Besides, it is a general feature of all males to favor young girls. This is explained by evolutionary theory. --Rdos 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any desire to have even breif let alone sexual contact with any body let alone a young child. Please would some other Aspies put there thoughts here I can't convince a crazo-vangelist that we're not pedophiles with out some help from you. Symmetric Chaos 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never come across any evidence whatsoever of any correlation between pedophilia and autism. Shultz is either making it up or confusing it with something else. If anything Aspies are quite asexual. Only one in 11 autistics ever marry. Most reach adulthood as virgins. Married Aspies have a pretty low sex drive as their spouses will note. Neurodivergent 14:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your statistics from (1 in 11 autistics marrying). This seems to be much too low figures. And in relation to asexuality, it is not that common, and in Aspie-quiz, it clusters with social behaviors and not sexuality. This tells me most Aspies do not become asexual by choice. --Rdos 19:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I read that somewhere but I can't find it now, so don't quote me on that. Of course, it would be a generalization, as it must vary depending on what section of the behavioral spectrum you look at. Neurodivergent 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Shultz, the Talk page of a Wikipedia article article is, in principle, not the place to ask questions unrelated to the building of an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT, e.g. Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia). While there are exceptions, especially when editors are getting to know one another better, this is certainly not the rule and in this case clearly not acceptable to some editors currently working on or following the article. So I respectfully suggest you try and find answers elsewhere. I hope you will succeed and trust you will use any information you come by responsibly. Just in case you yourself are an adult who is sexually attracted to minors but are fighting this desire, please look for psychological help if you don't have help already. If you have given in to such a desire, stop and get yourself that help NOW. AvB ÷ talk 14:37, 1 February 2006

Frankly, I can't cite, but I've noticed no trends toward being attracted to younger people in Aspies I know, or myself (and I am Aspie). I'm a bit offended by the implication, in fact. I'm sure there are pedophiles with aspergers syndrome, but I think, and sincerely hope, they are as rare as any other sort of pedophile. 65.96.190.185 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

Bad odds. REALLY bad odds!

Only 1 in 11????

Then again, you said Autistics, not Aspies. They're different even though on the same spectrum. Are there any different statistics for Aspies??

Listen, not only am I the only son in my family, and not only am I the only male first cousin with my last name, I don't know any other male Shultzs that are 2nd cousins either!!! Therefore, it's mandatory for me to pass on the family lineage. It feels too much to abandon, and these statistics appear to give me less hope.

(No, I didn't include the ASPIE userbox on my userpage because I think people will respect me less if they see it. Therefore, I only reveal this disorder amongst certain people, like the people who read here.)

I've heard great things about EHarmony on commercials, but negative opinions about the site from friends IRL. What do you think of EHarmony, before I must commit a load of money to it?

Finally, when I attempt a relationship w/ a possible girlfriend, what must I say when she asks, "So, what do you do for a living? How do you earn your way to live?" I would not want to answer, "I get SSI- a monthly paycheck from the government. Before, I was struggling trying to find a job, but I somehow convinced the government that my disorder made finding employment far too hard." Knowing what'll happen with THAT answer, how do I answer instead? (Note, I'm a COLLEGE student. I'm not supposed to get these checks until the 2040s-2050s (when I'm in my 60s-70s), or unless I'm 'disabled'. Therefore, a girlfriend would expect better of me.)

--Shultz 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think eHarmony is a bad choice. I joined it just for fun (I'm married) and so did an Aspie-girl I know. None of us got any relevant matches. I don't think their system is reliable for matching up Aspies with other Aspies, which really would be optimal.--Rdos 05:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Replying to the suggestion that I pursue girls with Asperger's, I don't think that's a good idea because I want to raise normal, mentally healthy children. Both parents w/ Asperger's will bring the probability of traiting offspring with it to 100%! (not unless Gene editing gains momentum to the point that it effectively deals with autistic genes, which I think won't happen for quite a while.) I'd like to guarantee that my children grow up mentally healthy so they don't suffer as much misery as I did. --Shultz 07:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it odd for an Aspie not only to be pro-disorder (I'm sure some are) but also to advocate eugenics in relation to the Aspie genotype. Given his prior comments, I'm inclined to believe Shultz is not Aspie, but simply a troll. Neurodivergent 19:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If Shultz is concerned with "passing on AS", he'd better stay a bachelor for the rest of his life. I'm more apt to ensure the survival of the Aspie phenotype, so I already have three children, all of them "affected" with autism to varying degrees. --Rdos 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A. You cannot pass on your DNA without there being a chance of the child having Aspergers B. Considering the manner in which you think to be disturbed is more than a little troubling C. A woman who will not marry you because of who you are is not a good choice for a wife D. The odds of people with Aspergers of autism marrying do actually affect you. If YOU desire to have children, statistics will NOT change that. Symmetric Chaos 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel better when I have a 50% chance of spreading it to offspring than when I have 100%.

Rdos, ok, I see why you'd like to ensure the survival of the phenotype. If I remember right, many Aspies give notable contributions to the world. I've felt more misery than praise with it (even yesterday), so that threw it into doubt for a little while (just for me, at least).

Having a Stalinist paraprofessional in 7th grade really made me hate having this disorder because I knew I'd never have an inhuman monster like she was if I never had it. I still have a host of negative feelings from that year, especially about not being able to do the recreational activities that the rest of my 7th grade did in the last week of school. She threw me to the end of my rope so often, there were times I almost kicked or threw a heavy object at her. Luckily, I did neither.

If I marry a woman w/o Asperger's, will the child have a chance of having Asperger's just as strong as mine, or will s/he have 1/2 the strength of my Asperger's (due to the woman's genes taking up the other half), or will the woman's genes "dilute" the offspring's Asperger's, therefore will the offspring have Asperger's 1/4 as strong as mine?

That's impossible to know. A child could have more autism genes than you and appear "less" autistic. A child could have no autism genes and appear "more" autistic. What factors affect this are unknown and I don't believe they are necessarily pathological. Identical twins can have different personalities and IQs and the reasons for this are probably subtle and hard to control. But the notion that some personalities are superior to others is, evidently, a social construct. Neurodivergent 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In case any of you saw my User Page, loaded with userboxes, I didn't put up an Aspie userbox because I'd feel ashamed to put it up there. Reason is I'm afraid people wouldn't respect me as much. Having a paraprofessional in 7th grade was like either being forced to carry that userbox, or only wear T-Shirts that say, "I am a defective kid", "I have Asperger's", "I am deficient in social skills", or other inhumanly degrading 'slogans'. Having her around cost me potential friends & girlfriends, and I hated every second of it, minus the days she was sick, or had to do something else out of school. However, I'm glad these userboxes are voluntary, so maybe when I'm in high spirits, I'll perhaps put it on there (also, if I'm sure no one will disrespect me for having that).

Clearly you suffer from shame and a low self-image, perhaps brought on by experiences of social adversity, and you assume autism equals shame and low self-image, so therefore autism is bad. People can have these problems for a variety of reasons, and they are treatable. I'm willing to bet most people are different from the majority in some respect. It makes no sense to feel sorry for yourself for being different. You assume that people don't respect you because you're Aspie, but it's very possible that has little or nothing to do with it, and it may not be even real. It's a common Aspie trait to be a bit paranoid about what others might think, to have low self-worth, to believe that you're a fake and so on. This baggage can be discarded. Neurodivergent 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neuro, don't Aspies online more frequently troll, albeit often inadvertently? I may not know that a comment I'm typing may be a trollsome comment. There are mental mechanisms that "warn" people if what they're typing will be viewed as trollsome, however mine only detects so much. It can't warn me as much as these mechanisms can warn normal people.

For a good long while, I thought that if "the newness wears off" in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, and we've known each other for so long, and have become rather warm and comfortable with each other, that at that point, I could tell her about my disorder. After such a long and good relationship, wouldn't she not mind nearly as much as she would have if I had told her from the get-go??

I can speak from personal experience. The reaction can vary from 'why didn't you tell me earlier?' to 'you lied to me' to 'that explains a lot'. There are books on the subject aimed mainly at females in relationships with Aspies. Some will find this to be a good excuse to end a relationship that's not going well for entirely unrelated reasons. I think it would be good if these books dealt with the fact that AS has not been proven to be a disorder, and is simply defined that way arbitrarily by psychiatry. In any case, Aspie marriages seem to have a lower success rate, in average, than neurotypical ones. Neurodivergent 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So for "D", Symmetric Chaos, those odds are the same for people with Asperger's as much for people with Autism? (Remember that Asperger's is highly functioning.)

Actually RDos, hopefully the future will be kinder to my child's childhoods (and adolescences) than my past was to my childhood and adolescence. I just want to make sure of that, and that my kids that have AS will be treated better among peers than I was. (It's better to have a mix of kids with AS or not, than all AS kids IMO.)

Symmetric and whoever posted about marriage, maybe if I try hard enough and persist, I'll soon get a suitable wife. Maybe a proportional amount of Aspies didn't want to nor felt comfortable about getting a spouse.

That'll be all (for now). --Shultz 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I have aspergers and have been quite successful in relationships. I have found online dating to help me start them though - match has been good. I actually think it is much easier to date a girl who is not an aspy - I am not self hating, but I recognize relationships are not my strength. It's nice to have someone in the relationship who is good at them.

So now we have antecdotal proof that Shultz might not be able to hold a relationship at least partly because of his obvious self hatred. Symmetric Chaos 12:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS SO CONDESCENDING. YOU HAVE ASPERGER'S (I SAW IN YOUR USERPAGE); I DIDN'T KNOW OTHER ASPIES WERE THIS INHUMAN.

