Talk:Asperger syndrome

For older discussion, see
Archive 1 (May 31 2005)
Archive 2 (August 23 2005)
Archive 3 (September 22 2005)

"Aspie"

The article uses the term "aspie" to refer to people with Asperger's. Is this an accepted term? Could it be perceived as inappropriate? I really don't know the answer to this, but it just sounds strange to me.

Yes Aspie is an entirely accepted, if perhaps less than scientific sounding, way to refer to a person diagnosed with Asberger's. In fact your use of "people with Asperger's" is in many ways more offensive as some people like myself do not consider themselves to "have" Asperger's but rather to "be" Asperger's. Symmetric Chaos 14:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an informal term, meant to sound less imposing (and possibly less judgemental) than "person with Asperger's Syndrome". By comparison you might want to note that the article Left-handed speaks of such people as "lefties". -- Writtenonsand 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

removed link

I removed

• Sula Wolff, Beyond Asperger Syndrome Links between Schizoid personality disorder, Asperger syndrome and schizophrenia

I believe it was one of the ones I cut when evaluating the links down to 15. Anyone else think this should stay? If so which one should it replace? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can keep this link. Several reasons:

It's me who added it to the article

It's a text by a renowned specialist

The article does not contain any other reference to SPD and schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which often overlap with AS

That's more of an argument for including a mention in the article itself rather than just an external link. Any thoughts anyone? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly woeth mentioning as long as you take care to avoid the perception that Schizoid personality disorder is not asperger's. Symmetric Chaos 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

dubious science fiction mention

This sentence bothers me:

There is a semi-jocular theory within science fiction fandom, for example, which argues that many of the distinctive traits of that subculture may be explained by the speculation that a significant portion thereof is composed of people with Asperger's.

It seems to be completely unreferenced. Also, it's not a paragraph :). Maybe we should just remove it.... any thoughts anyone? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is also in the science fiction fandom article. The theory has been tossed around in fandom for some time -- see this Google groups thread or this one, for example. The statement isn't that "sf fans=aspies" directly -- I don't think it should be deleted, just edited to fit well here. And we could post, I suppose, a reference to one of those Google Groups discussions to back up the statement that "there is a semi-jocular theory...." ManekiNeko | Talk 00:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

in copy-editing this section, i took some liberties with this sentence without realizing it was an express topic of conversation. i hope i didn't step on any toes. it seem to merit inclusion, and to fit vaguely with the following paragraph, so i merged them. in particular, it didn't seem to be an example of a previously mentioned concept, so i removed "for example". i also have the impression that "jocular" was the wrong word here, but perhaps i am mistaken. i thought that "somewhat" would fit better with standard english than "semi-".tej 01:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

WOW. Thanks for the edits. You pretty much solved the problem :). I'll go ahead and stick in the two links ManekiNeko noted for references :). Thanks!Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm comparatively new here and haven't participated in any debate here before, so if this isn't formatted right, I'm sorry.

I am becoming severely irritated at what I have added about the science-fiction/Asperger thing being removed as supposedly anti-Aspie. I am not, having both ADHD and a lesser case of AS myself, and with a son similarly afflicted.

I am anti-cultural bigotry. There is a long, established history of science fiction being regarded as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff", with a similar lack of regard for those who read it. This whole "that explains the science fiction weirdos -- they all have a personality deficit disorder" attitude is a slam which stains anyone who is a fan of the genre, and it is NOT "neutral point of view" to let a bigotry, even one held by a professional in the field, go unremarked-upon. Try substituting some other group for Star Trek fans in Attwood's remark, like Jews or blacks or Democrats, and see if it still sounds harmless.

Davidkevin 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Davidkevin

Explicitly describing it as bigotry still isn't NPOV or encyclopedic, in the least. This is not a grey area and it is not negotiable. You don't find such language on the page describing the Holocaust, for example, no matter how clear it seems to some (probably virtually all) people that words like "bigotry" apply. PurplePlatypus 00:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed it to the softer word "prejudice". I'm not trying to be inflammatory or non-encyclopedic in style but I think that this prejudice/bigotry exists, and to not at least note it is in fact not encyclopedic, in the larger sense of the word.

I see that you claim to have written most of the article. Look, I'm not trying to pee in your pool, pardon the phrase. I don't dispute any of the good work Dr. Attwood has done, and I'm not trying to mess up your article. But to haphazardly classify entire groups of people, "jokingly" or not, as having a serious personality deficit disorder, is at mininum careless on his part, and at worst, yes, bigotry, and it seems to me, perhaps naively, that an article on the topic which is intended to cover the entire topic, should have a mention of it in some fashion.

Davidkevin 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to deal with one admittedly fairly minor thing, I didn't write most of the article, though a fair chunk of it is my work. My biggest contribution was taking what was once an incredibly disorganized dog's breakfast of an article and editing it into something FA-worthy (it was already an FA before that, but the standards for featured articles changed and it was in danger of losing that status at one time). By no means did I do this single-handedly, but I think it's safe to say I was the single largest contributor. But I couldn't have done it if there hadn't been lots of good stuff there long before my arrival; it was just a bit haphazard. Many paragraphs in the article as it stands today are Frankenstein's monsters I assembled from bits that were in three or four different places before, but for the most part you can't tell they were stitched together in that way; they actually read better than the originals. (Others have since improved them even further, of course; I don't edit this article much anymore.) Just thought I'd take a moment to clear that up.

As for the content, I like the current wording a lot better. I'm not going to mess with it for now, but I won't stop anyone else doing so either; there seem to be a lot of good editors that watch this article. You and they will hit a consensus eventually, and it'll all be good. That's how Wikipedia works, when it's at its best. PurplePlatypus 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what Attwood said as bigotry. I'm a science fiction fan, a geek, and an Aspie -- and when Attwood says something like that, I nod and think "yup, he's probably right. No wonder so many of my friends are also geeks and SF fans. And no wonder I feel so at home among them." I think that reading "that explains the science fiction weirdos -- they all have a personality deficit disorder" into it is seeing a slam that isn't actually there. It's not bigotry, just an acknowledgement that SF is an area of interest well-suited to the Aspie mind. But no one said all SF fans are Aspies, nor do any of us here think that being an Aspie is a negative thing, really. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

When DOCTOR Attwood says something like that, I think "He's making medical diagnoses about thousands of people he's never even met, much less examined."

Whether we like it or not, having AS is regarded in the mainstream culture as having a mental disorder: AS disqualifies one from military service, from being a cop or a firefighter, from being electable to political office. The broad brush, even used with the intention of jest, is damaging -- if said about an individual, even in the same joking manner, it very well could be grounds for a libel or slander suit, and it strikes me that if it's wrong to disparage a stranger in this way, it's more wrong to disparage a bunch of strangers.

Davidkevin 00:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

David, you've also posted the above to my user page. I'll answer it here if you don't mind. Firstly, you do not quote your sources (other than the one in the Asperger syndrome article which doesn't support your claim) so according to the Wikipedia rules your additions have to go. I posted a question to your talk page in order to get some background and see if I'm wrong. From your response here, it appears that I am correct, so I would recommend that you take the axe you have to grind with Attwood somewhere else where it might do some good. Attwood's jocular speculation does not have anything to do with Asperger's syndrome. Please realise that Attwood does not represent Aspies. For all you know, I might disagree with him completely and could write pages why I believe he is wrong. I could, for example, take your advice, substitute one thing for another and replace your contribution to SF Fandom with the following: "There is a theory held by some mental health professionals who deal with fandom, including leading expert Dr. Tony Attwood, that many Aspies' personalities match those of SF fans, and therefore most Aspies are SF fans. This rather sweeping generalization is regarded by some as an offensive stereotype, reflecting cultural bigotry on the part of non-Aspie health professionals." But personal beliefs (your and mine) are not relevant to Wikipedia. Bottom line, I do not think the Asperger syndrome article is the place to discuss this and if the Attwood page is a good place, you should still quote your sources in order to let your criticism stand. Otherwise, next thing you know Attwood will be claiming this is libel and all that. Finally, I suggest that you study WP rules before adding POV stuff. And just maybe you could subscribe to WikiEN-L and lurk there for a while. And please forgive my brusqueness. Anywhere else I would rewrite and rewrite until it was totally NT but not here.  AvB ÷ talk 02:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, it isn't a two-way street: for a psychiatric professional to falsely characterize someone with AS as also being a Star Trek fan will not damage her or him. For a psychiatric professional to falsely characterize a Star Trek fan as having a pervasive personality disorder can be life-destroying. People can lose their security clearances, their jobs (not everybody works in IT, y'know), the control over their finances (as per recent stories in the Los Angeles Times about professional conservators), even the custody of their children.

Perhaps Dr. Attwood is really only kidding -- nonetheless, for someone who is regarded as a world authority in his speciality, at best it's careless, given that it can be taken seriously, given his stature, and given the damage which can result.

Davidkevin 08:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

David, it follows from my and your arguments that you and I are both correct, so I've changed the article to reflect both views. I hope you can agree with the change. I've removed your arguments, which - while both compelling and applicable to the opposite POV - only served to convince other editors and have no place in the article itself. If you agree, you may want to similarly update the SF fandom article. (The Attwood article still needs a better quote I think.) Thanks,  AvB ÷ talk 02:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can live with the current phrasing.

Then why revert it two weeks later? Did you find a source? Or are you Cyberstalking me? (now on Talk:Tony Attwood, User_talk:Davidkevin, and here AvB ÷ talk 13:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, I just removed the three words "or vice versa". After giving the matter further thought it occurred to me that a.) the reverse was inaccurate, and b.) constituted a "weasle-wording", which is mentioned as undesirable in the NPOV article you keep throwing at me.

Cyberstalking? You're nuts, lady. I don't know who you are, and I don't care who you are. I care very much about this *issue*, and evidently you do as well as we keep crossing paths on variations of it. But you, yourself? Baloney. (I must say I admire your nerve, though, as a false accusation such as that is greatly useful in diverting an argument from its merits into irrelevancies.)

