Talk:Asperger syndrome

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Introduction

I'm deleting a large chunk of text - however, since I wrote the text originally, no one should be concerned. :) I asked a friend knowelegeable about such matters to contribute some text, which I consider far superior to my initial entry and am thus putting in wholesale. -- April

Quick question about the following sentence from near the end of the article: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual's diagnostic criteria have been roundly criticized for being far too vague and subjective. Is it the DSM's Asperger's diagnostic criteria that have been criticized, or *all* of the DSM's diagnostic criteria for all the disorders it tries to cover? I don't know, but I think the sentence or paragraph could be reworded a little to remove that confusion; as it is, I could read it either way. Wesley 17:07 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

Both. Some people think that all or the vast majority of the DSM-IV is nonsense. A slightly larger number of people think that the specific entry for asperger's is nonsense. The former is arguably off-topic, though. -Martin

What is Acapedia -> see talk:Acapedia

Besides that question, this article needs a lot of work -- too many long chunks of text. -- Zoe

Changed abbreviation to ASD, which is what's used by most professionals GregNorc

I just restored the page after an anonymous user blanked it, and probably missed some small piece of formatting somewhere. Please fix anything you spot. -- Jim Redmond 15:49, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be neat to list some of the historical figures that are suspected of having Asbergers, such as Newton Einstein and Bill Gates...

I don't, because that would be idle speculation and a bit too gossip-like. -- Olathe November 22, 2003

The list is interesting but some justification might be in order. Phil 15:21, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

"Due to their success via unconventional means, fitting into the symptoms of Asperger's?" Before I put that up, does that all work for you as justification?Leumi

Sorry, what I meant was that we need to quote a reasonably reliable source rather than just posting WAGs and hoping nobody gets cross. Just saying "We think this guy has/had Asperger's because he's a geek" won't cut the mustard. Remember we're writing an encyclopædia here, not a gossip column. </RANT ;-> Phil 09:15, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I'll work on a more comprehensive version. Sorry about that, I certainly didn't mean for it to be offensive or gossipy, considering my intimate knowledge of the condition. I do see your point though and will work on a more comprehensive justification. Leumi 16:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh I'm not offended, I usually sound like that (did you like my hastily improvised smiley? :-) If you have some sort of qualification, or (as you say) intimate knowledge, and it wouldn't be embarrassing, maybe you could note such on your User page. Unfortunately my personal knowledge is not in a context which I am able to make public right now, which is kind of frustrating. Phil 17:15, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

I have it, as well as unipolar depression, and have some of the good effects (like intelligence, absolute pitch), if you have any questions feel free to ask me. I had a special-ed monitor until tenth grade, and was in special classes until third. I'm watching this article. --Pakaran 17:18, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have it as well, including some of the good effects mentioned (don't have absolute pitch. To my knowledge at least. I haven't done music in a while). I am currently in the special education system, which I think needs some revisiong but that's not here or there, as I am a high school student and only a teenager. Don't worry, it doesn't really embarrass me, and I'd love to answer any questions you might have. I have founded what you might call a club with various "eccentric" teenagers with similar conditions, so I have some knowledge of it's symptoms and effects. Leumi 17:20, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Asperger's Disorder" is a non-neutral term, a point made humourously at the "Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical" [parody]. "Asperger's Reorder" would be more accurate, but that term is not in popular use.

If "Asperger's Syndrome" were used, and "Asperger's Disorder" was a redirect, that would surely be better IMO. --Morosoph 14:48, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It really should be named "Asperger's Syndrome". I tried to rename it, but I wasn't successful. I can't tell if the software was really stopping me, or if it was the "helpful" people riding on "Recent Changes" that were stomping on me in the middle of trying to rename it according to the instructions on how to move a page. -- Amillar 18:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that this page *should* be at Asperger's Syndrome, simply based on standard usage. (e.g. 74,000 Google hits for Syndrome, 8,500 for Disorder) It also seems to be the preferred term in the artcile text. - Seth Ilys 18:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is anyone partially against the list of people at the end of the article? It's not even a list of formally diagnosed people, and seems like it's just an attempt at justifying a statement "oh look it's not all that bad" - Richard cocks 18:53, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

