News Article: Is the Definition of autism too broad?

[Ste11aeres]

Yeah, I kind of agree with that. Nature is pretty good at making its inhabitants (as collectives) good at surviving, but it's not an exact thing by any measure. That margin of "error" (used here, "error" simply refers to anomalies that may or may not be conducive to survival in the given natural environment) results in variations that may or may not be great for the individual. Add civilization on top of that, where you don't have natural pressures to weed out the really detrimental "errors," and you end up with a wider margin of "error."

This, of course, means that what society deems as "normal," is pretty much anything but -- nor does it actually exist in any one individual -- and is more of a mean of the most common differences among one another in the dominant subgroup.

Public school is a prime example. It really sucks for just about everyone, except for those who happen to fall closest to the mean. The farther of an outlier you are, regardless of whether it's on the "struggling to keep up" or the "retained this from three years ago and bored silly" end, the less the school system's defaults actually works for you and the more you'd benefit from a "special education" subsection.

I want to frame this and put it on my wall.

 

[psychgirl95]

According to her bio, she recently got the PhD, but has been in the field for 15 years -- https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-sarrett-181531

From what I see in her bio and the article, she strikes me more as an "Autism parents advocate." IE - she's an NT, with an NT's perspective, who has an NT's idea of what is "really Autism." Her bio does put her as more on the neurodiversity side of things, though her comments about whether "higher functioning" Autistics are "really Autistic" or "Autistic enough" and whether the diagnosis is too broad in the article suggest to me that she sits somewhere more in the middle between us and the more typical A$ types of people who seem to think that if you can talk and you don't have a meltdown on a daily basis, then you're not "really" Autistic. She's at least not that bad, but I'm still a bit wary of her commentary. And...like most NTs (especially those in medicine), it seems to me that she's still kind of ignoring what we're saying about how we perceive the world and how we would like to see these issues solved.

*shrug* That kind of thinking always strikes me as odd. Does someone with a broken leg still have a broken leg and need some amount of help regardless of whether it's a hairline fracture or a compound break? Why is Autism treated in such a way that if we were to apply it to a broken bone, then hairline fracture wouldn't "really" be broken, and the person would have to make do without so much as a splint, simply because it's not a compound break?

Yeah I saw she had a degree in special education, but she also mentioned having done "autism research" more recently (for her dissertation, I believe).

Yes, you're probably right. When she said "autism advocate" she probably meant for those parents who have children on the lower end of the spectrum. So I was wondering more about her experience with autistic individuals (especially higher functioning ones) outside schools. In my opinion, teachers, even special education ones, only get a glimpse of what autism looks like, even if they see the child more often than a doctor or clinician might. For example, none of my teachers (including my gifted teachers) ever would've thought I displayed any symptoms associated with autism. And these are people that saw me for 6+ hours nearly everyday. And while the psychiatrists and psychologists I saw when I was younger (14) disagreed with me saying I had AS, they at least acknowledged that I had social issues that went beyond me simply being a quiet child. (Though I'm pretty sure my psychologist chalked them up to social anxiety. She was constantly pressuring me to "put myself out there.") To me, it just seems like teachers tend to overestimate their understanding of autism. The way an autistic child appears at school may be completely different than how they appear at home or at a doctor's or clinician's office. (I think this may especially be the case with girls.)

The problem is that autism (especially for older adolescents and adults) truly is an "invisible disability." It's ridiculous that we have to constantly defend the fact that we have daily struggles that affect our lives. No, most of us don't require around-the-clock care, but that doesn't mean we don't need other types of support. I think this has to do with the fact that many people still see autism in a very black-and-white way: they either envision the severely autistic child or the child with AS who has a high IQ and is expected to succeed in life because of their giftedness. In the case of those with HFA/AS, autism has been reduced to social awkwardness, which it is not - it's a lot more than that. But people don't see our other issues (perhaps because we naturally hide them in public?), so they assume we only struggle in social situations. Personally speaking, I don't care how high my IQ is because my social skills aren't good. I have terrible social anxiety when school comes around and it affects my schoolwork. And then I also have processing speed issues as well, which makes doing tasks more difficult. Me being gifted doesn't help me with these issues. If anything, it makes them worse, as people expect me to do things that I don't feel like I can always do, which makes me feel overwhelmed.

