Why does everyone take Asperger's as a disease?

[gerbi7]

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

nor do I find anywhere citing that 1/166 number.

wtf link doesn't work now. Oh well, I'll look it up somewhere again, but it had been bouncing around the news anyways, if you had been paying attention.

Indeed, it seems the most desirable cure would leave the mathematical aptitude untouched, but still reawaken the social and emotial areas of the brain.

A cure gets rid of a disease. A treatment treats the bad effects of a disease, but does not get rid of it. If that's what you really mean then start using the word treatment.


And it's not a disease... that's what I intended for this thread to be about.

[iggymatrixcounter]

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

But if people didn't see a need for a certain medicine they aren't going to take it. But if they wanted a cure, then there's nothing wrong with that either.

Tell that to the parents of children with this who force their children to take the medication.

lol what? That's confusing the way that's worded, but I think I know what you're trying to say.

I assume that parents want to do the best for their kids. And if they think that asperger's would hurt their kids, why should they be blamed for trying to help their kids. IMO parents should be able to raise, treat, and "force" their kids to do whatever they feel is right and stop them from doing whatever they think is wrong.

And don't post about how your parents did something that they thought was right and it ended up being wrong. Big deal, people are imperfect. But the truth of the matter is that your parents did a heck of a lot of good for you. WAY more than bad. If anything they brought you into the world, gave you food, shelter, and clothing, and taught you a general view of right and wrong.

Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all parents SHOULD treat/'cure' their kids. I'm just saying that they definitely have the right to do so if they wanted.

(Yes I realize that bad parents would hinder this, but I hardly think that under normal circumstances a parent would want to do what wasn't what they thought was the best thing for their kids.)

[iggymatrixcounter]

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

And it's not a disease... that's what I intended for this thread to be about.

Oh but if it were that easy to define then this shouldn't have been made into a thread.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disease

In every definition asperger's would classify as a disease except:

"A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful."

It's abnormal but you would have to discern whether or not it is harmful. Which could be argued either way depending on what type of health you were talking about. (mental, emotional, physical, etc)

IMO it's a disease. I think you just think disease = must cure, which is why you don't think it is.

Also just because it's a disease doesn't mean you have to get medications/treatments for it.

[talisman]

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

A treatment treats the bad effects of a disease

I feel as though any "good" effects of a "disease" are by definition not a disease. And asperger's isn't a disease. Obviously. It's a syndrome. A kind of pervasive personality disorder or something. And a "treatment" in my mind is something that lessens or minimizes the undesirable aspects of the syndrome without addressing the underlying cause (aka neurofeedback). So something that addressed the underlying cause of the social problems, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO DO SO, and leave the mathematical aptitude untouched, again IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, I would consider a "cure".

[gerbi7]

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

Iggy, don't forget about the negative connotation that disease has. I would definetly be insulted if anyone said that I was diseased because I had Asperger's.

Also just because it's a disease doesn't mean you have to get medications/treatments for it.

It does when you're under 18 and considered incompetent.

[iggymatrixcounter]

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

Well if you are talking about your parents then all I can say is that if they thought you were incompetent, then why do you blame them for trying to make you competent?

Realize this: What would one's life be like with asperger's? And what would that same person's life be like without it because it was treated?

Yes there are benefits and consequences to each senario, but just because you hated being treated, doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't have DIED or become mentally sick or something hugely different had your ailment been totally treated.

You said that the things that define you were results of asperger's (I think). Ok that's given, but had you been rid of that you would have had other things that defined you because you didn't have the disease.

In conclusion to this whole ordeal, whether or not something like asperger's is treated or not yields no huge ramifications. You have it, you deal with it, adapt to it and move on. You get rid of it, you adapt, you change your way of life, and move on. IMO it's like choosing a career, doing this yields this life and doing that yields that life.

Sorry that you hated your parents for trying to force the medications on you. Can't change that. But can you really tell yourself what you're trying to prove? That they wanted to make you into this "normal person" that would slip into society and have no personality? That they wanted to be apart of this huge conspiracy to "equalize" everyone's intelligence? I don't think you could. They had/have your best interests in mind and will keep suggesting what is best in their opinion, even if you don't agree.

