What behaviors/abilities/symptoms make a person “high functioning” or not, in your view?

[the_tortoise]

It's indicative of our own insecurity. Whether one is compelled to claim to being as such, or whether one is so absorbed in trying to determine whether they meet such an alleged standard or not.

It's much like the dynamic that can elude even the best scientific minds. Where they are so self-absorbed in attempting to prove something, that they fail to consider whether or not they should even try.

In the end, "high-functioning" amounts to just another insignificant benchmark, like your IQ test score. Yet people continue to discuss it, whether they buy into it or not. Often to a point where it never dawns on them that in the "big picture" it simply doesn't matter.

Your neighbor just bought an absurdly expensive car to park in their driveway. Does that really mean you must reevaluate your personal net worth? You see what I am getting at?

Yes but I am starting to wonder if you are making erroneous assumptions about why I wanted to discuss this. (So far I see that maybe I don’t meet definitions of “high functioning” people have shared here, but I do not equate these thing with my or anyone else’s value or status as a person nor am I assuming anyone else here does as nobody has said anything to indicate that they equate functioning level with value or worth. I will readily admit if I thought someone did equate functioning with value/worth, I would be upset about it and it could make me feel insecure around them.)

As long as people use the terms, it is not pointless for me to try to understand what they mean and to discuss the various meanings (even if the only conclusion to be drawn is that nobody will ever agree and the terms suck at communicating whatever they are supposed to communicate - that in itself has value, in my opinion). Understanding what people mean is important, it is the whole point of communication.

Again, whether or not I personally feel that functioning labels are useful or not does not change the fact that I am expected to (or may simply want to) understand what others mean when they use them. Just ignoring the use of functioning labels does not make people stop using them, nor help me to understand what people mean when they do use them or why they use them (and I don’t think it is always for social power or stigma avoidance, although sometimes it is).

 

[Judge]

Yes but I am starting to wonder if you are making erroneous assumptions about why I wanted to discuss this.

I have no idea what motivates you to discuss this. I'm just pointing out that what you seek may serve no practical purpose other than that others often seek the same thing. Without really giving any consideration as to whether they should.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

- Joshua, "War Games".

 

[Aspychata]

Think this term is used as more of a benchmark. Like my ex told me, l am high-functioning- to him it meant - no meds, he can hold a job, support a family and deal with commuter traffic, being punctual for work, finishing his tasks as an MD daily. When we were finally divorced, l worried that financially he would crash and burn. Finances were an issue between us. Early on, l made sure we paid off an extremely high loan that we took so that he could take a high paying job in another state yet stay ahead on our obligations.

 

[Judge]

Think this term is used as more of a benchmark. Like my ex told me, l am high-functioning- to him it meant - no meds, he can hold a job, support a family and deal with commuter traffic, being punctual for work, finishing his tasks as an MD daily.

Indeed. That it means different things, to different people. Of course inevitably to some it may involve traits and behaviors that transcend neurological profiles, making such a term as a benchmark even less significant.

 

[Aspychata]

@Judge
Totally agree with you, just trying to give some context as to how a MD saw it. To a social worker- it will have a different meaning.

 

[Judge]

@Judge
Totally agree with you, just trying to give some context as to how a MD saw it. To a social worker- it will have a different meaning.

Indeed. Though it's the very nature of differently held meanings that makes such a benchmark that much less significant, however it is explained or rationalized.

Even when it comes to basic concepts like "self sufficiency", the devil is in those details that everyone is likely to disagree about in whole or in part.

 

[Thinx]

Well I have a memory of reading that this was said to have been a term tending to be used in diagnosis where the diagnosis would otherwise have been Aspergers, but the person had experienced childhood language delay. So I have thought it was more or less synonymous with Aspergers, or now, with ASD 1.

However, it seems to be in general use but without a specific definition, and I would therefore tend to refer to the ASD 1 criteria to illuminate it or tie it down, but that doesn't mean it's gonna be how everyone uses it I suppose.

 

[Judge]

However, it seems to be in general use but without a specific definition, and I would therefore tend to refer to the ASD 1 criteria to illuminate it or tie it down, but that doesn't mean it's gonna be how everyone uses it I suppose.

True. Not to mention that ASD is inherently indicative of a spectrum of traits and behaviors without any real specificity to begin with. Even less so than the DSM-IV relative to a diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome.

Sometimes I wonder about the sentiment alone for such specificity. Which may be kind of "collateral damage" for the DSM-V doing away with Aspergers Syndrome. Which seemed a bit easier to understand in comparison. Yet the spectrum of autistic traits and behaviors may ultimately be closer to the scientific truths. Leaving so many of us less than comfortable with official explanations.

