Talk:Asperger syndrome and interpersonal relationships

Untitled

This page got speedily deleted within a few hours of my creating it the first time (for lack of content), so let's start creating/moving some text! Poindexter Propellerhead 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Social Impact

Is it worth leaving this at the top of the entry, and following on with Partner/Family issues? 124.187.14.93 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Passive vagueness! Second paragraph: "A child or teen with AS is often puzzled by this mistreatment, unaware of what has been done incorrectly." Unaware of what has been done incorrectly by whom? I assume by the child. 12.201.195.49 08:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Partner/Family Issues

[transported]

Just thought id get the ball rolling.

PS. I have noted the overriding emphasis in Maxine Aston's work on male-Asies with female NT's. I agree it would be more neutral to de-genderise discussions, and also yes, NT's can be a a problem too (in which case I'd question the 'NT' appelative). In fact I much prefer "non-Aspergers" to NT, as NT simply cannot apply to the varied race of humans, who each have their troubling idiosyncratic pathologies and none of whom is really "typical".

How about starting off with a statement about the historical difficulties which have presented in addressing this subject: ‘Partner and family issues are a source of great contention, with AS advocates and their partners/family members often presenting wildly divergent pictures of the positives and negatives involved in AS relations with others [include representative reference examples]. Because AS involves a variety of behaviours, some of which may not be present in the profile of all individuals, a selective AS-trait/behaviour analysis, and their relative positive or negative impact on relationships proves more accurate/useful/is required? than wholistic generalizations. Moreover, in those relationships where difficulties are experienced it is reasonable to assume that the non-asperger's partner or family member may also contribute to the problems experienced as a result of their own pathologies and behaviours.’

And continue on with: 'Regarding AS traits and behaviours which inevitably play a role in relationship dynamics, these can be divided into the positive, neutral or accomodatable, and the potentially disruptive factors:

• Potentially positive: [name them and cite reliable references]
• Neutral or accomodatable: [description and references]
• Potentially disruptive: [description and references; I would include here mind blindness and alexithymia for their reduction of empathetic attunement, though I'm not stuck on these alone]'

Suggested additional sections -

• techniques for managing NT/Aspie relationships (i agree with yer objection to the term 'NT')
• "associative mating" some claim that aspies tend to select other aspies as mates, which is supposedly partly behind their increased (perceived) presence in the population.
• Ceilingcrash's tantrums - why can't they get his medication right?

This last one can be treated under emotion regulation difficulties associated with alexithymic component. Attwood talks about this in one of his books, will see if I can find the reference, plus others from clinical/research literature. 124.187.14.93 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

CeilingCrash141.149.168.130 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Would anyone like to have a go at polishing up the above proposed opening paragraph, and include one or two footnote examples of 'extreme views' of the left and right? I just don't know who is who in the AS author world.

A next task would be to gather info and refs on 'potentially positive' and 'neutral/accomodatable' behaviors. You seem to know the positives pretty well CeilingCrash. Do you know the references for those too? I'm just putting out the suggestion in case you are interested in gathering something for that.

For my part I could do a little reasearch for the empathy deficit accompanying mind-blindness/alexithymia, and provide reliable sources, though I think I would need assistance in writing something of a good standard. I may also be able to get my hands on a bit of self-help info (which isn't banal!), but not sure..... will have a look around. 124.187.14.93 05:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take a night off from editing, but just wanted to say that I'm glad to see you two keeping the ball rolling! Poindexter Propellerhead 06:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I've quickly written the following opener for this section, and would like someone else to finish tidying it if they'd be so kind. It also needs a few representative footnote references inserted ( I don't know who is who in this area).

Partner/Family Relationships

Attempts to present an overview of partner and family issues have proved an ongoing source of contention, with AS advocates and partners/family members sometimes presenting wildly divergent pictures of the positives and negatives involved in AS relations with others [references needed]. Because AS involves a variety of behaviours (some of which may not be present in the profile of all individuals) a selective AS-trait analysis, and their relative positive or negative impact on relationships proves less contentious than wholistic generalizations. By isolating key AS traits which may contribute to relational problems one avoids the traditional error of negativising the overall AS personality. A second somewhat neglected consideration regards the potentially negative influence of non-Asperger's partners or family members who may contribute considerably to the relational problems experienced as a result of their own pathologies and behaviours. As in Family Systems Therapy [link to Wiki 'Family Therapy'] which recognizes that problems arise from a web of interactions within the family nexus rather than being blamed on a single member, it is prudent to look closely at the behavior of individuals with whom the AS individual is relating to gain an overall sense of the positive or aggravating factors involved.

Now, I'm going draft a brief few paragraphs regarding the 'potentially disruptive' factors of mind blindness and alexithymia, and say that these create a deficit in relational empathy (and cite clinical sources to back these claims). Also tempted to include one tentative reference to M. Aston's notion of CAD with particular emphasis on the 'emotional deprivation' she allots to the concept, and tie this with alexithymia. This is the singular and only aspect of her work worth highlighting in this context. Will also mention anger management within the topic of alexithymia, as it is proven that if one cannot recognize the source and meaning of emotional arousal, one does not have enough knowledge with which to dampen or modulate the affective upsurges. This latter should help explain CeilingCrashes tantrums (as you put it). There are several sources tying alexithymia to "brief affective outbursts of rage or crying" which can be included.

