is this compatible with aspergers Dx?

[zylon]

I have been diagnosed with Asperger's due to severe social and worldly problems. However, I am so unlike Asperger's in some ways. I am just wondering here if I can still be classified "Asperger" with the differences I have from them.

1. Once I am accepted as the personal friend of someone I like, that person becomes the most important aspect of my life; they always will come first. I can get very close, caring, warm, and affectionate with them. I am always there for them. The "coldness" I hear about aspies is the complete reverse for me. However, sex, in the post-pubescent sense, is completely alien to me; it never developed in me, and it has no meaning to me. I can be very intimate and romantic, but totally non-sexual. This non-sexuality has nothing to do with intimacy issues.
My severe social problems has to do with having a very different mind from NTs, like we are from different planets. I cannot share superficially with them. My interests and orientation to life and reality itself is deeply different from them. However, this is only a problem between strangers, not close friends. I am a very poor stranger, since we have nothing superficial in common. I am also extremely shy. As close friends there may still be a problem of sharing mutual worldly interests, but there would be no problem with the personal part; they would very much feel loved.
If this is not compatible with Asperger, there definitely is no other category in the DSM or ICD for me; I must be either classified "Asperger" or I am out of the DSM or ICD, even though my problems are severe.

 

[Ereth]

You'll find that many people here are similar to you, so you don't really need to worry about "being compatible" with the diagnosis of Asperger's.

 

[KassieMac]

Hi zylon, welcome!

That Aspie 'coldness' is a myth, by those who see but do not observe. It's not at all unusual for Aspies to form close, loyal friendships … I think it's one of our more positive traits. I hope you'll find this to be a friendly place!

Kassie

 

[Nitro]

The autistic spectrum does not follow rules that are cut and dried.

 

[zylon]

Hi zylon, welcome!

That Aspie 'coldness' is a myth, by those who see but do not observe. It's not at all unusual for Aspies to form close, loyal friendships … I think it's one of our more positive traits. I hope you'll find this to be a friendly place!

Kassie

Thank you.
There was a girl I befriended (Angela) who was often in the hospital for severe epilepsy. I could hear all the nurses and social workers there telling her how fortunate she was for having such a good "support system"(me), and as soon as I left the room I could hear the the roommates saying "wow, I sure wish I had a visitor like that!" This they all said by just "seeing" me with her during hospital visits. The friendship came to an earthly stop only when she died of her epilepsy.
My problem is not with "seeing" in friendships, it is in turning a stranger into a friend. It took over a year of fortunate breaks before the world allowed me to chuck the "stranger" role with her and begin the friendship role. Once the friendship role was accepted by her and her guardians, the friendship was solid and very visible. My problem is that I cannot be a good stranger enough to become accepted as a friend.

But tell me, if all said Aspie traits are myths, then what is Asperger for real? If all the "core problems" and DSM definitions are misperceptions, then what is the truth?

 

[KassieMac]

Thank you.
There was a girl I befriended (Angela) who was often in the hospital for severe epilepsy. I could hear all the nurses and social workers there telling her how fortunate she was for having such a good "support system"(me), and as soon as I left the room I could hear the the roommates saying "wow, I sure wish I had a visitor like that!" This they all said by just "seeing" me with her during hospital visits. The friendship came to an earthly stop only when she died of her epilepsy.
My problem is not with "seeing" in friendships, it is in turning a stranger into a friend. It took over a year of fortunate breaks before the world allowed me to chuck the "stranger" role with her and begin the friendship role. Once the friendship role was accepted by her and her guardians, the friendship was solid and very visible. My problem is that I cannot be a good stranger enough to become accepted as a friend.

But tell me, if all said Aspie traits are myths, then what is Asperger for real? If all the "core problems" and DSM definitions are misperceptions, then what is the truth?

Not everything that's said is myth, but I find when I'm reading writings by professionals they tend to fall into two distinct categories. Some describe how we appear on the surface (like that 'coldness' you mentioned, or that we lack empathy) and others describe us with a deeper understanding of what our lives are like (that we don't show empathy in the same way as NTs, but we feel things very deeply, for example). Since my current obsession is Sherlock Holmes I borrow the phrasing from him … he often told people "you see, but you do not observe."

I haven't kept a list of which professionals are which, but I can usually tell pretty quickly when I'm reading whether the author understands us or is just describing how we appear. Does that make any sense?

 

[Ste11aeres]

I have been diagnosed with Asperger's due to severe social and worldly problems. However, I am so unlike Asperger's in some ways. I am just wondering here if I can still be classified "Asperger" with the differences I have from them.

1. Once I am accepted as the personal friend of someone I like, that person becomes the most important aspect of my life; they always will come first. I can get very close, caring, warm, and affectionate with them. I am always there for them. The "coldness" I hear about aspies is the complete reverse for me.

