Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

**devonin** · 02-23-2008, 07:26 PM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

I think that saying aspergers and autism are "the same thing" really misses the gaping chasm of difference between the two. It seems to me that Autism and Aspergers are the same like a twisted ankle and a leg broken in 5 places are the same. Both are leg injuries, but they are hardly comperable in severity.

I do agree though that aspergers at least is ridiculously overdiagnosed and is probably the most commonly self-diagnosed condition besides ADD.

When I was younger, and to many extents today, I meet the exact list of symptoms for asperger's. At no point in my life has it ever occured to me to self-diagnose or seek a proper diagnosis of that condition. From my experience, it is used most commonly as a shield to hide behind to explain away ones deficiencies. Anti-social? No people skills? As long as you're really good at something, or are intelligent, you can blame your condition for that.

I think that as a culture, north americans have a long history of trying to blame problem children on anything but problem parenting. For my childhood and adolescence it was ADD and ADHD with rampant overuse of Ritalin. Child doing poorly at school? Won't do their homework? Must have ADD. We'll forget that they can spent 6 straight hours concentrating on TV or video games, surely all their problems are the fault of a medical condition!

In recent years I've seen the same thing with Aspergers. A whole generation of kids who want to justify sitting in their rooms on the computer, coupled with a whole generation of parents who want to feel good about the fact that their neglect has led to kids with no social skills.

Surely it is a real and valid condition, and many people have it, but the numbers are, in my opinion, highly inflated by self- and mis-diagnosis.

**Bynary Fission** · 02-23-2008, 07:34 PM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Originally posted by devonin

I think that saying aspergers and autism are "the same thing" really misses the gaping chasm of difference between the two. It seems to me that Autism and Aspergers are the same like a twisted ankle and a leg broken in 5 places are the same. Both are leg injuries, but they are hardly comperable in severity.

I do agree though that aspergers at least is ridiculously overdiagnosed and is probably the most commonly self-diagnosed condition besides ADD.

When I was younger, and to many extents today, I meet the exact list of symptoms for asperger's. At no point in my life has it ever occured to me to self-diagnose or seek a proper diagnosis of that condition. From my experience, it is used most commonly as a shield to hide behind to explain away ones deficiencies. Anti-social? No people skills? As long as you're really good at something, or are intelligent, you can blame your condition for that.

I think that as a culture, north americans have a long history of trying to blame problem children on anything but problem parenting. For my childhood and adolescence it was ADD and ADHD with rampant overuse of Ritalin. Child doing poorly at school? Won't do their homework? Must have ADD. We'll forget that they can spent 6 straight hours concentrating on TV or video games, surely all their problems are the fault of a medical condition!

In recent years I've seen the same thing with Aspergers. A whole generation of kids who want to justify sitting in their rooms on the computer, coupled with a whole generation of parents who want to feel good about the fact that their neglect has led to kids with no social skills.

Surely it is a real and valid condition, and many people have it, but the numbers are, in my opinion, highly inflated by self- and mis-diagnosis.

I did differentiate between them, though I never explicitly stated they were different...I should have been a tad more clear. But I don't believe they are the same, to settle the matter.

My mother forces me to work hard, and even without her I'd still work hard. It's in my blood I guess. But yeah, the condition does exist, and in some cases it can be debilitating. Ever wonder what it feels like to be hated by all and to have no friends..and be unable to make them because you don't know how? It pushes many autistics to the edge. Kids with Asperger's are most known to be like that. And while many kids have terrible parents who don't care about anything, I do think that others should realize that the child may really need help, and the child may seek escapes such as slacking off and going to video games or the computer. I don't suffer from a lack of friends, but many who do not like me do not understand why I tend to be immature or very annoying at times. I can barely control the impulses, and it is HARD not to act out on them, especially if I don't like them. When I say immature or annoying, I mean like saying things that aren't appropriate, or doing something that is annoying over and over. I am a mature person with immature tendencies...but only at school, mysteriously. Might be because it is a very stressful environment for me.