I hope someone can take up the other two sections on 'potentially positive' and 'neutral or accomodatable' (I'd place stimming in the latter group). Comments?? 124.187.14.93 08:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling I'm working alone.... is anyone even reading here? I'm hoping this isn't just a page for discarding the too-hard-to-deal-with subjects. Anyways, drafted and posted a rudimentary paragraph on 'Potentially disruptive' factors, and cited some sources, but will add more citations soon re- reduction in empathy which has been clinically proven to accompany mind-blindness and alexithymia. Will retrurn to that in a few days.

It would be good if someone who has read a lot about AS now drafts the 'potentially positive' and 'neutral/accommodatable' traits/behaviours. I don't know what others think, but I'd like to see these latter two descriptions as much more extensive and detailed than the negatives so that the few negatives are reduced in prominence. An overall positive portrayal would be more palatable, methinks. 124.187.14.93 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Therapy and Self-Help Techniques

Is this a worthwhile section? What could it be called, or is this title useful? 124.187.14.93 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pulling up on your flank ... =

Oh for heaven's sake CeilingCrash is here ...

Nice start soulgany, I'd like to start adding stuff (which will have a somewhat more positive slant to it) and place a few asterisks in your stuff. I think this sort of constructive tension will make a good article.

It is my guess that moving forward, our instinct should be to Augment and not Replace. That is, if you see something that you disagree with (and can source the basis of that disagreement), add the objection to the article, so the debate is laid bare and the reader can decide.

Here we are not bound to Academic/Medical quality sources, so we can have a much broader discussion.

I'd like to start by tempering the discussion of "Mind Blindness", there are researchers claiming that Asperger's are not mind-blind at all and that this differentiates Aspies from Auties. Back later ... CeilingCrashCeilingCrash 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

CeilingCrash,

We are on the same page in more ways than one. Augment and not Replace and Trait/behaviour analysis not character assassination.... these are an excellent way to approach the subject. It seems we have an overall recipe which was missing from previous infamous efforts.

I've never felt comfortable with (the little I know about) concept of mind-blindness because its not at all clear how much, or if, this applies to AS folks, and secondly the whole ToM concept seems a messy mish-mash of abilities and functions at best which are attributed to mind (what is this "mind" anyway?). Moreover there are no standardized figures for the prevalance of mind-blindness amongst Aspies that I could find (which is amazing considering how popular it is to mention MB in the context of AS!). So please go ahead and make it clear for the reader if you have the energy.

The second thing you may want to clarify is lack of publicized empirical research behind M. Aston's material (although I believe she is undertaking acceptable research), which is important for people to know... I was going to include her 'CAD' but couldn't (and wouldn't go that far) as it is doesn't meet the requirments of 'disorder' until the proof is provided. Nevertheless, her thoughts on 'emotional deprivation' do have value in the context of an inability an Aspie may have in reading feelings.

Lastly, unlike ToM, alexithymia is a much more reliable construct which has been clinically validated for decades, so I think this one is a winner. I'm going to add a reference to the reduced empathic insight proven to accompany alexithymia (and mind-blindness, if I can find one) and insert this.

I'll look forward to seeing what develops for the 'positives', and will try and enhance/add to that where I can.... I just don't know the sources. soulgany 124.187.14.93 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the mind-blindness issue might make a good separate section, there are powerful voices pro- and con. There are other topics on which there is broad agreement as well, virtually everyone concurs that there are communication problems between NT's and Aspies. There is a famous and funny anecdote of an NT woman who comes home to find her Aspie husband had packed up and left. They had argued that morning, and she said, "if that's what you think then you can just leave!" He took her literally, and deduced since he was indeed thinking 'that way', she didn't want him around anymore. She tracked him down and they had a laugh over the misunderstanding. CC208.49.146.130 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Been researching, and the more I look, the more it seems mind-blindness is a shaky concept as applied to AS, but as you say there are strong voices for and against. It may, as you say, be more an autism thing than an AS thing. Nevertheless there is enough scientific interest in the this to include it as a 'possible' relationship disruption dependent on the level of mind-blindness in each Aspie (if it is present whatsoever in some). Conversely the role of alexithymia seems to explain more than I previously thought- the low empathy, the inability to read feelings, the communication difficulties with non-aspies, the literal concrete-bound interpretation of metaphorical speech (as in the example you gave above), and unmodulated emotional outbursts (crying or rage). soulgany 124.177.149.196 13:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Found this interesting for a number of reasons as it explores the relationships between ToM, alexithymia, empathy, brain mechanisms, and ASD's: http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:HmnuhQtXSusJ:web.mit.edu/autism/Bird%2520-%2520Alexithymia%2520in%2520ASD.pdf+alexithymia+empathy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17 Incidently, it apparently included Aspie subjects in the study- "All participants in the ASD group had previously received a diagnosis of autism or Asperger’s Syndrome from an independent clinician according to standard criteria (DSM-IV, APA 1994)". 124.177.149.196 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We may have to nuke Aston entirely, she doesn't qualify as a researcher as she's never done any proper research. She reports on her counseling experience, which introduces selection bias that renders her conclusions unsupported. Also, she has no graduate degree. CeilingCrash208.49.146.130 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. As much as I'd like to see that part stay (I'm interested in where she's going with the subject of emotion), I suppose a rule is a rule, and I know they are there for good reason. Removing it will stop a bad precedent for forthcoming Wiki contributors. soulgany124.186.175.12 07:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I over-stated my case, we don't have to jettison her, just change the language a bit. Instead of calling her 'researcher', just 'counselor'. But don't let me write it cuz she rubs me the wrong way and it'll come out, "The insane, fraudulent neurobigot ..." :-b CC208.49.146.130 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha... I'll put in counselor instead of researcher then. Like you I don't want to encourage bigotry either, which is why we are both aiming for a middle path. On another subject I just re-read the fMRI study above and realized how scandalous this is for the ToM-deficit-in-AS advocates, because it clearly indicates that alexithymia is not a result of lack of ToM and in fact alexithymia results from anomolies in very different neural areas of the brain- regions linked to 'symbolizing'. This turns the ToM-alexithymia debate on its head (if I read it right) by indicating that alexithymia may be somewhat responsible for mind-blindness because the mind is not being afforded enough symbolic info (about emotions) with which to carry out mentalizing tasks. This places alexithymia at the forefront, and I recommend someone highlight this on the main AS wiki page. The ToM-pushers must be livid about this finding. 124.187.116.12 05:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually on second thought I'll just delete the M. Aston reference, because calling her a 'counselor' just sounds too banal for an encyclopedic reference. The entry can still target the emotional-deprivation/difficulties stemming from alexithymia without the need to mention her, though I'll leave the reference to her "emotional deprivation" webpage in the notes. 124.187.116.12 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion

