Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Extroversion and Asperger's Syndrome

Hello, I would like to describe myself as someone with Aspergers' Syndrome, but i acknowledge i am very different to many Aspergers people i have encountered in local support groups and media/psychology stereotypes. I do know that when i was young boy i would have intense interest in things like dinosaurs, computers science and art, but i had a very intense creative imagination - I didn't really fit in primary school but i had some close friends who would defend me despite my socially eccentric behaviours. Thing is, when i became a teenager i became less and less like an AS person, i still have the interest in pursuit of knowledge - But i seem to undergo a process of self-realisation and ended up being very sociable and popular. I never had any awkward 'body physicality' and i was coordinated to the point of being a competent artist, musician, rugby player and break dancer. I never had any problems relating to people, i understood queues, i had no inhibitions and became versatile as a conversationalist and i haved flirted with many girls and would describe my social success as something better then average. And then i got into the whole drug/rock scene and i seemed to be antagonistic of the Asperger Syndrome typical - i do admit i had great interest in chess/poker/art/producing electronica/philosophy and psychology. aswell as attraction to conspiracies, ancient cultures and eccentric sciences/art/personalities i never exhibited any Aspergers Syndrome traits typical in this article. I will say this though - I am obsessed with hygeine/beauty/gym/mental/physical/spiritual perfection and i will not settle for 'average'. Now i know this is purely anecdotal, but i know my father has Aspergers and its very strong even as an old adult and i seem to have not been effected. I'm wondering if my ability of analytical/intuitive which was very high in IQ tests attributed to my reading and accessing of situations set me apart from AS typicals? (At A Levels, I was nominated to be Social Coordinator of my school for my people skills). perhaps the idea that i have successfully self-actualised myself in my teenage years with active socialisation that i have forced my natural Asperger's Syndrome self to die. I'm sorry if this story doesn't make sense, I have to attend a charity drive this morning so i was in a rush. Any thoughts from everyone who has been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome or know of anyone with it that doesn't fit the characteristics of Asperger's Syndrome (such as social impairment, yet obviously have some AS tendeancies)? --213.106.102.178 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't it be a misdiagnosis? 165.146.92.121 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I suppose I am less affected by Asperger's Syndrome than most. I am still socially inept, but people tell me that I have a great sense of humor, and I do enjoy puns and sarcasm. I have very extreme interests, but a wider range than most people with AS. I also have no learning disabilities, and I'm working somewhere around five or more years above grade level (which means twelfth grade or higher). I was diagnosed only two to three months ago, and since then my mother has put me in a social skills group, which I begin next week. I currently only know one other person with AS, and her and I are worlds apart in behavior. I am an "Aspie-girl" as well, so this may have some sort of effect on the level of severity AS has for me... -- User:Bit188
Sounds to me like you're just an above-average dude who likes the idea of Asperger's and wishes he had it. Asperger envy?  :P

Link Removal

There was a tag on the link section requesting the number of links be brought down to a max of 15 (cleanup-spam), so I took out the following, which I thought were the most easily classified as spam if any were:

There are 15 left, and I don't think any more are really necessary. I put them here just in case someone has a really good reason to keep one. (169.231.23.121 06:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

I just put one back; the link to a list provided by an autism publisher to dozens of groups and Asperger resources. I realize the book publisher is a commercial site, but this is not spam. The list they are offering is just a great collection of links to autie and Aspie groups, which may head off urges to list all the same groups' links individually here. Pokey2006 03:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

Originally from the article - lots of good info, but too much :). People oppose featured articles for including sections like this - best to keep it here. If you have one please add :). RN 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea, but rather than putting the further reading on the talk page, which really doesn't work permenently, could we create a seperate list page that can be referenced within the article (TELL ME you did't put "see also: Talk Page" ON the article - PLEASE???). It's all good stuff but yep, a BIT overwhelming...worth it's own page I think? --Zeraeph 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel the fear and do it anyway List of further reading on Asperger syndrome ;o) --Zeraeph 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this information is useful. Skinnyweed 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
So do I, it's just overwhelming in quantity on the main article and buried here --Zeraeph 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea to create a list with a link. As the person responsible for suddenly adding a couple of dozen books into further reading, I did feel it looked cluttered but didn't want to toss anything out (coincidentally, I have this very same problem with my bookshelves at home). :) This solves the clutter problem without having to ditch any titles. I will continue adding to this list as my own personal collection expands. Pokey2006 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Different Worlds Site - Add Link

Please could you add a link to our Web Site

www.differentworlds.org.uk

We are a support group for those parents who have children with Aspergers Syndrome or related disorders.

