Do you ever think you could be a bit autistic?

mod

cut the fighting out if you want to argue with each other take it to PM don’t clog up the thread.

Count Dracula

I would say if you had it you would probably know all about it......?

Work that statement out before continuing. If you don't comprehend what I am getting at you are not suffering from any issues of autism. If you do, you also are not, suffering from autism. But if you are not able to read this at all , it is highly likely that your cognitive brain functions have never synchronized to the same levels of the majority of functioning adults and have suffered learning difficulties all your life, in saying that my compassion is futile as if you are autistic you certainly would neither understand, read or imagine what I am talking about, you simply are not able to do so, sorry.

What frustrates me most about the classification of human disorders is that it demeans the individuals who are struggling with them the most.

It shouldn't be about reaching quotas of staff members based on modern diagnosis techniques, the concept or thought process around classifying mental or physical disorders needs a more rigorous or robust consensus. I would imagine anyone having to deal with it has no notion of what they are dealing with? It must amount to a challenging existence and whilst it has garnered acceptance in the 3rd millennium, people should really try to understand how incompatible the condition is with other livelihoods.

Therein lies the problem of over categorising everything and attempting to rationale its' existence with people more fortunate to not suffer from it, irrespective of what some overpaid committee of woke arseholes are attempting to coerce everybody to accept, for fear of the consequences of not accepting it, might lead them to be perceived as being heartless or unsympathetic?

People suffering autism should not be allowed fly planes for starters. Or help land them either. Would you let someone with autism carry out an open heart surgery? Drive a bus with 40 children on it? Babysit your kids? Just saying.

But forcing human disorders into normalised society should not be forgotten, as it being potentially, a really misinformed and misappropriated judgement and thus implementation of a really stupid idea, delivered unsupervised by a gang of overpaid, over adhered and ironically out of touch academics who have the life skills of a hedgehog crossing the road? All their crap is far too easily adopted by other chunts in powerful positions, who are looking to establish a blame mechanism to verify or perhaps exonerate themselves ( proper English for covering their asses OP in case you are still here ) , from adverse social opinion which they themselves judge to be potentially harmful to their reputations.

We are probably correct universally in adopting progressive social approaches to facilitate better livelihoods for sufferers of the condition, but we should also be scrutinsing that decision annually. Too many poor options proceed and get enabled by Kangaroo committees of experts appointed by others who haven't a **** notion of what is occurring outside of their own little bubble, which is actually ironic when you think about it?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120199222#Comment_120199222

There’s a degree of truth to that idea alright, but it’s more taking a social approach to autism than a medical approach. As a clinical condition the degree to which a person’s quality of life is impacted depends largely upon the degree to which they are autistic. Adults who are severely autistic will have very different needs for example from children who are mildly autistic. They require different techniques and treatments to manage their condition in order to enable them not just to function but to thrive in society. The support services and resources to do so just often aren’t accessible or available to everyone who needs them.

BrianD3

I scored 43 in that test - significant autistic traits. Quite surprised given that the majority of my answers were in the slightly rather than strongly agree/disagree categories.

If I am either autistic or have autistic traits, so what. I'm not going to hand over money to the autism industry so that I can be "diagnosed" and "fixed".

Anyway, better to be "high functioning autistic" than being some trend following spoofer whose only skills are social interactions and workplace politics. A normie, in other words. The older I get, the more I realise just how awful a lot of people are. Bullsh*tters, arseholes and bullies whose words mean nothing and whose "success" in life is down to manipulation, nepotism etc.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120200231#Comment_120200231

Anyone would be better to regard the results of an online ‘test’ with a pinch of salt tbh, they’re an indicator of nothing, no more clinically significant than your daily horoscope. That’s also one of the issues with terms like “high functioning” and “normie” in terms of a clinical diagnosis of autism. They’re not official medical diagnosis’, they’re just terms which have gained popularity in society due to the visibility of people who self-diagnose themselves as being autistic. People who are severely autistic are rarely visible in society.

It’s why a few organisations have sought to abandon terms like “high functioning” to describe autism (as well as other conceptions of autism which are often misleading such as referring to autism as a ‘super power’) -

As noted above, high-functioning autism is not a medical diagnosis. It is more a classification of an ASD individual with a milder level of severity on the autism spectrum. Those referred to as high functioning used to (usually) fall into the out-of-date Asperger syndrome or PDD diagnostic classification. Today’s DSM would likely diagnose them as ASD Level 1 patients who may or may not need treatment. Rarely would a high-functioning ASD individual be diagnosed as ASD Level 3.