 

[MarieMarie]

Words like "light", "mild" etc. simplify a spectrum to a scale, of course. Simplifications are not exact, but sometimes useful. I use such words describing myself - sometimes followed by a question mark - since I am not even sure I match the criteria. There are quite a bit in most descriptions of someone with autism, also of people with Asperger's, that I can't relate to. In other areas, those where I feel I match the description, maybe I am not very "light"? I don't know. But as a simplification I think these words work. They point to one side of the spectrum rather than the other. Since I am trying to understand myself, partly through others, I hope to find contact with those somewhat similar to myself. Is inexact as these words are, I think they sometimes can be a starting point.

 

[Fino]

The less you appear to be what you really are, the higher functioning you are considered to be.

For example, a high-functioning alcoholic is a person who continues to function as if they are not an alcoholic.

Someone in this thread mentioned a high-functioning Bipolar, which was basically described as someone who is able to live as if he does not have Bipolar.

Therefore, the less an autistic person appears to be autistic, the higher-functioning they are.

 

[Pondering]

Generally speaking, I tend to see 'high functioning' as one who is on the autism spectrum, but who is also more NT than aspie in the sense that they have a marginally easier time picking up on social cues than maybe someone who is lower functioning. Fitting into social norms, reading 'between the lines' so to speak, responding appropriately in social situations, forming and maintaining relationships, holding a job, and the act of communicating with others may come to them more naturally, etc.. They might have an easier time seeing the 'grey' areas in life. Maybe direct eye contact, or the feel of certain textures aren't as much an issue for them - things like these. Their mind is, of course, unique to the individual, but also more neurotypical than atypical. As a result, 'high functioning' can mean just as much about the internal as it is the external and outward appearances. And it is because of these reasons - and like many of the other comments have been bringing out - that such ones, overall, seem to fare better when it comes to living independently.

 

[Au Naturel]

See thread title.

I am unable to answer my own question....I don’t actually have a concept of “high functioning“.

It is usually described in vague, abstract ways that mean literally nothing to me.

Well... there are no concrete terms. When you are on a spectrum, there are no dividing lines. Red merges into green into blue into purple. Some cases are obvious but a lot are entirely arbitrary. "High functioning", like the color blue, is a pretty broad and subjective concept.

It just means you are able to "fit" in with society enough to be able to get by. How well you fit and how well you get by depends on who you talk to. A judgment call. An attempt to shoehorn you into a DSM-5 category. And you can be brilliant one minute and vapor locked the next, so it depends on when you're being observed.

We live in a world of greys and without clear demarcations. That's rough on us.

 

[Peter Jansen]

I believe that "high functioning" isn't an official diagnosis, but a nickname for ASD level 1, since ASD-1 people might be able to live with minimal support.

I am an ASD-1! This is a very useful classification system that I didn't know existed.

 

[dhl02]

My understanding is that a "high functioning autistic" is a person on the spectrum that does not have an intellectual disability, i.e. most of us posting here. It has absolutely nothing to do with being able to hold a job(most of us struggle to do that), live independently(same....I know I struggle with those), or do other things that NTs do. It's about ability to learn and grasp concepts, given enough time to learn them.
What holds me back(as well as probably many others on this board) is the extreme difficulty adapting to changing conditions in real-time. This is a symptom of autism....surprise!

That's thing number one that employers expect of a person they hire, and why most people on the spectrum have difficulties finding work.

In the current economic environment, where corporations value productivity over everything, and profits over people, sadly it isn't realistic for most of us to find employment that pays well enough to be independent. Only the people that can adapt quickest get into even specialized positions for people on the spectrum.

 

[Major Tom]

To me,people who are high functioning or ASD 1 are able to mask their symptoms mostly (except to the trained eye). We often come off as odd or quirky to others, but to people with no experience with autism we are just that (odd and/or quirky).

I think a lot of this has to do with the stupid movie "Rainman", a lot of people think that all people on the spectrum are like Raymond from the movie. If you aren't exhibiting behaviors like that, you "couldn't be autistic".. I know it's a sad day and age when people form their opinions of a large group of people from a Hollywood movie, but that's what a lot of people do, not only on the subject of autism, but many other subjects too. It's sad when people base their realities on fiction.

 

[Aspychata]

H8

Generally speaking, I tend to see 'high functioning' as one who is on the autism spectrum, but who also more NT than aspie in the sense that they have a marginally easier time picking up on social cues than maybe someone who is lower functioning. Fitting into social norms, reading 'between the lines' so to speak, responding appropriately in social situations, forming and maintaining relationships, holding a job, and the act of communicating with others may come to them more naturally, etc.. They might have an easier time seeing the 'grey' areas in life. Maybe direct eye contact, or the feel of certain textures aren't as much an issue for them - things like these. Their mind is, of course, unique to the individual, but also more neurotypical than atypical. As a result, 'high functioning' can mean just as much about the internal as it is the external and outward appearances. And it is because of these reasons - and like many of the other comments have been bringing out - that such ones, overall, seem to fare better when it comes to living independently.