Your warmth towards close friends is actually typical of many Aspies, depending on the individual.
"Coldness" has never been part of any diagnostic criteria for Aspergers or Autism. The people who use that description are usually people online who have unhappy marriages. The coldness is itself probably a result of the dismal stage of that marriage.

 

[zylon]

Not everything that's said is myth, but I find when I'm reading writings by professionals they tend to fall into two distinct categories. Some describe how we appear on the surface (like that 'coldness' you mentioned, or that we lack empathy) and others describe us with a deeper understanding of what our lives are like (that we don't show empathy in the same way as NTs, but we feel things very deeply, for example). Since my current obsession is Sherlock Holmes I borrow the phrasing from him … he often told people "you see, but you do not observe."

I haven't kept a list of which professionals are which, but I can usually tell pretty quickly when I'm reading whether the author understands us or is just describing how we appear. Does that make any sense?

The only professionals I am referring to is the DSM and the ICD.
The phrase "you see but you don't observe" (where the "you" refers to the strangers around me), is a very, very, good fit as to my relation with the world, because what they see when they look at me is very, very, misleading about me. That is why I am reluctant to tell anyone what I look like.

Do you think the "autistic triad" given in the DSM is in your first category (how autistics appear on the surface), on in your second category (describes autistics with a deeper understanding)?

 

[millie33]

Thank you.
There was a girl I befriended (Angela) who was often in the hospital for severe epilepsy. I could hear all the nurses and social workers there telling her how fortunate she was for having such a good "support system"(me), and as soon as I left the room I could hear the the roommates saying "wow, I sure wish I had a visitor like that!" This they all said by just "seeing" me with her during hospital visits. The friendship came to an earthly stop only when she died of her epilepsy.
My problem is not with "seeing" in friendships, it is in turning a stranger into a friend. It took over a year of fortunate breaks before the world allowed me to chuck the "stranger" role with her and begin the friendship role. Once the friendship role was accepted by her and her guardians, the friendship was solid and very visible. My problem is that I cannot be a good stranger enough to become accepted as a friend.

But tell me, if all said Aspie traits are myths, then what is Asperger for real? If all the "core problems" and DSM definitions are misperceptions, then what is the truth?

Really, what is the truth? Every apparent "core problem" in a diagnosis seems to be refutable. I suppose the criteria are simply guidelines. I can perceive something different about me (and so can everyone else, apparently), but I really can't ever put my finger on the "something". Telling me that I'm mentally "ill" insults my intelligence. The only relevant part about my diagnosis imo is constant anxiety and bouts of depression caused by the aforementioned.

 

[KassieMac]

The only professionals I am referring to is the DSM and the ICD.
The phrase "you see but you don't observe" (where the "you" refers to the strangers around me), is a very, very, good fit as to my relation with the world, because what they see when they look at me is very, very, misleading about me. That is why I am reluctant to tell anyone what I look like.

Do you think the "autistic triad" given in the DSM is in your first category (how autistics appear on the surface), on in your second category (describes autistics with a deeper understanding)?

I've looked up the DSM-IV and -V, and at first glance it seems to sit very carefully on the fine line that divides the two (though slightly on the side of 'seeing'). I'm not extremely fluent in medical terminology, but this is how it reads to me: it very carefully doesn't include references to how we feel (that would require conjecture on the part of the diagnostician, which introduces all sorts of subjectivity & chance for errors) but neither does it fall prey to the commonly-stated myths from those who assume to understand us merely based on appearances … so I feel the need to redefine my categories, if you don't mind. The DSM & ICD are based on clinical, objective observations (as much as possible) without assumption or conjecture. To one side are those who 'see' (and make assumptions or judgments, leading to those common myths); on the other side would be the more insightful statements from those who 'observe' (either have Aspergers or have known &/or worked closely with Aspies and avoid making assumptions, practicing insight instead).

Thanks for asking such a thought-provoking question! Let me know if this makes any sense or not, ok?

 

[Wintertime]

The thing about the DSM is, is that it's like speaking Mandarin in China (psychiatry in the medical community). It works there but if you go across to India (real life) and speak Mandarin, few will understand you (it doesn't matter in terms of LIFE, only a small aspect of it). It's about context. It is a diagnostic criteria and should really only be used as such within that context. It merely serves as medical validation and was designed to identify issues which would affect a person's wellbeing with intent to treatment and dealing with bureaucratic entities such as if someone needs to be on disability for schizophrenia. They need a commonly accepted definition of these trait clusters to identify level of function. In the world, we are what we are and to me, the DSM doesn't matter here because in daily life, it is out of context because the context of clinical observation and identification really doesn't matter when it comes to how I experience my life. I don't wake up and think to myself, hmm the DSM says I should be this or that, so that's what I'm going to do today. If that makes sense. I think of myself more as a person and I'm just a rare sort of breed. I identify with aspergers as I have the traits, the brain, and so if I identify under the umbrella (and I have been diagnosed) then it is easier to find people who are like me, and I therefore understand better.