~Bynary Fission

**devonin** · 02-23-2008, 07:50 PM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Ever wonder what it feels like to be hated by all and to have no friends..and be unable to make them because you don't know how? It pushes many autistics to the edge. Kids with Asperger's are most known to be like that.

Yes I know exactly what that is like, because as I mentioned, that is precisely reflective of my own childhood. I 100% absolutely would have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome had I sought any kind of medical explanation for my "condition" and probably still would.

My whole point is that using a condition to justify the negative parts of one's life also makes it so that condition is to credit for its positive aspects, and that is something I had no interest in doing, while pointing out that this is precisely what many people have done.

Rather than have it be concluded "It's okay, he has a condition, he can't help how he is" I instead just dealt with it and learned how to cope. I developed social skills, I have friends, I know how to deal with other people. I did it without medication, without special treatment, and without ever even knowing there was an -option- to contribute my lack of social skills to a mental condition.

**Bynary Fission** · 02-23-2008, 07:55 PM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Indeed. I look upon it as a blessing..because it has most likely made me smarter and more creative than I could have ever hoped to be. I never have and never will use it as an excuse to justify when I screw up, and while it cannot be used as an excuse, it can explain who somebody does something wrong or strange...and people can at least be more understanding. And empathy is the one thing almost everybody who doesn't understand the negative aspects of X condition lacks or fails to adopt, making it harder for those who have it, inducing feelings of isolation that can be very painful.

~Bynary Fission

**devonin** · 02-23-2008, 08:03 PM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

I never have and never will use it as an excuse to justify when I screw up, and while it cannot be used as an excuse, it can explain who somebody does something wrong or strange...and people can at least be more understanding.

If it explains what you do wrong, it also explains what you do right. I'd rather be an intelligent, knowledgeable person with a strong degree of analytical ability who also happened to have some social problems that I eventually overcame, than someone who "has aspergers"

**lord_carbo** · 02-24-2008, 12:11 AM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

I, too, experienced a lot of the symptoms of Asperger's as a child (silence, intelligence, learned English quickly), and I could have been diagnosed with it at any time until I finally became aware of social cues like annoyance, disinterest, and disregard (I can thank the Internet for that, actually).

When I "learned" I had "ADHD," I actually became better at controlling it because I had never been conscious of how annoying I was. I went to a therapist but that felt mostly irrelevant because I didn't do much there. My ADHD was rarely discussed and therapy served best as a friendly reminder that I had problems that needed fixing. And that happened over time.

In my opinion, treating things like a condition changes everything. Suddenly we are less accountable for our shortcomings as well as our successes; suddenly we are treated systematically instead of by our individual needs, which-- I would say always-- does not requires amphetamines to fix. I believe that classification of most cases of Asperger's and all cases of ADHD undermine the individual and the individual problems that person has-- problems that are completely fixable through training and determination. There are people with real problems, but you usually won't find them with ADHD or Asperger's. And maybe if we stopped marginally classifying people by their behavior, we'd lose the notion that the human psyche is so hard to change. I changed from what I already had. I used my intelligence to start picking up on social cues and relating them to how I felt. And through my intelligence, I jumped from the social skills of a 3rd grader to the level of the rest of my peers by the beginning of 8th grade. I also matured out of my impatience and hyperactivity, a product of my youthfulness and whim. Now my patience makes other seems like they have ADHD, not I.

Well, that's basically the gist of what I have to say.

**Kilroy_x** · 02-24-2008, 12:18 AM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Psychologists are not beyond corn pone opinions. The entire DSM is filled with sliding signifiers. They might as well have just chosen labels like jerk, prick, douche, and bitch, they would have been equally substantive. There is a problem with psychology as a field, and that is that for the first half of its existence it was built predominately on unfalsifiable theories. Freud, Adler, Jung, etc. However, the tendency towards elaborate story telling rather than factual exploration never really went away, and we can see that in theorists like Fromm, who remained prominent and respected well into last century, and probably remains so among too many. The field is not an island either, so we see it moves in tandem with social movements. People heralded it as a triumph when homosexuality was removed from the DSM. This was a diagnosis held in place by largely by the prevalence of "psychoanalytic" theories. However, the diagnosis did not disappear as a result of scientific progress, but as the consequence of a social movement, which unfortunately just further demonstrates the overwhelming triviality of the average movement within the field.