Think these are valid points. I think high-functioning can come into play when you seem to have lesser of the pronounced traits or are better at masking due to whatever, jobs, relationships, financial freedom, etc. or any combo of the above, and finally, confidence. I have faked my way through enough jobs to be usually decent with whatever is thrown at me. But posters here have shown me that confidence is not always present for a myriad of reasons. My ex took his bipolar mask off when at home and l dealt with a lot of his anger but he considers himself high-functioning.

 

[Rasputin]

Interesting discussion. I updated my diagnosis status yesterday to High-Functioning Autistic diagnosis because that was the closest description available. I just removed that descriptor from my Avatar, as I had no idea it would be viewed as offensive by anyone.

For the record, I have been continuously employed the past 34 years, and have functioned independently since graduating from high school. I learned to interact socially by emulating others and continually working to improve myself. Despite earning two masters degrees, one doctorate degree and numerous certifications in Accounting, Information Technology, and Information Security, I struggle with Generalized Anxiety Disorder which causes me to interview poorly. I also have few friends due to social anxiety. However, the most problematic aspect is insomnia, for which I sought treatment.

Now one day after receiving my diagnosis, I suddenly understand that I must be careful to conceal my autistic status from neurotypicals at work, and also must be careful interacting on this forum due to the differential nature of our diagnoses of ASD1, ASD2, ASD3, Asperger's, and self diagnosed statuses. Not to mention that my wife now feels stigmatized by my diagnosis. So, as far as I am concerned I am effectively screwed. This discussion thread makes that very clear.

 

[Major Tom]

Humans in general seem to crave simple and often linear explanations. Even where none are to be found. Then consider the possible number of autistic traits and behaviors, along with their amplitude (or intensity) plus or minus for each of them.

It's impossible to establish any really meaningful benchmark under such circumstances, short of perhaps establishing whether or not one can exist on their own without any help from others. But even that amounts to yet another nebulous benchmark. That most everyone at some point of their lives requires help of some kind. Should that disqualify us from ranking someone towards the top as opposed to the bottom of some hierarchy?

The answer? Don't bother trying to create such a hierarchy in the first place. Don't "go there" because doing so serves no purpose.

I was diagnosed with ASD-1 and am still unable to live on my own. I don't know if that is really a good benchmark. I think the answer is, there is no answer currently to what ASD-1 is and perhaps ASD-2 as well. While ASD-3 is pretty easy to spot and diagnose. I think usually that's because ASD-3 usually includes intellectual disabilities and also a lack of an ability or desire to mask.

 

[GadAbout]

Well... there are no concrete terms. When you are on a spectrum, there are no dividing lines. Red merges into green into blue into purple. Some cases are obvious but a lot are entirely arbitrary. "High functioning", like the color blue, is a pretty broad and subjective concept.

Agreed... or here's how I would describe it. The autism spectrum is so very broad, that it's useful to have a vague, nonspecific term to denote high functioning and low functioning. All the cases in between, are not called medium functioning because that's not helpful. A lot of this stuff is "jargon," meaning shop-talk among people in the mental health and social services professions. To say someone is high (or low) functioning is very crude shorthand to give a quick idea what someone's self-sufficiency or independence is, or possibly skill levels. Although some try to deny the utility of IQ, it is useful, similarly, as a crude shorthand to indicate someone has a lot of intellectual strengths as opposed to very few; and yet we all do know that some low-IQ people are going to be stably employed and more successful than a high-IQ person with lots of emotional problems or simply, low motivation.

 

[GadAbout]

Now one day after receiving my diagnosis, I suddenly understand that I must be careful to conceal my autistic status from neurotypicals at work, and also must be careful interacting on this forum due to the differential nature of our diagnoses of ASD1, ASD2, ASD3, Asperger's, and self diagnosed statuses. Not to mention that my wife now feels stigmatized by my diagnosis. So, as far as I am concerned I am effectively screwed. This discussion thread makes that very clear.

Oh, no! If these distinctions are making you feel bad, just stop using them - don't take them seriously.

As I said in my previous comment, these terms are mostly just jargon, of use to people in relevant jobs, but probably quite inappropriate to the general public and to autistic people themselves. I post on threads of some people who would be considered low functioning as well as every other classification; but by most standards, I am high functioning, myself. I don't think about that much. What I think about is how little I've fulfilled my potential, spending most of my life under-employed, and being far less effective in my family life than I would wish. And people at the opposite end of the spectrum could probably say the same thing.