The section should probably be re-worded. I think that it can help people to realise that AS is a fundamentally different mindset, and not merely another mental illness.--Morosoph 15:42, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Although this comment has nothing to do with the improvement of Wikipedia I would like to thank all of you for making Asperger's Syndrome a "Featured article". I have Asperger's Syndrome and regularly meet people who have prejudices towards autism. When they think of autism, they think of a child that plays with the wheel of his toy-car for hours in a row. They don't seem to comprehend that there are people with a type of autism but still seem to function relatively well in a society. Sometimes they don't believe I have Asperger's because I function so well and they think of the social problems I mention as nonsense. Making Asperger's Syndrome a featured article on the Wikipedia main page may well improve the understanding people have when they think of Asperger, autism and me. Thank you. From the Netherlands --Maarten van Vliet 11:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've heard that Asperger's is much more common among males than females. And that females show very different symptoms than males. I.e. is not as hindered in social relations and not so obsessed with a strange hobby. I also think that Asperger's is a genetic disorder. BL 12:09, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Asperger's and autistic disorder are more common among males (by 4:1, IIRC) but the symptoms present in pretty much the same way. I personally believe that AS/Autism has a genetic component in many if not most cases, but there is a great deal of dispute about that. Remember also that a "syndrome" is defined by its common features; virtually by definition we don't know what causes it at the time it is designated a "syndrome" cf. "AIDS" Cecropia 17:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nominal female Aspie here, who feels extremely hindered in social relations. (I suppose most would say I have a major strange hobby bordering on obsession, too, though I hadn't thought of it that way.) I am at the more high-functioning end, and am not widely read on the condition, but am willing to answer questions relating to my individual experiences. 132.185.144.122 15:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

same here, im still a teen but i think i've done a satisfactory job of attempting to overcome those difficulties in regards to social relations. great to see a page so well written. And in response to BL's comment above, I'd like to see if anyone can find evidence as to how asperger's might be genetic. my father displays symptoms characteristic of aspergers (the dsm-iv-tr guidelines are way too vague), and it would be logical, from a wired article on the 'geek syndrome' ([1]) that it is somewhat genetic. *shrug*, just my two cents. - Applegoddess 08:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Genetic Traits