As defined by Autism Speaks, the adjective high-functioning simply means that the individuals “have average or above average intelligence but may struggle with issues related to social interaction and communication.” The term isn’t clearly defined and can be frustrating to parents and medical staff alike. One relatively common trait of those with high-functioning autism is that they usually do not show significant delay in language development, whereas low-functioning children with autism usually do. Typically, children with high-functioning autism tend to have more behavioral issues than intellectual ones.

Usually, people who have high-functioning autism (Level 1) will be able to lead ‘normal’ lives and be functioning members of society. They may have occasional difficulties in social situations or struggle with unusual behaviors or interests, but their intellectual capacity is usually fully capable of managing and engaging with life. If one is unfamiliar with ASD and its nuances, it would not be uncommon for them to be unable to tell the difference between a child that has high-functioning ASD and one that does not have any form of ASD.

https://www.appliedbehavioranalysisprograms.com/faq/high-functioning-autism/?amp=1

https://www.autismawareness.com.au/aupdate/why-we-should-stop-using-the-term-high-functioning-autism

The way you describe other people? That’s just getting older, it’s nothing to do with autism.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120200231#Comment_120200231

I don't think anyone should be taking that test as a serious result of whether they're autistic or not.

BrianD3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120200732#Comment_120200732

Do you think that the test has any value then? It's not as though Borat's cousin pulled it out of his arse - see below link. I appreciate that this was in 2001 and things may have changed since. Makes no difference to me, I won't be handing over money to anyone to get diagnosed with anything. Also this thread is about whether posters think they might be a bit autistic, it's not "have you been diagnosed with autism by a qualified professional"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11439754/

Edit: Leaving thread, rather than interact with pseudo clinicians who know everything.

Really wish we could delete posts

Andrea B.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120198169#Comment_120198169

Why have you brought The Lancet into this?

OscarMIlde

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120199222#Comment_120199222

As someone who has a non-verbal autistic brother there definitely is such a thing as autism. From my mother's description my brother was happy, smiley and learning to talk when he regressed and turned into a distressed toddler who would scream and cry for hours a day, would desperately avoid any eye contact and never uttered another word (he'll be 43 this year). It's a devastating condition at it's worst and people like my brother are being marginalised by the tendency over the last few decades to focus on high functioning individuals and the odd decision to remove the distinction from classic Kanner autism and Aspergers syndrome which seems to have no scientific basis.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120201078#Comment_120201078

I was making the distinction between an online forum which is more relaxed and doesn’t have the same required standards as a medical journal like the Lancet where autism is recognised as a medical condition, and not simply treated as something anyone can casually self-diagnose themselves as being, like is being discussed here.

It’s one of the paradoxes around reducing the stigma associated with autism - increasing awareness about the condition, while at the same time having autism still regarded as a medical condition. Considerably more difficult to do when people aren’t aware of the fact that just because they meet certain criteria, it still doesn’t necessarily mean they’re autistic. A diagnosis of autism could only be given by medical professionals, which is why I said it was silly of me to have assumed that my work colleague was autistic.

Andrea B.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120202027#Comment_120202027

😁 Sorry, I was trying to be funny in a Life of Brianesque type of way.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120202602#Comment_120202602

No worries at all, jesus, I just thought you were being literal, reference went over my head 😂

laoisgem

The Issues with Saying That “Everyone Is a Little Autistic” | by Ines May | ArtfullyAutistic | Medium

Because it's AH a 3 minute symphysis will do.

@OscarMIlde I empathise with you, truly.

The way i see it, speaking from my own point of view, being an autistic person. The spectrum is so wide, being highly functional is a load of ****.

Highly functioning in my eyes, can be seen as having a job, house, family, etc. That's what society see's. Anyone with Autism struggles with life! from "highly functioning to being completely

incapacitated", that is the spectrum. Not human traits and it's disingenuous to subscribe it otherwise.

fits

Many people completely misunderstand what is meant by spectrum. It’s not a gradient

“People think you can be “a little autistic” or “extremely autistic,” the way a paint colour could be a little red or extremely red.”

“In fact, one of the distinguishing features of autism is what the DSM-V calls an “uneven profile of abilities.” There’s a reason people like to say that “if you have met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism.” Every autistic person presents slightly differently.