So where are your sources to the following-

• Whether an Aspie or Autie, the odds of getting married are the same?
• Even if I want a relationship much more desperately than other Aspies (and thus try harder), I won't be an ounce more likely to get married either? --Shultz III 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said either of those things. And you were clearly brought up in a hyperconservative christian household (I SAW YOUR USERPAGE) that rasised you to think of yourself as a freak. I quote you own words "I didn't put up an Aspie userbox because I'd feel ashamed to put it up there". If you feel that you cannot respect youself why would someone wish to have a realtion ship with you? And finnaly you took you quote about statistics out of context what I meant was that statistic represent data but do not affect reality IF YOU TRY YOU MAY GET INTO A RELATIONSHIP. Symmetric Chaos 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates

User:211.31.229.20, you can only add Bill Gates as diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome if you provide one (preferably more) citations from reputable sources per WP:NOR. I have reverted your edit for now. AvB ÷ talk 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the "extreme male brain theory" subsection

I would like to hear the opinion of other editors on the following: This subsection describes the theory and states that it is controversial. However, this is just one of the various Autism/Asperger theories already mentioned in the Possible causes section, which already characterizes it as part of an "area of debate and controversy". In addition, these theories are already described elsewhere, e.g. in the Models section of the Autism article (as also argued above by Raoul Harris). I think this can be removed entirely from the Asperger Syndrome article. (The alternative would be to extend the section with descriptions of the other theories as all are controversial according to the article itself). Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That theory is no more controversial than any other mainstream theory. Neurodivergent 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just place a note that says all theories about the origins of Autism and Asbergers have a certain level of controversy, and then elaborate on each theory as new information comes to light? Symmetric Chaos 12:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer if the theory & causes sections of the autism and Asperger's articles were placed in a separate article and merged. Currently, the Asperger's article has very rudimental description of autism-theories while the autism article has lots of theories --Rdos 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite like these suggestions, especially Rdos' idea of a seperate cause theories article. My current favoured plan of action would be to just stick Symmetric Chaos' controversy note in to the section in place of the extreme male brain theory bit, then move all theories into a seperate article (with the new article based on the models of the autism article). I know I'm not really adding much like this, just saying I favour a certain combination of views, but I would like to see if other people agree with me or not.Raoul Harris 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove text regarding Simon Baron Cohen's theory. His work is apparently important and respected, or else he wouldn't get funding or be the head of a research institute at Cambridge. It definitely merits mention. BTW, I don't have Asperger's, and I have no stake in any particular theory. I can understand how those of you with Asperger's may not want it mentioned, because you don't want someone else's theory and research defining you as a person, but it still needs attention. According to Dr. Cohen's online empathy quotient (EQ) test, I have a strongly female brain, having scored a 68/80. This corresponds with results from my MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), which placed my personality in the female range. As a man, this really doesn't sit well with me, but I was told that men with advanced degrees are more likely to test as female. Does anyone have any information about whether results on the MMPI are used at all in diagnosing Asperger's? Do certain results in the male range correspond with a positive diagnosis? BrianGCrawfordMA 20:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is to remove from the Controversies section, perhaps to move it elsewhere. As to your question, there's a rough correspondance between those tests and a diagnosis. But there's really no test that can replace a subjective psychiatric diagnosis at the moment. Neurodivergent 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what the proposal is and I still disagree with it. Maybe I wasn't clear before. Possible etiology of a medical condition should be included in the main article describing the condition, just as it is in a diagnostic handbook like Merck's Manual. As things stand, a reader has to follow links to explore the possible causes of autism. As a reader, I'd rather have a short description of each theory in the article itself. If I'd wanted more in-depth information, I would have looked in a textbook, not an encyclopedia. BrianGCrawfordMA 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AS is NOT a medical condition. Because it is not a medical condition, it is not necesary to include etiology nor causes. If causes should be mentioned, non-medical causes must also be mrntioned. Currently, the autism article is a long speculation about medical causes, less so the AS article --Rdos 05:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the autism article's Etiology section is missing a 'natural variation' explanation. The models section already has the social construct theory, but I guess it could also have a neurodiversity entry, assuming it can be presented as a behavior model, which I'm not certain it is. Neurodivergent 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rdos calm down nobody is saying AS is a medical condition. But because there are theories about the reason for the existance of AS they all deserve to be mentioned. Placing all the theories into a new article seems good, but as this discussion proves people have very heated POVs so the article must be monitored closely and have a mention of the on going debate. Symmetric Chaos 12:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

BrianGCrawfordMA proposed that AS were a medical condition and thus should have causes and etiology --Rdos 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there already is an extensive article on the heritability of autism Heritability of autism. Merging this article + the causes & etiology of the autism and Asperger article could proivde a better organization of this material --Rdos 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead, it looks like there need to be several new articles: Etiology of autism, Autism behavior models, and perhaps Autism management strategies or something. Then both the autism article and this one would use main tags pointing to the new articles in the corresponding sections. Any takers? I'd take on those projects myself but I've gone thru that before and it's too time-consuming for me at the moment. Neurodivergent 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. A collection of articles each with a Austism box at the top of each article which provides users easy access and context to the whole series. Its a big project though to undertake. --Ben Houston 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

albert einstein

in regard to the list of arguments supporting the theory of einstein having asperger's as quoted in the article, i thought it necessary to delete "was a late talker", as asperger's is associated with early talking, and indeed being a late talker is oftentimes cited as evidence against speculation of particular famous people having had asperger's, including einstein

According to DSM-IV "there is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)". This seems to suggest that language is normally developed not before the usual time and not much (though possibly a bit) afterwards. Of course there are exceptions, and the DSM-IV could just be completely wrong on this matter. But I don't know of any evidence to support your early talker claim, could you please give a link or something?Raoul Harris 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The DSM is basically a concensus reached by a show of hands, and it's still a pretty subjective guide. Researchers sometimes apply different criteria and some have said that there's really no difference between high-functioning autism and Asperger's. Psychiatrists might apply their own biases and there can be diagreements as to the right diagnosis. I understand there's one study that compares long-term outcome finding no significant differences. In the autistic community there's no concensus as to whether a difference exists at all. Some have made fun of it. See [2]. Neurodivergent 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

TV shows and films which have dealt with Asperger syndrome

I think this section would be more useful if it could identify the episodes in which or names of characters with AS appeared, since the articles they link to don't (and probably shouldn't unless it is a recurring character).Schizombie 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if maybe we should add a mention of Moss from the IT Crowd to the TV Shows section, since he is mentioned as showing symptoms of Apsergers? --Therebelcountry 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Just wanted to ask, I have AS and I'm quite aware of just my own syntomps, just wondering is there any artificial limit as how much you can actually work against (or yet fight) your syntomps when you have AS?

You must be referring to pretending to be NT? (Something the article doesn't have any info on). The limit is energy reserves. You'll be exhausted after a while, more so in certain settings, for example after a social gathering. This doesn't mean there's something wrong with you. If a NT was forced to pretend to be autistic day in and day out, he would also be exhausted. Neurodivergent 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant, just basically trying to fit in as well as I can during social gatherings like you said. And I do kind of know what you mean by being exhausted, weirdly enough. Why should it have a physical effect on your body on how you're acting socially?

Because although you aren't really aware of it, your brain is working hard at emulating NT behavior, and that requires a lot of energy. It's like having a Mac emulate a Windows system. It really can't emulate it quickly enough; to do it right it would need a bigger processor that consumes more energy. Neurodivergent 14:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

XSpaceyx 12:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretending to be 'normal' is not as hard as you might think. NTs are generaly unobservant and not particularly intelligent. As long as you avoid volentering information, act as though women are not human, show interest in cars and spend hours worrying about your wardrobe people should at least leave you alone. Symmetric Chaos 12:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd avoid disparaging NTs. It's hard to demand acceptance for our way of being when we make fun of the NT way of being, weird as it may seem to us. Neurodivergent 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree with Neurodivergent on that one. If NTs were more unintelligent or stupid than me. Then I wouldn't of course want to be like them. Right now in my age it is just more important to fit in. XSpaceyx 15:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But wanting to be NT is really problematic, depressing and anxiety-producing. It's kind of like Data (Star Trek) wanting to be human. Wouldn't self-acceptance be much better? Neurodivergent 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I accept myself for who I am, I just try to do my best to be accepted by others. And for that I can't really be all socially weird, If you know what I mean. XSpaceyx 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people will accept you no matter what you do. Others won't accept you no matter what you do. If you have friends who will stop being your friends when you tell them you're Aspie, then they are really not your friends. Other than your friends, worrying about what others might think (unless they are your employer or something like that) is kind of useless. Neurodivergent 15:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but, it's not that it's not the fact that I am an aspie, it's just that I have several syntomps that may irretate them or just make them want to spend less time with me because it bothers them. XSpaceyx 16:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Other people do annoying things too. If you find the right group of people to make friends with then you should hopefully be able to slot in. I find that "different" people tend to get on better with other unusual people (i.e. intelligent, new to the school, dyslexic, etc. - in fact you'd probably find that everyone I've ever been friends with falls into at least one of those three categories). Your experiences could be different from mine though since I haven't been diagnosed as autistic (though you may want to emphasise "diagnosed" - on the DSM-IV I fit the AS section quite neatly, but I'm not going to do a self-diagnosis or go for a real diagnosis), so I can't really say that I have a completely accurate understanding of your position, but I definitely fall into a socially awkward category so my observations should have some relevance. Symmetric Chaos' description of normal people wouldn't apply to all of them, just the sort you probably wouldn't want to get along with. Raoul Harris 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well I apologize to the majority of NTs its just that being in a highschool and being an Aspie makes it hard not to be extremey cynical about NTs. The truth is Raoul I have met very few peope that I actually want to get along with and far fewer that I actually do. Symmetric Chaos 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd say it's the minority of non-autistic people that aren't how you described. Your description seems pretty accurate for the majority, but those are, as I said, "the sort you probably wouldn't want to get along with". I tend to group most of those people into an "idiot" category and ignore them though. Raoul Harris 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I used to go to special school for aspie children, and I left because so many of them were so godamned weird. So common with hyperactive, violent, shouting, running, etc. That's why I ultimately actually started in a normal high school later. Because I could actually work more "in peace" there. So I wouldn't critize the NTs because my kind can be just as weird, or even ALOT more weird. XSpaceyx 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure if anybody could stand to be in a purely Aspie school. I still feel that I must warn you XSpaceyx that being an NT that does not fall into Raoul's "idiot" category will probably alieneate you both from Aspies and most NTs to some extent. Although you have every right to be who you want to be "fighting against your symptoms" is an extremely foolhard enterpise. Symmetric Chaos 12:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"being an NT that does not fall into Raoul's "idiot" category will probably alieneate you both from Aspies and most NTs to some extent" that's very true, but I'd rather not be friends with people I put into that category, otherwise I wouldn't put them into that category. It limits me to being friends with other people who view those people as idiots, but that means I just have friends who are similar to me, which I don't see as a negative thing. I may have to change when I go into work (though I hope not) but my approach works fine at a school level. I understand that other people may have different views though. Raoul Harris 14:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What we really need here is a Neurotypical's opinion on this discussion. I mean its easy to NT bash when they dont say anything but they should have a spokes person to defend them. So any non-Aspies that want should post here. Symmetric Chaos 12:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, NTs don't usually perseverate, and probably none perseverate about autism. Don't hold your breath waiting for an NT to give you a well thought-out response. Neurodivergent 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As an Aspy, I'm not entirely well placed to defend NTs. But I'll try. They have things they are good at, that we aren't, just as vice versa. And a lot of them are nice people, and my friends.

