My story - How I overcame most of my autism symptoms

[Matthias]

The DSM criteria is not God. If you don't make the cut, that doesn't automatically mean you're not autistic.

And the specific difference between them can't be stated. I don't know if the people born with autistic traits who never met the criteria are autistic or not. I don't know if someone is autistic. Typically only the people themselves know. Of course, anyone can decide they are no longer autistic. That's fine. But then it'd be quite odd to frequent an Autism forum.

ASD is just a label to describe people with a certain set of symptoms. The DSM, at least in the US, defines who is and who isn't autistic. If you meet the criteria, you're autistic. If you don't, you're not. It's that simple.

Of course, it's debatable how it should be defined. I personally would like to see symptoms split between genetic and psychological so that those born with autistic traits can be diagnosed with autism and have those with additional symptoms diagnosed with other co-morbid conditions. I think there's a good chance it will end up that way with autism being diagnosed as a neurological condition affecting 1 in 10 people with new co-morbid conditions being diagnosed in a future version of the DSM for those with additional symptoms.

 

[Jumpback]

All of the symptoms I mentioned in my post are included in the DSM-V as symptoms of autism. I agree with you they are mostly caused by anxiety and not genetics.

If someone is born with autistic traits but doesn't have trouble fitting in and making friends then psychologists would say they don't have a disorder and dismiss their autistic traits as a normal human variation.

If that same person were born somewhere else and was depressed (resulting in social withdraw) and anxious (causing repetitive behaviors) because he couldn't fit in and felt like he didn't belong anywhere, then psychologists would consider him to have a disorder.

What that means is the DSM-V criteria doesn't include everyone with autistic traits. It defines ASD in a way that only includes people with autistic traits who have psychological problems.

I think it's important that people know those additional symptoms aren't genetic and can be overcome allowing people diagnosed with ASD to end up just like people born with autistic traits who never developed any psychological symptoms.

I get what you are saying, and it does seem to be accepted that all sorts of things are a combination of nature and nurture. Like if someone has a natural tendency to become depressed when they are alone, if they come from a big family and marry and move next to family members and so on, they might just never really have to be alone and the genetic issue never gets triggered

 

[hatfullofrain]

OP, where you ever formally diagnosed as autistic by a medical professional?

 

[Jumpback]

ASD is just a label to describe people with a certain set of symptoms. The DSM, at least in the US, defines who is and who isn't autistic. If you meet the criteria, you're autistic. If you don't, you're not. It's that simple.

Of course, it's debatable how it should be defined. I personally would like to see symptoms split between genetic and psychological so that those born with autistic traits can be diagnosed with autism and have those with additional symptoms diagnosed with other co-morbid conditions. I think there's a good chance it will end up that way with autism being diagnosed as a neurological condition affecting 1 in 10 people with new co-morbid conditions being diagnosed in a future version of the DSM for those with additional symptoms.

Things are strange with the DSM. Like:

(A). Since you at one time fit autistic spectrum disorder, you sort of aren't allowed to say that you are cured now.

(B). If you history had gone smoother, you might never have fit the criteria in the first place for ASD, so you wouldn't be allowed to say that you ever had it.

Two completely opposing things with seemingly almost nothing in the middle

 

[Bolletje]

I would personally say I am just as autistic as I was the day I was born, but I have learned to adapt and cope a lot better.

 

[Fino]

ASD is just a label to describe people with a certain set of symptoms. The DSM, at least in the US, defines who is and who isn't autistic. If you meet the criteria, you're autistic. If you don't, you're not. It's that simple.

This paragraph explains why there's a divide between your views and most people's views on this forum. You don't think autism exists. You see it as a social construct arbitrarily defined by an ever-changing manual.

 

[Jumpback]

I would personally say I am just as autistic as I was the day I was born, but I have learned to adapt and cope a lot better.

The bizarre thing, though, is that way the DSM works is that it focuses on observable behavior. Here is, I think, DSM diagnostic criteria
Diagnostic Criteria | Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | NCBDDD | CDC

Like the better adjusted you get, the less you fit the criteria. It's very strange in that other sorts of people like schizophrenics and so on can't just get better at things to such an extent, and things like depression can come and go

I mean, it seems like people in charge of the DSM understand these sort of things and allow for diagnosis based on childhood behavior, but it still just seems off somehow.

Like a high functioning autistic is a hfa is a hfa is a hfa in that their brains work slightly differently, but the DSM only takes observable behavior into account because people can't do brain scans and genetic tests at the drop of a hat, so whether or not you get diagnosed with autistic spectrum issues actually depends on how great your childhood was and how easy you found it to find your place in the world...except, of course, if you have very obvious symptoms that would occur no matter what

 

[Ezra]

I'm all for CBT and I believe what the OP is saying is true from his perspective. However having been on autism forums for many years, I have seen this sort of thread occur many times. Someone finds the key that unlocks their autism.

