I'm dyslexic, so I was making sure i wasn't mistaking asperger's for ass burgers.
"ass burgers." :lol:
Seriously though...
I'm of the opinion that Asperger's disorder is a diagnosis that shouldn't exist. That is, as far as I can tell (being a layperson who occasionally reads stuff on the Internet), there's no physiological/neural/"real" difference between someone with Asperger's and someone without it. Since it's a diagnosis, either you have it or you don't. Which is rubbish, because it's assigning a yes-or-no value to something that isn't a yes-or-no issue.
Analogous scenario: If someone gets a low score on an IQ test, they're stupid/retarded/whatever (colloquially). They might even be 'retarded'. But that's not an explanation, it's just a label you can slap on things.
And as far as I can tell (being a layperson who occasionally reads stuff on the Internet), it's the same way with Asperger's.
Well then, ultimately it's just a quantification of something.
I still don't see why it should have a name.
I'm of the opinion that Asperger's disorder is a diagnosis that shouldn't exist. That is, as far as I can tell (being a layperson who occasionally reads stuff on the Internet), there's no physiological/neural/"real" difference between someone with Asperger's and someone without it. Since it's a diagnosis, either you have it or you don't. Which is rubbish, because it's assigning a yes-or-no value to something that isn't a yes-or-no issue.
I'm of the opinion that Asperger's disorder is a diagnosis that shouldn't exist. That is, as far as I can tell (being a layperson who occasionally reads stuff on the Internet), there's no physiological/neural/"real" difference between someone with Asperger's and someone without it. Since it's a diagnosis, either you have it or you don't. Which is rubbish, because it's assigning a yes-or-no value to something that isn't a yes-or-no issue.
Analogous scenario: If someone gets a low score on an IQ test, they're stupid/retarded/whatever (colloquially). They might even be 'retarded'. But that's not an explanation, it's just a label you can slap on things.
And as far as I can tell (being a layperson who occasionally reads stuff on the Internet), it's the same way with Asperger's.
try telling that to my sister who is diagnosed [with] Aspergers,
My sister has trouble relating to others too. It's part of her personality, she picks up real douchebags that way, but it's just part of her. There's no mental disorder, and no disease.
I'm of the opinion that Asperger's disorder is a diagnosis that shouldn't exist. That is, as far as I can tell (being a layperson who occasionally reads stuff on the Internet), there's no physiological/neural/"real" difference between someone with Asperger's and someone without it. Since it's a diagnosis, either you have it or you don't. Which is rubbish, because it's assigning a yes-or-no value to something that isn't a yes-or-no issue.
Research adds to evidence that autism is a brain 'connectivity' disorder (http://www.physorg.com/news182327031.html)
Learn.
QuoteAnalogous scenario: If someone gets a low score on an IQ test, they're stupid/retarded/whatever (colloquially). They might even be 'retarded'. But that's not an explanation, it's just a label you can slap on things.
And as far as I can tell (being a layperson who occasionally reads stuff on the Internet), it's the same way with Asperger's.
You're not one of us, you wouldn't understand.
:lol: I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to come along and interpret that as an attack on people who've been diagnosed with Asperger's. You obviously don't understand the concept of an analogy. And for all you know, I do have Asperger's syndrome. I don't even know if I have it or not. And frankly I don't care whether I have it, because it's just a classification of the severity of the symptoms, and that information is of no use to me.
Wrong analogy.:lol: I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to come along and interpret that as an attack on people who've been diagnosed with Asperger's. You obviously don't understand the concept of an analogy. And for all you know, I do have Asperger's syndrome. I don't even know if I have it or not. And frankly I don't care whether I have it, because it's just a classification of the severity of the symptoms, and that information is of no use to me.
I'm sorry, knowing the severity of the symptoms is of no use to you?
So you don't believe that 'having AIDS' is a valid diagnosis?
Wrong analogy.:lol: I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to come along and interpret that as an attack on people who've been diagnosed with Asperger's. You obviously don't understand the concept of an analogy. And for all you know, I do have Asperger's syndrome. I don't even know if I have it or not. And frankly I don't care whether I have it, because it's just a classification of the severity of the symptoms, and that information is of no use to me.
I'm sorry, knowing the severity of the symptoms is of no use to you?
So you don't believe that 'having AIDS' is a valid diagnosis?
This is like saying:
"This guy has a sickness look of 150, he's ill"
"This guy has a sickness look of 250, he's diseased"
"This guy has a sickness look of 350, he's terminal"
Where its based on visible symptoms like how pale someone is, or their fever temperature, or how many symptoms they're displaying, all without going into WHAT the exact biological condition is - it's a "diagnosis" based on appearance, which is why it is flawed. IQs aren't truly measureable just like this "autism scale", or how sick someone looks. The issue here is quantifying (or attempting to quantify) qualitative observations which is unsound.