From what got explained to me by my former psych was that it was a conscious decision by the higher organization to not (yet) take the step to approving DSM-V and continue to work with IV until further notice and studies. I haven't checked this fact so I don't know the details

That would make sense. There are classes (both undergraduate and graduate) that still use the DSM-IV. My school seems to use the DSM-5 in all classes studying psychopathology, but I can understand why some are still using the DSM-IV.

As far as studies go, the DSM change definitely has the possibility to interfere with studies' results (even though the DSM-IV criteria was flawed anyway). But that's just something that has to be dealt with, I suppose. (And assuming the ICD-11 keeps its current Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis as well, then the same will be said when it comes out.)

I'm going to say something different which is...that maybe pretty much everyone does have a disorder of one sort or another. And the reasoning is that humanity is a teeny bit messed up, a teeny bit not right in the head. It always has been that way.
Kind of the mental equivalent of how throughout our life we will always be affected at times by physical diseases, whether that be serious diseases, or even just things like the common cold.
Perhaps being truly disorder-free is the anomaly in reality.

Edit: I don't mean that someone having a diagnosable disorder doesn't matter. And I don't mean that everyone faces equal difficulties.

I actually agree with you. That's why it infuriates me when people go around saying how clinicians are "pathologizing" previously normal behaviors. I don't understand why people don't realize that there is the possibility that humans are displaying more disorders? Our population is at an all time high. We're seeing increases in all types of conditions (both physical and mental), so I don't understand why people protest the mental diagnoses, but accept the physical ones. Well, I take that back - I do understand why people resist mental diagnoses: because people still associate them with being "crazy."

To be honest, most people do display symptoms of some disorder - possibly even more than one. However, they may not be diagnosable in terms of the number of symptoms they display (by meeting diagnostic criteria). One thing that abnormal psychology students tend to be told at the beginning of a semester is to try not to "diagnose" friends and family members.

One reason for new diagnoses and revised (or lowered) criteria is that society* (in general) has changed its view on differences. "Eccentricity" was once a tolerated, perhaps even envied, thing. But now it's seen as a problem. It's like society* is moving towards this viewpoint that anybody who is not extroverted has a problem. I don't think in the future people will be diagnosed for being introverts (though some believe this is the case with HFA/AS), but I do think less acceptance will be shown toward introverts (and those who are shy as well). I believe this is already being seen in some schools. When I was in elementary and middle school, my teachers liked quiet students like me - I was the teacher's pet because I was one of the well-behaved kids. But it seems like now some teachers are becoming frustrated with quiet students.

*In this case, I'm actually excluding doctors and clinicians from society and focusing more on the general population seeing people as being "weird" instead of "different."

 

[RidingDutchman]

psychgirl95

With the pathologizing everybody.
One of the main reasons I believe people tend to have more and more issues mentally and physically is because we stopped getting rid of bad genes. People who would normally die or never get children are now reproducing like normal, spreading around "flawed" genes.

Not in a supremacist sort of way, but taking me for example. If I had lived in a time where glasses wouldn't exist, I wouldn't be able to survive on my own (I wouldn't be able to find an apple 10 meters away from me) so if I were to be able to survive even, I probably wouldn't be able to find a partner. Allowing "bad" genes like mine to spread is bad for the human race (one of the many reasons why I don't ever want kids)

 

[Judge]

Such bean counting isn't exclusive to universal healthcare, I assure you.

I know. I've spent many years working in the finance industry. (Mostly property/casualty insurance. ) In both good and bad economic times. When corporate downsizing became popular whether it was a fiscal necessity or not.

 

[Datura]

psychgirl95

With the pathologizing everybody.
One of the main reasons I believe people tend to have more and more issues mentally and physically is because we stopped getting rid of bad genes. People who would normally die or never get children are now reproducing like normal, spreading around "flawed" genes.