Now a thing with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is it doesn't always work. I had success with it regarding destructive behavior, but others I have seen in threads about CBT have said it did not help them at all, was a terrible experience, made things worse et al.

Usually these sorts of things are a YMMV experience.

You mileage may vary.

 

[Jumpback]

I'm all for CBT and I believe what the OP is saying is true from his perspective. However having been on autism forums for many years, I have seen this sort of thread occur many times. Someone finds the key that unlocks their autism.

Now a thing with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is it doesn't always work. I had success with it regarding destructive behavior, but others I have seen in threads about CBT have said it did not help them at all, was a terrible experience, made things worse et al.

Usually these sorts of things are a YMMV experience.

You mileage may vary.

I suspect that your input is very wise, but I would also suggest that being very clearly on the spectrum gives you a certain confidence and comfort in the system as it stands.

Like, for example, if someone is going to be a number 1 draft pick in the NFL draft as a wide receiver because they are so clearly the number 1 draft pick, there is no reason to question or doubt and so on. But if one is borderline and they know they have a great work ethic and can make it as an nfl receiver all the things about 50 yard dash times and standing vertical leaps and so on kind of piss them off, because they know they can make it because they know that they'll outwork everyone else and have good instincts and so on

Not sure exactly, but systems have validity, but there is also this thing where people who half fit within the system and half don't causes questioning of the entire system because it's easier to see the flaws in the system when you sort of fit within it but sort of don't

Like insanely natural wide receiver won't question the nfl combine and draft arrangement, and neither will incredibly unathletic people, it's the people in the middle who get frustrated and interested in the flaws of the system, and the system actually is flawed. Or something.

 

[Matthias]

Society can eat people alive. Then they name it. There are so many who were smashed systematically as we see know protests over. Then they say they are suffering from mental illness. The homeless are considered mentally ill first, but papers show once they are treated like human beings who have the same needs as other human being and are given food, sleep, water, decent toilet access.....oh, they get better. Dehumanization ruins people and how ever they act, it's labeled.

This is a big problem where I live and I'm disgusted by it especially when it's done to children.

For example, parent has an anger problem and lashes out at child. Child is stressed out and on edge and misbehaves to express how he feels about how he is treated. Parents take child to psychiatrist who ignores the parents role (it's not politically correct to blame parents for anything where I live) so child gets diagnosed with a conduct disorder and treated like he's a bad child. If a child can't sit still because he's thinking about the trauma he experienced at home, he gets labeled with ADHD and given drugs to suppress the symptoms that have long-term side effects like emotional numbness that can harm him for life.

While it's awful and those who do this deserve to be blamed, for those who are victims, I can tell you from experience and research I've read that much of the suffering is caused by how they think about it. For example, suppose a parent abuses two children equally. One may blame himself and think he's a bad person, may generalize it and think most people are bad and end up having major problems for the rest of his life. The other child may think his parent is mentally ill and doing the best she can and have few problems as a result of the abuse. No matter what happened to you, no matter how bad your life has been, you can feel better and lessen the harmful effects of it by learning to think differently. The links at the end of my OP may help you deal with what happened to you and help you feel better.

 

[Matthias]

This paragraph explains why there's a divide between your views and most people's views on this forum. You don't think autism exists. You see it as a social construct arbitrarily defined by an ever-changing manual.

Autism isn't an adjective like artistic, generous, proud, humble, etc that you can define however you want. It's a medical diagnosis and, like every other medical diagnosis, it's defined based on specific criteria informed by the scientific consensus about how best to identify the condition they are targeting. While you may personally feel that someone with the same symptoms as you isn't autistic because they think about them differently than you do or because they overcame them that doesn't mean you can say they aren't autistic. It would be impossible to do any research on autism if everyone defined it differently based on their own opinions.

An important point is that if something helped someone who meets the criteria, it may help others who meet the criteria. That's why scientists use a uniform definition when studying it.

 

[Jumpback]

This paragraph explains why there's a divide between your views and most people's views on this forum. You don't think autism exists. You see it as a social construct arbitrarily defined by an ever-changing manual.

But the DSM actually is constantly changing and people on here keep referring to themselves as aspies, but Aspergers hasn't been in the DSM for about 7 years....or maybe I am misunderstanding something

 

[Fino]

But the DSM actually is constantly changing and people on here keep referring to themselves as aspies, but Aspergers hasn't been in the DSM for about 7 years....or maybe I am misunderstanding something

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If the DSM were to remove Autism, that wouldn't make all autistic people no longer autistic. Autism exists outside the judgment of psychiatry. It existed before it was ever diagnosed. I don't know if that answers you properly.