I recommend someone delete the entire page, as most of this material is already covered on the positivistic selections on the main AS page. This page is mostly superfluous, re-hashed, rubbish. By rubbish I mean that alternative views are not presented. Soulgany101 12:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try finding some real, academic, peer reviewed, sources (in accord with WP:RS and WP:V) to support any "alternative view"? Unless, of course, there aren't any?--Zeraeph 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there arent any, Zeraeph. If you feel there is no way of legitimately presenting alternative veiws then I recommend that this pointless mostly duplicated article be deleted. Soulgany101 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Soulgany, if you want to set up an AFD do so, but I don't think "'Delete because I can't have my own way and fill the article with my unsubstantiated personal opinions" will impress anyone. --Zeraeph 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The contested edits can be seen here.[[1]] I have to admit, when I saw them on the change list I was a bit surprised to see so much of the article disappear, and believed the reason was that the article had been treated a little bit like a talk page, i.e., it included the statements "[Needs expanding and references]," "representative reference examples needed- maybe Attwood as a 'positiviser' and someone else as a 'negativiser' in the holistic sense," and (twice) "[description and sources required]." I supposed that what would happen next would be that the above comments would be replaced with some sort of sourcing (not necessarily peer reviewed papers from PubMed, since the whole point of creating this article was to remove some of the non-medical aspects from the medical article on AS), and restore the deleted sections. Soulgany and CeilingCrash had a good collaboration going, with each of them representing different perspectives, and I would not like to see all this effort be wasted. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be a fine distinction but I REALLY do not think WP:NPOV is about presenting two opposing arguments...especially when one of them consists of WP:OR and personal opinion like that...it's not even CLOSE to encyclopaedic...and lunatic fringe sources are no better. WP:NPOV consists in simply decribing the verifiable facts without bias.

If there are real, academic, peer reviewed, sources (in accord with WP:RS and WP:V) then let's put them into the article, but let's keep the notes and personal opinions to the talk page in accord with policy? --Zeraeph 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PP... I just got your message on the AS discussion page. Good to know that I'm not considered too extreme, and appreciated your comment. I'll stick around for a bit. I'm not sure how to retrieve the older edit, but I'm thinking if I get rid of M. Astons link it might appease, and instead use other citations. This for instance: http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327698JFC0301_03 If CC or someone can put in some positive/neutral AS traits/behaviors it might help. Really needing others to help mold this according to Wikipedia standard. A clear but moderate statement made about the relationship negatives-and-positives will help create more balance, and a potential truce between these long-opposing perspectives..... thats always been the aim. Soulgany101 04:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Picking up my meandering diatribe from over on the AS talk page.) We've been using consensus to wend our way through this topic, and have been (I think) pretty successful with it for a couple of months now. I'd hope that we could continue doing so, and avoid letting things get unnecessarily adversarial.

Talk page consensus was reached around 7-8 weeks ago for moving content from the AS article to this one, because we wanted to bring the AS page's citations into strict conformance with the standards for medical articles, and because there is a lot of ground which won't be covered in medical articles. So here that stuff is. It needed a lot of fixing up, and is still very much a work in progress.

Because it was very successful before, and because I can think of no reason to do otherwise, I'd like to suggest that people work out major changes on this talk page. I'll be happy to help out with sourcing, and we can have agreement before anything drastic is rolled out. We also avoid the [expand and add sources] sort of comments in the article itself, which I think is a very good thing.