Davidkevin 13:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

P. S.: I never heard of you until you starting going from article to article to article which I had edited deleting what I had written. If anyone is stalking anyone, it's more accurate to say that you're doing it to me than I am doing it to you, although I think it's more your need to see Dr. Attwood unsullied than any real stalking.

And, finally, false accusations of criminal behavior such as this are libelous. I respectfully request you retract or delete it and apologize immediately.

Davidkevin 14:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyberstalking is about harassment and excessive personal attacks, not about discussing edits that actually don't even need discussion but could have been reverted immediately.  AvB ÷ talk 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I retract what I said about your being nuts, and apologize. You're not nuts, you're just making an ad hominem attack in an attempt to manipulate the conflict.

By the definition of "wikistalking" given in the harassment article you just cited, your behavior is Wikistalking, not mine. Personally, I wish I had never had any contact with you whatsoever.

And while I'm not goofy enough to go through the hassle of attempting to file a lawsuit in international court (so you're safe there), it's not a violation of Wikipedia rules to make note again of the fact that you've libelled me. Common decency requires that you apologize and retract your remarks, and I again respectfully request that you do this immediately.

Davidkevin 14:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you do so yourself. I stand by everything I have said. Also, I take your mention of a lawsuit VERY SERIOUSLY indeed and take it as a direct threat. AvB ÷ talk 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't take it back after all: you *are* nuts. Anybody who can read "I'm not goofy enough to...file a lawsuit" as "I'm going to sue you" is delusional. I'm through talking to you. Bye bye, and remember to take your medicine.

Davidkevin 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen similar quotations from Dr. Attwood more than once in the last five years in other contexts on other web pages. I am in process of doing another websearch to find them, but so far have not; it may be that the pages I saw before have been taken down. Nonetheless, I will continue to search with several different engines, and you may rest assured that if and when I again find those other instances where he said that, I will post links to them here on Wikipedia.

OK, and by all means post findings here or write them into the article(s). See also my response on your Talk page.  AvB ÷ talk 13:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC out on the Tony Attwood article (see Talk:Tony Attwood) which deals with the same issue: whether or not Davidkevin's unsourced comment on Attwood's remark constitutes a violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV or other policies. The RfC outcome will affect other articles, especially the Asperger Syndrome article. I have withdrawn from the Attwood discussion and hope others will post their comments, positive or negative, at the bottom of this page. AvB ÷ talk 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the article once again libels thousands of people.

Why don't we just word it this way:

In addition, some (notably Tony Attwood) have suggested that aspects of the subcultures of some obsessive interests (for example in science fiction fandom or train spotting) may be explained by the conjecture that a significant portion thereof are mentally ill.

or

In addition, some (notably Tony Attwood) have suggested that aspects of the subcultures of some obsessive interests (for example in science fiction fandom or train spotting) may be explained by the conjecture that a significant portion thereof are nuttier than fruitcakes.

They're both just other ways of saying what it currently says.

Davidkevin 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See wikt:conjecture. Your claim is absurd. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think others have already explained why this doesn't make any sense. (And libel? Being called a possible Aspie is libel? It's something to be proud about, if you ask me.) Attwood didn't say that "sf fans = Aspies," or if he seemed to, I believe it is an out-of-context interpretation. He said Aspies are frequently sf fans, and yes, there are a lot of them. It's not the same thing. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's how I read it, too. He was simply putting it into context for a no-specialist audience, to my reading. But Davidkevin seems to be obsessed by this one comment. I'm sure there's a term for people who gat fixations on things other people regard as trivial, what could it be I wonder?... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Evidently you either did not read or have chosen to ignore what I wrote to you on my User Talk page, so I'm going to repeat it here:

I remain seriously concerned about Dr. Attwood's comments, regardless of how minor you personally perceive them to be. As an internationally known expert, his statements can be introduced into legal procedings which can destroy lives. People can lose security clearances, employment, child custody, or control over their own finances on the basis of false association between Star Trek and science fiction fandoms and Asperger Syndrome. Even if they are simply the *examples* of fixations you purport them to be, his casual use of them is careless, and his repeated use of them over the course of several years does lead one to think he believes they are significantly related. Science fiction has been referred to as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff" for many decades, and here is a mental health professional who is saying, in effect, yes, interest in that genre is evidence of mental illness. It is not a small matter.

As I said earlier on this page:

Whether we like it or not, having AS is regarded in the mainstream culture as having a mental disorder: AS disqualifies one from military service, from being a cop or a firefighter, from being electable to political office. The broad brush, even used with the intention of jest, is damaging -- if said about an individual, even in the same joking manner, it very well could be grounds for a libel or slander suit, and it strikes me that if it's wrong to disparage a stranger in this way, it's more wrong to disparage a bunch of strangers.

I am not "obsessed" with this issue, I have a serious concern about innocent people being maligned and even possibly harmed by mischaracterization of a pop culture interest as a mental disorder by an expert whose words can be misused. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, or you think it has no effect on your own lives, but for those to whom it has happened, or could happen, it matters quite a bit.

Since my efforts to mitigate this are considered unacceptable, I ask one of you to please rewrite this section to make it less damaging yet still fit within your notions of NPOV, as was done in the related entries. I don't believe that's too much to ask.

Davidkevin 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Innocent people? Innocent of what David? Of having Asperger Syndrome? I'm reading your comment as saying having Asperger Syndrome = being guilty of a crime and in this case YOU are the one who is libelling a whole bunch of strangers.

It already is in the article in NPOV terms. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply repeating a potentially damaging mischaracterization without noting any objection or minimalization is an interesting definition of NPOV.

Look, if you're angry at me for my persistence about this, I'm sorry, but if so I sincerely hope you're not letting that cloud your judgment. What you're defining as NPOV now is not how you defined it in this context on 28 January.

Davidkevin 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all science fiction fans are Aspies. I am an Aspie and I do love science fiction, but I also know several people who also love science fiction and yet aren't Aspies. This needs to be cited. We can't be discriminating against science fiction and Aspies here. Scorpionman 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not all SciFi fans are Aspies but statisticly Aspies a likely to be SciFi fans. Symmetric Chaos 15:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe Tony Attwood noted that Aspies identify with Data (Star Trek), which makes a lot of sense. That's something interesting that could be mentioned in the article. Neurodivergent 19:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a great point Neuro and could serve to explain at some level why so many Aspie's enjoy science fiction (especialy Star Trek which has the logical Vulcans and Data) due to the fact that a persons position is not decided by social "ass kissing" but rather by expertise and ability. Symmetric Chaos 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As a random Aspie reading this, and a science fiction fan, it seems pretty darn clear the 2 groups overlap. What's wrong about mentioning it? The fact that it confrims some people in their silly prejudices is not enough reason to ignore the truth.

And, I, like others, do not see Aspergers as something to be ashamed of. I'd like a cite to "keeping us out of the military, police, etc".

Charles

Proposal: move page (rename) to "Asperger syndrome"

It seems that academic and psychiatric authorities (eg national institute of neurological disorders and stroke, part of the nih, at http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/detail_asperger.htm) prefer to call it "Asperger syndrome" rather than "Asperger's syndrome." I have seen parallel mentions on reputable sites of "Asperger syndrome" and "Asperger's disorder." (ie, the possessive apostrophe is only used with "disorder," not "syndrome." I suggest we move the page to reflect this. When I was trying to figure out which way was most correct, I came to Wikipedia; so I think we should try to be as accurate as possible, even if it's a rather quibbling change.tej

I agree - in fact despite not being mentioned in wikipedia much Asperger syndrome still gets more google hits. I'll wait a day for possible objections - so if anyone objects please say so now :) - otherwise I'll move it tomarro. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tej. Though I saw it called both Asperger Syndrome and Asperger's Syndrome in the course of my research, the former seems to be significantly more common, especially in material from the last few years. Asperger's Disorder is preferred by the one practicing psychiatrist I've mentioned it to but I would prefer to steer clear of that for reasons related to the "Shift away from view as a disease" material in the article. PurplePlatypus 21:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, the move function doesn't work for this page. I see that it's been added to the list of requests for administrator-assisted moves. Who knows how long that will take, but hopefully some wikigod will take care of it.tej 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

i'm glad to see the move happened. does anyone know why the normal "move" function didn't work? i can't find a good explanation.tej 08:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the redirect page had a history (more than one edit) - so I had to delete that, then move, then restore the history of both this and the talk page. That's in addition to moving/redirecting the FAC page and the three talk archives. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits to sowell quackery

the second I find who keeps changing my edits about that quack sowell..Shit..their in for it..! (unsigned comment by 68.193.45.148)

Your edits are making the article's content more biased. This is why they keep getting reverted. We need to present both sides of the issue, as it is currently a controversial issue. Sowell may be a quack but there are a lot of people who may believe what he does, so it should be mentioned in the article. ManekiNeko | Talk 00:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It may be unbiased but it's still quackery

Sowell is not a doctor or a autism expert in anyway. [personal attack removed --fvw]. I WILL keep changing it and if you ban my IP i'll do under a different IP.

So what? Autism experts and doctors have an agenda. They want to keep their jobs. That's why we see the research crap coming out of there, like "extreme maleness" theories, viral infections, brain damage and you name it. --Rdos 08:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And then we'll ban that IP and keep reverting you. Discuss your changes or give up, you will not get your way by blindly reverting. --fvw* 02:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any particular need to mention Sowell either. This anon guy may be obnoxious, but he's also right as far as I can see. PurplePlatypus 03:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read Sowell, and from what I see here, I certainly wouldn't agree with Sowell, but the content does not seem to be inappropriate to me -- it seems to be a reasonable presentation of the POV those who don't think autism is involved. The fact that I (and many here, clearly) may think Sowell's idea is hogwash isn't relevant to whether his ideas should be mentioned here. What is relevant is whether Sowell is in any way notable enough to be mentioned in this context, I think. If he is, I thought his theory was addressed fairly. I don't know if he is or isn't that notable as I was trusting other editors on that issue. The content didn't have a whiff of linkspamming or anything like that -- I really do think it was written up in a neutral way. ManekiNeko | Talk 09:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Purple.