People tend to have a preference for story telling over proposition and refutation when it comes to things they consider sacred. It is humanities arrogance and self-importance that renders them incapable of accurately assessing what is in a mirror.

Here is the great mystery to me. Why does every label formulated automatically import a pejorative property? No, I'm not trying to do something as superficial as disprove the existence of a "normal" category. That horse has been beaten to death already. I'm asking why every new variety of human consciousness discovered has to be a disease.

**Bynary Fission** · 02-24-2008, 12:34 AM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Originally posted by Kilroy_x

I'm asking why every new variety of human consciousness discovered has to be a disease.

Well, if there is something wrong with a human, then they automatically assume that there is a problem with him..and if you have a problem, they'll think it's a disease since diseases cause problems in humans.

Originally posted by Kilroy_x

Psychologists are not beyond corn pone opinions. The entire DSM is filled with sliding signifiers. They might as well have just chosen labels like jerk, prick, douche, and bitch, they would have been equally substantive. There is a problem with psychology as a field, and that is that for the first half of its existence it was built predominately on unfalsifiable theories. Freud, Adler, Jung, etc. However, the tendency towards elaborate story telling rather than factual exploration never really went away, and we can see that in theorists like Fromm, who remained prominent and respected well into last century, and probably remains so among too many. The field is not an island either, so we see it moves in tandem with social movements. People heralded it as a triumph when homosexuality was removed from the DSM. This was a diagnosis held in place by largely by the prevalence of "psychoanalytic" theories. However, the diagnosis did not disappear as a result of scientific progress, but as the consequence of a social movement, which unfortunately just further demonstrates the overwhelming triviality of the average movement within the field.

People tend to have a preference for story telling over proposition and refutation when it comes to things they consider sacred. It is humanities arrogance and self-importance that renders them incapable of accurately assessing what is in a mirror.

Here is the great mystery to me. Why does every label formulated automatically import a pejorative property? No, I'm not trying to do something as superficial as disprove the existence of a "normal" category. That horse has been beaten to death already. I'm asking why every new variety of human consciousness discovered has to be a disease.

And THAT is the reason I hate various tests that they give, above all...IQ tests. For god sakes, the IQ test was originally devised to "prove" that the white man was smarter than the black man. It doesn't even measure intelligence, so why measure it with an inconsequential test that gives inconsequential results? Yes, they label everything. Yes, Psychology was built off of idiocy, ignorance, discrimination, and "discoveries" about humans that were nowhere near the truth. Humans have to slap a label on everything so they can "treat" it, because they don't like it when others are non-conforming to others, that they are somehow different....

Originally posted by lord_carbo

I, too, experienced a lot of the symptoms of Asperger's as a child (silence, intelligence, learned English quickly), and I could have been diagnosed with it at any time until I finally became aware of social cues like annoyance, disinterest, and disregard (I can thank the Internet for that, actually).

When I "learned" I had "ADHD," I actually became better at controlling it because I had never been conscious of how annoying I was. I went to a therapist but that felt mostly irrelevant because I didn't do much there. My ADHD was rarely discussed and therapy served best as a friendly reminder that I had problems that needed fixing. And that happened over time.

In my opinion, treating things like a condition changes everything. Suddenly we are less accountable for our shortcomings as well as our successes; suddenly we are treated systematically instead of by our individual needs, which-- I would say always-- does not requires amphetamines to fix. I believe that classification of most cases of Asperger's and all cases of ADHD undermine the individual and the individual problems that person has-- problems that are completely fixable through training and determination. There are people with real problems, but you usually won't find them with ADHD or Asperger's. And maybe if we stopped marginally classifying people by their behavior, we'd lose the notion that the human psyche is so hard to change. I changed from what I already had. I used my intelligence to start picking up on social cues and relating them to how I felt. And through my intelligence, I jumped from the social skills of a 3rd grader to the level of the rest of my peers by the beginning of 8th grade. I also matured out of my impatience and hyperactivity, a product of my youthfulness and whim. Now my patience makes other seems like they have ADHD, not I.