The old text can be found here,[[2]] hopefully we can come up with a better-sourced version of it which everyone can live with. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the controversy element should ever be the FIRST thing we say in this (or any) article (unless the article specifically relates to the controversy itself). Surely the priority is to establish the framework in which that controversy exists? IF indeed a controversy exists at all, which is in doubt at present...because all I can find are professionals and academics on ONE side, and a small group of self-reported-as-negatively-affected, offspring, children and ex partners of people who are diagnosed, or even just alleged, to have AS on the other.

The latter group all seem to know each other, publicise and review each other's books and speaking engagements, and do not have one single valid credential or piece of objective research between them. All of these people, along with similar, subjectively orientated, "Non" type agenda, related to PDs, have been consistently dismissed, by consensus as failing to accord with WP:RS, and rightly.

The only valid references seem to be for AS as being vulnerable to Relational disorders, which are a proposed new category of disorders for situations in which only a single relationship is disordered, such as when a parent only abuses a single child among many siblings (a common experience for Aspies, but not sure if there are an WP:RS for it?). The tiny "Nons" group have turned this somewhat inside out to define a relational disorder as a situation where a specific relationship makes you mentally ill, even though you are otherwise perfectly normal, which is FINE when related to familial relationships and arranged marriages, but I am honestly all out of ideas for how a person can be "perfectly normal" to volunteer for, or worse NOT EVEN NOTICE that a specific relationship affects them that way.

The referenced Alexithymia stuff is great, but there is an article already and this one is supposed to be about AS, so I don't think Alexithymia should dominate or take priority either. --Zeraeph 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, I doub't there are any references tying AS with relational disorder, although I agree it has merit for consideration in the entry. There are several clear benefits to characterizing various problems under the category relational disorder:

• it shifts the focus somewhat away from the AS person's pathology alone and onto the relational pathology, meaning there will be less focus on blame.
• In shifting the focus onto relationship, there is an immediate invitation for the couple to develop skills and strategies for managing the problems together, rather than by just lumping all responsibility/blame on the AS person.
• it steers away from the erroneous notion that Aspies cause major personality disorder in their partners/children (as implied by Aston's original 'Cassandra affective disorder') and places the emphasis onto the problematic relationship dynamic.
• This re-routes the arguments of the "fringe elements" who continue to malign Aspies, and may squash (that is, supersede) their argument permanently.

Only difficulty here is I don't know how you could legitimately include this in the entry without citations to a clinical study. Soulgany101 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It can't be included then unfortunately. I thought there were references for that...no matter...--Zeraeph 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Found these, but don't know how useful they are:

Found this on an official page of the ‘Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare’- “At the most basic level, Autism is a relational disorder. From the child’s inability to relate to others in a reciprocal manner and to develop broadly based affective connections, many other consequences follow, including often global difficulty in acquiring a broad range of skills and abilities. The child’s developmental process is disrupted by his/her inability to form relationships and by the absence of affective readiness for learning. Without careful assessment of the relational capacity of the child and direct efforts to cultivate that capacity – which includes intensive work with parents and other primary caregivers – children with ASD are at risk of developing isolated, splinter skills without the ability to relate effectively to others, experience a broad range of affect and develop self-regulation, a sense of self, and active problem solving.” http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/General/AboutDPW/SecretaryPublicWelfare/AutismTaskForce/PublicComments/003<br671630.htm

EARLY INTERVENTION FOR INFANTS WITH AUTISTIC SPECUTRUM DISORDERS.

Kobayashi, R., Yoshida, K, Kobayashi, H., Funaba, K., Itagaki, S., Nakama, T., Yamamoto, N. & Takarabe, M. Tokai University School of Health Sciences, Bohseidai, Isehara, Kanagawa 259-1193, Japan. ryuji@is.icc.u-tokai.ac.jp

In taking early intervention measures for children at risk for autistic disorders, viewing the disorders from the standpoint of relational disorder, we have been evaluating the process of development of communication between such subjects and their caregivers, and the effect the quality of the caregiver’s involvement has on their behavior. The following has been brought to light: 1) Early intervention based primarily on promotion of attachment formation results in rapid abatement of autistic behavior, marked appearance of attachment behavior, and rapid promotion of emotional communication with the caregiver. 2) The obsessive or stereotypical and repetitive behavior gradually declined. 3) However, the perceptual behaviors peculiar to autism were not readily ameliorated, and persisted for a while. This led to the assumption that the primitive mode of perception noted in autistics undergoes transformation in intimate association with the process of communication development. 4) In the process of development from the emotional to the linguistic communication, the role of the caregiver was critically important. http://www.waimh.org/CONGRESS%202002/abstracts_wedB.htm