This could be the start of something beautiful.lolJoeMele 04:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing the bit if people here want to do so. Just responding to the general sentiment.. --fvw* 10:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

HEY FOLKS!!! JOE HIMSELF HAS NOW BEEN THROWN OUT OF AFF. He was one of their stalwarts. These purges are getting like Stalin and Trotsky now. That must give you all some second thoughts. (from an Edinburgh libraries public computer, 12:54 Oct 7. )

Hey, Tern, how's the weather in Edinburgh? Funny how the edits coming from the public library IP, 193.39.159.3 are on topics you edited with the Tern account. ManekiNeko | Talk 12:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think we should vote on sowell part

so what about a vote on removing that part on sowell... (unsigned post by 68.193.45.148)

Actually it seems like there's a consensus to remove it... Anyone agree/disagree? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree -- I don't understand why presenting an alternate viewpoint should not be done. (However, as I mentioned, I have not read Sowell, and I do not know what sort of reputation he has in this area. Maybe the whole world thinks he is a quack. And based on the presentation of his ideas here, I certainly don't agree with him.) It still seems that people are trying to remove the content specifically because they don't agree with Sowell, and that is POV. That is my concern here. However, if I'm the only one who feels that way, so be it. I will go by the consensus and won't revert. I just think presenting conflicting ideas in controversial topics neutrally is generally a Good Thing. 68.193.45.148, I think based on your edits you are perhaps leaning a bit towards POV (trying to add the list of suspected autistic celebrities, wanting Sowell's anti-AS ideas removed), and I sympathize with your intent (as an aspie myself who does not support pro-cure ideas, etc.), but I just don't see Wikipedia as the place to make that point. But being rigid about objectivity is undoubtedly one of my more aspieish traits... ManekiNeko | Talk 11:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus or not, NPOV requires the article to mention alternative theories. Since psychiatry is not very inclined to present alternative, non-dysfunction theories, there has to be a lot lower threshold of published material on competing theories. Remember that even BS Sensory Integration Dysfunction has a published record, but no confirmative research. i vote for keep --Rdos 08:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't around when this discussion was talking place, but I notice that there are no Sowell references in the article anymore. I've read his main book on the subject. While probably non-scientific, I think it's of general interest. I'd say a mention of that probably belongs in the high functioning autism article. Sowell deals with kids who have speech delay. Aspie kids don't have speech delay ("clinically significant" speech delay according to the DSM, whatever that means.) In any case, it should be noted that he's an economist. His observations are based on the fact that his son was a late talker, and I guess he didn't like his son labeled autistic or retarded. His son I believe is now a software engineer, which Sowell takes as proof that he's of course not autistic. (I'm a software engineer too.) I've heard rumors that his son does in fact appear to be autistic. Sowell's criteria for distinguishing between HFA kids and "Einstein Syndrome" kids is vague, ad hoc and uncientific; basically this: (1) They have several engineers or musicians as close relatives and (2) They understand at least some of what they are told. Sowell I believe tracks the progress of many kids who have been referred to him. It's silly to suppose that his group of kids are, in any significant proportion, going to grow up to be like Einstein or Edison. However, his results may be of interest in other respects. I don't recall the exact claim, but I believe most of his kids start to speak within 2 years of the parents starting to worry (without so much as speech therapy most of them). Isn't that pretty much equivalent to the results of some ABA studies? (ABA has not been validated by double-blind studies and it's unclear how kids are selected). Now imagine that these kids had been referred to Lovaas instead of Sowell. He also refers to research of a professor, Camarata I believe is the name -- if this professor has some published results, that would be more scientifically relevant as well. Neurodivergent 14:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, while we were discussing whether to keep the Sowell references in the article, 68.193.45.148 seemed to agree to leave the material in while a discussion was ongoing in here, but then deleted the material only a few minutes later while it was still being discussed. I was tired of dealing with him so I didn't put it back that time. Since no one else has either, I guess one could say that consensus is that the material isn't necessary. But I did find it inappropriate to delete it under those circumstances. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

why not?

so should i remove it... (unsigned post by 68.193.45.148)

Patience... give people a few days to respond. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 11:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright..I removed it,there is consenus it doesn't belong why is it there?

I made the edit to the sowell part. I thought this time there was a bit of consenus on it but nooo.. It get's reverted! Who keeps doing this? (unsigned comment by 68.193.45.148)

The history for the page will show who is doing it. Several people have done it; not just one. Be patient, though. Give people a chance to comment. (For example, I was unable to get to Wikipedia to post a response to your "vote" request until now.) By the way, you should sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of each one. Thanks! ManekiNeko | Talk 11:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

alrirght...Geez

there are a couple of soultions to this.That list it include in the back of "a gift or a curse" I'm going to take out I didn't know about that source rule witht names .I still think that the sowell has got to go but I'll hold off for a while Alright! Does any one think it has relevence? Relavance is certianlly more important that NPOV if you ask me...and the section i had with the links on gift and curse why does that get removed god...I'm new...for just a bit's sparing please 68.193.45.148 11:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for signing your post! :) Clearly our edits are overlapping at the moment here and on the article page. I reverted the article just now for two reasons -- you probably figured out that one reason is that we are in here discussing this issue right now. So I rv'ed that for the moment so we can at least discuss this for a bit longer if anyone wants to contribute. (As I mentioned above, I will go by what consensus says -- it's just that no one had really responded yet to Ryan's request for disagreement, and now that I have... well, I hope we can have a discussion.) Also, the list of rumored autistic celebrities is a separate issue -- those shouldn't be posted here without sources. (Not just random websites, either.) So that had to be reverted as well. That's been discussed here on the Talk page in the past, I think. If there are other changes to your stuff that you are asking about, I'm not sure because I didn't do them, but maybe someone else will answer. ManekiNeko | Talk 11:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

PS.

I don't know about this.I did actually do these edts i'll check it once and leave it.'kay..I'll just leave it.

Wow, yeah, it looks like someone else started vandalizing the article right after we were talking about it here... things have been getting wacky out there! ManekiNeko | Talk 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the part I introduced in "a gift and a curse" but I didn't leave it just going to leave most things alone untill they are discussed.It's for the good of the wiki!68.193.45.148 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The part about the speculative diagnoses was discussed at this section. User:Stevenj unilaterally removed all the speculative diagnoses that were there, and noone objected, (in fact I was quite relieved personally!), so they were removed forever. The list you added was similar to what was there before, so I thought you knew about the previous discussion. And yes, the last couple of hours have been interesting: I've recently gotten back from a family party, so I've just found out about the new spree of vandalism. - Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Geek syndrome section

I found several very offensive claims here. First it was claimed that there were consesus that geeks were only occasionally "aflicted" by AS. People wanting to reinstall this need to show the published research on this. Knowing *one* or a couple of geeks that are not AS is not sufficient. I also removed the claims that self-diagnosis is dangerous. Many self-diagnosed would find this offensive. --Rdos 08:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Self-diagnosis is problematic and error prone, in general. I don't think there is any serious dispute about that. PurplePlatypus 09:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please back up that statement in published research, specifically when it comes to ASD. This is a POV statement, and thus should not be part of a featured article. As I mentioned the profiles of self-diagnosed and diagnosed AS show little difference in the Aspie-quiz. In fact, it seems like people on radical asperger-sites have *higher* scores, probably because they know themselves better. I'd say medical diagnosis in itself is dangerous, because it relieves the indivual of self-identifying problems. I vote for remove. --Rdos 09:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Old discussion, but I can't help noting that an external diagnosis of a 'spectrum disorder' is problematic and error prone. Psychiatrists pretend that they can tell what's going on in the mind of others, but this is ridiculous. Ultimately the affected person is the only one who can determine if he is or is not something. Any other determination is clearly unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscience. Neurodivergent 19:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss before doing something drastic like wide-scale POV changes - this is a featured article. I agree with PurplePlatypus about self-diagnosis - its a rather widely known thing and is not POV. Also, please don't add back the neanderthal theory - if you have an alternative feel free to suggest that - thanks! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, this is ridiculous. Weren't you the one that demanded published evidences for each and every claim in the Neanderthal theory? Now you propose that 'widely known' (obviously by Ryan and PurplePlatypus) is something we should just accept, and despite that I presented the evidence that there is no difference between diagnosed and self-identified AS. It might be true in other areas, like real medical diagnosis like cancer, but has no relevance for AS. In fact, diagnosis are done by questioning the person to be diagnosed and family. There is no biological test for AS. It's all about behavior. --Rdos 18:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Ryan also reverted the supposed "truth" that Geeks are only superficially AS. He'd better provide some (published) evidences for this too. If not, I'm tempted to put a POV check tag on the whole article --Rdos 18:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

With respect to self-diagnosis, at least, my view is that you have the burden of proof exactly backwards. It's the person making the surprising and almost bizarre claim (self-diagnosis is not problematic) that needs to provide citations, not the person reporting the mainstream view. The problematic nature of self-diagnosis is mentioned in passing in a number of the AS-related articles and books I've read, but I don't have the references handy (they were all borrowed from my university library). But none should be needed - the claim was considered obvious and commonplace enough by Gillberg and whomever else to not need citations in those publications, so I don't see why it would need any here. I would be very surprised if you could find a psychologist who does think self-diagnosis is reliable. (You did mention one test, but I have no idea whether that was a controlled experiment in a scientific journal or a self-selecting survey on a random web site, and in any event, there is no single reliable test for AS - as you correctly point out, the process of diagnosis is more nuanced than that.)