[alextp1651]

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

I'm not really sure if Aspergers is a disease. It could just be that one is extremely introverted. From Wikipedia:

"Eysenck proposed that extroversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal; "introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extroverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extroverts". Because extroverts are less aroused internally, they require more external stimulation than introverts. This theory may be backed up by evidence that the brains of extroverts are more responsive to dopamine than those of introverts [2]. Other evidence of this “stimulation” hypothesis is that introverts salivate more than extroverts in response to a drop of lemon juice [3]."

Now the cerebral cortex, which is what's referred to as the "cortical activity", is what " plays a central role in many complex brain functions including memory, attention, perceptual awareness, "thinking", language and consciousness." according to Wikipedia.

That would explain your superior intellect but your lack of social skills/activity.

That's really what it boils down to for me. It's quite a simple answer.

[Idonnoimconfused]

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

In the first few sentences he says he's "intelligent," yet he spelled 'intelegent'.
I'm confused.
By the way, my cousin has severe autism, so yeah.

[iggymatrixcounter]

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

@alex: so would being extremely introverted be abnormal or not? One of the aspects of the disease definition is that it makes you function abnormally. You don't really say in your post but you kind of imply it even though you still say that you aren't sure.

[alextp1651]

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

No, it's not abnormal, no more than anyone who's on the other side of the scale (really, really, REALLY outgoing/extroverted) is abnormal.

[gerbi7]

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

In the first few sentences he says he's "intelligent," yet he spelled 'intelegent'.

oh sorry, I can make typos too.

[Benny1]

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

ah, a good read, although the rest of the thread is kind of irritating >_>.

I'm pretty sure my brother has aspergers, he is pretty smart, yet he has a ton of social issues >_>. Also, it seems to be more severe than this case in the story, because he has a lot more troubles than that.

Also, I have a cousin with severe autism, and it is completely horrible.

[talisman]

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

alex I think an entire slew of evidence lies heavily against you.

First of all, I'm not even entirely sure that introversion is a dominant characteristic amongst those with asperger's. The problem with those who have asperger's is that they simply do not understand or grasp normal social interaction intuitively and I have never seen any evidence that would suggest that introversion stems from the inability to grasp social interaction, but rather, as that wikipedia quote would suggest, from other innate causes. Perhaps a decreased willingness to interact socially because of increased internal stimulation (as Eysenck might propose). And if those with asperger's WERE able to grasp social interactions as others do, they may very well be just as proportioned between extroverts and introverts as normals. I'm positive there's evidence demonstrating at the very least that those with asperger's can be socially engaged with others that have asperger's, which wouldn't be true if asperger's were just some case of severe introversion.

Secondly, introversion does not explain at all the deficit in emotional perception in those with asperger's.

Thirdly, introversion does not explain the aptitude for math and for visual thinking, as not all introverts are skewed towards being better at mathematical skills than verbal ones in the same way that those with asperger's are. I'm sure you've run across introverted kids that like to read books or write poetry or whatever.

[Cavernio]

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

Sigh. Do I dare begin to enter into this madness?

Gerbi:
No wonder there's a backlash about aspergers if all people who have spergers are as condescending as you are. However, I doubt everyone is, because to say that all people with Aspergers carry the same ideas as you do would be grossly over-generalizing, which is what I think you've done. 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.

You say that you don't get insulted about people who make fun of you. Well, that's fine. You don't have to, but you've obviously realized that others get emotionally hurt by situations where you don't, and if you want people to accept you, then it'd be better if you employed tactics to not insult other people. The way you call everyone who doesn't have aspergers as 'neural typical' gets my back up instantly. What, am I somehow not good
enough because I wasn't a wonder child? Is the fact that I enjoy being social a detriment to me? Just as I shouldn't think less of you because of aspergers, you shouldn't think less of me because I don't have it.

Reach: If you support the opinion of someone else, and take it on as your own, then it is your own, whether or not you came up with it yourself.
Also, be careful what you say about fields of study you know little about. Calling psychology a 'pseudo science' is only accurate in one way, I think, in that its friggin hard to study people in a scientific manner because of the huge loss of information there is when you objectify, or measure, people. (Objectify in the true meaning of the term, not as in 'objectifying women'). I don't think you meant it in this way however. Your tone conveys it as like, astrology or something. That's an understandable opinion to have, yet you clearly have not studied it in any way to have a good enough understanding of it to accurately scorn it. The fact that you say psychology has largely accepted that the brain is rapidly evolving shows just that. It sounds to me like you've only read 'pseudo-psychology', which is what unfortunately is what is largely on the internet these days.
Also, you clearly have a poor understanding of what evolution is and how it works. The only reason that people with higher intelligence would be evolving would be if they were surviving while less intelligent people would be dying AND not have children AND if the more intelligent people who were surviving would be because the intelligence would be carried through the genes. This is not happening. Find me proof that this is happening, and I might believe you. No, don't find me some random person's opinion or some clueless journalist making a sensationalistic story. Besides, there's nothing which is making smarter people *that much more able to reproduce* than stupid people. There's no disease which wipes out stupid people only or something like that. Wait, that's called eugenics, which is morally deplorable and even stupidly done because intelligence is largely determined by environment.
You wouldn't be smart with numbers if you hadn't had an opportunity to learn about numbers.

People don't need social skills before like they used to? Perhaps you'd better think about that a little longer, there are just too many things which socialness is good for, from an evolutionary perspective, since you're so
cut up on using it. People with Aspergers are still extraodinarily social if you look over the entire evolutionary scale.

Why do I need to be good at math? We have calculators for a reason. All I need is someone to be good at it so they can put it all into a computer for me.

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.

[Reach]

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

Hmm, it really is a pseudo-science.



Astrology isn't even science, so obviously I don't mean it in that sense.

But psychology is not scientific method for the most part, and I would say it's a pseudo-science, and so would a lot of people (ironically, people that teach it). Not that psychology shouldn't be studied, I enjoy it, it's just hard to be objective and scientifically sound in such an area where most of it is not based on direct evidence.

After talking to a few doctors of biology, I am almost tempted to classify it as such as well XD jokingly, but, atleast you can directly observe evidence in biology in many areas.

Also, you clearly have a poor understanding of what evolution is and how it works

Ouch. Well, this isn't true.

The only reason that people with higher intelligence would be evolving would be if they were surviving while less intelligent people would be dying AND not have children AND if the more intelligent people who were surviving would be because the intelligence would be carried through the genes.

Well, right back at you. There is some fallacy here. Let's try and uncover it.

Why would the less intelligent people have to die? Evolution doesn't work this way...

Geeze, if it did we wouldn't have species diversity. They would have all changed since apparently dumb organisms have to die out o_O



IQ is highly heritable. This IS a fact, and it is generally acknowledged that intelligent parents produce children of equal or greater intelligence.

Yea, it's largely environmental too, but only some 20-30% =/ And essentially, IQ is a measure of how well someone functions within modern society. Yes it is evident that race plays absolutely no part in IQ itself, but within a population people have different IQ's for genetic reasons.


If anything I'll agree with, is that low average IQ trends are going to happen. People of lower intelligence are actually producing more xD

However, economics and the power of society doesn't depend on the average IQ but more or less the number of PH.D's and highly educated 'brains' in an area

Why do I need to be good at math? We have calculators for a reason. All I need is someone to be good at it so they can put it all into a computer for me.

This is why we don't have amazing memory. Abstract mental skills extend far beyond 'calculations'. Jesus if it was that easy computers would solve all our problems. Not so fast; all of these ideas come from human understanding of quantum mechanics and advanced mathematics o_o

The fact that you say psychology has largely accepted that the brain is rapidly evolving shows just that. It sounds to me like you've only read 'pseudo-psychology'

This has nothing to do with psychology, actually. It's a biological fact XD and certainly not 'pseudo-scientific', unless you would like to try and disprove the theory of evolution.

Yes, 'ideas' on how the brain is evolving is very pseudoscientific, like much of what I have said. Oh well

Or I suppose you could toy with the word 'rapidly'. Such can be used in a very non scientific manner, since you can't really define 'rapid'. But that doesn't change the fact it's happening. Natural selection doesn't just go 'oh, look at this, social and cultural constructs, hmm, I'm going to stop selecting now'.