Well, that's basically the gist of what I have to say.

That great to hear!

However, sometimes a perceived issue is not an issue at all...for example, kids with Asperger's tend to have extreme intelligence in one or more areas, but I had to go to a social club to not speak formally or sound intelligent, among other things. I'm not stupid. If somebody can't understand me, get a book and read, moron. I didn't spend all these years learning and educating myself to have to dumb myself down for some idiot who plays video games all day. Some of the greatest geniuses of all time are thought to have Asperger's, including van Goethe, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. The issue lies in human ignorance, not ourselves.

Now the real problems I already took care of. If you didn't know I had a condition, the last thing you would suspect is autism. And I am proud to say it, as I have worked as hard as you to change and mature. But humans slap labels on everything..jeez lay off will you, if I was fine before what thinks some diagnosis is going to make me any better?

~Bynary Fission

**lord_carbo** · 02-24-2008, 12:42 AM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Originally posted by Kilroy_x

Psychologists are not beyond corn pone opinions.

True, and that goes for basically every field, from economics to (most sadly) biology. It only serves as a friendly reminder than an enlightenment.

Originally posted by Kilroy_x

Here is the great mystery to me. Why does every label formulated automatically import a pejorative property? No, I'm not trying to do something as superficial as disprove the existence of a "normal" category. That horse has been beaten to death already. I'm asking why every new variety of human consciousness discovered has to be a disease.

Well your question can be interpreted two ways: "why are things discovered considered pejorative?" and "why do we tend to discover only 'pejorative' properties?"

To the first interpretation, I would say because they're considered to be abnormalities or shortcomings. The classification of more and more "diseases" leads us to a more constrained definition of what "normal" is; like an inferno that spits oil and wood. One can only imagine how far it can go: will procrastination become a symptom of something else? But if everybody is special, who is? It would seem that a tendency to not procrastinate is a special, almost "superhuman" trait that deserves its own classification.

To the latter, I have no answer. Most likely biases in approaches in research, as if idealism is not abnormal and deserving of a rightful seat.

**lord_carbo** · 02-24-2008, 12:50 AM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Originally posted by Bynary Fission

That great to hear!

However, sometimes a perceived issue is not an issue at all...for example, kids with Asperger's tend to have extreme intelligence in one or more areas, but I had to go to a social club to not speak formally or sound intelligent, among other things. I'm not stupid. If somebody can't understand me, get a book and read, moron. I didn't spend all these years learning and educating myself to have to dumb myself down for some idiot who plays video games all day. Some of the greatest geniuses of all time are thought to have Asperger's, including van Goethe, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. The issue lies in human ignorance, not ourselves.

A) Your diatribe really has nothing to do with anything.
B) English is a medium with which communication is made, not something to flaunt knowledge of for no apparent reason. You don't talk with big words, so I doubt the complaints of your peers hold validity. Nevertheless, it is an important point to remember when language does become bogged down.

Originally posted by Bynary Fission

Now the real problems I already took care of. If you didn't know I had a condition, the last thing you would suspect is autism. And I am proud to say it, as I have worked as hard as you to change and mature. But humans slap labels on everything..jeez lay off will you, if I was fine before what thinks some diagnosis is going to make me any better?

The problem is more about labeling from oneself than from others. And again, this paragraph is mostly just another gnarled string with no ends. When you make a post, you should consider what and how it contributes. If you had, I would not be responding. So as offensive as this is, you should change "have worked" to "am working."

**Bynary Fission** · 02-24-2008, 01:33 AM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Originally posted by lord_carbo

A) Your diatribe really has nothing to do with anything.
B) English is a medium with which communication is made, not something to flaunt knowledge of for no apparent reason. You don't talk with big words, so I doubt the complaints of your peers hold validity. Nevertheless, it is an important point to remember when language does become bogged down.