Incidentally, if I thought self-diagnosis were reliable, my own user page would say right out that I have AS, not that I "may or may not". PurplePlatypus 03:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You and Ryan are entitled to your POV regarding self-diagnosis. The problem is the wording (which is not neutral) and the fact that self-identification tests have been removed from the article. This makes this a POV-issue. If for example, there were links to popular self-identification tests, like the AQ-test and/or Aspie-quiz, it would not be a problem. I suggest a proper section about diagnosis. In this section you can put both the idea that some find self-diagnosis problematic, can present the most useful aspect of professional assessment (support from society) and give links to self-identification. THat would solve the problem of NPOV. --Rdos 06:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue completely. It is not my POV. It is fact, or as close as you're going to get in an area like psychology. NPOV does NOT mean we have to be neutral between ideas that are accepted by virtually all professionals in the relevant field, and ideas that are considered ridiculous by same. PurplePlatypus 07:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that self-diagnosis being "problematic" is an AS-related thing, necessarily -- it's considered problematic in general in psychological and medical fields. We aren't supposed to rely on self-diagnosis most of the time when we have physical illness, either. However the term "dangerous" that was in the article always bothered me a bit -- it was as if it was implying that self-diagnosis would cause spontaneous combustion or something. :) I don't think it is necessary to say self-diagnosis is dangerous in the article. The way it reads now, saying that there was a "rash of self-diagnoses" but not saying whether those were good, bad, correct, or incorrect, seems like a good way to deal with it. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Fact? Not many things in psychology are facts. For example, if Simon Baron-Cohen thought this was a 'fact', why did he construct the AQ-test? Why did Tony Atwood write the paper "The Discovery of Aspie"? Why put up the Australian AS-scale? The Aspie-quiz draws sources of questions from 9 different sources, most which are from professionals in the field. IOW, I think it is highly unlikely this is a 'fact' agreed upon by most professionals. --Rdos 08:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about Attwood or the Australian scale, but Baron-Cohen did not create the AQ test specifically for self-diagnosis if I understand my reading correctly. And in fact he makes an effort to explain that a high score does not necessarily indicate that one is autistic. Having said that, though, I believe that self-dx'ed aspies are quite often right, but of course I wouldn't want to see that in the article unless there's a good citation. (I keep hearing that Attwood said something about this... did he? Anyone know the citation?) ManekiNeko | Talk 23:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Purple. Rather then those being removed, why not suggest a different wording? Your first attempt "no consensus" was better - but you need to realize that consensus doesn't mean every single person, rather it means a vast super-majority (80%?) which is true in this case. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The consesus issue cannot be resolved, because there is no research in the field. --Rdos 08:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the issue of burden of proof. It is the article that is proposing something (self-diagnosis being problematic, Geeks not being AS). I'm not advocating for inserting that self-diagnosis is fine and all Geeks are Asperger's. I think these claims should be removed. Therefore, I think the burden of proof lies on the people that are proposing unsupported ideas. --Rdos 06:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let me come at this whole issue from a different angle.

I assume from your above comments that you agree with this much: Geeks universally (or very commonly) being AS is a clear example of a claim that would need citations. What you may or may not have noticed, however, is that the way the article currently reads (after your deletions) is tantamount to making this claim.

Similarly, even if I assume for the sake of argument that you are correct that about not being able to make claims one way or the other about self-diagnosis (even though I think that's BS), the article as it stands strongly implies that self-diagnosis is not problematic, and even by your arguments (let alone mine) this is just as POV and unsourced as the reverse claim.

For these reasons, I will ascede to removing these specific claims from the article if, and only if, a more neutral way to end the geek paragraph can be found, one that does not carry these implications. Any suggestions? PurplePlatypus 04:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The current version might very well be POV in the other direction. Since Ryan already had reverted my changes once, I didn't put much effort in the new change. I did give a suggestion on how to deal with the self-diagnosis issue above. At any rate, it hardly belongs in the Geek section. I suggest you change the Geek section yourself so it becomes more NPOV. --Rdos 05:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Why me? I thought it was okay the way it was. (Besides, I wrote, drastically rearranged or otherwise significantly influenced about half of the article as it is; I kinda feel like I should let others have a turn, especially since the sections I haven't touched are ones where others are clearly more knowledgable.) PurplePlatypus

Well, I tweaked it slightly. I think it is neutral now. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah - there were some real issues were that. Be very careful people about equating computers as a definate trait of Asperger's syndrome :). Anyway, its pretty neutral now, though I'm still working on the last sentence a bit. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, and more to the point - what do you guys think? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, now I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you. (I agree that computer geekness is not necessarily Aspie, though -- good catch there.) But I don't agree with the change of:

"In common with those with Asperger's Syndrome, geeks may exhibit an extreme professional or casual interest in computers, science, engineering and related fields, and may be introverted or prioritize work over other aspects of life. However, no determination has yet been made of whether the "Geek Syndrome" personality type has any direct relation to autism."

to:

"Although geeks may exhibit an extreme professional or casual interest in computers, science, engineering and related fields, and may be introverted or prioritize work over other aspects of life such as those with Asperger's syndrome, there is a general consensus among professionals that most geeks are arguably "variant normal" and do not exhibit autistic-spectrum behaviors. However, there are some that disagree and believe the rise of Asperger's syndrome is somewhat of a social movement, rather then a lifelong condition."

The "general consensus" needs a citation, I believe -- because I just don't think there has been all that much research, if any, on the issue. (Citations to prove me wrong are welcome.) :) And I don't know what you are saying, exactly, by "there are some that disagree and believe the rise of Asperger's syndrome is somewhat of a social movement, rather then a lifelong condition" -- and that definitely needs a citation too, in this context. Who are the "some that disagree"? I think my variation -- "no determination has yet been made of whether the "Geek Syndrome" personality type has any direct relation to autism" -- is more NPOV in that it's basically saying the true neutral statement: no one knows whether there is a connection. I'm not saying there is or there isn't. No one knows. It hasn't been proven, but no one's disproven it either.

I would probably rephrase it as follows: 'Like some people with Asperger's Syndrome, geeks may exhibit an extreme professional or casual interest in computers, science, engineering and related fields, and may be introverted or prioritize work over other aspects of life. However, no determination has yet been made of whether the "Geek Syndrome" personality type has a direct relation to autism, or is simply a "variant normal" type that is not part of the autistic spectrum.' And perhaps the bit about the social movement, too, but I would like to see a citation and some clarity there. Thanks for listening. ManekiNeko | Talk 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your version and put it in. Thanks a lot for that :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! And I just went in and fixed a spelling error (of sorts) in my version. Silly me. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 01:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Self identification

I saw that Ryan reverted a link to the AQ test. I suppose (reading the other discussion about Geeks), he think self-diagnosis is a horrible thing. However, this too is a NPOV-issue. Many people are interested in self-tests for AS. For instance, more than 1000 people take the Aspie-quiz each month. Therefore, I think there should be a section about this, or a separate article on the subject. Suggestions are welcome. --Rdos 04:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a link to the Geek Syndrome article and even a mention that the AQ test may be found with the article. So it's not completely inaccessible. I don't really think that it's Wikipedia's place to provide self-diagnosis links, though -- do we do this for other syndromes and conditions? It seems maybe less than encyclopedic. OTOH if the test is mentioned in the article a link to it is not a bad thing. ManekiNeko | Talk 04:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No we don't have this for other syndromes (I've looked at a ton of them) and WP:NOT a how-to guide. We'd be treading on thin water if we did so. Besides, the link to the wired magazine article is there in the references - we need to keep the links to major organizations etc. otherwise it turns into the linkfarm thing again. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, describing the AQ as a "self-test for AS" is, at best, a gross and misleading oversimplification. PurplePlatypus 05:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- I think Dr. Baron-Cohen would probably be horrified! ManekiNeko | Talk 05:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether Baron-Cohen would be horrified or not is quite beside the point. His AQ-test also isn't very well designed as it only is asking about negative aspects of AS. I also doubt he has done a proper evaluation of it. There are many other tests that seems more reliable like the Aspie-quiz and Geek-test. As for other "syndromes" and conditions not having links to self-tests, for instance look at INTP. The people believing in self-identification also frequently are the ones that believe AS is mostly a personality type, and as such is possible to self-identificate, just like temperament types. --Rdos 04:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Baron-Cohen has done serious studies including the AQ test. But the results weren't "If you score highly on the test, you have AS" -- more like "If you score highly on the test, you might want to get evaluated for AS, because Aspies score highly on the test as well." There is a difference. Thinking of the test as the super-duper Aspie test is simplifying it way too much. As far as the Aspie-quiz and Geek test, have studies been done on the reliability of those tests? Re: INTP, I don't think of that as a syndrome or condition, really. Though admittedly there is a fine line there... (forgot to sign when I posted this, so here's a sig now) ManekiNeko | Talk 09:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the first version of the Aspie-quiz was evaluated using a control group which selected several available diagnosis. The NT-cntrol group was first people that selected "I don't know", then it used various neutral web-sites through the referral mechanism. There is an extensive evaluation at: [1]. The evaluation of version II is not ready yet. I do not agree with you that Aspie and AS is not basically the same thing. --Rdos 04:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a new article about self-identification, but it really should be merged. --Rdos 03:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

PAGE MOVED

Just to let everyone know I moved the page as outlined above. It was extremely involved and exausting though. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up the page to match the new title. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 10:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

asperger and vocational choices

any research anywhere about what professions have significantly higher proportions of people with asperger? from what i read in the article one could surmise science, applied research and technology are fields in which some with asperger would thrive. i have close friends and family in this category and wondered if there is any research? Tiksustoo 17:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to see that too, but as I noted in the Prevalence section, there isn't much systematic research on Asperger adults (dammit). There is a study that shows that of those with AS who go to university, most are in math and the hard sciences (to nobody's great surprise - what I would like to know is how many of the ones in arts are in philosophy, but the study didn't say). There were also some comments in one of the books I consulted to the effect that more Aspies than you'd think settle into undemanding, repetitive jobs, such as most factory work, because apparently they mind the repetiveness a lot less than most non-autistics. Which on a personal note, is so far from accurately describing me that it's one of the reasons I'm not that sure that I'm an aspie myself. PurplePlatypus 05:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A mention in one book is hardly conclusive and besides Asperger's is a spectrum not a highly specific diagnosis. Symmetric Chaos 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Meyers-Briggs: theory or fact?

--As of May 2005 LukeH added that Meyers-Briggs Personalities like INTJ and INTP can correlate to the Asperger's. Where's the evidence behind it? I know all about INTP/INTJ and I am an aspie, a high-functioning one at that, but an aspie. Where's the evidence necessary to maintain this article's integrity? Should we move the statement until evidence is shown? Wikipedia is not for personal theories. It is for published and reported science and data.