Part of it is that high school is very focused on defining the other, and that tends to be the aspie. Sucks, but it will pass. Best way of dealing with it is to play a sport seriously. 65.96.190.185 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true NT Symmetric Chaos 12:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important for any human being, regardless of what he or she has been diagnosed with, to understand his or her limitations and live life accordingly. Symmetric Chaos, while I understand that your resentment may stem from being on the receiving end of bullying or social ostracism, I find your comments extremely distasteful, and I wish you would just keep them off Wikipedia pages. Insulting people is a great way to get insulted right back, so unless you've got an especially thick skin, you might want to be more polite. Brian G. Crawford 18:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

AMEN to that brother! (Sorry I just couldn't resist it) XSpaceyx 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Aspie == somebody diagnosed with Aspergers. I'm an Aspie, but I resent being diagnosed by a disorder like AS. The label is NTs way of getting rid of us. --Rdos 18:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's really something you need to take up with the doctor who diagnosed you, if you have been diagnosed. If you don't think you've been diagnosed correctly, get a second opinion or suggest a diagnosis that you think better fits your symptoms. In the U.S., a patient has the right to contest a diagnosis and have any objections put on record if he or she feels it is incorrect. I don't know about Sweden. Don't fall victim to the kind of backwards reasoning some schizophrenics exhibit, i.e., "Only sick people take pills. I'm going to quit taking pills so I won't be sick anymore." Likewise, it sounds like you're saying, "Only sick people have been diagnosed. I refuse to believe in the idea of diagnosis, therefore I am not sick." (By the way, if you think I'm suggesting that you're schizophrenic, I'm not.) Brian G. Crawford 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Mr. Crawford I must admit you are probably the single most reasonable person (Aspie, NT or otherwise) I have met thus far on Wikipedia. I nonetheless retain my right to be a cynical SOB. It is not my intent to insult broad groups of people without reason but I still remain shocked when an entire honors History class in high school doesn't get the humor in the title of the TV show Gray's Anatomy! Evidence constantly points to irrationality and incompetence among many NTs. Symmetric Chaos 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Symmetric Chaos you are clearly biased XSpaceyx 08:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, this Chaos is clearly Symmetric. AvB ÷ talk 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's hard for a person with Asperger syndrome to act "socially normal," it takes a lot of effort and you have to be THINKING about it all the time, but it's possible. I have a friend with Asperger syndrome, and he has said his parents hate how "unsocial" he is, so every once in a while, just to prove to himself he CAN if he has to, he'll act "socially normal." He told me that it does not come to him naturally, and that he has to think about it every word he speaks, every move he makes, but that it is possible and he can pull it off.

Well XSpaceyx I am biased but I happen to know that it is an absolute aspect of being human that one is biased. However my bias is based off of personal experience. For example, many NTs disgust and irritate me for having obvious biases they claim not to have and that is on of the reasons for my bias against NTs. Symmetric Chaos 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction needs revision

From the intro:

In very broad terms, individuals with Asperger's have normal or above average intellectual capacity, and atypical or less well developed social skills, often with emotional/social development or integration happening later than usual as a result.

In light of Michelle Dawson's research, which has become noticed recently, this paragraph no longer seems to make sense. Using the Raven IQ test, this research shows that lack of speech is not synonymous with low cognitive functioning - as is intuitively assumed by most people. In fact, it appears that the less speech a person has, the higher the score in the Raven test. (That's right, if you measure cognition with a Raven test, Aspies are not as smart as full autistics). Thoughts on fixing? Neurodivergent 14:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss for a while before revising.

As of today, neither Michelle Dawson nor Raven's Progressive Matrices seem to mention anything about this. So, Googling...

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/220/1

"The Case of Mistaken IQ"

By Mary Beckman

ScienceNOW Daily News

20 February 2006

-- Seems to imply that it's not correct to say that autistic persons score high or low on "intelligence tests" in general, but that "autistic children did poorly on the verbal comprehension part of the Wechsler [IQ test] but exceedingly well on a part that tests non-verbal intelligence and reasoning." Also "Healthy [sic!] children and adults performed similarly on both the Wechsler and the Raven test. But speaking autistics scored up to 30 percentile points higher on the Raven test than the Wechsler test"

Let's see what kind of info we can continue to gather on this. -- Writtenonsand 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would even question the statement on its own. The difference in the diagnostic criteria between Asperger's syndrome and Autistic Disorder is speech delay, nothing more. This has been taken to mean (by researchers as well as laypersons) that Aspies are "smart autistics". And there might have been a reason for this conclussion by looking at IQ correlations with speech, based on IQ testing using the Wechsler test. But the Wechsler test is language-based, so it's not surprising for non-verbal autistics to do badly on it. (How researchers missed this for 50 years is amazing). The conclussion that Aspies have normal to high cognitive functioning -- implying that full autistics do not -- is flawed. Neurodivergent 23:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

I'm being tested for Asperger's... I have to say, about half apply, but I most certainly don't agree with some of these symptoms.

1) I know why I get made fun of, and when. 2) I understand people, but do not know how to effectively communicate. 3) I do understand what I read, and don't just memorize things. I'm teaching myself high school/college level physics, and I do understand. I know because it does make sense to me. 4) I do obsess, but most commonly over more than 1-2 things.

I also think that Aspies can be geeks/nerds... not that they have something in common. I believe that a disorder cannot be responsible for your interests. Honestly, that's ridiculous (in my opinion).

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bit188 (Bit188)

asperger's or introversion?

ive done some research on asperger's and ive discovered that there is a strong overlap between the traits of simple introversion and asperger's syndrome, and that many people who are just introverted could be misdiagnosed as asperger's, or asperger's itself is just introversion.

There are many, "casual" traits of asperger's that relate most strongly to introversion some of which ill list now:

.deliberate avoidance of peak performance for fear its not good enough

.(more coming.......)

Ill get on to those later, but i'd like to point out that "casual" traits get to the true meaning of the matter, coz, among other things, they are less grounded in biased perception. I've got alot to say in this section.

COMMUNICATION DIFFICULTIES: I'd like to note the differences in communication between introverted and extroverted children, based on very limited vocaularies(being young).

The introvert: hasn't got sufficient vocabuary to communicate needs to a sufficient point of exactitude,when coaxed puts energy into trying to find the words well enough; avoids letting loose ideas out into the open.(As you might guess from this,introversion correlates highly with perfectionism, another highly mentioned trait of asperger's.

The extrovert: (more coming)

PLEASE PUT ANY COMMENTS IN OTHER SECTION!

• People with Aperger syndrome don't MEAN to be introverted, in fact, many are frustrated that they have social difficulty and want to be as socially comfortable as everyone else is. Introverts CHOOSE to be introverts, people with Asperger syndrome just have social difficulty.

WTF? you...er....don't know what introversion means, do you? Discuss! (keeping in mind whats said above)

What about Wing's claim: "There is no question that Asperger syndrome can be regarded as a form of schizoid personality" ? I think this is actually questionable, because in theory schizoid people are not interested in social relationships, while AS people want such relationships (although different causes can lead to similar behaviors) Apokrif 16:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

intp

Personally, Im at a loss as to why people put asperger's above, say, intj, because "its just a personality test", you know, like, "which beetle are you?", and because of the mystique , formality and percieved "hard logic" of psychiatric diagnoses. People adopt an attitude of "yeah, this intp thing seems to fit you, but at THE END OF THE DAY, you have been diagnosed"(By an all-knowing) . In reality, the dsm is very subjective and unprofessional and typology completely outstrips it in scientific value.Where psychiatric diagnosis is just listing a bunch of arbitrary and ambiguous negative traits of some people with little to no insight into the cause of these behaviours, typology provides a full functional analysis among other things grounded in many many years of research.I cannot emphasize this enough.Sure, it draws many natural critcisms, but have you ever tried to argue with a parrot? I would call a kid intj before asperger's anyday, and if he didnt want me to cal him that, call him a perfecty natural human temperament, then I wouldnt, and so I certainly would not call him a psychiatric abnormality based on a few undesirable behaviours, and, with his little knowledge of anything outside of this, have him beleive that.(though, being an intj, this might not be so much of a problem:)

I think you are oversimplifying things. Yes, INTP and AS is more or less the same thing, but based on slightly different traits. The problem is that the traits of INTP/AS are not acceptable in today's society. It will not be better if you just view AS/INTP as a personality-type, because then psychodynamically schooled people will inevitably demand that these kids receive intensive teraphy for their "quirks", because it might help in their world. Even worse, some totally scruplus social authorities will take the kids actions as a sign that they should be placed in foster-care. --Rdos 08:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

While many people with AS may test as INTP, I disagree that you can call the groups 'more or less the same' unless most INTPs have AS. Compare the percentage of population which tests INTP with the percentage on the autistic spectrum. If I remember correctly, the latter is much smaller.

Why are only INTp and not INTj mentioned in the article? --Gronau 11:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This poll on wrongplanet.net has some interesting figures: 30% INTJ, 31% INTP, 8% INFJ, 6% INFP and 23% other. Assuming that the prevalence of asperger's is about one in 166, and comparing with the figures on the MBTI page (2.1% INTJ, 3.3% INTP, 1.5% INFJ, 4.0% INFP) would indicate that about 9% of INTJs, 6% of INTPs and 3% of INFJs have AS. Sure, it's not very scientific, but it does give a rough indication. Cat Fish 21:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

lisa simpson has asperger's?

Whenever I see a list of fictional characters with asperger's, I always see lisa simpson. This is ridiculous. Could someone here give me any instance of this ever being evident, apart from the obvious of her not having any friends? does every person,real or otherwise, who is intelligent and hasent got much friends, have asperger's syndrome?

I've got to agree with you that suggesting that Lisa Simpson has asperger's is absurd. However I can't find a reference saying that she is (though I'm sure I've seen it suggested somewhere before). The closest I could find was this, which is a list of fictional characters with autistic traits, not autism itself. Of course if you can find another link on wikipedia saying that she does have autism then I would suggest that it is removed. Raoul Harris 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All of these kinds of questions, i.e. 'Is Lisa Simpson Aspie?' or 'Is Bill Gates Aspie?' or 'Is Introversion the same as Aspie?', are unanswerable in a conclussive way really and whatever answers you get are inherently only an opinion. That's why not even researchers can agree if someone is or isn't Aspie, whether there's any difference between HFA or Aspie, what the boundary is and so on. It's like asking 'Is Lisa Simpson a Geek? Isn't she a Nerd instead?'. The best way to tell if a person is Aspie is to ask them, 'Do you think you're Aspie?'. Neurodivergent 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Lisa Simpson is supposed to represent a normal, bright, well-adjusted girl who only seems different when juxtaposed with her weird family and anti-intellectual school peers. It's the whole Town of Springfield that has problems, not Lisa. Brian G. Crawford 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(First contributor to second) I think I saw it on "what asperger's has done for us", and I also saw it on the lisa simpson article, though i think its ben removed. I wos probly exagherating when i said "everywhere".

I think lisa is supposed to represent the way rational, intelligent people are marginalised in society.(itself) I read somewhere that the gifted are at risk of asperger's misdiagnosis, and would like to note the extreme irony that this is now moving into fictional characters.

LISA SIMPSON: Type in in yahoo"lisa simpson asperger's"for some sources.

I had a long reply written with a couple of words to go when my browser refreshed and my work was lost and I'm not going to write it all again so I will summarise it into a few key points. 1) None of the top five results on yahoo search with suggested terms say that Lisa has asperger's. 2) Nor does Lisa Simpson page. 3) I couldn't find "what asperger's has done for us" with a google search. 4) Suggestions that Lisa has asperger's are very rare, but due to references to these suggestions and pages listing people with asperger's traits have led people to believe that this suggestion is common. 5) Lisa has no problems with socialising and therefore does not have asperger's (unpopularity is due to intelligence), though she may be at the autistic end of normal. I'm sorry I haven't backed up my points properly, but it was way too much to bother to re-type. Raoul Harris 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(1)I found it on all 5. (2)it used to be(and also for moe, where it said him and lisa)(3)it;s on the second two in"yahoo"(4)probably(5)yeah that's true...autistic end of normal..I don't think even that's true.