Are autism, ADD, dyslexia, or Asperger's genetic traits? Are there any good links to sources with an opinion? I am very high-functioning to the point that I am usually Passing. I strongly feel that Asperger's is a social construct, or at the least it is a learned trait, and thus not intrinsic to an individual. The entire thing is a vicious cycle; higher intelligence and mildly poor social skills create a "snowball" effect as a child grows up: I was teasted and ostracized by other children for my Asperger's symptoms, thus I developed emotional problems due to stress. My proof is that I used to have obsessive compulsive disorder-symptoms as a child to the point that I was a prisoner in my own home, but after moving to a new town and starting my life over in my teens, this stopped utterly; my social skills also drastically improved. I feel that I became emotionally withdrawn not for lack of trying but because I was excluded from growing up with the same emotional support as other children. I strongly agree with the statement that Asperger's is just an extreme case of the way the "male-brain" works (although it applies to both genders). But the snowball effect is that once a child is teased, excluded, etc., the emotional detachment and anguish this causes leads to psychological problems that really wouldn't have developed to such an extent in a caring environment (I am not a psychologist, and I am not hubristic enough to think that these broad claims I am making should be taken as fact, but I feel they should be researched). Why must a person's self-worth be based on their level of social-interaction? If I speak to someone and dont' necessarily look them in the eye, does this mean I have less value as a person? What are we, wolves? A person's intelligence, integrity, and creativity are what make us most true to ourselves, not how well we interact socially. Under Adam Smith's social model (Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations and I feel his work led to the rise of consumerism, people have become consumers who gratify their immediate needs and those who believe in truth and expression; artists, scientists, etc. are ignored. Rousseau was disgusted by this and developed the concept of a bohemian, someone who lives on the fringe of society and refuses to be tyrannized by public opinion. Rousseau (in The Social Contract) defined freedom as setting your own rules and then obeying them (under Smith, society sets the rules, so no one is harmed, and thus all members become well-suited to social interaction). Do I feel that, under rules I have set for myself, social interaction comes first? No. "Staying true to myself" does. I am eccentric. This is not a problem; John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" called for a return of "the eccentric" to society. Mill said that as a society we live in an age where there is a "tyranny of the majority"; public opinion (proper social interaction helps this) determines what is right and wrong, not objective truth. Public opinion "raises the low and lowers the high", and consumerism and conformity have won out over self-expression. I am receiving a mixed message; on the one hand, I am supposed to "be myself" and revel in this; "everyone is special" is a cornerstone of teaching in schools. However, it would appear that "some people are more special than others" (To paraphrase Animal Farm). Nietzsche would call this "herd-mentality". Ultimately, Mill says that eccentricity in society must take precendence over public opinion, because it will broaden our sense of freedom and lead to a search for the best life. I am deficient at both verbal social skills and non-verbal signals. This in no way makes me less of a person. Social interaction does not define such things as creativity, ambition, love; things that make us truely human. But I look around today at a consumerist, conformist culture that excludes all eccentricity. Was society always like this? I don't think so. I think we just assumed that society was always like this, that this was the way things are supposed to be because we cannot remember it being another way (post hoc ergo propter hoc). Again, it is a vicious cycle; eccentric, above-average intelligence "Asperger's" children are ostracized by others growing up; this is what leads to our loss of social coordination and the ability to function with social signals; I believe that this is a Pavlovian trait. Case in point, the trademark "bland, unexpressive face" (noted in the entry in this article on Georgie from Dead Like Me) is not an intrinsic flaw in our character; it is a Pavlovian trait. We have been taught to fear social interaction because it usually ends in rejection, and thus we have developed a passive-aggressive defensive mechanism, a "turtle" response if you will. We should consider this strange reaction to awkward social events not a deficieny of ourselves, but something forced on us. We live in a culture where youth, beauty, and consumerism are king (read Brave New World, I find it precient). Of thousands of scientists or great thinkers today, who can name even a handful? But pop culture icons and movie-stars are worshipped. Do bubblegum-pop bands have anything meaningful to say? About knowledge, the soul, how I should live my life, etc? The tyranny of public opinion has set in an I fear what is to come. Many intelligent, though eccentric, "Apserger's Syndrome" patients have been excluded from contributing to society, and under false pretexts and broad social label have been almost completely marginalized. For those like myself that have symptoms that fall under the umbrella-term of "asperger's syndrome", I feel that the tyranny of the majority is pushing us Towards A "Lurker Caste"; in effect we will "lurk" on the margins of a social order which they have created tailored to their specifications (this all happens unconsciously mind you) but only watch from the fringe, a disenfranchised group subjected to great misery, in a world not of our own making. ---Name Withheld, 17:04 EST, Sep 13 2004(UTC)

On the question of whether it is a genetic trait, much evidence definitely points to it being a real, neurological difference, and not just a matter of social training. In one family I know, one child is clearly Aspie while the other three are not. All the children were raised the same way. That's just one data point, but if you do any reading, you'll find it is a clear trend. I'd recommend the book "Pretending to be Normal" as a good starting place. --Amillar 22:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

truely -> truly; precient -> prescient

Hmm, I remember writing tirades of this length about morality and ethics on a MUD I was wronged on, but I didn't ramble or rely on irrelevant name-dropping or flawed arguments. To refute you shortly, a human is a social animal; it's also many other things. Therefore, the less of any trait out of all seen and known human traits one has, the less human one is. Moreover, I might have had the article's symptoms some time in my life, though I could well understand social clues; the problem was I was un-coordinated, astigmatic, neurotic, and withdrawn. But those problems solved themselves with all the suffering I went through. lysdexia 20:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."--Ayn Rand. ---Name Withheld, November 11, 2004

Possible Copyright Violation

The entire 'characteristics' section seems to be lifted (and partially modified) from [[2]]. Crackshoe 16:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That site probably sources from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Check similarities in other fields such as history of computing. Richard cocks

See the bottom of that page, where it says "This content from Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." -- The Anome 18:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protected because of persistent vandalism

I've temporarily protected this page because of persistent vandalism, now going to the point of moving the page. Can we discuss how to approach this issue? For now, please suggest changes on this page. Cecropia 22:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This seems to be the "Rishartha" vandal (Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress). One of the logged out vandalism edits they've made is from 67.1.38.104 (0-1pool38-104.nas2.eugene1.or.us.da.qwest.net Qwest dial-up in the Eugene, Oregon region). If this continues blocking the IP range is an option, although it may block legitimate contributors from the ISP so I'd prefer not doing that. Maximus Rex 22:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed protection. If vandalism resurfaces, will reprotect. Cecropia 11:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a note about the name. I have Asperger Syndrome and have had help from the National Autistic Society in the UK. According to them, the correct term is Asperger Syndrome, with no possessive case (apostraphe-s).