Then you did not read what I said. I was reflecting upon what Kilroy_x had to say about Psychology and it's flaws, and I concur with what he says, and I posted in response to that thought with my own. And also, I do not flaunt my knowledge. That is something some people tell me, but if I sound like I have any bit of intelligence, people condemn me for being arrogant or pedantic. I am not saying that you are mentioning this about me, but after years of getting those responses from people, I tend to think that they just don't understand what I am saying and don't like it. I post very formally in this forum, where it appreciated and built upon.

Originally posted by lord_carbo

The problem is more about labeling from oneself than from others. And again, this paragraph is mostly just another gnarled string with no ends. When you make a post, you should consider what and how it contributes. If you had, I would not be responding. So as offensive as this is, you should change "have worked" to "am working."

Originally posted by lord_carbo

A) Your diatribe really has nothing to do with anything.
B) English is a medium with which communication is made, not something to flaunt knowledge of for no apparent reason. You don't talk with big words, so I doubt the complaints of your peers hold validity. Nevertheless, it is an important point to remember when language does become bogged down.

The problem is more about labeling from oneself than from others. And again, this paragraph is mostly just another gnarled string with no ends. When you make a post, you should consider what and how it contributes. If you had, I would not be responding. So as offensive as this is, you should change "have worked" to "am working."

I am simply responding to what I believed about myself. However, I apologize if I offended you, I can be a bit tactless at times with my statements at times. However, it is a pressing issue to me and every step I make is a triumph, and I reflect it in such statements. Again, I am sorry if I offended you.

~Bynary Fission

**Reach** · 02-24-2008, 01:00 PM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

And THAT is the reason I hate various tests that they give, above all...IQ tests. For god sakes, the IQ test was originally devised to "prove" that the white man was smarter than the black man. It doesn't even measure intelligence, so why measure it with an inconsequential test that gives inconsequential results? Yes, they label everything. Yes, Psychology was built off of idiocy, ignorance, discrimination, and "discoveries" about humans that were nowhere near the truth. Humans have to slap a label on everything so they can "treat" it, because they don't like it when others are non-conforming to others, that they are somehow different....

Wow.

The first IQ test was actually developed by Binet, to identify those that would have problems academically. And guess what, they worked. Extremely well at that, and they work even better today. Slavery was abolished some 50 years before the IQ test, and a test has never been constructed to show that one race is smarter than another. This was maybe, at best, practiced by some individuals that had nothing to do with the development of the test.

As for measuring intelligence, there are a whole lot of people that would disagree. They tap highly into 'something' at least, that all humans posses in different quantities that is proportional to their ability. Whether or not you want to call this intelligence doesn't change the fact that it can be measured, at least to some degree, and that it's important.

And that's nice to see you're incredibly ignorant of and ungrateful for the things advances in psychology and neuroscience has brought to society. I'm also glad you've somehow managed to clump all of psychology into the field of abnormal psychology (and well, clinical). That's quite the feat...

**Kilroy_x** · 02-24-2008, 01:20 PM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Tragically most discussion of IQ testing doesn't occur in statistical courses but in sociology courses.

**Goldenwind** · 02-25-2008, 03:39 AM

Re: Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

In relationships, men are made out to look like fools.
In the working world, women are made to look stupid.

For argument's sake (And trying to reduce stereotypes), let's call it even on how intelligent the average male or female is.

Physically, due to biology, males are stronger than females.

So, in one category, they're even. In the other, males win.

Therefore, males > females.

Problem with this proof? Who says that intelligence+strength measures human value?
The funny thing is, we all know what is right, we all know what is wrong, and we all know the answers to this thread, yet we still debate it anyway.

And the reason for this? Human fallacy.
Human stupidity will be the cause of its own destruction. If it's not directly, it'll be indirectly, such as being too caught up with our heads up our behinds to solve a problem that we could.

Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment