Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

[Coolgamer]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

You know, speaking as someone labeled with this, I think I have a fairly good idea of how the process works.

I was pretty much given a test without being told what it was for. Since I assumed it was an IQ test, I gave lengthy, well thought out answers, and spared no details or possibilities.

Actually, it was an Asbergers test, and it showed I was "unable to make simple assumptions" and "overanalzyed minute details" of picture tests and verbal questions.

Once my mom informed me what the test was really for (since she felt I had something) and told me the results, I was appalled, horrified, and disgusted. I demanded a retesting, which I was never given.

That "evaluation" gave the papers all the ammo they needed to tarnish my name with this headline:

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...75P1010654.JPG

[gerbi7]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

If the first link that you put on your first post is correct, it even said that all people with Aspergers don't even show above normal intelligence.

Before you get onto my ass about it, I like the overall idea that aspergers shouldn't necessarily be thought of as a disease. I think its wonderful that you don't think of yourself as diseased, although it seems that not thinking of yourself as such is at least partially because of the aspergers itself. For instance, I think that it would be much harder for someone with, say, schizophrenia to so readily accept that it isn't a disease, even for those whose symptoms aren't posing much of a problem for themselves and
others around them, although it's certainly possible.

By definition, those with AS have a normal IQ and many individuals (although not all), exhibit exceptional skill or talent in a specific area.

As in, they usually have normal IQ's for everything, but will exhibit exceptional skill or talent in a specific area. And also be bad in social skills. Or maybe IQ tests include how well people can interact, causing them to be normal.

As for the second part, that's why I'm writing this damn thing. So people will actually THINK ABOUT IT instead of saying that I don't think it's a disease because I have it.

As for the rest of the **** you posted, it's really off topic. I think Reach would have enough sense to stay on topic.

BTW about that 1 in 166 number, I found it on a news article that was in the New York Times posted at the Neurologist place. They don't show their articles publicly but I did get a search that returned it:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2006
If you're too much of a dumbass to see which result to click on, the first one.

[talisman]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

I misremembered your post and thought the 1/166 number referred to asperger's, not autism.

I didn't come across any source (albeit in a brief search) that had a solid grasp on the epidemiology of asperger's.

[sertman]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

Alex: Please don't bring up random garble from the internet which you obviously have little understanding about. I don't care if that was a misrepresentation of Eysenck's ideas or if Eyesenck himself is too out-dated to know how the brain works, but using buzz words like 'dopamine' and 'cortical stimulation' doesn't mean it makes sense. Your argument
makes NO sense. The cortex is involved in all types of 'higher functioning', which includes such things as co-ordinating how we reach and grab things, understanding the rules of baseball, and all social interactions.
Also, dopamine is a neurotransmitter involved throughout the brain, and hence, throughout mind functioning. Levels of salivation is a non-sequetor in terms of introversion and extroversion.

You never said **** about why what I said made no sense.

I never said that the cortex was the cause of introversion and extroversion. I said that it was reported that introverts have a higher level of activity as opposed to extroverts. And I'll say it again, because apparently you didn't get it the first time

"The human cerebral cortex is 2-4 mm (0.08-0.16 inches) and plays a central role in many complex brain functions including memory, attention, perceptual awareness, "thinking", language and consciousness."

Memory. Attention. Perceptual Awareness. THINKING.

What about it do you not understand? People with Aspergers have extremely high levels in each of those. Explain to me how it doesn't make sense for a connection to be made between introversion and aspergers.

@Talisman: you make some very good points, i'll respond to your post tomorrow or something when i have the time to think about it

[sertman]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

You know, speaking as someone labeled with this, I think I have a fairly good idea of how the process works.

I was pretty much given a test without being told what it was for. Since I assumed it was an IQ test, I gave lengthy, well thought out answers, and spared no details or possibilities.

Actually, it was an Asbergers test, and it showed I was "unable to make simple assumptions" and "overanalzyed minute details" of picture tests and verbal questions.

Once my mom informed me what the test was really for (since she felt I had something) and told me the results, I was appalled, horrified, and disgusted. I demanded a retesting, which I was never given.

That "evaluation" gave the papers all the ammo they needed to tarnish my name with this headline:

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...75P1010654.JPG

what the hell were you doing taping a police officer anyways

[Cavernio]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

Reach:
So, are you saying that the human race is then becoming more than 1 species, and that we have evidence that intelligence is the deciding factor here? Obviously, the entire human race isn't becoming as such. Are you saying that this is happening because intelligent people are having babies with other intelligent people?
You have yet to give me any evidence that this is happening. You only say that its largely accepted. Sorry buddy, I'm too skeptical and critical to concede to the oh-so-obvious truths of the masses when I don't see evidence to support it.

IQ is definitely not a measure of how well someone works in society. Who was talking about IQ anyways? I was talking about intelligence, and so were you earlier.