The first and second results are identical (content-wise, though not url-wise), they are here, this is what they say "fictional characters said to display characteristics of those with Asperger's include Mr Spock, Lisa Simpson", I can find nothing in them saying she is autistic. Third result is this, which says "Famous people with autistic traits" not "famous people with autism". The fourth result (this) is the closest to saying it, saying "The Simpsons’ Lisa Simpson, Bobby Fischer, Alfred Hitchcock and Isaac Newton. The internet suggests an even longer list of impressive names possibly sharing the same condition.", note that this says the "internet suggests", so it is not a link saying she has it, instead another example of my fourth point. The fifth result does not mention asperger's at all, though a previous version of the page did. What asperger's has done for us is the same as the first two results in the other yahoo search. I see your point with the fourth and fifth results, but neither of them, in their current state, suggest that Lisa has asperger's, although they come pretty close. I agree that it must say she has it somewhere, but I don't know of any page which says she has it, and I've looked at many pages, so I think people just believe the suggestion is common when it actually isn't. Raoul Harris 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say when I first saw the picture of the simpson family, I was thinking along the lines of homer, if current definitions didn't require a prerequisite of at-least normal intteligence.Homer's just an idiot all over.I also thought of marge possibly, but I was shocked when it said lisa.She probly has above-average social skills.Imean come on,lisa?It's just ridiculous.the suggestion of her having asperger's seems to be popular fanon, which i think youll find on the wikipedia "fanon" page.

aspergers or introversion?

(comments on first one)

Orrr! or Arrh! Brian G. Crawford 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

er....im sorry, do you..agree, or disagree?

Orrrr!

ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! you mean the title?...whats arrh?

Social Impairments: "NTs"

The acronym "NT" is used in this section with no indication of its meaning. This should either be spelled out in full or, if it refers to the use of "Non-autistic" above, should be indicated there -- particularly since "NT" does not logically flow from "non-autistic". Also, it looks odd that "aspie" is uncapitalized while "Non-autistic" is capitalized in that comparison; shouldn't they match capitalization? — Lomn Talk 15:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, upon re-reading, it is explained above, though the juxtaposition of "non-autistic" and "NT" still seems obtuse to me. Is there a preference for using one or the other for the sake of consistency? — Lomn Talk 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"NT" implies more than simply non-autistic. It stands for neuro-typical and refers to someone who is not neuro-divergent, someone who is, for lack of a better word, normal. Someone who exhibits no disorders, autistic or otherwise. So a preference for consistency sake is kind of impossible since they are in fact talking about different things, and while interchangeable in some sense, they aren't synonymous.(FossaFerox 03:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

That would make sense if three paragraphs up it didn't say that NT's were just non-autistics :). Anyway, I cleaned it up and removed the NT stuff because it is inspeak which should be avoided. We really need a reference for that theory though, because as is it definately looks like OR to me. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this. Neurotypical has it's own article, and thus cannot be OR. I agree that NT shouldn't be used without explaining it. Better to use neurotypical throughout. --Rdos 08:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* I was talking about the paragraph not Neurotypical which is inspeak. Not only that but right now the way it is used is highly incorrect but I don't feel like getting into yet another revert war with you and Joe. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek... again

I would like to add my thoughts on the Star Trek debate. But I think that it may be time to start a new thread -- the "dubious science fiction mention" thread has gotten a little unmanageable (imho). Unless I've missed something, the citation supporting the ST quote does not seem to be in question. Nonetheless, presenting the ST quote as a statement of fact would probably qualify as an appeal to authority.

Therefore, I'd like to propose a compromise that might enhance the article in other ways too -- the creation of a "trivia" and/or "conjecture" section within the article.

By placing the ST quote in a trivia section, that takes a lot of the statement's "weight" out of the mix. We could add the MBTI statement, and other "dubious conclusions" in that section as well. This should satisfy all as the information is in the article, but not given the weight of more important (and perhaps more supportable) "facts". Ycaps123 21:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It was wholesale-moved to the Causes of autism article along with several other paragraphs. Leave it there, please.

Davidkevin 00:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The ST quote definitely documents something said by Attwood on a number of occasions (sourced in the article). The "some trekkies" comment has been in need of a reputable WP:NOR source for several months now. It can be deleted at will (and obviously revived when a source is provided.) AvB ÷ talk 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Would either or both of you be open to renaming Causes of autism to something more along the lines of "Asperger syndrome controversies"? One of us could then expand and rename accordingly the MAIN ARTICLE link currently entitled "Causes and etiology" saying that there are several less-than-substantiated claims about AS that nonetheless deserve mention. I'd be satisfied with this compromise. Ycaps123 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the causes article is meant for controversies other than controversies about causes. That article is also linked from the autism article. The stuff about Trekkies should probably be moved out of that article back into this one. Neurodivergent 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David that the Attwood Trekkies/Asperger paragraph would be best left in the Causes article. As to the proposal to rename that article (shifting/limiting its purpose) I have to agree with Neurodivergent. In other words, I like things the way they are now. AvB ÷ talk 21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see the wisdom in what all of you are saying. All that I am advocating for is to make it easier for the casual reader on wikipedia to put all of the information about AS together in their own minds. IMHO, this requires prominently placed and well summarized MAIN ARTICLE notices. The readers of the AS article deserve to know that Causes of autism and Controversies in autism are both critical to understanding the "big picture" of AS. SEE ALSO's suggest, at least to me, more of a sense of trivia and "if you have some extra time it might be worth a look."

I was not entirely convinced that AS described me until I read the parts in an older version of the AS article about MBTI (I have tested INTP) and Star Trek (I am an avid trekkie as evidenced by my DVD collection). For me, having access to the aforementioned information (and some old documents/videos from my primary school days that I discovered after reading the article) was crucial to my realizing that I most likely have AS. I firmly believe that information is power. All that I would like is for others to have access to the same types of information on AS that I have been lucky enough to read in the past on wikipedia. Ycaps123 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why I have objected so strongly to Dr. Attwood's corrosive notion that "ST fan" = "AS patient" being included without counterbalancing. You've proved my point by apparently believing yourself to have a Pervasive Developmental Disorder in part because you happen to like a particular television program, having accepted his casual, subjective, inaccurate remark as diagnostic simply because of his credentials.

Regardless of what he has said, it isn't what you're interested in which is diagnostic. The intensity of your interest relative to general life may be diagnostic, but not the subject of your interest, in my wholehearted opinion.

Davidkevin 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Davidkevin, I am always in favor of "counterbalancing" and would be happy to read any ideas you might have towards that end. In any event, I stick by my original observation -- Causes of autism and Controversies in autism both deserve their own sections in the AS article proper.

I'd like to call your attention to the fact that I said, "I most likely have AS". I truly believe diagnosing oneself to be a very foolish exercise. You can accuse me of apophenia if you wish. Admittedly, there is absolutely no way in which I can be objective about my meeting the DSM-IV criteria or not -- although my "stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms" are clearly visible in videotapes of me from my childhood. I also cared more for the company of adults than children when I was younger. But as I eluded to previously, the Star Trek quote was really the "straw that broke the camel's back". I am also INTP. I am a college student who still plays with toy airplanes and/or builds them out of Legos, I teach computer skills part-time, etc. "...common [often lifelong] interests are means of transport (such as trains), computers..." I could go on, but I don't want to bore you! Ycaps123 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have other evidence for your self-diagnosis, I certainly don't presume to dispute that, and encourage you to seek the appropriate professional for a confirmation so that you can get whatever therapy and/or medication are necessary should the confirmation be positive. I just don't think (Dr. Attwood apparently to the contrary) that you should necessarily regard an interest in Star Trek as a determining factor, and that using that as a diagnostic criteria applied to others can be incredibly damaging. Lots of people like Trek and have been involved with active Trek fandom without having AS -- my wife, for instance, just to cite one specific example.

Davidkevin 01:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Davidkevin... We may have to agree to disagree because contrary to your implication, I do not think that Attwood meant to infer that AS is the cause of Star Trek fandom. I think that he was simply commenting on a possible correlation between AS and the trekkie phenomenon. That is an entirely different connotation because, of course, it would be a fallacy to argue that Correlation implies causation. That is why I emphasized "most likely have AS," in my previous post,

But we are once again digressing from my proposal. Since no one here seems to have objected to giving a little more emphasis to Causes of autism and Controversies in autism within the AS article, I will make the necessary changes without delay. Please post any criticisms of my changes here before reverting. Thanks Ycaps123 20:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aspie or Autie, are the odds the same?

When someone said there was a 1-in-11 chance of marriage- Even if Aspies are higher functioning than Auties, do we still have the same odds or is it slightly better?

Do most Aspies want to marry? Or were the 1-in-11 statistics due in part to many Aspies not interested in marriage?

Marriage or not, I'm not about to let anything prevent me from having children. How easily can I arrange for a surrogate mother to develop my kids so I can receive and raise them as a single father? Whatever your answer is, could you please provide a source? --Shultz III 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You've come across a common problem today in determining prevalence of autistic traits. How is autism defined, and when? Again, I don't recall where that stat comes from, but I assume it applies to the entire spectrum. HFA and Asperger are closer to the general population, so the numbers there should approximate general population numbers more closely. In any case, the spectrum is so large that the statistic is probably meaningless. You have to ask 'What are the odds for me?'. Neurodivergent 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What are my odds, you ask? It seems that with current technology, it's impossible to determine, isn't it?

Now anyway, would someone please care to answer the surrogate mother arrangement question? --Shultz III 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"On the Spectrum"

Removing this link as the forum seems to have less than 100 registered users and no content other than a forum. Perl 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

2:3 to 1

(Prevalence, 2nd paragraph)

Does this make sense? Is 2.3 to 1 what is intended?

Yes, and yes. PurplePlatypus 03:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

AS and associated disorders

"Additionally, Asperger's is frequently accompanied by other conditions including Clinical Depression, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Bipolar Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. However, like many other symptoms, they are not universal amongst those with Asperger's."

This text was recently added; however I can find no published work on PubMed that does more than spectulate about the correlation or causation of these conditions with AS. Does anyone have peer-reviewed references that support this claim? I think as it stands, that paragraph is misleading. It should certainly mention that it's spectulation, and I'd rather it be removed completely. Thoughts?--inks^T 19:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is no reference then I think it should be removed completely. If there is a reliable reference then keep it. If there is a reference which is unreliable then keep it, but add a note with the text saying so. I think that pretty much sums up my opinion on all issues like this. Raoul Harris 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There are references, and they are reliable. That aside, I reworded it to indicate a weaker connection between the disorders. The resemblance between them is widely acknowledged and in fact is one of the biggest obstacles with diagnoses. There is research suggesting that indicates there is far more than a resemblance between the conditions, but it isn't entirely conclusive. I'll try to find some of the studies and let you wiki experts decide if you want to change it back to a less speculative wording. For starters, the connection to bipolar disorder can be found in "Wozniak et al (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997;36:1552-60)". (FossaFerox 05:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

There is research suggesting that indicates there is far more than a resemblance between the conditions The problem is that you can find resemblances between all disorders, or occurrences of various disorders in a family (suggestiong they share a common genetic origin): AS shares inattention (and perhaps sensorial) problems with ADHD, stereotyped moves with OCD (which itself looks like obsessive-compulsive personality), AS looks like schizoid personality, which is not very different from schizotypal personality, which in turn looks like schizophrenia. And I recently saw a book claiming there is a link between bipolar disorder and OCD. Apokrif 15:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Someone likes capitalization. The obsessive capitalization led to three dead links, whcih I have just fixed... - Hbdragon88 05:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Add External Link section

Would like to add a section to the external links called Government or some such to add the following link. Any disagreements? Otherwise, I could put it in Informational.