I think that in our rush to have answers and place context in our own lives for being different from the norm, we may place too much heft on things like the DSM. What matters is our own life experiences and perception is within our own grasp, we can perceive ourselves how we want to, with either a negative or positive or neutral spin. I choose to see the positive because to me, there's no reason why not to. I also think that it is dangerous to rely too much upon the establishmentary thinking that we are 'disordered'. This world has never been kind to those who are different from the 'norm', but that doesn't make the 'norm' or it's perception correct, it just means it happens to be the majority. This is a world that envies those with talents and things to give, yet demonises the people different enough to be blessed with them. It's a hard place.

Then you get the double edged sword of something like my ADHD. I am diagnosed with this. Yet without it, I would not have the creativity I do, and the other positive attributes that it gives me. So who decides when different is bad? A quorum of people I'll never meet, who will never understand what it's like to be me, who will never appreciate what I have to offer, but continue to tell me I'm not worthwhile, that I'm not acceptable as I am? I trust myself, not the DSM. And it's usually only 'bad' because this world is not set up to facilitate me so function becomes a struggle. If I was in the situation that was suited to the way my brain works, there would be no struggle and conflict, and the abilities I have could thrive. I spend too much time trying to deal with fitting in to a situation that is fundamentally constructed in a manner that doesn't fit me, there is no energy left to thrive.

If we get caught up too much in thinking we are disordered or wrong or whatever, it can have deleterious effects. So I personally don't place much stock in the DSM, and actually, many health care professionals are starting to really find a lot of fault with it anyway, with many controversial changes and standards that seem very unreliable insofar as diagnostic criterias and such. I believe that the DSM is not really valid for anything other than insurance purposes and things of that nature. Especially in the case of AS, as when you meet one person with AS, you meet one person with AS. We may share different neurological architecture from the quantitative norm, but we are still individual people with our own personalities, we merely share some traits in common because our brains process similarly to each other. A diagnosis should never supplant one's own individual self. Thinking of ourselves as a label, well Temple Grandin talked about 'label locked thinking' and I really resonated with her. So the DSM doesn't even matter to me in cases of therapeutic treatment, because treatment should be individualised to each person's unique character.

I am also of the opinion that, if anything, the spectrum is a neurological condition, or status of being if you will, and therefore should be considered medical if anything, not psychiatric. Diabetes has effects on behaviour but it is not considered a psychiatric disorder. I don't consider AS a disorder at all, however I do accept that some presentations of the traits are things that are deserving of medical support or treatment.

Just some musings.

 

[Wintertime]

Sorry to belabour the point, I suppose we can blame my ADHD for that (I prefer 'blaming' my philosophical nature), but it also really makes my heart break that we need to utilise these labels as a means of division, rather than acceptance. If we lived in a world where everyone's basic needs were met, simply because we are all human beings and it is a biological necessity to need food, shelter, medical care, etc. to survive, and we all had the support and care and acceptance we need, and were facilitated to give what we are suited to offer to our communities instead of needing to take on jobs that we don't fit because we have to pay the rent, if there was no human tendency to 'otherise' instead of letting people be who they are, well we wouldn't need the damn DSM. If we needed to identify with a label, it would be to establish a level of understanding. If that too, makes sense.

The inefficiency and illogic makes it into some value judgement thing and it all makes my head hurt something fierce. I guess humanity has a way of making things so complicated, doesn't it.

 

[Nitro]

I have to agree with many of your points you made in your post Wintertime. After reading the DSM up to the fourth version,all I got out of it was just a system to be used for applying finances from insurance to symptoms. At the risk of being moderated for saying so,I very must agree with what Temple says about the labeling system. Autism has way too many labels placed on it,proving how little they really understand about it and anyone who tries to use labeling as a way of determining a person's status is more of the problem than most are willing to believe. Psychiatry to me is a black art with too little control over who gets to mess with people's heads. This is not to say that some are not dedicated and good at it,but more to stress how poorly the entire practice performs in general. A degree is not a guarantee that someone absolutely understands their work,but has merely satisfied academia's requirement to hold one according to their individual criteria. That promotes quackery inside the psychiatric community and allows some to think they know it all on a god-like level with a sheep skin and a poorly written guide on who has what that is steered by money and not actual problems. To see people take stock in the DSM as the final say in their own well being troubles me almost as much as thinking a quack is correct just because they have shiny plaques on the wall of their office and a fancy title. Academia has way too many faults in it as well when you consider that not all people will agree with each other at all times and favoritism or dislike is not something that should enter into determining a grade for each individual. People do not all learn the same way,so why should grading be done like they do? That kind of reminds me of the story of art critics who praised a work of art in a gallery only to discover later that it was just a pile of broken pipes on a tarp left there by plumbers doing a repair in a restroom who went to eat lunch. Don't get me started on my thoughts about comorbids and autism...if they know so little about autism,how can they determine that the comorbids are not autism as well?...the comorbids were determined by humans who do have a habit of being wrong with a lot of their environment,not just medicine

 

[Wintertime]

Well said Nitro, your thoughts definitely resonate with me. Great post.