Many Thanks Lyn and Tony

Lyntony 06:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

psychotic

After reading the referenced article I think that Westernmost is right to remove but for the wrong reasons. The article (Frey) says that other researchers say that psychotic eposides are more likely but give no sources. I am agree ing with removal for that reason not because it puts us Aspies in a bad light. We should respect (valid) studies. However Frey is quite bad and I suggest perhaps removing as claims AS people have a 50% incidence of lack of oxygen at birth. If this was really true I'm sure much more would have been said on this... What do others think? --Imcdnzl 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

precisions

It is not very clear in what AS differs from other forms of (HF-)autism. If I understand well, people having AS can/"must" still have a "normal" life? Is this the reason why "Rain Man" is not listed as example movie (the main character having too heavy problems to live a normal life)? Please elucidate... Thanks in advance. — MFH:Talk 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it's mostly a matter of subtlety. You can't entirely mistake there being a disorder (or at least, a HUGE quirk) of some sort with "Rain Man" type autistics, but I know plenty of "Aspies" who went for years without being diagnosed with it, and who if you were to talk to them online, you quite probably wouldn't know they had any disorder unless they told you. Hell, I might have it (I'm suspecting it, lately, anyway), and though I've been diagnosed with ADD, the first time I ever heard of Asperger's was after I met a couple of Aspies on a forum I used to frequent (that forum turned out to have like half a dozen more diagnosed Aspies, interestingly enough. Then again, not only did it have a couple of thousand members, it was also partially devoted to fan fiction, and Aspies are apparently frequently drawn to writing, so perhaps it's not all that surprising). Then again on here (since the Wiki has a user category for Aspies), then on Boston Legal where "Hands" was a bit... er, more Rain Man-esque, except less Rain Man and more "nervous wreck", with a side of OCD... though I'm somewhat taking the Boston Legal character with a grain of salt, since it was fiction, and in a series that tends to have ultra-kooky characters and situations to begin with. Anyway, again - I think it's a matter of subtlety, in large part (at least, in many cases it is), the difficulty in detecting it or in some cases, the difficulty in identifying it as Asperger's and not something else entirely. It's a ranged disorder then, so... I dunno, in some cases, maybe there's a technicality. Or something. (Did I mention I have ADD? Heh) Runa27 04:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's tests and "self-promotion"

I have big problems about Ryan's continuing removal of Aspie-quiz. I suggest that either the entire section should be removed or there should be some objective criteria for inclusion. It is not true, as Ryan claims, that only Aspie-quiz was added by site-owners. The same thing applies to the Geek-test (added by Amy of AFF). I don't know about the DSM-test, but it was so badly designed that I really wonder why removing this wasn't the first priority of Ryan. I suggest that either we feature the best tests (based on some criteria) or delete the whole section. --Rdos 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good objective criterion for inclusion. Publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal. 212.134.28.61 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wired Magazine Article

Though the information provided by the article is invaluable, I suppose it is unencyclopedic to mention it in this way --> A Wired Magazine article called.... Just my two cents, and you are invited to comment. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Added references tag

I added the <div class="references-small"><references /></div> that listed the 20+ references that were building up but not listed. Skinnyweed 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Possible Mistake

In the section "TV shows and films that have dealt with Asperger syndrome", under the entry "Oprah" comes the following: "(One of the main characters, Bob Melnikov (actor Dmitry Chepovetsky) a brilliant biochemist, is revealed to have Asperger syndrome)" This must be a misplaced piece of text, since The Oprah Winfrey Show doesn't have "characters" (it's a talk show, not a dramatic serial). Can anyone put this in the correct place? -- Jalabi99 06:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It was caused by this edit. Graham talk 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"TV shows and films which have dealt with Asperger syndrome"