• Government

• Asperger Syndrome Information Page from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a part of the National Institutes of Health from the United States Department of Health & Human Services

PING Rdos

Self-diagnosis is not reliable. Period. No matter how badly you want it to be. We've had this discussion before. Every expert in the relevant field says it's not reliable, including the ones you tried to point to as saying it was. Wikipedia is for verifiable information found in reliable sources, and you will not find a reliable source that says self-diagnosis is reliable. Saying the experts are all wrong, with nothing to back that up, simply doesn't wash.

So quit edit-warrring over it already. PurplePlatypus 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't start an edit war over this minor issue. I really don't care if Bram is mentioned or not, and I did the revert mostly because of the claims that "self-diagnosis" would be unreliable. Now I see another claim that AS is a "medical condition"! Why can't these ignorant wikipedians keep-off this article if the don't know more about AS than that it's part of DSM? I'm sure I've mentioned before that I have hard evidences that self-diagnosed AS is just as reliable as "medically diagnosed". Self-diagnosis might not qualify for support, but it sure isn't any more unreliable than professional evaluation. --Rdos 12:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it's more a case of you reading more into the phrase "medical condition" than is intended. In any case, if you have this hard evidence, point me to it. You are correct that you claimed to before, or at least said something similar. To be blunt, I didn't believe you, and I still don't. (I think I also pointed out that even if it exists, it would at best have to be mentioned alongside the consensus of professionals, not supplant it). PurplePlatypus 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack! Asperger syndrome is a condition identified, researched, and treated by by medical professionals. It is a medical condition, like color-blindness. Bram has no training in how to distinguish "has AS" from "doesn't have AS" so as to agree reliably with people who research it, and even if he did that wouldn't enable him to make a disinterested evaluation of his own personality. Gazpacho 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And how do psychiatrists distinguish "has AS" from "doesn't have AS" in your opinion? Frankly, what Rdos says is probably right. The Asperger autistic is obviously more aware of what he is than a person examining from the outside. Neurodivergent 01:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "disinterested evaluation of his own personality" is an especially important point, especially among people with conditions like AS, because (and I speak here as someone who until recently thought he was one - and still would if I thought self-diagnosis was workable) part of what it is to have such a condition is for one's perceptions of one's own actions to be less than reliable. But this is straying into original research; it's the consensus of professionals that we have to reflect in our writing here, not our own reasoning. PurplePlatypus 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"One's perceptions of one's own actions... less than reliable" sounds to me like "Aspies have bad judgement". Can you clarify? I'd certainly hope this doesn't become one more baseless stereotype about Aspies. Neurodivergent 15:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So, Gazpacho insists that AS is a medical condition? Comparing to color-blindness? Since when did color-blindness become a medical condition? Cancer, heart-failure, asthma and so on are medical conditions that can be diagnosed on physical traits. AS is no such thing. It cannot be diagnosed with any reliable physical method, and instead professionals ask patients lots of questions. To me it is quite clear that a knowledgable patient could "self-diagnos" without the help of a professional. To back up my claims I simply refer to the close to 10,000 individuals that have answered Aspie-quiz. There is no meaningful difference between the group that identifies as "self-diagnosed" and the group that identifies as "professionally diagnosed". --Rdos 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That, Rdos, would be original research and wishful thinking. We know you believe in self-diagnosis, but that is not the point. I approach from the experience of seeing firsthand how psychological diagnosis has become a convenient "grease" for public school bureacracy. Nowadays when a teacher wants to get rid of a disruptive student, the teacher fills out a questionnaire in the appropriate way to get the kid declared ADHD or passive-agressive or what have you. I don't accept their diagnoses and I don't accept diagnoses from the subjects themselves for the same reason. Gazpacho 05:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't support schools giving kids DSM diagnoses to "get rid of them". I'm not sure I support any of these diagnosis myself, but then I see the reality also. They are needed because otherwise far more dangerous things would happen to these kids. So until we have some better attitudes in society towards autism and ADHD, we'll just have to accept "medical diagnosis" of them. --Rdos 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not so much kids to be given a diagnosis of AS, any more than it would be a problem for kids to be given a diagnosis of left-handedness. The problem is that kids are being told their brains are disordered. Imagine having to go through school with that label on you. Kids who in the past would've been considered gifted and geeky are now given a brain disorder label (example). It's fine to recognize that some people are different, but to suggest that the difference is invalid and disordered is really unjustified IMHO. Neurodivergent 15:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm also fairly interested in the treatment Gazpacho talks about. AFAIK, there is no treatment for AS. As for researched, yes you are right, it is mostly researched by professionals. Unfortunately, because they have been doing a pretty lousy job, IMO. --Rdos 22:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with them as well but recently there have been a lot of developments, such as being nearly able to distinguish and diagnose autism based on brainwaves (? I think brianwaves... something to do with the brain anyway...) as well as treatments based on that. There was quite a bit on it in an episode of Dr. Phil - but I think it is still somewhat experemental, but I'm not sure. Supposively they were going to treat the people on the show with it, as least IIRC. Oh, and autism IS a medical condition. Maybe in the article we can say "the vast majority of professionals consider it a medical condition" if you'd like but it pretty much just IS AFAIK. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I doubt it. Do the brain waves distinguish someone who is a little autistic from someone who is not quite autistic? How is the boundary determined? And how good a predictor is it? Even genetics probably can't predict more than 60% for classic autism and 90% for a broad spectrum. Neurodivergent 01:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if a medical test did exist, this section would make some sense. At the moment AS is an arbitrary DSM-IV classification, so it's not surprising there exist self-diagnosis, mis-diagnoses, diagnoses of the dead, diagnoses over the internet, etc. Diagnosing AS is no different to diagnosing "geek", the only difference being that in the case of AS there are self-described (self-diagnosed) experts who pretend to be able to do it. Neurodivergent 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

External links must be discussed before they're added/removed. Someone removed a link recently that had already been discussed and had been in the article for more than a year. WrongPlanet is the largest online support organization and I frequent it daily. Perl 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add that it only seems to be anonymous users doing this so the people reading this page probably aren't the ones who even need to read this. Perl 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's alright but I culled it a while back when the FARC was happening because it looked like just another wikipedia mirror (15 is pretty much the max people will allow for FA now). At any rate it is redundant to have it on both this page and Autism which needs to have its links cleaned again... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Also, if you could help in keeping the links down that would be great... I don't really care about them that much and you may know better then me - I just don't want any annoying vanity stuff that keeps on getting added (I think at one point there were like 60 links here) Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 20:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think its redundant since the Autism and Asperger articles are each geared towards two separate audiences whereas the website is geared towards both. Perl 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a cleanup in the external link section. I don't think schools should be here at all. There are too many of them if everybody is to insert their own. Some of the other "pro-disorder" links are unnecesary as well. There should be a balance between radical and pro-cure / pro-disorder, but there currently isn't. --Rdos 10:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested link: Here's a pop article from Locus SF magazine, Homo aspergerus: Evolution Stumbles Forward --Wjbeaty 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's Childrens relations with opposite sex individuals

I am currently in the process of being diognosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I have already been diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsionate Disorder and have deep difficulties concentrating on school work and other simple things. I recently found myself in grave trouble because of an incident I had with a fewllow female classmate. I am curious, is Asperger's Syndrome a cause of poor relations with the opposite sex? If so, what kind of difficulties do Asperger's Children face? And what kind of sensitive topic issues (drugs, alchol, sex) so Asperger's Children find difficult to talk about with other much more socially developed children?

I am also curious if Asperger's Syndrome is the cause of violent behaviour seen with William Fruend or if violent behaviour associated with Asperger children is that cause of others bullying against children with the syndrome. -Capt.Nero

I have no research or statistics to quote here offhand, but I can tell you that by the very nature of the condition of course people with Aspergers will have more difficulty communicating with members of the opposite sex. Aspergers is termed a high-functioning condition. This is because people who have it can, in time, learn to compensate. It's a matter of learning the rules of social interaction on an intellectual level rather than being blessed with an innate understanding of what goes on in social interaction. Growing up I was horribly uncomfortable going into any situation where I didn't know the "rules" that governed it. This would include everything from taking part in new extracuricular activities to talking with girls. Children with Aspergers syndrome go through social integration much later than normal children. Heck, I'm 20 years old, a college student, and still working on it (only had one serious girl friend thus far). As for the bullying though, I'm a bit torn here myself. Children with Aspergers aren't inherently violent, not all of them at the very least. I have seen research that suggests many or even most are as children, but in all the instances I've seen it fails to be conclussive. There's a lot of research and findings concerning Aspergers that are unconfirmed at best (such as people with Aspergers being prone to self-injury as babies/toddlers). It's best not to put too much faith in it. On a personal level, I would say this is especially true for you. Forgive me if I'm reading too much in to this, but it looks like you are looking to use Aspergers as a crutch and a justification for violent behavior. I don't think you can or should be able to do that. Instead you should try to control your anger. The bullying that many people with Aspergers (myself included) is usually the result of us just being "different". Different in the sense that we aren't as social as others expect or are often odd in our early social interaction before we've developed a full understanding of what is expected of us. (FossaFerox 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

The only language that aspies understand is disipline, you just have to discipline aspies more than usual children. Out of all aspies I've met the "stranger" ones are the ones whose parents accept their children's odd behaviour. 213.89.67.167 17:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are of course "dead wrong" in your claim. Discipline is *not* the way you teach your Asplings to behave. Just look at the correlation between autistic traits and ODD. You don't want them to ignore everything you say by commanding (or worse hitting) them. This is a bad strategy. The good strategy is to convince them they need to learn the social language and motivate them. You cannot do this with discpline. Nobody becomes motivated with discpline. --Rdos 13:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow... /=| Alister Namarra 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Out of all aspies I've met the "stranger" ones are the ones whose parents accept their children's odd behaviour." People eat tasty food; people eating that food must cause it to become tasty. Many people with lung cancer smoke, so lung cancer causes smoking (that was actually suggested by someone). You need to be careful with cause and effect. You could be right, but the effect you describe could just be due to the parents of "stranger" autistic children giving up on changing their children. Raoul Harris 06:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You both provide a very good point, you shouldn't force your children to become something that they aren't. HOWEVER if you want the best for your children and they are aspies they will eventually have a high risk of being bullied, or just have great difficulty to make friends. So if you want the best for your childrens mental well being then you should still try to learn them to supress some things that other people may find odd. And then have them work on their social interaction. Cognitive therapy is often a very good aid for aspie children. XSpaceyx 09:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I agree that it could be a good idea to encourage austistic children to act more normally (I don't believe you should force them too much though). But my interpretation of 213.89.67.167's post was that it is more severe "discipline" than that. My main point was to suggest that you should be sure before you make a link like that (even if it could be a correct link). Raoul Harris 12:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a correct link. One should not look at how "strange" they are, but how well adapted they are. Also, not everybody understands that many Aspies, and especially the ones which are oppositional to authority (parents and others), need a different type of motivation to learn how to behave. You need to convince them (verbally) that it is in their best interest to behave in a certain way. The whole process relies on mutual acceptance and respect, not one party telling the other how to behave --Rdos 13:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well of course, there has to be a balance and like I said I don't think you should use the kind of "discipline" that 213.89.67.167 was reffering to. However I do believe that it is important that you inform your children about themselves and how their surroundings my intercept things. XSpaceyx 20:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

AS => +IQ?

