![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Or even if it's accurate, so bear with me. Please understand that I'm not the expert in everything, even though I would generally like people to think that. Those of you who know what I'm talking about can make corrections as needed.
Ahem. Here I am, browsing AutAdvo, relishing the chance to read posts (is that the word?) that aren't all about the proper use of language and why various people are ignorant and/or insensitive *deep sigh* and I come across one link to a blog, where the person in question is loudly (and ignorantly, I believe) denying the existance of AS (and presumably everything else on the spectrum that's not classic autism). His main points seemed to be 1. choosing to isolate yourself isn't a disability, but that's all that AS means and 2. it's all in your mind. This is the impression he got from the definition in the DSM-IV. Don't bother telling me he's a troll, those of you who've read it, I know he's being inflammatory, but I think it raises an interesting point. (and yes, I know I'm not the only one, this is MY blog, hush).
1. The definition of disability
Merriam-Webster Online defines disability as, among other things, "a disqualification, restriction, or disadvantage". I'd say this definition is fairly accurate. Our friend here claims that aspies are choosing to be less social. If that is the case, then he believes people on the spectrum are choosing to have problems, say, keeping/getting jobs. This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would anybody choose that?
Normally, this is where people step up to say "so you didn't choose, that doesn't make it a disability!!!". Keep whining. Sometimes I can't go outside because I'm scared to or nervous to. Yes, I'm choosing not to go outside, but I'm only choosing that because I feel safer (much) in my room. (This, I think, has nothing to do with the subject, but it's a nice little anecdote and people like those)
2. The definition of Asperger's
I will agree with the original blogger as far as saying many things in the DSM-IV are overdiagnosed and that the diagnostic criteria tend to be, well, crap. That's it, though. Most people define AS as being "people with weird social skills". I have no idea where they got this impression. Oh, sure, it's true, but it manages to completely disregard the entire part about "Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities". That's significant, and people just skip right over it.
Of course, obsessive interests do not a disability make, and if they lead you in the right direction you can even get a job out of them. They can also irritate the expletive out of parents and teachers. Be warned
3. The part about it being all in our heads
A. Well, of course it is. So what?
B. That doesn't, of course, make it any less real. Yes, the diagnostic criteria say nothing about physical symptoms or signs. However, there has been some serious work in that area in the past few years, scans showing that NTs and aspies use different parts of the brain when doing different things, studies showing abnormal head growth during infancy, that sort of thing.
Even if we didn't have all this sorta-useful research being done we have what are known as co-morbid conditions.
Dyspraxia. Extreme clumsiness, beyond what is generally considered acceptable. People who try to throw a ball and hit themselves in the face, or who never learn to tie their shoes, that sort of thing.
Allergies. Okay, I don't know if this is the case or not, but I've heard a lot about people on the spectrum having a higher incidence of allergies than usual. If that's the case, that would definitely be a physical symptom.
Seizures. See allergies. Substitute the word "seizures" for "allergies" in the first sentence.
CAPD. Lovely auditory processing problems. You can hear fine, but you can't make sense of the sound. Something like that.
Scotopic sensitivity. Um. Think of it like TV "snow" in real life. Except that doesn't apply to everyone.
Faceblindness (and other agnosias). Not being able to recognize people, even if you know them. Hm. Y'know, would "face dyslexia" be a better word?
Synthesia. This is a pretty good thing, where your senses are mixed up.
And the list goes on. Of course, not everyone has all, most, or even any of the co-morbid conditions, the point of a co-morbid condition is that it occurs with greater frequency in the affected population than in the world at large. Their existence is a nice little hint that maybe there really is something physical going on.
I'm posting the link for reference only, please do NOT waste time commenting or anything like that. People who manage to make it seem like they disbelieve in schizophrenia are really not worth wasting time on. Yes, I'm a hypocrite.
Ahem. Here I am, browsing AutAdvo, relishing the chance to read posts (is that the word?) that aren't all about the proper use of language and why various people are ignorant and/or insensitive *deep sigh* and I come across one link to a blog, where the person in question is loudly (and ignorantly, I believe) denying the existance of AS (and presumably everything else on the spectrum that's not classic autism). His main points seemed to be 1. choosing to isolate yourself isn't a disability, but that's all that AS means and 2. it's all in your mind. This is the impression he got from the definition in the DSM-IV. Don't bother telling me he's a troll, those of you who've read it, I know he's being inflammatory, but I think it raises an interesting point. (and yes, I know I'm not the only one, this is MY blog, hush).
1. The definition of disability
Merriam-Webster Online defines disability as, among other things, "a disqualification, restriction, or disadvantage". I'd say this definition is fairly accurate. Our friend here claims that aspies are choosing to be less social. If that is the case, then he believes people on the spectrum are choosing to have problems, say, keeping/getting jobs. This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would anybody choose that?
Normally, this is where people step up to say "so you didn't choose, that doesn't make it a disability!!!". Keep whining. Sometimes I can't go outside because I'm scared to or nervous to. Yes, I'm choosing not to go outside, but I'm only choosing that because I feel safer (much) in my room. (This, I think, has nothing to do with the subject, but it's a nice little anecdote and people like those)
2. The definition of Asperger's
I will agree with the original blogger as far as saying many things in the DSM-IV are overdiagnosed and that the diagnostic criteria tend to be, well, crap. That's it, though. Most people define AS as being "people with weird social skills". I have no idea where they got this impression. Oh, sure, it's true, but it manages to completely disregard the entire part about "Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities". That's significant, and people just skip right over it.