OK, this section is annoying me - it is very time consuming to maintain (i.e. people keep adding speculation etc.) and I wonder if it adds anything. I don't remember seeing any other articles that do this. Perhaps we should remove it? RN 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed it - the thought of having a list in this article of every tv show that ever dealt with this is crufty. Perhaps a seperate article - hopefully with referencing standards. RN 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for HELP by Wiki newcomer re: adding a footnote

Could someone please help me make a footnote for my addition to the "Social impairments" section regarding the concept of "The Hidden Curriculum" by Brenda Smith Myles. The book I am trying to make reference to is:

Myles, Brenda Smith; Trautman, Melissa; and Schelvan, Ronda (2004). The Hidden Curriculum: practical solutions for understanding unstated rules in social situations. Shawnee Mission, Kansas: Autism Asperger Publishing Co.

It should end up being footnote #5. My gratitude for your patience and help. Thanks, Pokey2006 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I've got it. The reference should be enclosed with "</ref>" rather than "<ref>". I'm not that familiar with footnotes either, and my screen reader is temperamental about getting to the right reference, but I think I've got the syntax correct. Graham talk 11:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Pokey2006 14:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Causes and etiology

"It is currently thought by many that Asperger syndrome and autism share the same etiology. Others suggest that the two conditions have differing etiologies. Debate in this area is ongoing. Various models to explain Asperger syndrome have been proposed, with some of them gaining wider acceptance than others. Quotes from experts and the comparison of older research to more recent research may be of particular interest."

This paragraph says absolutely NOTHING, it reads like one of those excerpts from horrible high school papers that are always circulating through chain emails. I realize that there's not a lot of concensus in the area, but surely it can be better summarized than "Some believe A is the case. Other do not. There are a lot of theories. Some are more popular than others." This is really shocking in a featured article. I lack the expertise to improve this, but it certainly needs to be done. -Elmer Clark 08:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. "The two conditions"? Autism isn't considered to be "one condition". My understanding is that most researchers believe there is no such thing as just one kind of autism. Autism is a collection/spectrum of syndromes, disorders (including Rett's, PDD-NOS etc.) and differences with a range of suspected "causes" including a possible genetic predisposition and possible environmental triggers. One theory is that Asperger syndrome is simply an autism spectrum disorder but without a speech delay. Some believe Asperger syndrome is same thing as high functioning autism -- there is no difference except in terminology. Certainly, Asperger's has been associated with genetics since it's been observed that some extended family members show similar traits; often the fathers. It's certainly very complex and really an expert in the field should be approached to write this section. Really, nobody really knows for sure what's behind this and that's why the writer was so vague. But it could be improved. Pokey2006 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible to change this text, but it shouldn't start to present any causes or theories, because this section has been moved to Causes of autism. I don't agree with the idea that there is a huge collection of syndromes. It turned out in the neurodiversity version of Aspie-quiz that the additional diagnoses (Hyperlexia, Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, OCD, ODD, Prosapagnosia, Dysgraphia and Bipolar) have very high loadings on autistic score. In fact, most of these have similar Aspie and NT scores as diagnosed autism/AS and self-diagnosed autism/AS. Even if all diagnosed & self-diagnosed autism/AS is removed from the additional diagnosed, the scores differences are similar to when autism/AS is removed from the entire population. This tells me that the autism-spectrum should be extended with many neurodiversity-diagnoses instead of being split more. --Rdos 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Aspie Comments

(WARNING: Long Comment) - This comment is probably going to seem quite long, and maybe to some not the optimum in perfect prose, however for a long time viewing this page on my watch list and observing the history I have had some comments which in general people may or not think are relevant. I have noticed in general this article has focused on medical scientific viewpoints of Asperger's Syndrome, while this may in general be most fitting with the wikipedia NPOV policy with regards to Asperger's Syndrome this standard practice in some ways actually violates the NPOV concept, a large number of people who actually have a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome disagree with the conclusion that the neurological wiring of an AS person is defective or a medical phenomena. It is known in the scientific community and the medical community quite rightly that AS causes a different way of thinking which is obvious by the fact this is a neurological difference we are discussing here. However in my experience (by the way I happen to be diagnosed as fitting the criteria for AS from the Early Years Centre, Nottingham, diagnosed by Professor Elizabeth Newton herself) as both an officially diagnosed AS person and a member of a large number of groups for AS persons on the internet the current medical stance is both controversial and one sided.