Asperger's syndrome shouldn't be in the category of eponymous diseases because it isn't a disease. You can't be cured from it. It doesn't kill you. It doesn't hurt you or give you illusions. Its only fault is rareness: if 25% of people would be aspies, the rest would pay attention to their special needs. -Hapsiainen 16:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In this context, "disease" is used more as a general term than as a specific description of the condition. Additionally, given that there are other syndromes and non-disease medical conditions in the category, like Philadelphia chromosome and Down syndrome, it's entirely appropriate for that specific category. - jredmond 16:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Important

Ive been working lots on the autism page with some friends, not long ago we branched a topic reguarding its controversies to its own page, a page I personally am quite proud off. Well werve done it again, and this time werve included the aspergers page, all werve done is branch the stuff on comorbid conditions into a seperate shared page, here.

Thank you all, and have a great day. memzy

Any actual reason for that? -- Schnee 23:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The autism page 'needs the cleanup, where as sharing the section with the Asperger's page just makes sense since it only ever had a single paragraph on the subject anyhow.

I'd rather the section was restored to the AS page; the comorbid disorders are actually often different from other forms of autism, and the previous section included some not listed on the new page. Kundor 23:43, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians and Asperger's

Asperger's Syndrome involves an intense level of focus on things of interest and is often characterized by special (and possibly peculiar) gifts; one person might be obsessed with 1950s professional wrestling, another with national anthems of African dictatorships...

Sounds like a lot of Wikipedians I know. :-) Seabhcan 15:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the exact line between Aspies and general Nerds could be quite fine... ^^

Hence the idea of a spectrum disorder. Guettarda 21:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minor changes

This is a good article. I have made minor corrections to spelling, punctuation, and the like. In particular, I have gone with Asperger's syndrome throughout; two or three other forms had been used, and the effect was rather sloppy.

It might be nice to regularise the use of autist and autistic as nouns. The reader may find the use of two terms confusing. Shorne 03:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted material

That new paragraph on incorrect diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome should not have been deleted. Perhaps its POV could have been toned down, but it was certainly not "nonsense". Shorne 02:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was overexaggerated and not NPOV. A disclaimer that historical diagnoses are speculation is enough. Gerritholl 07:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Portrayals of Asperger's in the media

Does this section serve any purpose? I would just as soon delete the whole thing. The paragraph about Luke Jackson is worth keeping, but that's all, and it can either be folded into "A gift and a curse" or the References section. Kundor 23:43, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

If there are no objections by this weekend I'll remove it. Kundor 07:24, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

What about Martin in Grange Hill? PMA 14:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

neurotypicals

I think this word should be used as little as possible (like once) in this article. For one thing, I find it offensive. For another, its unbelievably uncommon. For a third, its POV. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 00:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

popular sites?

I feel it is incorrect for a user to write about their own site as being the most popular when this is impossible to determine, no-one knows the number of hits that each site relating to asperger's has, so to describe ones site as the most popular is erroneous. Also as the site wrongplanet.net was listed as having a wiki, which it does not, there is no information at all in any software that the site may have, it is incorrect to give that information. User:AmyNelson

over emphasis of "disorder"

I have shortened the intro, which for some reason made many repetitive references to the word disorder, which could give people the wtong impression from the start. The info is still mentioned later in the article. --Rebroad 20:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome or Asperger Syndrome?

Isn't the correct term Asperger, and not Asperger's? Guettarda 21:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-Yes, I think several of us agree that it is technically Asperger. I myself may have it, after reading about this article, and have done more research, and believe it to probably be Asperger instead of Asperger's. There are also some grammatical connotations and comparisons with naming conventions of other mental disorders that we should look at. Sorry if I don't make sense, but hey, I'm trying to be intelligent. ChaosJoe 18:58 Arizona MST, December 13, 2004