Does anyone have info as to whether AS results in a high IQ? The article seems not to mention this, am I merely mistaken? physicsboff 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a largely unresearched issue. I will probably attempt to relate g factor in intelligence tests to Aspie-quiz either by including highly g-loaded questions or by some other means. This will give an indication on the average IQ of autistics and the correlation between IQ and autistic traits. --Rdos 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Autistic intelligence is different, not superior or inferior to NT intelligence. Check out the work of Dr. Mottron for some research that's starting to look into this. It appears autistics score higher than the norm in the Raven (PRM) IQ test, but lower in the Weschler. The Weschler inadvertently measures a type of linguistic intelligence NTs are good at, and which probably is useful to get by in the world we live in. BTW, this research suggest classic autistics are smarter in the Raven than Asperger autistics, thus contradicting what the introduction of this article seems to imply. Neurodivergent 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, autistic intelligence is different, but I still think autistic IQ, as a whole, is higher than normal. This is required to offset the problems we have in the social domain. If not, we would not be here. Evolution would have selected out our genes. I don't know about classic auistics beeing smarter than Asperger autistics on Raven. Do you have a reference for that claim? --Rdos 05:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out the RPM vs. Weschler graph here. There is an error in the test norming, so Autistics scoring in the 80 percentile might not be exactly right, but the shape of the graph should still be valid. Compare to a bit over 60 percentile for Asperger autistics. I don't know if these are "classic autistics" but from this I infer that "more autistic" means "smarter in the Raven" (provided the individual is testable). I should caution this research is unreplicated as of yet. Neurodivergent 15:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the first pargraph of the wiki, "In very broad terms, individuals with Asperger's have normal or above average intellectual capacity". I have an IQ of 149 and the other Aspies I know tend to be well above average as well, but that's somewhat circumstantial of course. (FossaFerox 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

There's a strong question here of correlation vs causation. We might want to avoid saying that AS "results in" a high IQ, even if there is a correlation between the two. -- Writtenonsand 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Asperger's doesn't result in a high IQ. Perl 01:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have 115 in IQ so I wouldn't say that aspies have a higher IQ no 213.89.67.167 17:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What has your iq got to do with anything? I can't see any relevance of it to a discussion on the average iq of people with asperger's syndrome. Raoul Harris 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

From my own personal experience, all the aspies I know well have high IQ. No evidence of causality, but as there seems to be a correlation it's worth research. Anyone who can research it please do! It sometimes drives me mad trying to think whether or not it's causal. CMIIW 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm continuing work on getting professional IQ tests into the next Aspie-quiz. The recent article claiming that autistics do better on Raven than WISC is intruiging. I think it would be necesary to use at least two different types of IQ-tests, verbal and non-verbal. I'll read the book "The G Factor" by Jensen to be able to understand the theory behind IQ tests. BTW, my IQ is around 135. --Rdos 16:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

IQ is notoriously hard to quantify and meausure in anyone. But results are very unreliable when facing Aspies whose thought patterns and preferences can cause extremely high scores on certin tests and well below average on others. For the most part on a subject of facination to an Aspie scores will go through the roof but can vary wildly in other subjects.Symmetric Chaos 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

FossaFerox, your comment only serves as anecdotal evidence. Only a peer reviewed study can infer any relationship between IQ and Asperger syndrome.--Suspected 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed phrase, please clarify

"One example of this sort of bullying: non-Autistic students will pretend to befriend those with Asperger's syndrome by using sarcasm and intense use of "sexual phrases" which many children with Asperger's syndrome may not recognize as such."

I've removed the "sexual phrases" part because it was unclear. I'm fine with it being re-included, so long as it is clarified. Students use excessive amounts of "sexual phrases" even away from aspies, so the meaning is difficult to see. I'm also unsure whether this actually happens. Alister Namarra 02:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It does happen, but you're right in that the phrasing was somewhat awkward and imprecise. I'll rewrite it, as I should have before now. Thanks for noting it.

Davidkevin 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Brainstorming"?

I just saw that the word brainstorming was added to the article in this sentence: "Meanwhile, the child sits rarely speaking, brainstorming, feeling frustrated and wronged and often having no idea how to express these feelings." Why would the child be brainstorming? The article brainstorming only talks about the method for coming up with ideas. I looked around for other definitions and the closest I found was "Brainstorm (n) A sudden, violent disturbance of the mind", which I don't find to be enough justification for the statement, so I'm going to remove the word brainstorming unless anyone can provide a reason for it being there. Raoul Harris 06:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Alister Namarra 10:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I third that motion XSpaceyx 09:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's and MRI

Is there a connection between Asperger's and a normal MRI scan as mention in the article please clarify. Does the statement "However on medical tests such as electroencephalogram (EEG) and MRI they may have normal brain activity." make sense or should it be removed.

I'd assume it to be normal unless otherwise stated, but if there is an atypical MRI then we'd be spreading false information. Remove it. Alister Namarra 10:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the move to remove it based on possibly spreading false information.

Removed content 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Aspergers and Dysgraphia

It was noticed that there is nothing in the articles about Aspergers writing issues. There is a large majority of people who have difficulty writing and may have dysgraphia, I am one of them. I found an article, Myles (2003), that supports my idea and added it to a sub category under characteristics. If you can try to expand it instead of deleting it. I know that this information is new and a working progre but I feel that it is important contribution to the article. Please fill free to comment on this issue.

That was a good addition: I've just copyedited it a bit. I did however remove the instruction to limit computer time, as I don't think this article should contain instructions, just general strategies. They'll probably develop an obsession with the computer anyway. I speak as someone who has to use computers to read and write information, otherwise I'll have to develop repetitive strain injury from banging on a Perkins Brailler all day long. Graham talk 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Causes and Controversies

The Causes and Controversies sections could use some cleanup and expansion. The Jefferson comment should be placed in the appropriate main article, not in the AS article. Also, I think that a short summery of the topics from each main article would be helpful. I will give you all a couple of days to comment before I make these revisions. Ycaps123 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the following changes I expanded the Causes section and moved the copy of the book to the Thomas Jefferson Article ("Appearance and temperament" section). Do you have any comments about the changes to the Asperger's and Thomas Jefferson articles.

As of now, the Jefferson info is still in the controversies section of the AS article. Perhaps someone moved it back into the article after your edit? It is hard to tell exactly what happened because there are over a dozen edits from. Also, since you didn't sign your contribution to this discussion, I was unable to look for your user name in the article history. In any event, an expansion of the causes section is not quite what I had in mind. A possible summery of the causes section might go more like this...

The heated debate concerning the possibility that AS and autism have the same etiology is ongoing and current research findings seem to signal a continuation of this debate for a long time to come. In recent years, various models for understanding AS have been proposed, some of them gaining wider acceptance than others. Also of interest are quotes from AS experts.

Obviously the wording might need some modification. Nevertheless, a proper summary should not require more than four or five sentences at most. Any specific information, such as the Jefferson comment, belong in one of the Main Articles, imho. Ycaps123 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I just made a correction to the causes section and I do not understand what you mean by main articles please see the Thomas Jefferson articles and the changes that I added about blood type diet and Aspergers's.

It has become obvious to me that you are either ignorant of wikipedia's various policies, or you are intentionally destroying the AS (Asperger syndrome) article! I assume that you have been editing as 68.38.2.225. It is considered extremely impolite to edit an article unless you are logged into your wikipedia account. If you do not have a wikipedia account, you can create one by clicking on the link in the upper right hand corner called "sign in / create account". Once you have a wikipedia account and are logged in, you should always sign your contributions to discussions with four tildes (no spaces). Finally, it is also considered rude to do lots of edits to a page within a short amount of time. That is, you should make all of your changes at one time if possible. There is a button called "show preview" that allows you to view the changes that you have made without actually applying them to the article. This allows you to catch errors in formatting before you submit your edit. You can practice you editing skills at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox

Regarding the content of your recent edits, the Jefferson and vaccine links DO NOT belong in the causes or controversies sections! You have said that you are unsure of the term MAIN ARTICLE. In the AS article, for example, you will notice a link under the heading MAIN ARTICLE at the very top of the controversies section. If you click on the main article link called Controversies in autism, it will take you to an article of the same name. The purpose behind this is to keep the AS article from becoming too lengthy. Therefore, you would put the Jefferson and vaccine information in the Controversies in autism article. In the controversies section of the AS article, all that is appropriate is VERY general information. For example, "The heated debate concerning the possibility that AS and autism have the same etiology is ongoing and current research findings seem to signal a continuation of this debate for a long time to come. In recent years, various models for understanding AS have been proposed, some of them gaining wider acceptance than others. Also of interest are quotes from AS experts, the contemplation that some historical figures may have had AS, and more. See Wikipedia:Summary style for more information.

Because your edits to the AS article are inappropriate, I will be getting rid of them until you have a better grasp of how to use wikipedia.

Also, if English is not your native language, you might consider contributing to one of the editions of wikipedia in another language. Ycaps123 17:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Eye contact and emotions

Some people with Asperger syndrome do truly lack, or have reduced levels of emotions. For example, many people with Asperger syndrome have difficulty with [[eye contact]]. Some make very little eye contact because they find it overwhelming, whereas others have unmodulated, staring eye contact that can cause discomfort to other people.

I don't see the link between emotions and eye contact (other than the influence of the lack, or excess, of eye contact on the emotions of other people). Apokrif 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there is no connection between emotions and eye contact. I've managed to find out where the change occured diff=45302065&oldid=45265806 and I can't understand why it was done. I've read a lot about AS and autism and have never seen the suggestion that autistic people have a lack of emotions. The apparent link between emotions and eye contact, it seems to me, is not intentional. It comes from taking something that made sense and adding in the sentence "Some people with Asperger syndrome do truly lack, or have reduced levels of emotions" to follow the previous sentence saying that autistics often have strong emotions (author's explanation is "I didn't want to remove the edited sentence because I don't know enough, but it's certainly not true in the general sence, many asperger really don't have emotions"). Unfortunately that makes it sound like what you quoted. As far as I'm aware the added sentence is untrue, so should be taken out and it would make sense again, but I don't know for certain that it is incorrect so I'm uncertain about removing it. I think I will remove it anyway, but if it is correct it should at least be reworded. Raoul Harris 19:49, 20 April 2006 (U

I disagree with the statement about no emotions becuse I know 30 perople with AS and all of them have strong emotions that are charactistics of AS. do not change until you get the facts straight. I addition I made a new subcategory called "emotional particalies" how you like it and make changes as necessary.Natche24

Gaining Asperger's?