Soulgany101 01:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are thoroughly tied to generic autism...not AS...which means they belong in a different article. I don't see how they can be used without a qualifier that is specific to AS. Also, I would be a little wary about comments from any "task force" unless I knew exactly who did the commenting. --Zeraeph 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're tied to classical autism, I think it's vague because it's sometimes possible to tell that an infant has a PDD, but almost never possible to determine which one until they're older. The kids studied will probably end up with various diagnoses across the autism spectrum. I think it's a useable citation, so long as the text makes it clear that the kids studied were not diagnosed aspies per se. Hopefully we can find something more exactly on point. I have looked a little, and will look some more. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, have looked some more, and am returning empty handed. It seems that there were all of about 3 papers written on the idea of what is now termed "relational disorders" between the dawn of time and mid-2002, when Dr. First went on his campaign to try to get them into DSM-V. In the 5 years since then, there have been a dozen or so papers. (By way of contrast, there have been 6 papers on AS so far this month, and it's only August 2nd!) The impression I'm getting is that the psychiatric research community is not willing to accept the existence of medical conditions where all of the individuals concerned are mentally and physically well, but where they are collectively suffering from a disorder. The main concerns seem to be that (1) this results in a severely hyperextended definition of "medical" and (2) the belief that the reason for the category isn't based in good, neutral science, but rather a desire by marriage and family counselors to have a DSM number they can bill insurance companies with. For these reasons, the concept of relational disorders seems dead in the water, and I don't think we'll be seeing very many studies in the near future.

I'm still looking for an angle, though. Not on relational disorders, but on how we can say reasonable things about this topic and use solid citations in doing so. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

PP. Sounds like you've been very thorough, and I agree there are all kinds of concerns with the category.... real can of worms. Also, just think of how many disordered folks will do battle to have their disorder downgraded to a 'mere' relational disorder. Nevertheless it is a valuable angle and it gets away from who whole blame-game.... is more palatable. I hope you have some success with the general angle, though. Soulgany101 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS as an afterthought, is 'communication disorder' a useful, and also palatable alternative? Just a thought. Soulgany101 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Gender Bias

The controversy discussed was the same thing you're talking about: there are, as you say, people out there who want to make sweeping generalizations about how male aspies (females are rarely discussed, for some reason) cannot ever be good spouses or parents. While it is entirely possible that a specific aspie is just as hard to get along with as his bitter ex claims, the problem is in extending that into the sweeping generalizations of a stereotype to be applied to tens of millions of very disparate aspies. Hence the opening paragraph, which owes most of its content to CeilingCrash, an aspie who is all too familiar with the issues.

The problem we have to deal with in this article is in trying to describe the issues which can and do crop up in aspie/NT relationships (or perhaps even in aspie/aspie relationships) without relying on, or propagating, any negative stereotypes. Alexithymia, for example, is real, well documented, and can make for major misunderstandings. We need to be able to mention these very valid concerns without giving the impression that they will always apply, because they won't. If you can think of a better way to do it than we have tried so far, I think we're all very open to suggestions. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, entre nous...the reason for at least one of your concerns is that all female Aspies are, in fact, perfect...to the extent that they even prefer to avoid undermining humanity by rubbing their noses in it with published WP:RS. :o)

Seriously, I take your points entirely...but, the way I would see it, is that until and unless there are some REAL references to support the rather subjective "Non-Aspie" agenda at play here, they shouldn't be mentioned at all? There certainly ARE problems (including Alexithymia...I just don't thin k it should take over the article), some of them are well documented in terms of WP:RS (and EVEN *satisfying Zeraeph*) so let's do it... --Zeraeph 19:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that any parter-of-aspies group, to have any credibility at all, needs men in it. Not a 50/50 balance, but you know - some guys, and some female Aspies (not that they are imperfect in any way *tiptoes around Zaraeph's claws).

Temple Grandin! Hello?

Yes only 1/4 of Aspies are female, but that's a lotta Aspies!

Autism is not gender specific, is not gender specific, is not gender specific.

I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I think it was important.

PS : yesterday was my birthday. CC

CC. I'm a male partner (well, ex, actually) who totally agrees with what you say, and in this respect I'm an absolute ally. I'm a "stoic" male! I've been fighting the stereotypes and misconceptions for years. The problem is this- Non-aspie women confuse universal male stoicism (in which men can identify feelings but refuse to talk/blubber constantly about them) with alexithymia (in which no such identification of feelings happens). So immediately we must get rid of half of the suspected AS diagnoses as mistaken examples of male-stoicism. As Tony Attwood said in a recent interview: http://www.abc.net.au/queensland/conversations/stories/s1904502.htm?

_______________________________________________________________

Tony Attwood in conversation with Richard Fidler

April 2007 ABC radio.

Fidler: I notice Aspergers is coming into the modern lexicon, and it is being thrown around really carelessly, like people say “ah such and such, he’s a bit narrowly focussed, he’s got a touch of the Asperger’s about him”. Is there any truth to that kind of conversation, do we all have a little bit of the Asperger’s syndrome about us?

Attwood: Yes everyone does, but clinically the question is how much. But what I don’t want is for wives to say, “because my husband doesn’t understand me, doesn’t know what I’m thinking today, he’s got Asperger’s”, “you need to be diagnosed!” [they will say to their husbands]. And I don’t want people to think that. This is much more severe than that.

Fidler: So just watching sport on TV and not talking, that doesn’t mean you have Asperger’s syndrome?

Attwood: Yes not looking at someone’s face doesn’t mean you have Asperger’s syndrome! [Interviewer and Atwood both laugh].