That’s because autism isn’t one condition. It is a collection of related neurological conditions that are so intertwined and so impossible to pick apart that professionals have stopped trying.”

https://neuroclastic.com/its-a-spectrum-doesnt-mean-what-you-think/

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204004#Comment_120204004

Personally, I’d be wary of articles like that written by autism advocates. Their explanation of the idea of a spectrum isn’t the problem, but then they go and argue the same way they’re trying to address as being wrong, when they give examples like this -

My doctor recently referred to my autism is “mild.” I gently pointed to my psychologist’s report which stated that my executive dysfunction as being greater than 99th percentile.

“That means I am less functional than 99% of people. Does that seem mild to you?” I asked her.

It’s not their autism, it’s a diagnosis of autism, using objective criteria to form a diagnosis, as opposed to just focusing on a single criteria that doesn’t fit the profile and can therefore mean that their diagnosis isn’t what it is, whether it’s moderate, mild or severe autism. It’s a diagnosis that’s made as a whole, not just its constituent parts.

Thought terminating cliches aren’t particularly useful either, like “if you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism”, because it’s misleading, autism isn’t a personality trait, it’s a neurological development disorder, and professionals haven’t stopped trying to understand it. They would if they were to take any heed of thought-terminating cliches like the above, and then there would be even less support and research done into the condition in order to understand it.

From a clinical standpoint (as opposed to an advocacy standpoint), there are three levels, or degrees of severity, of autism -

There are three levels of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which are described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5).

Each person with ASD is further diagnosed with either ASD level 1, level 2, or level 3, depending on how severe their disorder is and how much support they need in their daily life.1

The levels range from least to most severe, with ASD level 3 describing an individual who has the most severe level of ASD symptoms, and ASD level 1 describing someone with symptoms on the milder end of the spectrum.

This article discusses the symptoms that are typical of each of the three ASD levels. It also includes realistic examples of the strengths and limitations that are unique to each level.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-are-the-three-levels-of-autism-260233

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120200860#Comment_120200860

No, not really. It's about as useful as most other online "tests" in that it's way too simplistic to be of any use, not corroborated by any other data, and not backed by any professional assessment.

And I know exactly what the thread is about.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120201189#Comment_120201189

Yes. Autism in a condition that can be crippling for people and for those around them. But there's been this weird movement, almost, in the last 10 years to try and normalise it, for want of a better word. As if it's something that's ranges from a sort of mild tic to an untapped superpower and not what it really is, which is a mental disorder that needs careful and special treatment.

We now have people wondering if their "on the spectrum", because they might have an odd habit or two, or feel a bit uncomfortable in a large crowd of strangers. That's like wondering if you have Tourette's because you utter a few curse words every so often.

BrianD3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204478#Comment_120204478

Good, in that case you should publish your findings in the Journal of Autism Development Disorders - just like Prof Baron Cohen who developed the test.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204539#Comment_120204539

I'll let you know when they're available for you to study. 😉

Spook_ie

Y'know it's a funny thing that now a days we look for "somewhere on the Autism scale" He's ADHD etc. When I was younger we'd just call them soft in the head.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120192527#Comment_120192527

It's probably true that everyone is somewhere between Sane and Bat Sh1t Crazy, trouble is some Bat Sh1t Crazy and Sane people want to label everyone and everything.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204539#Comment_120204539

Funny that when it’s pointed out the numerous issues with that sort of online self-selecting assessment, “Borat’s brother” has morphed into Professor Baron-Cohen, as if that should lend any legitimacy to the ‘test’ itself.

BrianD3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204668#Comment_120204668

WTF? Of course it lends legitimacy. Your "morphing" point is just bizarre. BTW he's Borats's cousin so looks like you're not great on attention to detail either. All you've done on this thread is posted rambling nonsense plus dug yourself into a hole over something you said to a work colleague.

These sort of threads are quite funny - they are in AH and meant to be light hearted yet always get lots of po faced, dismissive "experts". Same with any thread on anything related to psychology, Briggs Myers, dark triad, IQ etc.

"That's not autism, THIS is autism"

I knew that posting my honest score from Borat's cousin's (happy now?) test would draw this out and looks like it has.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204734#Comment_120204734

His reputation doesn’t lend any legitimacy to the test whatsoever. I was well aware of Simon Baron-Cohen’s research in child development before I was ever aware of an unimportant detail like his relationship to a well-known comedian. It’s an unimportant detail, that’s why I couldn’t give a fiddlers if Simon Baron-Cohen was Borat’s sister-in-law, it’s inconsequential.