If there's something that's measurable quantity then it is fine if you quantify it. You can measure CD4 count on a quantifiable scale. You can't measure intelligence or social aptitude on the same scale because it's abstract - it can only be described qualitatively.
It's always useful to quantify the severity of the symptoms.
AIDS has a specific known cause, and there are specific things one can do once you know you've got it.
An Asperger's diagnosis isn't useful... not to the person who's being diagnosed with it, anyway. Even if it's one of those idiots who thinks that if they say they've got Asperger's syndrome that it somehow excuses their bad behavior (it doesn't!).
Edit: yeah, what Droid803 said.It's always useful to quantify the severity of the symptoms.
Useful how, and to whom?
(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
(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)
(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood.
(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia."
afaict, assburgers is the asshole diseaseI think it's the grinding down of rump roast into hamburger. So, i think we've all eaten ass burgers at one time or another.
AIDS has a specific known cause, and there are specific things one can do once you know you've got it.
An Asperger's diagnosis isn't useful... not to the person who's being diagnosed with it, anyway. Even if it's one of those idiots who thinks that if they say they've got Asperger's syndrome that it somehow excuses their bad behavior (it doesn't!).
Right, so that's what this is really about. You think it's just used as an excuse.
Is the problem that you've been told you may be Asperger's-spectrum? Are you resentful?
To the clinician attempting to diagnose and treat the patient,
to the patient themselves to help with the isolation and consideration of symptoms
and to the behavioral therapists who the Asperger's patient will be referred to in an attempt to handle the physical symptoms of Asperger's such as repetitive motion and physical clumsiness.
Once a patient has been diagnosed with Asperger's, medication and therapy can be used to target and assist with the symptoms. No knowledge of the ultimate causes is required.
Your fundamental objection here is so totally asinine that it makes me think you've not actually considered it. Are the colors 'red' and 'blue' not useful to you? These are positions on a continuous spectrum. Yet their discrete identification is nonetheless a critical element of our visual sensation and communication.
Would be a valid point, but if the behavioral therapists can't assess how bad the problem is on their own, they shouldn't be in that line of work. And again with the circular logic2.
But giving unique and seemingly unrelated names to parts of a continuous scale ("autism", "asperger's syndrome", etc.) inevitably leads to the sort of popular misconceptions people have about these disorders.
It'd probably be a lot better understood if instead of completely unrelated names, they were called Autism I, Autism II, Autism III, etc..
Would be a valid point, except that people don't typically need to be told by a doctor what specific sub-classification of autism-spectrum disorders they have to know that they're isolated and that they have trouble in social situations. I'm tempted to say "circular logic" here too2.
No diagnosis of Asperger's is required for that either. Although access to some types of prescription medication might be unavailable, and insurance companies might not pay for it.
It's better than working on my term paper. :(
I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to come along and interpret that as an attack on people who've been diagnosed with Asperger's. You obviously don't understand the concept of an analogy. And for all you know, I do have Asperger's syndrome. I don't even know if I have it or not. And frankly I don't care whether I have it, because it's just a classification of the severity of the symptoms, and that information is of no use to me.
And if you're showing me that link and telling me to "learn", you obviously didn't get the point. I'm not saying there isn't something different about these people, I'm saying that diagnoses of "autism" and "autism-spectrum disorders" (including Asperger's syndrome) don't say anything about the cause. That survey you linked to suggests a slightly more specific explanation of at least one possible cause.... But "Asperger's syndrome" and "autism" are still just names for different ranges on a scale. They don't describe a single physiological/biological/neural phenomenon, they describe the many possible phenomena which can cause someone to fall within that range on the scale!
QuoteI was wondering how long it would take for somebody to come along and interpret that as an attack on people who've been diagnosed with Asperger's. You obviously don't understand the concept of an analogy. And for all you know, I do have Asperger's syndrome. I don't even know if I have it or not. And frankly I don't care whether I have it, because it's just a classification of the severity of the symptoms, and that information is of no use to me.
It saved my life. And frankly it is an attack on those of us who have been diagnosed because you basically came in and said it doesn't exist1. You can't treat something if you don't know what it is.QuoteAnd if you're showing me that link and telling me to "learn", you obviously didn't get the point. I'm not saying there isn't something different about these people, I'm saying that diagnoses of "autism" and "autism-spectrum disorders" (including Asperger's syndrome) don't say anything about the cause. That survey you linked to suggests a slightly more specific explanation of at least one possible cause.... But "Asperger's syndrome" and "autism" are still just names for different ranges on a scale. They don't describe a single physiological/biological/neural phenomenon, they describe the many possible phenomena which can cause someone to fall within that range on the scale!
I did get the point, you said there was no neurological basis for it, and that link had a summary of a study that proved otherwise2.
And :wtf:? You said you have it but you don't know if you have it. Which one is it3?
He's already admitted he's wrong.