I also think this was discussed previously in the archived discussions, but not resolved.

It seems quite likely that INTP and Aspie are correlated, but it has hardly been proved by research. The Aspie-quiz I had 10 participants from an INTP-related site, and they scored above normal. However, this is a too small sample. However, judging by the description of INTP, it very well describes an Aspie. --Rdos 08:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the result you describe isn't so much the sample's size (which, unintuitively, could be sufficient if the difference were big enough) as its nonrandom, self-selecting nature. But yeah, that section has been bothering me for a while too; it should probably be nuked as non-verifiable unless someone can show otherwise. It almost went away when I did my big reorganization, back when this article was a FARC. I can't remember why I kept it; I suspect it was because I thought one specific user might make a stink if I didn't. PurplePlatypus 04:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Eponymous diseases

User 68.4.112.118 deleted the link to the category Eponymous Diseases. I didn't see any reason for this, so I reverted it. Now that I think about it, it may be that he/she had an issue with calling AS a "disease." But since the editor didn't leave a summary there is no way to know. Anyway, it's back for now. I didn't think of the "disease" angle possibly being a problem until I'd already reverted it. What do you guys think? ManekiNeko | Talk 10:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect "disease", not "eponymous", was the reason, but as far as I can see the category should stay until someone makes a case otherwise here. PurplePlatypus 04:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I do think "disease" is an incorrect term in this case, and it does bother me, but it seems to me that the intent of that category is to include conditions and syndromes such as AS. ManekiNeko | Talk 21:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

other famous aspergerites

Bill Gates and Glenn Gould. Just stick those somewhere if you feel the need.

Only if you've got a reference for it. This has been discussed to death (and both of those have been mentioned before, especially Gates); the prevailing view is to hold such speculations to a rather high standard of verifiability. PurplePlatypus 04:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

About the afore mentioned

There was a few years ago a website that had an article about Gates having Aspergers syndrome but it's not up anymore that I know of.--Che Perez 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are rumors he was diagnosed, but there are similar rumors about Spielberg. If they are in fact diagnosed and not disclosing that, I can only conclude they are ashamed of themselves, which is a shame. It's the gay equivalent of being "in the closet". I understand Gates stims more than most Aspies, is socially ackward, and was into computers at a very young age. It's not a huge leap of reason to suggest he's Aspie. (An argument could be made that he doesn't fit the DSM-IV criteria in the strictest sense because he's successful). Neurodivergent 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree slightly with the above. I am a successful aspie, and know many others. Being aspergers is no handicap to being successful. Frankly, if you can navigate the NT world, I think Aspergers lends itself to being highly succesful. 65.96.190.185 04:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bravo

I myself have Asperger's Syndrome. This is a good article, don't argue about changing it. It is fine the way it is. JONJONAUG 16:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Accurate

A kid on my school bus says he has Asperger's Syndrome, and this article describes him perfectly. His obsession is Star Wars and TV (mainly Comedy Central).

Wonderful Article

This is one of the best articles I've ever seen about Asperger's, and I've seen plenty. Being Asperger's myself, and having a son (now 17) also with Asperger's (Don't tell me genetics doesn't play a major role.), we have a lot of first-hand experience to draw from, and this article rings very true. Great work.

Eidetic memory

I have Asperger syndrome, and am fairly active in self-advocacy. I don't personally know anyone who has an eidetic memory, though certainly some of us have a very strong memory for our areas of interest (in the same way a non-Autistic person who spent many hours a day in a mentally involving hobby or job would be likely to remember details that would be seen as minor by the general population). I think saying eidetic memory is in any way "usual" is decidedly pushing it. -- Pakaran 20:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Someone has placed a merge proposal on the article. My opinion: that's quite silly. Asperger's is mentioned in the Autism article, as it should be, but there is really no question that the topic deserves its own article which can provide more detailed information. Merging the content of the AS article with the Autism one would make a huge article (they are both already huge enough!). Not to mention that both are featured articles in their own right. I don't understand why it was felt necessary to suggest a merge in this case. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The merge proposal is ludicrous. PurplePlatypus 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a proposal would need some very good arguments indeed even if this hadn't been a featured article. I see this as vandalism. Besides, I'd say that a one-sided merge proposal is rather strange (s/he didn't place a merge proposal on the Autism article). The other edits by the same anonymous user were also problematic so I've reverted the article to the previous version. However, since I'm a relative newbie editor, any advice would be appreciated (e.g. do I need to do anything else or is the reversion enough?). Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just gone over today's edits by user (172.213.9.73). Although I had to correct one more edit (see DiGeorge syndrome), most edits were useful so I think any vandalism was not intended. The merge proposal may have been another way of saying that Asperger syndrome and classical autism belong together.  AvB ÷ talk 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks to all writing and fxing up this article. I have this disorder and could not have written a better article. Everything in there is true. There is nothing for me to edit! --Winter 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Spielberg source / Famous Aspies

There's a reference in the IMDB database which IMHO warrants inclusion in the Asperger syndrome article. Stephen Spielberg's entry says loud and clear: "Diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome." Comments anyone? Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We're going to need something better than that - IMDB can be unreliable at times. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to back up RN, it seems to be this exact point has been made before and someone listed several really dumb errors in IMDB. (It wasn't me and I don't think I even participated in the discussion.) Nobody seems to know where IMDB got their information, which I take to be the key question. PurplePlatypus 07:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! One of the reasons I'm asking is that I'm still a relative newbie here on WP and thought I'd check if I'd got a handle on the part of the NPOV rule I've interpreted as follows: WP does not report the truth as the editor knows it but as reported in the various media/etc. Even if it's wrong (unless other citable sources or common sense dictate otherwise). But that's just one interpretation of one rule, and I have already seen there's more than meets the eye on WP so any additional pointers from more experienced editors (present company included) would be much appreciated.  AvB ÷ talk 11:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You have indeed hit on a point that is difficult, subjective and sometimes a source of disagreement. I don't have a 100% satisfactory response to your point about "as reported in various media/etc"; Wikipedia runs on consensus, so if enough people disagree with RN and myself (and their reasons for doing so aren't total crap), then IMDB magically becomes a valid source. Personally I view them much the same way whoever wrote some of Wikipedia's FAQs suggests viewing Wikipedia itself; a good starting point for your research but not something to be relied upon as your sole source. I guess it comes down to how reliable one views a particular source as being. One example that is used often; we would not use the website of an extremist political group as a source, except for the purpose of reporting the views of that group specifically. But it must be admitted that this one may not be so clear-cut. PurplePlatypus 07:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, which I find very helpful. FWIW, from my own Internet searches I get the impression that this started out as a speculation around March 2002. I now agree that it would be better to leave this info out (or if it is mentioned in a WP article, to cite IMDB as its source). One would certainly expect that any reliable confirmation originally not available on the Internet (from e.g. a magazine interview) would have been picked up and posted all over the place by now, so we only have the one source, the IMDB. As pointed out elsewhere, Spielberg himself is probably aware of the info but has done nothing to dispel it so perhaps he agrees that he has AS traits. He probably doesn't find the AS label in any way offensive. Thanks again :-)  AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

should be easy to just write to gates and spielebergs PR people and get a statement?Tiksustoo 00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Although this option looks attractive, one of the Wikipedia rules explicitly forbids original research, and for good reason. AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New edit moved from article to talk for discussion

User:207.99.90.253 wrote:

Proponents of the extreme male brain theory often refer to systemizing vs emotionalising intelligence rather than male vs female intelligece in order to avoid possible confusion that autistic people are extremely masculine. Studies published in Science have shown that men fall almost universaly into the systemizing category and women almost universally into the emotializing category.

I started cleaning this up a bit, then realized it had already been said in the first paragraph of the Extreme male brain theory section. Any comments would be welcome. This is the cleaned-up version:

Proponents of the extreme male brain theory often refer to systemizing vs empathizing/emotionalising intelligence rather than male vs female intelligence. This may avoid possible confusion that autistic people are extremely masculine. A study (PMID: 16272115) published in Science has shown that females are stronger empathizers and males are stronger systemizers.

 AvB ÷ talk 15:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of my comment was to point out that the "extreme male brain" section focuses heavily on male v female which is not what the theory really states. User:207.99.90.25312:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Why not add it to the article? (But don't forget policies/guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:CITE.) Also, could you please sign your Talk page edits? Simply add a space and four tildes before clicking on Save. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted my interpretation of User:207.99.90.253's edit back into the article. Please improve at will, as always. AvB ÷ talk 10:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody agree with my viewpoint that the paragraph talking about "females with Asperger syndrome do not necessarily come across as particularly masculine personalities" should be removed entirely? This interpretation of the extreme male brain theory seems to me to be obviously not how it was intended to be interpreted. The theory is all about the thought differences between an "average" man and an "average" woman and what would happen if these differences were taken to an extreme. It's much more to do with empathising and systemising than it is to do with actual personalities and interests. In fact the actual autism article calls it the "empathising-systemising" theory to avoid misunderstandings and I believe that a description of the theory more similar to that in the autism article would help avoid confusion.