Of course, obsessive interests do not a disability make, and if they lead you in the right direction you can even get a job out of them. They can also irritate the expletive out of parents and teachers. Be warned
3. The part about it being all in our heads
A. Well, of course it is. So what?
B. That doesn't, of course, make it any less real. Yes, the diagnostic criteria say nothing about physical symptoms or signs. However, there has been some serious work in that area in the past few years, scans showing that NTs and aspies use different parts of the brain when doing different things, studies showing abnormal head growth during infancy, that sort of thing.
Even if we didn't have all this sorta-useful research being done we have what are known as co-morbid conditions.
Dyspraxia. Extreme clumsiness, beyond what is generally considered acceptable. People who try to throw a ball and hit themselves in the face, or who never learn to tie their shoes, that sort of thing.
Allergies. Okay, I don't know if this is the case or not, but I've heard a lot about people on the spectrum having a higher incidence of allergies than usual. If that's the case, that would definitely be a physical symptom.
Seizures. See allergies. Substitute the word "seizures" for "allergies" in the first sentence.
CAPD. Lovely auditory processing problems. You can hear fine, but you can't make sense of the sound. Something like that.
Scotopic sensitivity. Um. Think of it like TV "snow" in real life. Except that doesn't apply to everyone.
Faceblindness (and other agnosias). Not being able to recognize people, even if you know them. Hm. Y'know, would "face dyslexia" be a better word?
Synthesia. This is a pretty good thing, where your senses are mixed up.
And the list goes on. Of course, not everyone has all, most, or even any of the co-morbid conditions, the point of a co-morbid condition is that it occurs with greater frequency in the affected population than in the world at large. Their existence is a nice little hint that maybe there really is something physical going on.
I'm posting the link for reference only, please do NOT waste time commenting or anything like that. People who manage to make it seem like they disbelieve in schizophrenia are really not worth wasting time on. Yes, I'm a hypocrite.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Are you aware...?
Date: 2004-05-20 08:58 pm (UTC)> wasting time on. Yes, I'm a hypocrite.
Are you aware that I disbelieve in schizophrenia?
If not, here's why:
Schizophrenia (quite unlike autism) is a word that is unlikely to tell me much about a person. If I look at two autistic people (with any diagnosis -- PDD-NOS, AS, autism, whatever) closely enough, I am likely to notice that they have something significant in common. The word denotes something useful.
If I look at people diagnosed with schizophrenia, I'm going to find, among *many* other sorts of people:
1. People who hallucinate and believe unusual things, for unknown reasons.
2. People who have some extremely unusual beliefs, which are logical given what they know, but the psychiatrist doesn't know that. And who behave in ways that the psychiatrist likewise doesn't understand.
3. People who have a good deal of difficulty moving, who echo others' behavior, who occasionally get extremely hyper, and who don't have a lot of facial expression or other emotional expression.
4. People who express emotions at unusual times, who react extremely unusually to situations and may have trouble coordinating their reactions with what they're trying to do, and whose speech isn't intelligible despite speaking seemingly in sentences.
I believe that all of these people *exist*.
I question that the word "schizophrenia" is useful to describe them. So do some mainstream psychiatry-type people -- that's why they've moved toward calling it "the schizophrenias". Autism used to be one of the schizophrenias too. So did, probably, many forms of catatonia with unknown causes ("catatonic schizophrenia" really seems to mean "adult-onset idiopathic catatonia", and it used to be that physical causes of catatonia were unknown). The only reason the word schizophrenia seems to exist has to do with a guy a long time ago who coined the term because (this is a bit simplified, but it's the basic idea) he thought all of these disparate forms of behavior involved a separation of thinking from emotions.
Any *one* of those kinds of behavior can have extremely varied causes. But the current trend is to lump them all together, and when a different cause is found than the prevailing view of the causes, the trend is to throw that one out of schizophrenia rather than deciding to take a look at whether the category serves any purpose. (It doesn't even serve a purpose for medication -- people with "catatonic schizophrenia", for instance (along with nearly anyone else with catatonia), are more vulnerable than other types to death by the same medications that are marketed as being treatments for schizophrenia.)
So no, I don't believe in schizophrenia. It doesn't mean I don't believe in the existence of people who are currently described as schizophrenic, but that I don't believe in the diagnostic entity of schizophrenia and don't see it as having the degree of validity I see autism as having. (Autism has the opposite problem -- it is split into parts that don't need to be split. Schizophrenia, on the other hand, is lumped together too much.)
I hope you still think I'm worth listening to. :-)
Re: Are you aware...?
Date: 2004-05-21 05:10 pm (UTC)You gave a very good (and persuasive) reason for your view. The way he said it gave me the impression that he thinks hallucinations are psychosomatic. I'll still listen to you.
And you managed to educate me. I really had no idea the definition of schizophrenia was so vague, all I knew was that it is NOT Multiple Personality Disorder (which isn't called that anymore, is it?)
Re: Are you aware...?
Date: 2004-05-21 07:00 pm (UTC)DSM-IV:
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-ps01.html
ICD-10:
http://www.mental-health-matters.com/disorders/dis_details.php?disID=84
Re: Are you aware...?
Date: 2004-05-21 07:11 pm (UTC)