 

[zylon]

The autistic spectrum does not follow rules that are cut and dried.

I keep hearing what autism is not, but never what it is, at least what it has in common with me. I am not NT, and I have severe problems with the social and worldly realms. However, when specifics are given to show what the term "autism" actually includes, as the reason for the social and worldly problems, it sounds as different from me as NT does.

 

[zurb]

I keep hearing what autism is not, but never what it is, at least what it has in common with me. I am not NT, and I have severe problems with the social and worldly realms. However, when specifics are given to show what the term "autism" actually includes, as the reason for the social and worldly problems, it sounds as different from me as NT does.

The problem here is people also make replies based on personality, experience and opinion. There's more mixed into the responses than purely Aspergers. Also, the out working of Aspergers can be different for each person.
Do you mean Autism or Aspergers? It's still useful to make the distinction. If it's Aspergers you are interested in, try getting hold of a copy of Tony Attwood's The complete guide to Aspergers. It's available on amazon, but probably also at your local library. You might find he is more objective.

(Edit: changed 'pure aspergers' to 'purely aspergers'. Hope this improves clarity)

 

[Nitro]

I keep hearing what autism is not, but never what it is, at least what it has in common with me. I am not NT, and I have severe problems with the social and worldly realms. However, when specifics are given to show what the term "autism" actually includes, as the reason for the social and worldly problems, it sounds as different from me as NT does.

Everybody in the spectrum gets a grab bag to take with them...some get a bag with nice gifts in it,others not so much...From watching trends here and a bit of brain study to back it up,some get a bunch of bad items and fewer gifts...there is no happy balance to it ever and only autism holds the keys...your electro-chemical processor is wired a bit differently from what is considered neurotypical to the population...I see thoughts of the digestive system in the autistic being different and handling chemicals in different manners as to what is considered the norm which may have a direct link to the brain chemistry in all humans. The alleged comorbids are reported a bit too often with autism to not be related to it in my opinion...men also used to think the world was flat and the sea had a point of no return before your boat fell off into an abyss...

Finding a specific place on the shelf will never happen...autism is not like a trip to the library with a fantastic filing system,it is very random...we are all different and only share certain parts related to the autistic spectrum

 

[zurb]

Finding a specific place on the shelf will never happen...

My impression is he's not looking for a specific place on the shelf. He's not even sure if he fits on the shelf at all.
Problem is forums are for people on a journey of discovery. Folks who know all the answers and are confident in themselves don't join them. So my advice for zylon is make sure your research is wider than just AC!

 

[Nitro]

zurb...please define pure Asperger's if you will...some see it is a part of the autistic spectrum

I am fairly sure that I really don't know all about autism and I am fairly sure the "pros" do not know either...

I found out I was autistic while studying why my own brain damage recovery was going so well...I never trust just one opinion of anything and scour the medical sites...I like the format at AC so I chose to stay and add it to my ongoing brain studies...Autism fascinates me now and a friend of mine has a deep spectrum grandchild we are learning how to help together...I find AC a place where others freely share their experiences with autism/aspergers as a guide to what works for some but maybe not for others.
I learned to cope on my own and share with others what I did to do so.

 

[zurb]

zurb...please define pure Asperger's if you will...some see it is a part of the autistic spectrum

Have edited my post from 'pure' to 'purely'. Hope this helps.
In case you thought I was commenting on your posts specifically, I'm sorry, it was supposed to be a generalized comment. And yes, I acknowledge Aspergers is on the autism spectrum. But I still maintain that Aspergers is still a useful term in defining a (somewhat fuzzy) place within that spectrum - for me especially as that is the limit of both my experience and research.
In a forum like this there tends to be a wide variety of people with widely differing experiences, expectations and opinions. It is easy to assume it is all related to autism. Just because I have some quirk and I'm on this forum, it doesn't mean my quirk is automatically because of autism or that all auties or aspies are the same as me. It might be so. It might not be. My point again is that we are all learning, and it is hard to be objective. Sometimes some outside help looking in gives a little more objectivity. A book like Attwood's tends to pull together the more common threads, and may help zylon achieve the clarity he's seeking.