To balance this out slightly the paragraph below it (the "Proponents of the extreme male brain theory often refer to systemizing vs empathizing..." paragraph) could be padded out a bit with some more detailed explanation.Raoulharris 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your take on the theory. However, this paragraph describes a (minority) response to the theory. I see you're new to Wikipedia so I'll try to explain a bit further. If such a minority is large or notable enough (see e.g. WP:CITE and WP:V), Wikipedia needs to document its existence and probably the counter-responses it may elicit (see WP:NPOV). Before removing the paragraph and repairing the rest, you may want to check the discussion page and its archives to see whether or not the existence of the minority has been verified. If not, you may even play the devil's advocate and try to find reputable external sources that report the variant view. Bottom line - you can remove the paragraph unless reputable sources reporting the minority view are presented. (Also, ideally, things should be balanced out by the description of the theory itself...) AvB ÷ talk 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But do you think then that it could be made more clear that it is a minority view in the article? Or don't you think that would be a good idea?Raoul Harris 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Perhaps others would like to comment on this and also on Raoul's idea to remove the paragraph altogether? Anyone aware of reputable sources reporting on this particular criticism of Baron-Cohen's "extreme male brain" theory? Thanks.  AvB ÷ talk 12:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no response for three days! Time to remove, I think. AvB ÷ talk 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph removed (see above), section slightly rewritten, sources checked and added. AvB ÷ talk 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"autistic psychopathy"

Would it be useful to say that autism ahs nothing to do with the usual meaning of psychopathy? Apokrif 06:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Asberger certainly had an unfortunate choice of words but it is a historical fact that he refered to Asberger's as Autistic psycopathy based on apparet lack of emotion and a clear anti-social personality. 207.99.90.253 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

See discussion in Talk:Psychopathy#Other meaning of "psychopathy", it looks like the word has another meaning in German, which is close to "psychosis" or cluster A personality disorder. Apokrif 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my response which shows an uncharacteristic lack of research. However, it does seem strange that from an out side view Asberger's would seem to fit many criteria for psycopathy.207.99.90.253 12:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism from the pro-cure camp

After being on wikipedia for half-a-year, the self-identification article has been nominated for deletion, and has indeed been deleted. The last time this one-sided view of autism / AS showed it's ugly face was when the Neanderthal theory of autism were deleted. It seems like every new idea coming from autistics is voted for deletion by pro-cure neurotypicals. So much for the NPOV of wikipedia, and especially the horrible side-taking of the autism and Asperger's articles. IMHO, both should loose their featured status. --Rdos 16:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the article was nominated for deletion by an Aspie. And at least one other Aspie voted to delete it. I rather doubt either of them are "pro-cure", and they aren't NT. You might wish to be careful when you toss such accusations around. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a pro-cure vs. anti-cure conflict. I think this is an inclusionists vs. deletionists conflict. Q0 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree there's no conspiracy to sensor certain POVs. But I'd think at least one self-identification test, Simon Baron Cohen's AQ Test, meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and should appear somewhere. Neurodivergent 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've nominated this article as biased. The reasons for this is obvious. For a long time I've tried to remove unverified theories and speculations about autism / Aspergers, or installing differing views. All this have been constantly reverted. The last attack by these biased people that didn't want self-identification part of this article, is to delete the separate article I've created instead of improving on it. --Rdos 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, and provide relevant links and diffs? I'm removing the NPOV tag for now - feel free to reinsert after you've presented some evidence. AvB ÷ talk 08:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd gladly present my evidences. First, the section "Possible causes and origns" is terribly biased. It presents underconnectivity theory, extreme male brain theory, pre-operational autism theory, mirror neuron deficiency theory and the social construct theory. None of these theories have any evidences in favor of them, at least not that are consistent with the whole autism spectrum. Many of them are considered as "outdated". The most obvious theory, that of neurodiversity is not presented, but is assumed to be part of the "social construct theory", which I find highly ambigious.

I agree that the social construct theory is sometimes confused with the neurodiversity view. I thought they were equivalent myself at one point. One is a scientific theory. The other is a philosophy or an ideology.

Not necesarily so. The neurodiversity philosophy can be explained in terms of theory. It is even important as a framework in which more specific theories that is compatible with the neurodiversity concept.--Rdos 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Social construct theory says something very specific: Asperger syndrome does not exist as a natural-objective entity. And this is falsifiable.

Yes, that is why it is very different from neurodiversity. Neurodiversity acknowledges the existance of the differences with social construct theory does not.--Rdos 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but it looks like social construct theory is right so far. That is, there is no single gene or set of genes which could be said to predict a diagnosis or lack thereof. Of all the autism genes identified so far, it's possible for someone to have them, and not be diagnosable as autistic; and it's possible for someone not to have them, and be diagnosable. We can only speak of probabilities, and make generalizations. Almost anything said about autistics could be characterized as a "stereotype". It's possible for people to be "not quite autistic" as well as "only a little" autistic; and if you were to compare the brains of the two, you would not find significant differences. A behavioral spectrum exists; but the spectrum split is crearly arbitrary and ever-changing. Neurodivergent 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the neanderthal theory, which has been removed, clearly anticipates that no single or small amount of genes will ever be linked to autism. Introgressive hybridisation will result on a huge amount of genes, and the genes could potentially be different in different populations as well if they were introgressed separately. It is only the presented theories and simple explanations that so far is loosing credibility. The neanderthal theory clearly also predicts the neurodiversity philosophy. --Rdos 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Neanderthal theory was removed because it was deemed 'original research'. I would've argued that it is only original research if you specifically wrote it for the purpose of including it in Wikipedia, which I assume is not the case. (Though the fact that the author of the theory is the one trying to include it is probably what tipped the balance against it). Then the argument for exclusion might have been that the citation is not formal enough or not unbiased enough. In either case I think it's possible to give precedent examples of notable citations in Wikipedia that follow the pattern of citing websites when that's the only source of notable information. Biased sources can simply be noted as biased.Neurodivergent 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As to its merits, I think there are some problems with that theory, but it's scientific. That is, it's falsifiable empirically (through genetic tests, though I'm not sure that's practical). A good argument against its scientific standing, however, is that there's no published body of work behind it. I have read some references to Neanderthal behavior as 'autistic'. Neurodivergent 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not incompatible with neurodiversity, however. Neurodivergent 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(For example, Down's syndrome is not a social construct in this sense). Neurodiversity says: It doesn't matter if Asperger syndrome exists as an objective entity - it's not necessarily pathological either way. Neurodivergent 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That said, I think the definition of NPOV is that all views (majority and minority) should be presented - and no view should be presented forcefully as the true one. If some views are not presented, feel free to add them. I don't believe a POV tag is warranted currently. Neurodivergent 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Second, differing views originally part of this article have been removed one by one. The neanderthal theory was originally part of this article, was later moved to a separate article, and voted for deletion twice until it got deleted. Self-diagnosis were first added to the article, subsequently removed, and moved to a separate article, and later VfDed and deleted. I'm sure others could provide more examples of this conduct.

Third, there is still troublesome references to disintegrative disorders and the article has been placed in "childhood psychiatric disorders" and "eponymous diseases".

I've removed the "eponymous diseases" category tag - Asperger's is a syndrome, and whether or not it is a disease remains to be seen. Looking over the entire category, AS does not seem to fit in with the rest anyway. As an alternative you may want to find out if renaming the category to "eponymous diseases and syndromes" would be feasible. On the other hand, "childhood psychiatric disorders" has to stay since it fits per definition (DSM) and quite a few of the other childhood psych disorders are linked with the autistic spectrum. AvB ÷ talk 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing the Childhood disintegrative disorder link. (No idea how to do it though). Rationale: This disorder "has some similarity to autism," but it doesn't sound much like AS and the article itself does not mention AS. But you'll probably need consensus on the talk page to remove the link, and it may not take all that long for someone to come along and dispute the edit. Probably not worth it. AvB ÷ talk 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you need more evidences? --Rdos 13:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Relevant diffs would be helpful. People usually do not feel motivated to spend hours digging up process history in order to form an opinion whether or not WP policies have been violated.AvB ÷ talk 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now reading up on your Neanderthal theory. WP:NOR will probably be the main obstacle to an own article but so far I am all for mentioning it in the AS and Autism articles (just a one-liner presenting your web site as an interesting but unpublished paper). It is by no means clear that the theory will not stand up under closer scrutiny. Just my opinion of course. AvB ÷ talk 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that Neurodivergent have moved neurodiversity into a new paragraph of "causes". I don't think the wording is too good, and would suggest a different one. I'm not sure if social construct theory needs to be mentioned here, as it is already mentioned in its own section and is mentioned with theories. --Rdos 05:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Causes and origin section

I've categorized the causes into different models. I think this is more proper, at least to get the neurodiversity thinking into this section. I'm not sure where to place the "extreme maleness theory". While I have strong dislike for it, I still realize it might be more of a neurodiversity model than a pathology / disease model. Possibly the social construct theory should be changed to social construct model instead, and described as such. I don't really think social construct is a theory as it proposes no actual theory as to how the various traits of AS could be caused by cultural forces. I suppose the "refrigerator mother theory" could be a social construct model theory. --Rdos 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Theory?

The Asbergers Syndrome page contains many possible causes all of which are classified as "theory". However scientificly a theory means that a possibility has been proven beyond all doubt. This clearly cannot be true of all the "theories" and I suggest a change Symmetric Chaos 12:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. (The theory article explains a bit, but that could be improved). In general, for something to be scientific, it should be falsifiable, have some empirical evidence to back it up, make predictions, follow the Occam's Razor heuristic, be tentative, and so on. Neurodivergent 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The theory article says that a theory is what best passes a established criteria 4 or 5 explinations cannot all pass the best. 207.99.90.253 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All that means is that theories in the autism field are very tentative and not backed up very well at this point. Also, it's possible for many different theories to explain different aspects of something. For example, extreme male brain and social construct explain different things and are not incompatible. (In evolution, consider the theory of natural selection vs. the theory of genetic drift). Also, autism is likely a blanket term in addition to a social construct, so it's not surprising that it's full of different models. Some models really may explain what it is in a small portion of the cases. Neurodivergent 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is very likely that all of the presented theories will be more or less wrong, not only because all of them cannot be passed as the best, but because they all are more or less inconsistent with each others and does not explain more than a tiny part of the autism spectrum --Rdos 06:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh . . . Symmetric Chaos 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Aspies' attractions to the opposite sex