Now I understand wikipedia policies in many ways regard the viewpoints of AS people as original research, however one must note that persons with AS are on the inside looking out, and from that position will struggle to pass through the peer review process to publish articles in a way that wikipedia would consider valid as a reliable source. While I understand the reasons for this I also know that the opinions in a predominantly NT (NeuroTypical (Non-AS)) society where we are outnumbered something like ~150:1 (Estimated as figures vary depending on source even if one only uses "official" sources) where those whom form scientific, public, medical and peer reviewed studies are in general those on the outside looking in, many of the peer review studies being funded by organizations with a financial benefit in creating a treatment or cure for AS or Autism, in some cases offering unproven treatments for financial gain or unproven causes to advertise such treatments (See MMR, Vaccines, Chelation etc).

I feel regardless to us as individuals and as a group being outnumbered by every peer review process that for such an article as this to be NPOV then the alternative view of AS people looking from the inside out must be considered. Yes I agree much of it is not peer reviewed and yes it should be discussed fully before being taken as a true representation of actual AS people; however I do not believe, as one of the few sources of information on AS which claims to be free and unbiased, that viewpoints of AS people should be ignored in any way although they should be discussed.

Anyway I don't feel I have left much out of my comments at this time so I shall end my comment now, however I shall be happy to do all in my power to answer questions people may have on my comments and defend this position if need be, I also will be willing to retract from my position if a valid reason why my position is invalid can be argued successfully. MttJocy 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this comment will not be deleted and removed, as due to being an Aspie with some communication issues I have spent the last three hours attempting to formulate the above comment and I still feel I failed to communicate in full what I meant to MttJocy 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of work has already been done on this issue, but I think more remains to be done. For instance, I removed all the speculative causes and therapies from both this and the autism article and created separate articles. That way I don't have to see the bad science here. --Rdos 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally did not know you were the one responsible for those changes, I however thank you for your efforts as every little helps inprove the free flow of public information which I believe is what wikipedia is all about, however I still feel both I myself and hopefully you will agree and help to enable more to done on these points MttJocy 04:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


The Gillberg study

There is a lot of reference to the Gillberg study in this article. I think those references should be reconsidered; Gillberg has been involved in an "academic fight" where he refused other scientists (notably sociologist Eva Kärfve and paediatrician Leif Elinder) to peer review his source material. Denying peer review must make the result very questionable, at least until they are confirmed by other researchers and scientists. As far as I know the results, so far, are unconfirmed and hence shouldn't be referenced here.

He refused to show others a particular set of data due, he says, to privacy concerns, but he has numerous peer-reviewed journal articles on these topics. I am not prepared to assume the former undermines the validity of the latter, at least not without knowing a lot more than I currently do about which data it was he refused to share. PurplePlatypus 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet another assault on free speech about autism