Not in a supremacist sort of way, but taking me for example. If I had lived in a time where glasses wouldn't exist, I wouldn't be able to survive on my own (I wouldn't be able to find an apple 10 meters away from me) so if I were to be able to survive even, I probably wouldn't be able to find a partner. Allowing "bad" genes like mine to spread is bad for the human race (one of the many reasons why I don't ever want kids)

Quite true, but one cannot seperate a specie's tools from their evolution. Had humans never invented cutting tools and fire the subsequent atrophy of our jaw muscles would have been desasterous to us. Having said tools, however, high bite foreces were no longer so important. A desirable side effect of this is that it permitted the loss of our sagital crest, allowing skulls to expand in accomadation of larger brains. [Peter Forbes: The Artificial Ape]

I am not suggesting that all deleterious effects will have such fortuitous outcomes, just that they aren't neccesarily bad for the survival of thes species. Humans are essentially cyborgs. To consider the human without it's technology is to examine an incomplete specimine. Furthermore; desirable qualities are not nessisarily adventagious. We might desire to be stronger, faster, smarter, and taller, but all of these adaptations come at a hefty biological cost in terms of nutrients and raw materials.

At this point the rate of technological evolution grows exponentially, whereas biological evolution ramins glacial in its pace. If the human line continues into the far future I would expect to see a species of what we would consider profoundly disabled individuals wielding unfathomable technology. Indeed, future humans may look very much like an advanced race of robots with vestigial biological elements.

Is this a grim prognosis for humanity? Well, change is pretty much inevitable, so we will either burn out via extinction, or acrue changes to the point of becoming unrecognizable. I frankly hope for the latter.

 

[psychgirl95]

psychgirl95

With the pathologizing everybody.
One of the main reasons I believe people tend to have more and more issues mentally and physically is because we stopped getting rid of bad genes. People who would normally die or never get children are now reproducing like normal, spreading around "flawed" genes.

Not in a supremacist sort of way, but taking me for example. If I had lived in a time where glasses wouldn't exist, I wouldn't be able to survive on my own (I wouldn't be able to find an apple 10 meters away from me) so if I were to be able to survive even, I probably wouldn't be able to find a partner. Allowing "bad" genes like mine to spread is bad for the human race (one of the many reasons why I don't ever want kids)

You mean like how, historically, people with mental diagnoses likely wouldn't have had children? If so, yeah, I agree. I think the decline of mental institutions and the rise of special education services and different therapies for kids helped that. A child that would've been considered "hopeless" 60 years ago now has a chance at life due to these types of things.

 

[dragonwolf]

The problem is that autism (especially for older adolescents and adults) truly is an "invisible disability." It's ridiculous that we have to constantly defend the fact that we have daily struggles that affect our lives. No, most of us don't require around-the-clock care, but that doesn't mean we don't need other types of support. I think this has to do with the fact that many people still see autism in a very black-and-white way: they either envision the severely autistic child or the child with AS who has a high IQ and is expected to succeed in life because of their giftedness. In the case of those with HFA/AS, autism has been reduced to social awkwardness, which it is not - it's a lot more than that. But people don't see our other issues (perhaps because we naturally hide them in public?), so they assume we only struggle in social situations. Personally speaking, I don't care how high my IQ is because my social skills aren't good. I have terrible social anxiety when school comes around and it affects my schoolwork. And then I also have processing speed issues as well, which makes doing tasks more difficult. Me being gifted doesn't help me with these issues. If anything, it makes them worse, as people expect me to do things that I don't feel like I can always do, which makes me feel overwhelmed.

Completely agree! I think it also lends to the myth that people can "grow out of Autism." No! We learn coping mechanisms that make us better able to function in society and build an "encyclopedia" of interactions/scripts/etc.

I know. I've spent many years working in the finance industry. (Mostly property/casualty insurance. ) In both good and bad economic times. When corporate downsizing became popular whether it was a fiscal necessity or not.

Ah yes, the "lean business" model, aka "each person does no less than 1.5 people's worth of work (with the same single-person pay, of course)!"

Is this a grim prognosis for humanity? Well, change is pretty much inevitable, so we will either burn out via extinction, or acrue changes to the point of becoming unrecognizable. I frankly hope for the latter.

With the direction we're going, such a progression will be grim if we get hit with an EMP in that hypothetical future.