_______________________________________________________________

Then of course there are some real aspies (a proportion of that other genuine 50% claimed by wives) who actually don't have alexithymia but are just stoic too! Remember, even though the majority of ASD's are alexithymic, 15% of ASD folks are not. So this adds up to (lets say) 65% of those claimed by wives as alexithymic are actually not. I've actually clarified the difference between AS traits and standard male stoicism on several AS-partner sites. Its interesting to listen to the silent response, lol. But silence means they are thinking about it.

Anyways, I'm raving. Just thought I'd let you know I'm not a wife.... I'm a male partner, and I see your POV. Soulgany101 01:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I KNOWED THAT...we joined hands and sang "Very happy unbirthday to you" on Talk:Asperger syndrome

Absolutely you need a few "token male" partners of Lady Aspies (well believe it or not there ARE also gay Aspie GUYS with partners) in any support group, whinging on about how their deity is too lenient with then, degrading herself by associating with them, etc and so forth...I am sure I could spare a few minions for an hour or so a week to serve the purpose.

Now, for heaven's sake man, LOG IN, you are BUCK NEKKID!! --Zeraeph 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• blush. Now THAT was embarassing.

The "relational disorder" is an interesting angle. I think Aut/AS, by definition, are aspects of an individuals neurology, not a relational dynamic.

On the other hand, going all the way back to the Institute for the NeuroTypical with their mock DSM for NT-ism, there is a completely non-pathological view of Asperger's. Attwood wrote an essay on this (i'll try to find it.) While the neurologies are individual, the *differences* are relational, also by definition.

At the risk of being lynched by NT's (a considerable risk already), NT-ism can seem disturbing to us - and we're used to seeing it everywhere! Not to insult anyone's neurology (if only the DSM extended such courtesies to us), NT's seem - to me - anyway,

• unnervingly forgetful, you almost want to record their own words to play back for them later.
• strangely repetitive in expression; if i like someone, i tell them once or twice and that's it.
• NT's seem to reassure through saying something hundreds of times. To me, I would be *less* likely to believe something so oft-repeated.
• engaged in pursuit of meaningless ends, like money or approval of others. (What do you really want to buy? What will that approval bring into your life?)
• terrifyingly accepting of authority. Achtung!
• possess a strange ability to be within 20 feet of a functioning television without bashing it to pieces just to shut it up.
• Just awful at math.
• IQ's just a smidge close to room temperature.

I will add, however, that they dress very well.

This is of course reflects what matters to *me* and my own totally reckless generalizations about others. It is essentially a value statement about me and not really a comment on the worth or pathology of others. It has no value aside from perhaps a chortle or a desire for CC to take his medication.

But the DSM is filled with this cr@p as well. A kid at age 5 speaks at an adult level, and his speech is called "odd", "pedantic" and of an "inappropriate register." And so on.

Attwood writes (and i can dig this up too) that the young aspies he studied tended to say "Yes" rather than the slang "Yeah", and counted this as "overly formal." I really don't see the problem here.

There is a big new study due to be released in Sept. by *autistic* researchers called The Nature Of Autistic Intelligence which is going to a) try to counter the 'neuro-social-bias', b) assert that there are instants of autistic intelligence which are superior to any NT configuration (an idea the NT's are *very* uncomfortable with, c) introduce new criteria to separate problems from talents and d) shut ceilingcrash the hell up. Godspeed, I say. CC

• secrets himself away to secure, undisclosed location CC

Know that "carry cassette and play it back when they deny it" feeling RIGHT WELL...I read it as a "social cue" for me to say "'bye".

Still, it IS true...AS is supposed to be a neurological disorder, or, as I prefer, *difference*...any "relational disorder" is down to how one uses it from there.

It seems perfectly possible, to me, for a properly nurtured Aspie to have a perfectly healthy relationship, justy as it seems perfectly IMPOSSIBLE for an NT raised in dysfunction to have an healthy relationship without a lot of help and counselling to recover from the conditioned dysfunction. Maybe where Aspies fall down is in that there is, as yet, not effective help or counselling available for them to recover from the different way dysfunctional conditioning affects us?

Telling us we are "doomed to generate relational disorder because we are Aspies" is no more helpful than truthful towards that end. --Zeraeph 15:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a communication gap; 90% of it anyway. We do use language and such rather differently. The key, I think, to crossing a communication gap is not to try to CONVERT the other person over to your language. Each person learns a bit of the other's language, and expects a bit of misunderstanding along the way It would perhaps help NT's to know we value our language just as they do theirs. I think NT's expect to see a group of sheepish, disordered supplicants and instead run into us : headstrong, arrogant and proud. That is quite a shock, I believe.

To quote my good friend, Harvey Blume (he coined Neurodiversity dontcha know:)

• Yet, in trying to come to terms with an NT-dominated world, autistics are neither willing nor able to give up their own customs. Instead, they are proposing a new social compact, one emphasizing neurological pluralism.