I'm just wondering if it is actually possible to develop AS, I have a friend that has grown very fond of a game (addicted) and now lately he seems to have developed many symptomps that could be could be considered symptomps of AS. He has become very anti-social and has even developed problems with focusing on things besides the game. Besides that well, he has isolated himself pretty much only going outside when he has to. Just wondering if it could be that it is possible to develop AS over time

There is a book today called Eat Right for Your Type: Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia and it mentioned that there might be a blood type, dietal cuase of Autism and Asperger's. It suggests that people with A blood have an increase prevalence of Autism and Aspergers, it also states that it might benefit from eating a low lectin, high secretin diet (D'Adamo and Whitney 104-105). See the updated causes section of the articles for more information. I suggest that you do not delete the articles just expand on it. see blood type diet

No, one can only be born with aspergers, not develop it later. Alister Namarra 22:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is an issue of nature verses nurture. So it is theorically possible to develop symptomes of Aspergers. Asperger's is a special gift and should be developed over time execially in mild cases of Asperger's. It is also posible for stress to be a cause of the symptoms of AS. On the other hand on the nature side it is also possible to be born with AS there just is no evidence backing that "you can only be born with Aspergers not develop it later",

I don't think that it's be feasible to develop Asperger's Syndrome... after all, isn't it caused by portions of the brain not developing, and therefore not functioning correctly? If this is the case, then it wouldn't be possible-- unless you were to have some sort of head trauma that rendered those portions of the mind dysfunctional. Bit188

I disagree with that statement because. I have AS and recently had a brain scan, MRI and EEG and found that my brain functioned correctly. How is at possible to have a functioning developing brain and still have AS. Therefore, it is possible in people with mild cases of AS to not have a functioning brain.

The concensus is that autism, unlike schizophrenia, is present since birth. This is not entirely true, however, if you consider what are called "regressions". Even some adults report becoming "more autistic" sometimes, and the reasons for this are unknown. Given that there's no medical test for autism, and no organic characteristics that absolutely must be present in all autistics, it's not impossible to suppose that a completely average individual biologically could display autistic behavior. Neurodivergent 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all unusual for people on the Autistic_spectrum to be entirely unaware of any difference between themselves and NTs until that difference is demonstratively shown to them with emphasis on specifics. Because of this, it is entirely possible for someone with AS to go through decades of their life intellectually compensating for what NTs do innately and never know it. However, the author of this article has proposed (although not in the article) that such compensation, or "faking NT-ness" as some might call it, takes a physical toll on the brain, which has a cumulative effect, leading to an early burn-out of the specific brain infrastructure needed to maintain the compensation. This, in turn, makes compensating less and less possible with age. If, like I propose, someone has been compensating all their life without realizing it, the decay in compensating ability may appear to the uninitiated to be "development" of AS later in life. I hope my 2¢ on this talk page can serve to refocus any possible self-investigation of the issue. 66.218.54.163 06:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons why an individual might remove themselves socially, and the development of Asperger syndrome is amongst the least plausible conclusions. --Suspected 10:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think you can develop AS, it's something you're born with and that you have to learn to live with, but yeah that it might be more obvious that you have it during certain times or such that is another story XSpaceyx 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical Student Syndrome

Might it be useful to mention Medical_student_syndrome in regards to the risk of self-diagnosis? Is this self-evident or would it count as personal research?

I fail to see the relevance. --Rdos 21:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This could be added to any article on disease, thus it is irrelevant. Alister Namarra 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just that this is the only article I've seen that actually states "self-diagnosis is not recommended"

That should be removed. There are many self-diagnosed individuals in the autistic community. --Rdos 04:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And that is, more likely than not, a problem, especially considering that the skills autism interferes with the most (the subtleties of understanding social interaction) are the very skills required to determine whether someone suffers from it. I know that you personally believe in self-diagnosis, but you have been repeatedly challenged to find a reputable source that agrees with you and have, as far as I can honestly see, drawn a complete blank. (You instead argue that psychologists aren't valid sources, but you don't get to decide that just because you don't like what they have to say. Even if all your arguments on the subject are correct, they're the best we've got.) PurplePlatypus 08:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Two angles:

1. Policy - wouldn't you agree that the warning needs to go unless it can be sourced?
2. Arguments in support of removing the warning: PurplePlatypus, your first argument rings true to me. But I think it logically leads to the following: Those who correctly self-diagnose with autism have (1) used their intelligence to sufficiently discern the differences between themselves and most people they encounter; and/or (2) accepted a description of such differences from a trusted person (e.g a parent). On the other hand, those who incorrectly self-diagnose with autism already have (per definition) such skills by nature and are simply missing the point, being stupid, etc. In the end this argument seems self-defeating to me. I agree that that the warning should go (or, conversely, be added to all conditions that might be self-diagnosed).

What do you think? AvB ÷ talk 12:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think PurplePlatypus logic is flawed. You don't need social skills to determine you "lack" social skills. This is quite easily observed. It is not hard to understand that you have no friends and have been bullied. It's not hard to understand that people misunderstand you either. Besides, the whole issue of self-identification have been demonstrated with Aspie-quiz. The self-diagnosed group is not less autistic than the professionally diagnosed. In some versions the reverse seems to be true. --Rdos 13:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Rdos oversimplifies the case. Determining that one lacks social skills is indeed relatively easy, though perhaps not quite so easy as he (?) makes it sound; most people are not especially self-aware and rationalize their failures. But that is not all there is to diagnosing AS; indeed, it is barely even the beginning of the process. A lack of social skills can have many causes, and AS is one of the less likely ones. The differences among the different pervasive developmental disorders in particular are very subtle and can be difficult to detect. I would certainly not trust myself or anyone else I know to draw the relevant distinctions reliably.

As far as Aspie-quiz, it would help if you would provide a citation so others such as myself could check what is actually said about it. I would be particularly interested in how it was determined who was more or less autistic; your descriptions to date have made the argument sound circular, but that might not be the case if I could actually see the study in question. Where can this data be found? I apologize if you have already answered this somewhere, but in several months of intermittently discussing the matter with you I have not seen a clear citation. PurplePlatypus 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeating my policy question in case you didn't see it: Wouldn't you agree that the warning needs to go unless it can be sourced? Or am I missing something here? AvB ÷ talk 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rdos' Aspie-quiz finding is interesting, and believable, but it's OR. Nevertheless, I agree with AvB. To include the warning in Wikipedia, it would need to be citable. Neurodivergent 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus, you might see a multitude of autism-related diagnosis, and if one's prospect is to make the correct distinctions between those (IMO arbitrarily) defined conditions, an official diagnosis would of course be more reliable. However, my opinion is that the autism spectrum should be broadened to include other diagnosis like ADHD and Tourette, because these have so many features in common with autism. I'd prefer a single diagnosis, and possibly "light", "moderate" and "severe" additions. ADHD would be "light", as well as some highly functional aspies. Traditional AS would be "moderate" and autistics "severe". Aspie-quiz evaluations can right now be accessed directly from my site rdos.net --Rdos 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(Cutting down on the indents to keep this readable) I don't think finding a source should be hard, but I am not 100% sure I agree that one is necessary. It is mentioned in passing by both Attwood and Gillberg, but both appear to consider it so obvious and clear-cut that no source is needed. I am inclined to agree.

ADDED LATER (my initial attempt to post the above edit-conflicted with Rdos): Your view is interesting and seems plausible to me (especially as someone who once considered himself to probably have AS, had two psychiatrists dismiss this as a possibility because I'm too high-functioning in various ways, then had the same two people come to the surprising-to-me conclusion that I do have ADHD). But if this is only your view, and not that of someone who has (say) published it in an academic journal, it runs afoul of WP:NOR. I am also not sure how it conflicts with anything I have said. PurplePlatypus 05:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sourced or not, other articles does not contain such comments about self-diagnosis, so why should it be here? I'm inclined to think that the reason is that some people don't want to here about self-diagnosed Aspies. In any case, if it should be here and not in other articles, there should be a good reason for this, and I don't think something that Attwood and Gillberg mentioned in passing qualifies as such reason. --Rdos 09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to regard this, if true (I haven't checked), as a problem with the other articles in question, not a precedent this one should follow. PurplePlatypus 09:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus, can you please provide some citations? It seems to me that warnings against self-dx are mainly issued as part of a general medical disclaimer and rarely, if ever, specifically targeting an autism/Asperger's dx. This is how far I got until I ran out of time:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&sfid=2&q=autism+self-diagnosis
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=autism+%22self-diagnosis+is+not+recommended
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=asperger+%22self-diagnosis+is+not+recommended
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22self-diagnosis+is+not+recommended
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=self-diagnosis+is+not+recommended&go=Go
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=self-diagnosis
• http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=255&a=3341
• Bruce G. Charlton, Self-managment of psychiatric symptoms using over-the-counter (OTC) psychopharmacology: the S-DTM therapeutic model - self-diagnosis, self-treatment, self-monitoring. Medical Hypotheses 2005; 65: 823-828.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed --> search for:

"self-diagnosis"

asperger "self-diagnosis"

autism "self-diagnosis"

adhd "self-diagnosis"

The Google searches are only preliminary but I regard the lack of PubMed sources as signifying non-notability of the warning; the lack of Wikipedia hits as supporting Rdos' opinion about its not being present in other articles; and the bgcharlton article as interesting.

Also note this conjecture/original research in Frequency of autism, which used to be? Autism epidemic: "A recent rash of late diagnosis and self-diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome in adults (perhaps due in part to the success of the world wide web) supports this observation. Adults currently receiving a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome could have been late-talkers as children, in which case a diagnosis of autism would have been more appropriate, had they been diagnosed then."

(in a hurry) AvB ÷ talk 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

PS Anyone interested in creating the Self-diagnosis article? <G> AvB ÷ talk 10:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, to *recreate* it. There has been a Asperger's self-identification article, but it has been deleted by a small amount of votes. I say we should recreate it, and the warning could be moved to there for the sake of balance and NPOV. --Rdos 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor put in "(Wendt 2004)". I cannot accept this as a source for the "self-diagnosis not recommended" assertion and have re-tagged it. In order to verify this, the entire source (full text available on-line per link provided by the same editor) needs to be read - a direct quote would be better. Anyway, I read most of the thesis (which actually sounds quite authoritative to me, but is not indexed or listed at PubMed) but did not see the assertion. I found this:

"5.3.3 SCREENING INSTRUMENTS The ICD-10 (WHO 1993) and DSM-IV (APA 1994) are the official diagnostic criteria that are used for Asperger syndrome, but a wide range of screening instruments for autism spectrum disorders has been devised in recent decades. The ASSQ (Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire) (Ehlers and Gillberg 1993, Ehlers et al. 1999) is widely used and is considered to be a reliable and valid parent and teacher screening instrument for high-functioning autism spectrum disorders in a clinical setting (Ehlers et al. 1999). It identifies the children with autistic-like conditions who are on the borderline of autism, with an average range of intelligence referred to as HFA and AS (Ehlers et al. 1999). There is a danger and also a temptation to use this tool as a diagnostic tool, which is not the correct way to confirm a diagnosis, as the ASSQ has not been validated."