Christopher Gilberg has reams of publications on neuropsychology and child development (he has written many books on autism), and the quantity of his publications doesn’t lend any legitimacy to his research either -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Gillberg

All you’ve done in admitting your confirmation bias is confirmed that confirmation bias is the most influential factor in those self-selecting, self-assessment ‘tests’ available to the general public, which do not form any part of a clinical diagnosis.

BrianD3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204817#Comment_120204817

Ah, so it's inconsequential now - yet was used as part of your bizarre "morphing" point in this thread. I know exactly what you were at - you thought that by pointing out that I had referred to him as Borat's brother (cousin) in one post and subsequently referred to him as Prof Baron Cohen, that I was trying to add weight to my point. If you're going to go for that gotcha, at least get your details right.

As for the other stuff, so Baron Cohen's and Gilberg's publications and reputations don't lend any legitimacy to their research - so whose research is legitimate then? Your research? Or nobody's?

LOL

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204885#Comment_120204885

Well it was you who brought up his relationship to the other Baron-Cohen as if it should mean anything, and when the test which he devised is questioned, now he’s a professor and you’re pointing to the fact that he has made contributions to his field of research as though he should be regarded as an authority on autism.

In reality he is but one individual in the field, who between himself and Gilberg have made enormous contributions to the field of autism research. But their reputations isn’t what lends their research any credibility, nor does it put their research beyond question. Are you familiar with any of Baron-Cohen’s research? The professor I mean, not the comedian.

There’s plenty of other researchers and professors and academics and scientists have expressed criticism of Baron-Cohen’s research, as that’s how research improves understanding, through greater collaboration, and by being open to criticism, as opposed to just being reliant on the reputation of one individual who devised a test for adults to determine if they exhibit symptoms of autism. Some people love participating in surveys, other people don’t, it’s not rocket science -

Baron-Cohen's "assortative mating theory" that if individuals with a "systemizing" focus or "type S" brain are selecting each other as mates, they are more likely to have children with autism. This has been supported in a population study in Eindhoven, where autism rates are twice as high in that city that is an IT hub, compared to other Dutch cities.

In 2001 he developed the autism-spectrum quotient (AQ), a set of fifty questions that can be used to help determine whether or not an adult exhibits symptoms of autism. The AQ has subsequently been used in hundreds of studies including one study of half a million people, showing robust sex differences and higher scores in those who work in STEM.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen

RobbingBandit

AQ test was designed in early to mid 90s the questions are very dated now go to a theatre or library can you remember phone numbers and dates. Last I heard there are many trying to develop a digital age friendly test but of the 50 questions on the AQ test many would still remain or be altered ever so slightly to be relatable to modern day situations.

BrianD3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120204927#Comment_120204927

Too easy, it wasn't me who brought up his relationship - it was the poster Grayson. Post no. 22. And again you persist with your ridiculous morphing point. FYI I was responding to Tony EH when I first mentioned his real name having linked to his research on the AQ in an autism journal. I didn't say "Borat's cousin" as I expected an AH type answer back along the lines of not seeing any mention of a Borat in that paper/journal.

As for the rest of the stuff - you've posted a lot in this thread, linked to various websites etc. How do YOU determine what is legitimate info and what isn't? Merely saying "other researchers disagree with Baron Cohen" doesn't cut it, and anyway, how did you determine the legitimacy of their disagreement? Instead of linking to the Wikipedia page on Baron Cohen (and the test which you think has no legitimacy in spite of being used in hundreds of studies including one of half a million people), how about you post a link to either your own or someone else's peer reviewed research that refutes the validity of that test.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120205041#Comment_120205041

I’m not persisting with the Borat thing because it’s not worth persisting with, and you wouldn’t be the first poster to have received an unexpected response to your post! It happens, oh boy does it happen! 😁

It’s a fair question as to how I determine what constitutes legitimate info and what doesn’t, and the answers pretty simple - by reading it. I don’t have to refute the validity of the test in terms of what it’s actually used for, and what its purpose is. It’s actually really useful in that context, but outside of that context, like the idea that it’s used to determine whether or not a person is autistic, that’s a claim that’s not even made by it’s authors, who caution against that sort of thing -

The authors cited a score of 32 or more as indicating "clinically significant levels of autistic traits". However, although the test is popularly used for self-diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders, the authors caution that it is not intended to be diagnostic, and advise that anyone who obtains a high score and is suffering some distress should seek professional medical advice and not jump to any conclusions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism-spectrum_quotient

You were right the first time in not lending much weight to the idea of the results of an online test, but you were wrong in suggesting that because of it’s authors reputation, the test itself is somehow more useful in contexts where it isn’t.