The consensus emerging from the Internet forums and Web sites where autistics congregate (...) is that NT is only one of many neurological configurations -- the dominant one certainly, but not necessarily the best. [Blume, Harvey, "Autistics, freed from face-to-face encounters, are communicating in cyberspace", The New York Times, April 8, 1997]—Preceding unsigned comment added by CeilingCrash (talk • contribs) (forgive him for he is still recovering from his 41st birthday and cannot help it :o( )

I think you have a point there, after all, there REALLY isn't the slightest reason why a relationship with an Aspie should be any harder to develop than a relationship with an NT, unless the NT, or the Aspie, are otherwise messed up. We all have different parameters. --Zeraeph 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling Crash. Everything you say above is right on the money, especially the targeting of the communication problem (surely a core). On the other angle, all the advantages and positives you noted above should be collected into a pithy statement as "potentially positives".

I must take you up on your muddled use of "NT's" and their link with the DSM. All NT's are in the DSM too. Yep, all of em. Therefore there is no such thing as "NT's", there is only non-aspes. By maintaining that link between - the NT's and their beloved DSM - you are propogating a false dichotomy, moreover a dichotomy you probably don't believe in. Everyone has psychopathology of some kind, and none is spared. Soulgany101 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome and courtship

Causes of autism#Social construct used to contain the text below, but it has nothing to do with the causes of autism and really belongs on Asperger syndrome and interpersonal relationships if it belongs anywhere. I'm copying it to the following subsection in case one of the editors of this page wants to pick up the text. Eubulides 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph moved here from "Causes of autism"

Dr. Tony Attwood notes a strong association between certain types of interests and Asperger syndrome (AS). In a talk for partners of people with AS in 2000 he illustrated what he describes as the "courtship" phase of AS by reference to Star Trek conventions, calling them "reunions for people with Asperger's"—a classification he also extended to train spotters in the UK similarly characterised.

Has Attwood lost his freakin' mind???

Now, we're not here to determine truth, rather, verifiability. But it's verifiability to credible sources, credible literally meaning "believable", so we get tangled up in truth despite our fervent vow to the contrary.

Attwood has said some things that are ... disturbing ... in the sense of his being a present RS. On the one hand, the man is huge in Asperger's, he is literally over 7,000 feet tall. On the other hand, he is beginning to say stuff that isn't just false (let he without sin ...) but absurd prima face

In fairness to Attwood, excerpts from talks should not be given the same weight as work he has published and submitted to peer review. It is *very* easy to make an incomplete extemperaneous remark, response to a question, or be taken out of context.

We've also got to be careful with Attwood; the book that made him famous was a general survey of the topic, not new research (Attwood, Tony. Asperger's Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals, Jessica Kingseley Publishers). This book was not peer reviewed nor subject to other academic standards. I got curious about kingsley publishers and actually went thru most of the manuscript submission process. If you pay them, they will print anything you want. Editing costs extra. If you want peer review, you provide them names of ppl who vouche for it.

Now, Attwood's fame and the world-recognized quality of his first book well compensate for this oddity, I believe. But Attwood, unlike his classmate Baron-Cohen, has never done any scientific research (please somebody correct me if i'm wrong on this point.) He himself repeatedly warns his conclusions are based on clinical data (experience with patients wandering in). This introduces the now familiar Selection Bias problem that led freud to conclude the psyche could be cured by the application of greek mythology to the genitals.

With this background in mind, here are some things he has said. Above we have the star-trek convention remark. Here Attwood actively discourages partners of Aspies some seeking professional help, and guides them to 'grass root' internet forums :

"With Asperger's, life is a stage," Attwood said. "The curtain goes up while they are in public and down when they are at home. Because other people do not see the problem, they question your sanity - you are on your own. In some families, denial has held the family together for generations, and you want to bring down the scaffolding." ...

"You cannot get this knowledge from professionals. contact with other partners through newsletters, a support group, or an Internet site is vital"

[This is a disgraceful abdication of his own profession. The reason you can't get this information from professionals is that it is unsubstantiated and indefensible. Attwood could write this into his next book, thus making it available from professionals - but he knows that he can't. The implication that only partners of aspies are fit to counsel other partners is troubling as well. A neuropsych disorder is no place for anti-intellectual folk psychology]

[There is another quotation where he says Aspie husband fall into 3 categories, all of which are bad. i'll insert it later.]

Attwood nowhere suggests the NT may be the source of trouble in a relationship. (There are lots more ways to be screwed up than the A. Spectrum!)

What is driving Attwood? Where is the voice of reason, "if you're having trouble in a relationship with an Aspie, get yourself some professional and qualified advice and by the way - don't forget you may be the problem ..."

I can only guess. It is worth noting that, autism began in the domain of psychology but is moving to the realm of neurology, psychopharmacology and genetics. There isn't all that much for a psychologist to do for us. They did enuf damage with the Ice Box mom theory already.

But partners of Aspies - cha-ching! Traumatized by life events ... let's have a ... workshop !!!

Attwood and Aston do business together, along with an organization called FAAAS. They put on workshops here in the US, Attwood speaks, he gets paid, promotes his books as well. Along with Karen Rodman, founder of FAAAS, they form a transnational unholy trinity spanning the US, UK, and Australia.

Aston always - always - references attwood in her essays to get reflected credibility. She likes to put her name and his in the same sentence. Aston publishes through - you guessed it - Jessica Kingseley Publishers, so there are no pesky issues with peer review or even editing.