 

[Fino]

Autism isn't an adjective like artistic, generous, proud, humble, etc that you can define however you want. It's a medical diagnosis and, like every other medical diagnosis, it's defined based on specific criteria informed by the scientific consensus about how best to identify the condition they are targeting. While you may personally feel that someone with the same symptoms as you isn't autistic because they think about them differently than you do or because they overcame them that doesn't mean you can say they aren't autistic. It would be impossible to do any research on autism if everyone defined it differently based on their own opinions.

An important point is that if something helped someone who meets the criteria, it may help others who meet the criteria. That's why scientists use a uniform definition when studying it.

So maybe in DSM-VI the criteria will change and you'll magically become autistic again. Who knows.

 

[Fino]

The bizarre thing, though, is that way the DSM works is that it focuses on observable behavior. Here is, I think, DSM diagnostic criteria
Diagnostic Criteria | Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | NCBDDD | CDC

Like the better adjusted you get, the less you fit the criteria. It's very strange in that other sorts of people like schizophrenics and so on can't just get better at things to such an extent, and things like depression can come and go

I mean, it seems like people in charge of the DSM understand these sort of things and allow for diagnosis based on childhood behavior, but it still just seems off somehow.

Like a high functioning autistic is a hfa is a hfa is a hfa in that their brains work slightly differently, but the DSM only takes observable behavior into account because people can't do brain scans and genetic tests at the drop of a hat, so whether or not you get diagnosed with autistic spectrum issues actually depends on how great your childhood was and how easy you found it to find your place in the world...except, of course, if you have very obvious symptoms that would occur no matter what

I believe that's how any disorder works. In order for something to be a disorder, it needs to significantly impair functioning.

 

[Jumpback]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If the DSM were to remove Autism, that wouldn't make all autistic people no longer autistic. Autism exists outside the judgment of psychiatry. It existed before it was ever diagnosed. I don't know if that answers you properly.

You’ve kind of explained my questioning in your own answer on the next post in responding to @FormerlyAutistic

So maybe in DSM-VI the criteria will change and you'll magically become autistic again. Who knows.

I was never questioning that HFA exists, I was questioning the DSM

 

[Sarah S]

So maybe in DSM-VI the criteria will change and you'll magically become autistic again. Who knows.

As i said in another very Interesting thread in here. The reson that they changed DSM V was that due to over diagnocing from 90 `s + they had to make it even harder to be able to be diagnosed as ASD . + there has been MANY new Discoverys within this field as well. And if its one thing im shore of its that this WILL continue to be added new versions and changed criterias /added criterias etc... As the Knowledge grows. same with all NP diagnosis (for instance theres not that many years ago they took away the former criteria of HAVE to have IQ under or around 70 -75 to be diagnosed ID YES you still need to have singnifantly lower then average BUT not a specific nr ) And yes IQ is still ONE part of the overall diagnocing but its only ONE part.

And we all need to accept that with more Knowledge the DSM and other guidelines for diagnocing WILL change

 

[Sarah S]

I was never questioning that HFA exists, I was questioning the DSM

Actually it seems as both HFA as well as LFA as well as Asbergers have been removed from DSM.

People with autism are often described as being "high functioning" or "low functioning," but there are no such official diagnoses. In fact, now that Asperger syndrome, PDD-NOS, and autistic disorder have been removed from the DSM (diagnostic manual) there is only one general category called autism spectrum disorder. = ASD

While there are now three levels of autism described in the DSM-5 (Levels 1, 2, and 3), many people use the terms high and low functioning, as they're less clinical. The problem is that the difference between high and low functioning autism can, in many cases, be based on the personal perspectives of a parent, practitioner, or teacher.


Is There Really Such a Thing as High and Low Functioning Autism?

 

[Bolletje]

But the DSM actually is constantly changing and people on here keep referring to themselves as aspies, but Aspergers hasn't been in the DSM for about 7 years....or maybe I am misunderstanding something

I call myself an Aspie because I was diagnosed with Aspergers. The label may have changed in the meantime but my diagnosis hasn’t.

 

[Sarah S]

I call myself an Aspie because I was diagnosed with Aspergers. The label may have changed in the meantime but my diagnosis hasn’t.

Well spoken . I still say both MBD as well as ADHD and will continue to do so until i take my last breath on this earth.

There is NO right or wrong in refering to ones given diagnos names and its also stipulated that those that have been diagnosed under the old diagnosis remain the same. The new is for later diagnosis given