Is this the citation? If so, I'm afraid it does not support the assertion at all. This is not about self-diagnosis or criteria but about the ASSQ questionnaire for parents/teachers of young children. And even if it would apply, it would only state that a self-diagnosis using the ASSQ is not valid in a medical/research setting, which, I think, is completely understood by most if not all people making such a self-dx. AvB ÷ talk 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

very nice.

I'm an aspie, too.

What's even more rare is that I'm a girl.

Very nice article! Ebb

It is not so rare as might be expected to find Aspie-girls online. --Rdos 06:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! I'm an Aspie-girl, myself. ~Bit188

can we please ban contributors who don't sign in?

A significant number of contributors to the Asperger syndrome article have been editing it without signing in. IMHO, some of these people have been creating more havoc than anything else. Moments ago, I conducted a test on one of my own posts to this discussion forum. I removed a typo without signing in. I could just as easily have changed someone else's words -- if I disagreed with his/her point of view for instance.

Can we restrict editing of Asperger syndrome and/or the Talk:Asperger syndrome to users who are signed in?

BTW, didn't Wikipedia restrict contributions to signed in users after the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and the Jimmy Wales scandal? Ycaps123 17:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are referring to is called semi-protection, and I don't see it being warranted here. While I'm not thrilled with some things that have happened to this page lately, it's not under siege to anywhere near an extent that would justify such measures being taken.

Also, a number of edits I made last night (not to this page) were signed under my IP address rather than my username, even though I was logged in. I assume others had the same problem. So the users you have a problem with may, for all we know, have been familiar, logged-in users experiencing a bug that wasn't their fault. PurplePlatypus 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just took a virtual stroll over to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and it seems that you are correct about official Wikipedia policy in this matter. Is there a procedure that we can use to ask contributors to sign in, giving them the option not to if that is their wish? Ycaps123 20:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that choice already there? As for asking people to sign in, isn't that the purpose of the "sign in" button at the top? Perl 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Prompting people will make them more likely to create an account or sign in. Plus someone may not realise that they aren't signed in and it would remind them. It could get a bit annoying though if it appears whenever you try to edit, even when you are signed in. Raoul Harris 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

Is it just me or does this article only seem to reference Atwood in the text and nobody else, even though there is a long reference list at the end? Simply south 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing broken edits

OK - the article got quite broken thanks to an edit by Raoulharris and 24.185.186.24. I have fixed and restored things as follows:
Raoulharris edit - no - broken
24.185.186.24 - no - broken robot and not needed
Zoe - yes
Natche24 - no - there was no backing for statements. Sources needed.
When editing please be careful out there. User:imcdnzl:imcdnzl

Please don't remove my whole edit if I had a reason for making part of it and you don't give a reason for removing it. I admit that I accidentally deleted a lot of the text and did not notice and am sorry for doing that, but I also did something else with my edit and then explained it in the edit summary (or whatever it is called). There is no way my edit could have looked like vandalism as I made a purposeful change and explained it, so it should not have been removed without a reson given. Of course you should add the text I accidentally deleted back in, but then you should re-apply the rest of my edit. You re-applied Zoe's edit, so why not mine? I probably should have been more careful when editing (though I've made plenty of edits and never done this before, so I didn't look out for it, which I will do in future using the "show changes" next to "save page and "show preview"), but I don't see me not being careful as a reason for my edit not to be valid. Raoul Harris 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC) It looks like my computer is screwing up the editing, as I also managed to mess up the talk page (I've sorted it out now though), but that doesn't change my point that part of my earlier edit was still valid. And as I'm posting could I ask you to please sign any edits to the talk page. Raoul Harris 15:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't work out what your edit was! --Imcdnzl 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my edit to the main article screwed up again. But I think I've finally managed to do it properly. It must be something wrong with my computer, so I'll take a break from editing temporarily, I don't want to damage any more pages. Raoul Harris 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the signature thing was broken as it displayed squiggles but I see it does work--Imcdnzl 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as I just edit this section I shouldn't be able to mess up the whole talk page. Ok, I understand that you may not have understood what my edit was, and the signature does just show up as the four tildes (even if you click "show changes"). With the signature it is much easier to keep track of a conversation :) (I found when I first started editing I would forget to include it sometimes, but I haven't done that in ages now). Raoul Harris 15:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Raoul-you have to remember to cite your sources plus the number you gave (less then 75) disagrees with the number given in the social IQ article for people with Asperger's(less then 85). It says that it is less then 85 and yours said 75. Because of this disagreement and confusion I deleted your statement net time tory to cite the sources and make sure your facts are correct.

Imcdnze-I have corrected my citations. thank you for letting me know Natche24 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mehh everyone makes mistakes, don't be so hard on him! 213.115.169.187 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Raoul-you have to remember to cite your sources plus the number you gave (less then 75)[...]" Whatever edit you are talking about it wasn't made by me. My edit was to remove the sentence about the phrases "asperge" and "sperge" from the culture section. It was later added back in then removed again (I think by Rdos). Raoul Harris 07:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Social IQ" tests

I've never heard of a "Social IQ" before, and certainly no one has offered me to take a social IQ test. Where/how can I take one? Now that I know about such a thing, I think I'll need to take one right away! --Shultz IV 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's an article on emotional intelligence tests, which seem to be the same thing. I have Asperger's Syndrome, and I recieved a score of 64... Bit188

only 3% live independently - is this really correct?

I have doubts if this really could be correct. Among the autistic people I know, most live independently. I think this should go or doubts about the claim should be added to the article. --Rdos 08:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree based on recent data collected by the [National Autistics Society http://www.nas.org.uk/content/1/c4/28/61/ignored.pdf] since they come from a credible source they should not be religated to another article which is not likely ro be read by people searching from the internet. Another reaoson is that this study is collected on 217 adults not children which is rare for studies. Please read the study provided by the link before moving the data to another article. Please, do not forget to comment before moving. In addition the data says that 50% live at home, 33% live in residental setting, 8% live in independent with residental persenal or family support, and 3% live independent. Natche24 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the study link. It is clear that this study is extremely biased and unscientific. The study depends on *parents* views of their children. It doesn't survey already adult autistics. Another problem is that only 38% answered the survey, which is also very problematic. We have no idea why 62% didn't answer. For this reason, the results might not even be representable of the *parent* population views. Another problem is that the AS diagnosis is quite new, and not many children who received their dx with help of parents is anticipated to be old enough so we can assess if they can live independently or not. Another problem is that at another location it is claimed that as many as 50% of adults are undiagnosed. Clearly, most of these do live independently, because otherwise they would need to pursue an dx. I suggest these claims should be removed until a study on a mixed-age *adult* population can be presented. --Rdos 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it is no wonder that 50% live at home. This is the natural consequence of the survey methodolgy. We don't know how many of these 50% will still live at home in 10 years time. It is possible (even probable) that autistics leave home later than normal, but this is not what is claimed. --Rdos 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link I agree with Rdos and have deleted the biased and unscientific study. Whos needs it in this article. 199.254.212.44 13:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Genetics

Hi how about adding a section on the genetics aspect of the asperger syndrom? Draw somw kind of a heritage tree with the (empirical) chances/probablities

What is the ratio of diagnosed versus self-diagnosed?

Here are some indications: Aspie-quiz II: 237 diagnosed, 365 self-diagnosed (1.54:1) Aspie-quiz III: 608 diagnosed, 1319 self-diagnosed (2.17:1) Aspie-quiz ND: 161 diagnosed, 449 self-diagnosed (2.79:1) Total: 1006 diagnosed, 2133 self-diagnosed (2.12:1)

If Aspie-quiz is an indication, twice as many are self-diagnosed than professionally diagnosed. --Rdos 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A caveat with your data above is that diagnosed individuals might be less likely to take the test. Why take it if you already know what you are? I'd be interested to know what the relative scores of self-diagnosed vs. diagnosed are. Neurodivergent 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. there are some problems with whom takes the test. Another problem is that only people that have access to Internet can take the test. The scores of diagnosed and self-diagnosed are virtually identical, with self-diagnosed a bit higher. The ADHD group score very simuilar as well, although usually a little below.

Aspie-quiz II: Diagnosed 117 AS-score, 73 NT-score; Self-diagnosed 120 AS-score, 69 NT-score. Aspie-quiz III: Diagnosed 122 AS-score, 80 NT-score; Self-diagnosed 125 AS-score, 78 NT-score. Aspie-quiz ND: Diagnosed 138 AS-score, 53 NT score; Self-diagnosed: 140 AS-score, 48 NT-score. --Rdos 06:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that the self-diagnosed score is a bit higher. But this doesn't necessarily mean that self-diagnosed individuals are more "severe". The prevalence of ASD in ADHD seems to be around 30%, so high scores for ADHD are not surprising. What this test is missing is data on how sensitive it is, i.e. how well it predicts a psychiatric diagnosis, and how many autistics does it miss. With this information, you could provide the quiz to a random sample of adults, and find the prevalence of ASD in the adult population. Neurodivergent 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some information on "sensitivity". In the neurodiversity-version, 14% of diagnosed AS is given the "NT-label". 73% get the "very likely Aspie"´. It is possible to get down to around 6% of "misdiagnosis", however, I'm not sure if this really is wanted. Using the PCA-loadings as criteria, increases the misdiagnosis to around 25%, which was how Aspie-quiz III was scored. This seems to show that the official diagnosis is not exactly related to the factors that questions in Aspie-quiz generate. I am tempted to give both an Aspie/NT-score based on PCA-loadings and a judgement if a professional diagnosis is feasible. --Rdos 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

unemployed or underemployed.

In the Prevalence section there is a sentence that is not clear to me, "A high percent (95%) are either unemployed or underemployed." I do not know if 95% is true because a I know people with outism and all of them have jobs or at school. Plus the source of this sentence is not found in (Frey 2006) as indicated in the article. Should it be kept or removed. Natche24 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How is "underemplyed" defined? That's the sort of word that can mean whatever any given researcher wants it to, really. PurplePlatypus 06:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

un·der·em·ployed (ŭn'dər-ĕm-ploid') pronunciation adj. (from Answer.com)

  1. Employed only part-time when one needs and desires full-time employment.
  2. Inadequately employed, especially employed at a low-paying job that requires less skill or

training than one possesses.

  3. Not fully or adequately used or employed.

PurplePlatypus-I agree with you about the underemployment I am just wondering if this is a good justification for the sentence being deleted from the article. 68.38.2.225 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC). I also agree with what the last person said about underemployment. Natche24 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment was deleted (by pro-autism peoples). Please reinsert it. Skinnyweed 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The information was reinserted into the article but the source of that statement is still unknown and needs to be cited. Natche24 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the "citation needed" tag to the appropriate information. Martin 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

criticism

Shouldn't there be references also to psychologists who do not accept the existence of such a syndrome...?

There would be if there were enough psychologists who denied the existence of Aspergers or autism. I think the article does have a section on alernate theories that might interest you. Symmetric Chaos 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)