And worst of all, Attwood's latest book, The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome , has a very stange last chapter. All about relationships, filled with references to Aston (who has done no scientific research.) But check the bibliography - the last chapter doesn't exist. It appears the last chapter was added late in the publication process, after all his other sources were vetted. For Attwood to expend his credibility on the likes of Aston seems tragic to me.

I should close by saying that I believe Tony is a man of great intellect and great heart who appears to respect and even admire some aspie differences. But I believe there are serious questions as to Attwood's credibility. Remember his publications slipped by peer review, i think he has used up his free 'pass' at this point and we have to look at him more critically. My issue with Attwood is not political. Baron Cohen has said some pretty vile things, but he backs them up with research so i consider him a sterling source.

I may cross-post this to the main Asp talk page ... </rant> CC

This is just SO irresponsible. Attwood is about to get a personal flea in his ear from me on this:

"With Asperger's, life is a stage," Attwood said. "The curtain goes up while they are in public and down when they are at home. Because other people do not see the problem, they question your sanity - you are on your own. In some families, denial has held the family together for generations, and you want to bring down the scaffolding." ...

"You cannot get this knowledge from professionals. contact with other partners through newsletters, a support group, or an Internet site is vital"

Has he ever BEEN to an "internet support forum", does he have a single CLUE how toxic and abusive most of them are right up to Admin/Guru level?

Was he drunk? --Zeraeph 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

CeilingCrash comments

An AfD nomination may not be a bad idea, considering how little WP:RS we have to go on. To soulgany, the insistence on RS for the topic of Asperger's is not academic snobbery or puritanicalism; it is a matter of social responsibility.

The Wiki policies advise caution when discussing living persons. Aspies are very much alive. What is said about them touches their lives. Wikipedia - precisely as a consequence of it's adherence to RS, NOR, and NPOV, has earned a global reputation for accuracy and is the #1 internet stop for introductory information.

To give a personal example, when I tell a new partner of mine that I am Aspie, I can expect her to google asperger's and wind up here. If there is unsubstantiated information here, *I* have to deal with it in my personal relationships. Yes, Aspies can misread facial expressions. No, they are not violent. No, they do not neglect or abuse children. No ... and so on.

It is very easy to maling entire groups of people. But it is very hard to do it scientifically, using credible sources.

Homosexuality was once considered a psychiatric disorder, prior to 1973 in the USA anyway. No way was an 'out' homosexual going to be allowed to adopt a child. There was no shortage of anecdotal evidence that homosexuals were dangerous, pedophile alcoholics.

Anecdotal evidence, which is usually offered up in the form, "in my years of counseling such people" is worthless. A few years ago an actual scientific study found that homosexual couples make a homelife at least as good as straight couples.

In addition to anecdotal evidence is Selection Bias. Those who 'counsel' are, by definition, only brought in to address a problem. They do not go into the general population and research. For example, a cop will tell you that many african americans are involved in crime. But nobody calls a cop on a black man who quietly works his job and supports his family. Statistics show that it is poverty, not race that predisposes people to crime. A black man in identical economic circumstance has been shown to be slightly more likely to be law abiding and rise out of poverty.

This is the reason we need researchers, doing randomized studies subject to peer review. Because it hurts living people to say a black man is a criminal. That a homosexual is a bad parent.

And it's wrong. CC CeilingCrash 16:25, 30 July 2007

I want to endorse every word of this, it is just the plain truth.

Apart from which, everybody with an agenda wants to "star" in a Wikipedia article because to do so is to "make it" on google. The point they miss is that the reason Wikipedia articles headline google searches is BECAUSE we keep the "experts by self appointment" out and the information rock solid. --Zeraeph 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CC. I'm going to assume for the moment that you are speaking to the already converted with your examples of black-people's and homosexual's experience, and I agree with what you say. Such ideas/stereotypes are very dangerous and very harmful to the people concerned. That said (while we are looking at this philosophically) there are legitimate subjects to be detailed in the context of black peoples, homosexuals, or AS. When people singularly focus on deconstruction of harmful ideas/stereotypes they may devote no time to the very real issues which need addressing, such as: is there an alcohol problem in the homosexual community, or elevated crime in segments of the black population, or relationship difficulties contributed to by AS traits/behaviors, and what is the nature of these problems (if any) beyond the stereotyping? The via negativa process may itself sideline from evaluation of these issues.

I'm looking at all these suggestions above and can see some genuine exploration going on (beyond deconstruction), and it is clearly backed by an understanding of Wikipedia basic standards from those presently inputting. I'm going to watch what others initiate with this article and make suggestions as we go, suggestions which others can point out the suitability or unsuitability of according to the Wikipedia way. I will do my best to try and understand some of these abbreviations (RS, NOR, and NPOV) in the meantime. Soulgany101 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And to help you do this, click these links:

• WP:RS
• WP:OR
• WP:NPOV

--Zeraeph 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Zeraeph Soulgany101 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Adult Dyssemia?

From "Will I ever fit in?: the breakthrough program for conquering adult dyssemia" by Stephen Nowicki. If I'm not mistaken its the inability to socially fit in. Is Adult Dyssemia related to Asperger Syndrome in some way???

-Bill

Nov 23, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.201.225 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)