I'm trying to verify if people with Asperger's are more likely to never grow out of the attraction to children of the opposite sex after they grow beyond childhood themselves (or are more likely to grow out of this attraction more slowly than others). I'd like to know if this has a connection in any way to Asperger's. Don't reply to my User Talk page, just here. I have this article on my watchlist so not to worry. --Shultz 12:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your wording seems distrbingly careless and implies a prevelance of pedophlia in Aspies. This is NOT to my knowledge of the last 16 years true. However I and many people who are Aspie do find it easier to comunicate with children. Personaly I feel that children have a realistic excuse for not understanding concepts that I believe my peers should. Unless you want to start an angry discussion I suggest you elaborate on your meaning. Symmetric Chaos 12:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for the prevalance; I was asking if Aspies are more likely to never (or more slowly) grow out of that kind of attraction. Symmetric, I will be more than happy to elaborate further if we can find a private place for it. A place where no one else will see our conversation would be ideal. --Shultz 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're getting creepy. The whole point of my response was that the use of the word attraction implies sexual attraction rather than moving this conversation to a private place I think you should wait and see what kind of response your query recieves. Symmetric Chaos 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Further elaborating would require explaining more about myself, which I do not plan on disclosing here, where everyone else can see. Do you know of a place to discuss my further elaboration in private? --Shultz 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. I've heard many describe slower maturation in Aspies, perhaps not being fully mature until their mid-30s. It would be a logical consequence of this slower maturation if males also were attracted to much younger girls. Besides, it is a general feature of all males to favor young girls. This is explained by evolutionary theory. --Rdos 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any desire to have even breif let alone sexual contact with any body let alone a young child. Please would some other Aspies put there thoughts here I can't convince a crazo-vangelist that we're not pedophiles with out some help from you. Symmetric Chaos 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never come across any evidence whatsoever of any correlation between pedophilia and autism. Shultz is either making it up or confusing it with something else. If anything Aspies are quite asexual. Only one in 11 autistics ever marry. Most reach adulthood as virgins. Married Aspies have a pretty low sex drive as their spouses will note. Neurodivergent 14:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your statistics from (1 in 11 autistics marrying). This seems to be much too low figures. And in relation to asexuality, it is not that common, and in Aspie-quiz, it clusters with social behaviors and not sexuality. This tells me most Aspies do not become asexual by choice. --Rdos 19:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I read that somewhere but I can't find it now, so don't quote me on that. Of course, it would be a generalization, as it must vary depending on what section of the behavioral spectrum you look at. Neurodivergent 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Shultz, the Talk page of a Wikipedia article article is, in principle, not the place to ask questions unrelated to the building of an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT, e.g. Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia). While there are exceptions, especially when editors are getting to know one another better, this is certainly not the rule and in this case clearly not acceptable to some editors currently working on or following the article. So I respectfully suggest you try and find answers elsewhere. I hope you will succeed and trust you will use any information you come by responsibly. Just in case you yourself are an adult who is sexually attracted to minors but are fighting this desire, please look for psychological help if you don't have help already. If you have given in to such a desire, stop and get yourself that help NOW. AvB ÷ talk 14:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad odds. REALLY bad odds!

Only 1 in 11????

Then again, you said Autistics, not Aspies. They're different even though on the same spectrum. Are there any different statistics for Aspies??

Listen, not only am I the only son in my family, and not only am I the only male first cousin with my last name, I don't know any other male Shultzs that are 2nd cousins either!!! Therefore, it's mandatory for me to pass on the family lineage. It feels too much to abandon, and these statistics appear to give me less hope.

(No, I didn't include the ASPIE userbox on my userpage because I think people will respect me less if they see it. Therefore, I only reveal this disorder amongst certain people, like the people who read here.)

I've heard great things about EHarmony on commercials, but negative opinions about the site from friends IRL. What do you think of EHarmony, before I must commit a load of money to it?

Finally, when I attempt a relationship w/ a possible girlfriend, what must I say when she asks, "So, what do you do for a living? How do you earn your way to live?" I would not want to answer, "I get SSI- a monthly paycheck from the government. Before, I was struggling trying to find a job, but I somehow convinced the government that my disorder made finding employment far too hard." Knowing what'll happen with THAT answer, how do I answer instead? (Note, I'm a COLLEGE student. I'm not supposed to get these checks until the 2040s-2050s (when I'm in my 60s-70s), or unless I'm 'disabled'. Therefore, a girlfriend would expect better of me.)

--Shultz 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think eHarmony is a bad choice. I joined it just for fun (I'm married) and so did an Aspie-girl I know. None of us got any relevant matches. I don't think their system is reliable for matching up Aspies with other Aspies, which really would be optimal.--Rdos 05:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Replying to the suggestion that I pursue girls with Asperger's, I don't think that's a good idea because I want to raise normal, mentally healthy children. Both parents w/ Asperger's will bring the probability of traiting offspring with it to 100%! (not unless Gene editing gains momentum to the point that it effectively deals with autistic genes, which I think won't happen for quite a while.) I'd like to guarantee that my children grow up mentally healthy so they don't suffer as much misery as I did. --Shultz 07:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it odd for an Aspie not only to be pro-disorder (I'm sure some are) but also to advocate eugenics in relation to the Aspie genotype. Given his prior comments, I'm inclined to believe Shultz is not Aspie, but simply a troll. Neurodivergent 19:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If Shultz is concerned with "passing on AS", he'd better stay a bachelor for the rest of his life. I'm more apt to ensure the survival of the Aspie phenotype, so I already have three children, all of them "affected" with autism to varying degrees. --Rdos 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A. You cannot pass on your DNA without there being a chance of the child having Aspergers B. Considering the manner in which you think to be disturbed is more than a little troubling C. A woman who will not marry you because of who you are is not a good choice for a wife D. The odds of people with Aspergers of autism marrying do actually affect you. If YOU desire to have children, statistics will NOT change that. Symmetric Chaos 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel better when I have a 50% chance of spreading it to offspring than when I have 100%.

Rdos, ok, I see why you'd like to ensure the survival of the phenotype. If I remember right, many Aspies give notable contributions to the world. I've felt more misery than praise with it (even yesterday), so that threw it into doubt for a little while (just for me, at least).

Having a Stalinist paraprofessional in 7th grade really made me hate having this disorder because I knew I'd never have an inhuman monster like she was if I never had it. I still have a host of negative feelings from that year, especially about not being able to do the recreational activities that the rest of my 7th grade did in the last week of school. She threw me to the end of my rope so often, there were times I almost kicked or threw a heavy object at her. Luckily, I did neither.

If I marry a woman w/o Asperger's, will the child have a chance of having Asperger's just as strong as mine, or will s/he have 1/2 the strength of my Asperger's (due to the woman's genes taking up the other half), or will the woman's genes "dilute" the offspring's Asperger's, therefore will the offspring have Asperger's 1/4 as strong as mine?

That's impossible to know. A child could have more autism genes than you and appear "less" autistic. A child could have no autism genes and appear "more" autistic. What factors affect this are unknown and I don't believe they are necessarily pathological. Identical twins can have different personalities and IQs and the reasons for this are probably subtle and hard to control. But the notion that some personalities are superior to others is, evidently, a social construct. Neurodivergent 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In case any of you saw my User Page, loaded with userboxes, I didn't put up an Aspie userbox because I'd feel ashamed to put it up there. Reason is I'm afraid people wouldn't respect me as much. Having a paraprofessional in 7th grade was like either being forced to carry that userbox, or only wear T-Shirts that say, "I am a defective kid", "I have Asperger's", "I am deficient in social skills", or other inhumanly degrading 'slogans'. Having her around cost me potential friends & girlfriends, and I hated every second of it, minus the days she was sick, or had to do something else out of school. However, I'm glad these userboxes are voluntary, so maybe when I'm in high spirits, I'll perhaps put it on there (also, if I'm sure no one will disrespect me for having that).

Clearly you suffer from shame and a low self-image, perhaps brought on by experiences of social adversity, and you assume autism equals shame and low self-image, so therefore autism is bad. People can have these problems for a variety of reasons, and they are treatable. I'm willing to bet most people are different from the majority in some respect. It makes no sense to feel sorry for yourself for being different. You assume that people don't respect you because you're Aspie, but it's very possible that has little or nothing to do with it, and it may not be even real. It's a common Aspie trait to be a bit paranoid about what others might think, to have low self-worth, to believe that you're a fake and so on. This baggage can be discarded. Neurodivergent 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neuro, don't Aspies online more frequently troll, albeit often inadvertently? I may not know that a comment I'm typing may be a trollsome comment. There are mental mechanisms that "warn" people if what they're typing will be viewed as trollsome, however mine only detects so much. It can't warn me as much as these mechanisms can warn normal people.

For a good long while, I thought that if "the newness wears off" in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, and we've known each other for so long, and have become rather warm and comfortable with each other, that at that point, I could tell her about my disorder. After such a long and good relationship, wouldn't she not mind nearly as much as she would have if I had told her from the get-go??

I can speak from personal experience. The reaction can vary from 'why didn't you tell me earlier?' to 'you lied to me' to 'that explains a lot'. There are books on the subject aimed mainly at females in relationships with Aspies. Some will find this to be a good excuse to end a relationship that's not going well for entirely unrelated reasons. I think it would be good if these books dealt with the fact that AS has not been proven to be a disorder, and is simply defined that way arbitrarily by psychiatry. In any case, Aspie marriages seem to have a lower success rate, in average, than neurotypical ones. Neurodivergent 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So for "D", Symmetric Chaos, those odds are the same for people with Asperger's as much for people with Autism? (Remember that Asperger's is highly functioning.)

Actually RDos, hopefully the future will be kinder to my child's childhoods (and adolescences) than my past was to my childhood and adolescence. I just want to make sure of that, and that my kids that have AS will be treated better among peers than I was. (It's better to have a mix of kids with AS or not, than all AS kids IMO.)

Symmetric and whoever posted about marriage, maybe if I try hard enough and persist, I'll soon get a suitable wife. Maybe a proportional amount of Aspies didn't want to nor felt comfortable about getting a spouse.