Where'd you get that only 20-30% of intelligence is caused by the environment? Perhaps in one definition of the word intelligence, you can separate it into environment vs. genetics, however the two obviously interact. Are you referring to measures of heritability, and the infamous twin studies published in the 50's where it was found to be 0.71, where researchers were strongly suspected to have fudged their results because no original data was found?
Nowadays, the heritability of IQ, not intelligence mind you, is measured to be closer to 50%. But that doesn't tell me that intelligence is 50% genes. The environment of anyone in north america (and even the world) is so similar that we're looking into only a very small window of what intelligence actually CAN be. For instance, the very method of testing automatically rejects anyone who can't read. Take the most intelligent person in the world you know. Now, go back in time and lock them up in a room for the first 20 years of their life with as little human contact as possible. Now tell me that they've lost only 30% of their IQ or intelligence for that matter.

You're the person who strongly implied in the first place that psychology has something to with evolving brains.
Show me where the biological fact of evolving brains came from. Use big words, I can handle it. Wait, are you going to link me a picture of fMRI, of an 'average' brain of yore versus today? How about pictures of autopsied brains? Maybe I'm being stupid here, but I have absolutely no idea how someone would go about showing that the brain is evolving within humans.
But lets pretend its actually been shown that there is clearly more tissue development, or something like that, in brains from the past 5 years versus human brains as far back as even, geez...what IS meant by rapidly? Regardless, what tells you that it is the genes in humans which have caused the differences in brains? It's ENTIRELY possible that the differences in the state of brain development would solely be because of the state of the environment of now versus then, and no new genes have been turned off, on, mutated, added or taken away. Go back to my example of being raised in a closet. Evolution, in the strict sense of the word, involves genes.

You're right, natural selection doesn't stop because there're social constructs made. But those constructs are now a part of the way the world works too. The thing about humans is that we have an amazing capacity to learn, adapt and teach what we have learned to others. No other species' behaviour is so controlled and altered by the environment. We have very few behavioural reflexes, and this itself is 'novel' to the process of natural selection.

I don't think that humans, as our genes are right now, have reached the apex of how 'intelligent' we can become.

Someone said earlier that aspergers has grown exponentially in the past few years, and that this is evidence that our brains ARE evolving. Now I don't know the stats about this at all, but I would think that the numbers of people DIAGNOSED with aspergers has increased. This doesn't mean incidence of the actual phenomena has increased though, just that more people are aware of it. It obviously isn't going to be counted that you have aspergers before the classification even existed. And as the knowledge of the existence of this classification spreads, so too will our diagnosis of it. Since this is a fairly new term, I'm very strongly inclined to think that we're still seeing rising numbers of aspergers not because its actually increasing, but because we're still not diagnosing everyone who actually has it.

Computer science doesn't rely on quantum mechanics. And you have no need to put the 'advanced' in front of mathematics. Computer programming uses logic.

[Cavernio]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

Alex:
I was saying the sentence about drooling didn't make sense about introversion/extroversion.
The cerebral cortex plays roles in, well, what you've already said, and more besides. As per what Gerbi essentially re-iterated, people diagnosed with Aspergers don't necessarily show increased levels in all of awareness, thinking, language, and conciousness. Also, again as I said before, more activity in the cerebral cortex would include more activity in the area associated with social functioning, which is at odds with Aspergers people having poor social skills. Personally, I'm still dubious as to what wikipedia said Eysenck found, that introversion/extroversion is correlated to cortical activity, but that's because it just doesn't fit into my own knowledge base of neurology.


Gerbi:
I'm sorry I came off sounding like I was saying that you only thought you didn't have it because you had it and that that was a side-effect of the disease, or something like that. I didn't mean it in that way at all. I meant it because you say that you don't feel the negativity of people making fun of you, and obviously don't feel the pressure to conform to others opinions, so you will much easier be able to adopt a differing view from what the world thinks. That's what I undestood from your original post at least. Not thinking that aspgergers is a problem is contrary to popular opinion. That's all I meant.
I merely used the schizophrenic example because I've heard about schizophrenics say that what they have isn't a problem either, at least those people who can function in society. They liked that they had voices in their head whom they could talk to. It was an advantage, it was calming, it was something special. They weren't crazy, they just happened to hear voices, and they wouldn't trade it for the world. For these people though, I would imagine it would be harder for them to adopt this idea because it IS so contrary to popular opinion, and because they DO feel peer pressure. That's all I meant, that its probably easier for you to adopt your stance, as well as any other stance, easier than most people. To me, your point makes sense, just as the schizophrenics points made sense to me. I'd also be a little shocked if you still thought that I'm not thinking about this. There is no set line that everyone will agree on about what a mental illness is. By and large though, and for better or for worse, it seems that the cut-off line is if you can fit into society. Of course, we can all fit into society if society accepts everyone. And no, please don't get the impression that I'm being condescending towards you right now, like I'm trying to appease you while inside, I think you've got serious problems but I should accept you anyways. I don't think that. I do, however, feel a little sorry for you because of your lack of understanding sex. :-p

I know that the rest of what I said was off topic to your original post. So shoot me. It's allowed.

[sertman]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

Cavernio: if you read what Gerbi said:

People with Asperger's are also just as willing to make friends, and can easily make friends with other people with it. I know about three other people with Asperger's, and we can easily get along. It's the rest of the world that discriminate, peer pressure that causes people in school to stay away from 'Retards', and commonly the neurally typical person's inability to control their thoughts and not go completely emotional. Admittedly, I sometimes had problems with anger, but they were always caused by the guidance staff and whatnot not letting me do something because they didn't think they could trust me. If anything you should trust someone with asperger's 100%, like you would trust a vulcan. I do remember one time when I had a fit because of something that happened and that the guidance people would not let me do something simple like get lunch.


People with Asperger's are completely oblivious to the entity known as "Peer Pressure". You can put me down all you want, but you can't affect how I feel about anything. Back when I was in elementary school, the thought never came to me that someone might put me down. as a consequence I never really understood insults. Also, if you have some kid that goes around doing stupid things, like asking random girls for AIM screennames, has absolutely no sense of what is something good to wear is, and is completely oblivious to the fact that they look weird, they probably have Asperger's.

People with Aspergers don't have problems with social interaction. Social interaction and social skills are two different things. I know a person with Asperger's. He's extremely smart, and he interacts with society a great deal, but the problem with him is that he doesn't do it well at all.

[Coolgamer]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

what the hell were you doing taping a police officer anyways

It's a bull**** charge, and i'm currently filing charges due to the police harassment, physical and verbal, I dealt with.

[PangYa]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

I'm a little lazy and as soon as you started I felt a bit of a connection as I have tourette's and a bit of aspberger's. Sorry if this isn't a post worthy of the critical thinking section just had to say it out first. I'll finish reading now.

[soulofcerberus]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

This thread = tl;dr for me but I read the first couple of posts.

My cousin is autistic, his social skills are down the gutter, he can't have anything near a conversation, repeats stuff over and over, and can't take no for an answer.

However he can write down the complete credits for over 50 movies just off the top of his head and can hum songs near perfectly after just hearing them once.

I feel bad for him, and being around him is always hard.
While there are advantages to having amazing thinking abilities like that, in most cases, the disadvantages outweigh any benefit.

[tha Guardians]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

I understood long division and algebra when I was 4, and learned to read when I was 2, before I started talking. I knew how to talk over a year before I found the use for it. When I was 7 I started learning HTML, and I'm now leaning Python. Math has always been my favorite subject, and music is my life. I'm a great lier, but only because I need to be. I'm a smooth talker, and could get a lot of girls and I could be a very popular guy, but I choose my geek friends and I want a sweet, fun girl that I can relate to (deVy). I dress pretty well, and I see no reason for school. I believe that school should be optional, and you should be able to pick what classes you take, because I hate wasting life. I could be your best friend if you treat me right.

Do I have Asperger's?

[devonin]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

I originally saw this thread when someone bumped it with something irellevant, and since that was a bogus bump, and I was still pretty new here, I didn't comment on it, but all I have to say to the OP is "Re-read what you said...and tell me that your social interactions are actually appropriate"

Asperger's is the second most self-diagnosed condition in the world (next to ADHD) and there has -never- been a compelling way to distinguish between aspergers and say...being smart and shy.

Everything the OP described as the "symptoms" of his aspergers are things that apply to me, and all three of the other people currently living in this house. We could -all- easily self-diagnose ourselves with Aspergers, and what...pat ourselves on the back for overcoming our condition?

It's a load of crap. Very smart people have poor social skills generally, because they don't interact at a young age with other young children in a useful way. They are more intelligent than those around them, concerned with different things, and so have very little in common. When you don't have the means to develop social skills early in life, guess what? You have poor social skills later in life.

The only thing diagnosing yourself with what I consider a largely bogus condition in the first place does for you, is that it allows you to use it to hide behind when your faults are in evidence, and hold it up as proof of how amazing you are when your faults are not in evidence.

As a similar sort of thing, ADD is absolutely a legitimate, diagnosable, treatable condition. ADHD is stupid-person speak for "I can't control my children, and don't want to admit that I'm a bad parent" or "I want an excuse to never do my homework, and mouth off to my parents, and Wikipedia told me this was real"

While there may be cases for aspergers as being a sort of sideways and a step down version of autism, as it applies to people to whom the terms "Intelligent, but with poorer social skills" apply, maybe you're just a very smart person who didn't really learn to socialise the way other people did. I don't see any reason to apply some pseudo-medical term to being a nerd.

[gerbi7]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

May I also make a note that being diagnosed for Asperger's and Autism does not always mean being smarter. It more or less means a different kind of brain functioning or development that results in the aforementioned social skill problems, but will also sometimes allow for an extremely increased brain function in some cases as well.

Also, this is almost a year old, and still going. I'd love to update the OP with better information that I have now, but hey, sue me.

Guardians, probably. But I really can't say for sure with just a little information from a post.

[archbishopjabber]

Re: Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

I think a goal of medicine should be to not eliminate Autism and Aspergers but instead find a way to keep the benefits while eliminating the negative aspects of the condition.