Go to my user page and comment on this User_talk:Rdos#Page protection of my user page. JzG, a notorious bully-type-administrator, have made changes to my userpage and deleted radical autism-related stuff that he doesn't approve of. Non-admins cannot see what was on my page, because he first deleted the entire page and then reinstalled it. --Rdos 10:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it another way, Rdos persists in trying to use Wikipedia to promote his original theory that autism is caused by internreeding with neanderthals, which theory has been removed from article space numerous times by consensus. WP:NOT a soapbox, and there is no right of free speech here, it is a private site belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
To put it in another way, JzG acts as if he owns Wikimedia (which I doubt he does), and makes up his own rules all the time. He will obviously have no success in controlling me, especially since he knows nothing about ODD. A fair warning, JzG, you'd better read the article thoroughly before you try to use your authority on me again. --Rdos 12:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that not only are you determined to include your offensive and uncited theory, you are obsessively determined, and that this determination is reinforced by any attempt to educate you as to the policy and guideline reasons why you may not use Wikipedia to push your barrow. As far as I can see, then, you are in effect asking to be indef-blocked on the grounds that if you are not, you will continue to disrupt Wikiepdia in order to make your point. Is that a valid interpretation of the threat you issued above? Just zis Guy you know? 12:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you still don't understand anything, and our previous correspondance clearly points out that you are unable to discuss this in a rational matter. It was not a threat, but merely a hint that you won't get anywhere with threats. You still haven't done anything else than told me what to do, and when I refuse to adhere to your authority, you make threats. I suppose you haven't ever got the idea that if you can convince me that based on Wikipedia policy the content should not be on my userpage I will remove it? After all, it wasn't me that reintroduced the Neanderthal theory to Wikipedia article space, and I didn't do that because people convinced me it violated WP:NOR. --Rdos 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand well enough. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You do? I'm not reassured. My I advice you to read the article on which´s talk page you are posting? It certainlty will enable you to understand the issue a little better. Just an advice. --Rdos 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
FWIW (and I'm not going to comment on NOR or user page blocking) I don't believe Rdos' theory is "offensive" as JzG has characterized it. The Refrigerator Mother theory is offensive. Theories that say autistics are brain damaged, poisoned, broken, etc. are offensive. Theories that say autistics are limited in various ways, that we inherently can't do this, that or the other, are offensive. Claims that autistics are a burden, mad, a devastation, costly, and so on, are offensive. For the Neanderthal theory to be offensive, you'd have to think that Neanderthals were inherently inferior, which would be racist (or specieist if you will). Neurodivergent 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So comparing autistics to apes would also be ok? As for you to find that offensive, you'd have to think apes were inherently inferior, which would be speciesist. Proto///type 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"He will obviously have no success in controlling me, especially since he knows nothing about ODD." – To be honest, he has already 'controlled' you by deleting that stuff off your talk page and then protecting it. No amount of 'defiance' will stop him. – Skinnyweed 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but he won't get the pleasure of me accepting his actions. He will have to update my user page until he appologizes for his rude actions! --Rdos 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really. If you revert his edits he will simply block you for longer and longer until you desist. – Skinnyweed 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I won't do any edits to it, and I'll instead let him maintain it. If he unblocks it, I will force him to block it again. --Rdos 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So you will be deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, after being warned not to? Be aware what that usually results in. Proto///type 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is old. My user page is no longer blocked. --Rdos 11:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask, and in the process, perhaps inject a little calm into the discussion. I came here looking for some information to help a student, and instead I have seen, essentially, an entire treatise on ego and pride. Without pointing fingers, certain individuals seem to believe that instead of contributing to the body of knowledge in a way that is acceptable, they can instead disrupt the process. And I go away knowing less than I should about an important topic, because being right is more important that helping people. 70.115.211.122 22:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)pissedoffteacher

hey people

stop being proud of having this disease. the horrible mental problems that come with it outweigh whatever special powers you think we have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krein (talk • contribs)

um... who's proud to have AS? and what special powers? I want special powers... please try to keep talk page discussions on topic... - Adolphus79 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm proud of it all I want without asking anybody for permission. --Rdos 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm proud of it because it's a part of me. If i wasn't proud of it, I'd probably top myself, because it's hard enough to live with. I'm an Aspie and I'm proud of it!--Conor quinn
The opposite of pride is shame. It would not be in the best interests of autistics to be ashamed. It's really as simple as that. It doesn't have to do with "superpowers". There's no denying that some autistics have special talents, and it's fine if autism is celebrated by pointing those out, with appropriate perspective. When autistics are first diagnosed, they often feel ashamed of themselves. This is something psychology professionals should of course work to avoid. Neurodivergent 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Gilles Trehin

I have listed this article at WP:DRV for possible undeletion based on information I have received regarding a book that has been written by Trehin about his fictional city, Urville. Interested parties should contribute to the discussion. Brian G. Crawford 05:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)