That'll be all (for now). --Shultz 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates

User:211.31.229.20, you can only add Bill Gates as diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome if you provide one (preferably more) citations from reputable sources per WP:NOR. I have reverted your edit for now. AvB ÷ talk 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the "extreme male brain theory" subsection

I would like to hear the opinion of other editors on the following: This subsection describes the theory and states that it is controversial. However, this is just one of the various Autism/Asperger theories already mentioned in the Possible causes section, which already characterizes it as part of an "area of debate and controversy". In addition, these theories are already described elsewhere, e.g. in the Models section of the Autism article (as also argued above by Raoul Harris). I think this can be removed entirely from the Asperger Syndrome article. (The alternative would be to extend the section with descriptions of the other theories as all are controversial according to the article itself). Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That theory is no more controversial than any other mainstream theory. Neurodivergent 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just place a note that says all theories about the origins of Autism and Asbergers have a certain level of controversy, and then elaborate on each theory as new information comes to light? Symmetric Chaos 12:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer if the theory & causes sections of the autism and Asperger's articles were placed in a separate article and merged. Currently, the Asperger's article has very rudimental description of autism-theories while the autism article has lots of theories --Rdos 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite like these suggestions, especially Rdos' idea of a seperate cause theories article. My current favoured plan of action would be to just stick Symmetric Chaos' controversy note in to the section in place of the extreme male brain theory bit, then move all theories into a seperate article (with the new article based on the models of the autism article). I know I'm not really adding much like this, just saying I favour a certain combination of views, but I would like to see if other people agree with me or not.Raoul Harris 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove text regarding Simon Baron Cohen's theory. His work is apparently important and respected, or else he wouldn't get funding or be the head of a research institute at Cambridge. It definitely merits mention. BTW, I don't have Asperger's, and I have no stake in any particular theory. I can understand how those of you with Asperger's may not want it mentioned, because you don't want someone else's theory and research defining you as a person, but it still needs attention. According to Dr. Cohen's online empathy quotient (EQ) test, I have a strongly female brain, having scored a 68/80. This corresponds with results from my MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), which placed my personality in the female range. As a man, this really doesn't sit well with me, but I was told that men with advanced degrees are more likely to test as female. Does anyone have any information about whether results on the MMPI are used at all in diagnosing Asperger's? Do certain results in the male range correspond with a positive diagnosis? BrianGCrawfordMA 20:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is to remove from the Controversies section, perhaps to move it elsewhere. As to your question, there's a rough correspondance between those tests and a diagnosis. But there's really no test that can replace a subjective psychiatric diagnosis at the moment. Neurodivergent 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what the proposal is and I still disagree with it. Maybe I wasn't clear before. Possible etiology of a medical condition should be included in the main article describing the condition, just as it is in a diagnostic handbook like Merck's Manual. As things stand, a reader has to follow links to explore the possible causes of autism. As a reader, I'd rather have a short description of each theory in the article itself. If I'd wanted more in-depth information, I would have looked in a textbook, not an encyclopedia. BrianGCrawfordMA 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AS is NOT a medical condition. Because it is not a medical condition, it is not necesary to include etiology nor causes. If causes should be mentioned, non-medical causes must also be mrntioned. Currently, the autism article is a long speculation about medical causes, less so the AS article --Rdos 05:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the autism article's Etiology section is missing a 'natural variation' explanation. The models section already has the social construct theory, but I guess it could also have a neurodiversity entry, assuming it can be presented as a behavior model, which I'm not certain it is. Neurodivergent 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rdos calm down nobody is saying AS is a medical condition. But because there are theories about the reason for the existance of AS they all deserve to be mentioned. Placing all the theories into a new article seems good, but as this discussion proves people have very heated POVs so the article must be monitored closely and have a mention of the on going debate. Symmetric Chaos 12:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

BrianGCrawfordMA proposed that AS were a medical condition and thus should have causes and etiology --Rdos 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there already is an extensive article on the heritability of autism Heritability of autism. Merging this article + the causes & etiology of the autism and Asperger article could proivde a better organization of this material --Rdos 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead, it looks like there need to be several new articles: Etiology of autism, Autism behavior models, and perhaps Autism management strategies or something. Then both the autism article and this one would use main tags pointing to the new articles in the corresponding sections. Any takers? I'd take on those projects myself but I've gone thru that before and it's too time-consuming for me at the moment. Neurodivergent 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. A collection of articles each with a Austism box at the top of each article which provides users easy access and context to the whole series. Its a big project though to undertake. --Ben Houston 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

albert einstein

in regard to the list of arguments supporting the theory of einstein having asperger's as quoted in the article, i thought it necessary to delete "was a late talker", as asperger's is associated with early talking, and indeed being a late talker is oftentimes cited as evidence against speculation of particular famous people having had asperger's, including einstein

According to DSM-IV "there is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)". This seems to suggest that language is normally developed not before the usual time and not much (though possibly a bit) afterwards. Of course there are exceptions, and the DSM-IV could just be completely wrong on this matter. But I don't know of any evidence to support your early talker claim, could you please give a link or something?Raoul Harris 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The DSM is basically a concensus reached by a show of hands, and it's still a pretty subjective guide. Researchers sometimes apply different criteria and some have said that there's really no difference between high-functioning autism and Asperger's. Psychiatrists might apply their own biases and there can be diagreements as to the right diagnosis. I understand there's one study that compares long-term outcome finding no significant differences. In the autistic community there's no concensus as to whether a difference exists at all. Some have made fun of it. See [2]. Neurodivergent 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

TV shows and films which have dealt with Asperger syndrome

I think this section would be more useful if it could identify the episodes in which or names of characters with AS appeared, since the articles they link to don't (and probably shouldn't unless it is a recurring character).Schizombie 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Just wanted to ask, I have AS and I'm quite aware of just my own syntomps, just wondering is there any artificial limit as how much you can actually work against (or yet fight) your syntomps when you have AS?

You must be referring to pretending to be NT? (Something the article doesn't have any info on). The limit is energy reserves. You'll be exhausted after a while, more so in certain settings, for example after a social gathering. This doesn't mean there's something wrong with you. If a NT was forced to pretend to be autistic day in and day out, he would also be exhausted. Neurodivergent 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant, just basically trying to fit in as well as I can during social gatherings like you said. And I do kind of know what you mean by being exhausted, weirdly enough. Why should it have a physical effect on your body on how you're acting socially?

Because although you aren't really aware of it, your brain is working hard at emulating NT behavior, and that requires a lot of energy. It's like having a Mac emulate a Windows system. It really can't emulate it quickly enough; to do it right it would need a bigger processor that consumes more energy. Neurodivergent 14:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

XSpaceyx 12:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretending to be 'normal' is not as hard as you might think. NTs are generaly unobservant and not particularly intelligent. As long as you avoid volentering information, act as though women are not human, show interest in cars and spend hours worrying about your wardrobe people should at least leave you alone. Symmetric Chaos 12:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd avoid disparaging NTs. It's hard to demand acceptance for our way of being when we make fun of the NT way of being, weird as it may seem to us. Neurodivergent 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree with Neurodivergent on that one. If NTs were more unintelligent or stupid than me. Then I wouldn't of course want to be like them. Right now in my age it is just more important to fit in. XSpaceyx 15:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But wanting to be NT is really problematic, depressing and anxiety-producing. It's kind of like Data (Star Trek) wanting to be human. Wouldn't self-acceptance be much better? Neurodivergent 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I accept myself for who I am, I just try to do my best to be accepted by others. And for that I can't really be all socially weird, If you know what I mean. XSpaceyx 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people will accept you no matter what you do. Others won't accept you no matter what you do. If you have friends who will stop being your friends when you tell them you're Aspie, then they are really not your friends. Other than your friends, worrying about what others might think (unless they are your employer or something like that) is kind of useless. Neurodivergent 15:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but, it's not that it's not the fact that I am an aspie, it's just that I have several syntomps that may irretate them or just make them want to spend less time with me because it bothers them. XSpaceyx 16:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Other people do annoying things too. If you find the right group of people to make friends with then you should hopefully be able to slot in. I find that "different" people tend to get on better with other unusual people (i.e. intelligent, new to the school, dyslexic, etc. - in fact you'd probably find that everyone I've ever been friends with falls into at least one of those three categories). Your experiences could be different from mine though since I haven't been diagnosed as autistic (though you may want to emphasise "diagnosed" - on the DSM-IV I fit the AS section quite neatly, but I'm not going to do a self-diagnosis or go for a real diagnosis), so I can't really say that I have a completely accurate understanding of your position, but I definitely fall into a socially awkward category so my observations should have some relevance. Symmetric Chaos' description of normal people wouldn't apply to all of them, just the sort you probably wouldn't want to get along with. Raoul Harris 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well I apologize to the majority of NTs its just that being in a highschool and being an Aspie makes it hard not to be extremey cynical about NTs. The truth is Raoul I have met very few peope that I actually want to get along with and far fewer that I actually do. Symmetric Chaos 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd say it's the minority of non-autistic people that aren't how you described. Your description seems pretty accurate for the majority, but those are, as I said, "the sort you probably wouldn't want to get along with". I tend to group most of those people into an "idiot" category and ignore them though. Raoul Harris 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I used to go to special school for aspie children, and I left because so many of them were so godamned weird. So common with hyperactive, violent, shouting, running, etc. That's why I ultimately actually started in a normal high school later. Because I could actually work more "in peace" there. So I wouldn't critize the NTs because my kind can be just as weird, or even ALOT more weird. XSpaceyx 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure if anybody could stand to be in a purely Aspie school. I still feel that I must warn you XSpaceyx that being an NT that does not fall into Raoul's "idiot" category will probably alieneate you both from Aspies and most NTs to some extent. Although you have every right to be who you want to be "fighting against your symptoms" is an extremely foolhard enterpise. Symmetric Chaos 12:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"being an NT that does not fall into Raoul's "idiot" category will probably alieneate you both from Aspies and most NTs to some extent" that's very true, but I'd rather not be friends with people I put into that category, otherwise I wouldn't put them into that category. It limits me to being friends with other people who view those people as idiots, but that means I just have friends who are similar to me, which I don't see as a negative thing. I may have to change when I go into work (though I hope not) but my approach works fine at a school level. I understand that other people may have different views though. Raoul Harris 14:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What we really need here is a Neurotypical's opinion on this discussion. I mean its easy to NT bash when they dont say anything but they should have a spokes person to defend them. So any non-Aspies that want should post here. Symmetric Chaos 12:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)