[iamzack]

afaict, assburgers is the asshole disease

[General Battuta]

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?

[Droid803]

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.
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.

How do you determine the severity of "social ineptitude"?

I can go as far as to argue that it is an entirely subjective matter, subjective to the society in which the individual exists.

Yeah, I think IQ and that stuff is bull****.

[General Battuta]

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.
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.

Wrong.

There are many good scales that measure social function. IQ is not one of them; I don't know why you'd bring it up in this discussion since it's about as obsolete as divining rods.

It's always useful to quantify the severity of the symptoms. Asperger's is a label applied to individuals within a certain range of said severity. It is a therefore a useful diagnostic label.

If you want to argue with it just to be pig-headed that's fine, but I think everyone's aware that in the end it's a useful label in the same way that AIDS is.

[Aardwolf]

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?

[Mongoose]

For one, useful in getting the correct type and level of therapy and/or medication to treat the individual in question.  There are certain approaches that can help mitigate the more troublesome symptoms of Asperger's, or of autism in general.  Knowing approximately where a person falls on that spectrum is a useful tool.

[General Battuta]

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?

Edit: yeah, what Droid803 said.

It's always useful to quantify the severity of the symptoms.

Useful how, and to whom?

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.

On a more general level this question is just profoundly stupid. Triage is always carried out by assessing the severity of symptoms.

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.

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.

[General Battuta]

Before anyone comments further I want them to be familiar with the DSM-IV criteria for Asperger's.

(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."

Asperger's has an identified heritable component and its first symptoms appear as early as thirty months. You need to account for this in any theory you have about the disease being purely social fiction.

[S-99]

afaict, assburgers is the asshole disease

I 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.

[Aardwolf]

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.

No, that's what's called a "tangent"¹

Is the problem that you've been told you may be Asperger's-spectrum? Are you resentful?

Nope¹

To the clinician attempting to diagnose and treat the patient,

Circular logic².

to the patient themselves to help with the isolation and consideration of symptoms

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oversimplification¹. Of course it's convenient to have names for the colors... even "useful". The same goes for psychological and physiological ailments. 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.. Before you get to pointing out that colors like red, blue, and green aren't called Color I, Color II, and Color III, though, I should point out that those are concepts learned from a very early age, and it's a lot harder to change the names of colors than it is to change a manual.

That said, I don't reckon you're in a position to have the manual changed thusly. So I'ma be quiet now¹.




¹And quit trying to psychoanalyze me
²I reckon it'd be kind of hard to diagnose someone with Asperger's if "Asperger's" weren't in the manual.

[General Battuta]

None of those 'circular logic' claims made sense. Rephrase and try again.

In fact, nothing of anything you said in that post appears to apply closely to anything I said. Present me with a single coherent statement of your position so that I can correct it.

Case in point

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.

This is...wow.

This is how the behavioral therapist assesses the severity of the problem. They assess the patient using a series of metrics, compare with the DSM-IV, and determine whether the patient fits the profile of a given disease. Then they apply the treatment for the disease. What did you think they did? Eyeball the patient, talk to them for a bit, and write some prescriptions?

Are you familiar with diagnostic medicine? Have you ever been to a hospital or an ER, or visited a doctor with an illness?

You will.

1. Have your symptoms checked
2. Watch the doctor use the symptoms to diagnose your condition
3. Receive a treatment

Guess what happens here! The expert checks the patient for symptoms, uses the symptoms to diagnose a condition, and proscribes a treatment!

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.

Asperger's is heritable. It is heritable as a discrete disorder. It displays a discrete constellation of symptoms that makes it different from other positions on the spectrum. For some reason you ignored this last time I posted it.

Are you seriously disputing the fact that sets of symptoms are given names and then treated?

I mean, is that seriously your ****ing contention? Because that's exactly how diseases in any field are handled.

You have yet to even touch the AIDS example. AIDS is diagnosed by the exact same type of functional criteria as Asperger's. Explain to me why you don't have a problem with AIDS diagnoses.

It'd probably be a lot better understood if instead of completely unrelated names, they were called Autism I, Autism II, Autism III, etc..

Oh, wow, you just tried to sneak in a concession of the entire argument. Smooth.

So you do think Asperger's is a useful label with diagnostic validity. You just want the name changed.

Better start a petition.

[Aardwolf]

Meh.<sup>1



1</sup>And quit trying to psychoanalyze me

[General Battuta]

You made the assertion that an Asperger's diagnosis isn't useful.

Explain the original post to me.

This is an opportunity for you to get your argument out of the fuzzy self-defensive netherland it's stumbled into and back towards a semblance of coherency.

Although looking back at

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.

(you obviously know that they do need to be told; given popular coverage of the topic you could not help but be aware of the vast sense of relief that people feel when they have received a diagnosis)

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.

(no diagnosis is required, except for all the critical things it's required for, like access to medication and therapy and the means to pay?)

It seems clear to me that you're aware of your mistakes.

[Aardwolf]

Er... why are you still trying to debate this with me? I've already given up defending my original position.

[General Battuta]

It's better than working on my term paper. 

[Aardwolf]

It's better than working on my term paper. 

* Aardwolf pats General Battuta on the back.

[Kosh]

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.

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 exist. You can't treat something if you don't know what it is.

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!

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 otherwise.



And ? You said you have it but you don't know if you have it. Which one is it?

[General Battuta]

He's already admitted he's wrong.

[Aardwolf]

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.

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.

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!

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 ? You said you have it but you don't know if you have it. Which one is it³?

¹No, I didn't.
²No, it doesn't. It suggests that in some cases autism may have a neurological basis (and it wasn't even very specific about it). It proves nothing.
³I said neither. What I said is that you have know way of knowing whether I've been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, and even now that I've told you I haven't, you have no way of knowing whether I would be diagnosed if I went trying to find out.



Edit:

He's already admitted he's wrong.

Yeah, but Kosh is too busy being self-righteous.

[Kosh]

It was my turn.