Asperger's Syndrome: Myth or Reality?

[355113]

Hmmm. It sounds like it has become such an issue in your mind that failure becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

It'd be better if you go about it in the spirit of experimentation. Without being attached to the notions of success or failure, just be open and relaxed and experiment casually to see what results.

(It's funny: I was out with friends last night and because of this conversation, here, I was especially sensitive to, and analytical of, the dynamics of eye contact, and that focus started to screw up my ability to simply do it by instinct. Hehehehehe.)

Not really, if it were a self-fulfilling prophecy then all social interaction would be such and I wouldn't be doing so much better in college than I did in high school.

And it seems you too are becoming the centipede tricked by the ant.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Last night I was so in tune with the young character that I thought surely I must have Aspergers, and must therefore have the disorder.

That's just good writing: the author arrived at a way to depict HFA from the inside, with empathy. How autism and AS present on paper, though, can lead to the erroneous conclusion that there is really nothing particularly wrong, it's just pronounced personality traits. The truth comes out when you meet someone with one of these diagnoses in real life and suddenly you understand the problem.

I went to high school with a HFA savant, and there is absolutely no way anyone could confuse him with someone who simply had pronounced personality traits. We used to have a free movie every Saturday night (this was a private boarding school) and every time there was any sort of graphic violence in a movie he would lose it, stand up, and fling his metal folding chair across the back of the auditorium.

AS is very much more subtle, but after someone keeps you pinned in a corner for two hours delivering an uninterruptable monolog of an encyclopedic nature with no apparent care about whether your interested, you will begin to see how it can be socially problematic.

 

[355113]

That's just good writing: the author arrived at a way to depict HFA from the inside, with empathy. How autism and AS present on paper, though, can lead to the erroneous conclusion that there is really nothing particularly wrong, it's just pronounced personality traits. The truth comes out when you meet someone with one of these diagnoses in real life and suddenly you understand the problem.

Not necessarily; most people would not recognize me as AS. I know at least two other AS people (there likely are more who are either undiagnosed or have not mentioned their diagnosis) who do not present significantly differently, or at least not enough so that it is immediately obvious that they are different. But I also knew two AS kids in high school who very obviously were much different- communication skills in particular were severely impaired in both. They were both fairly bright, and one was simply a genius in Academic Team, but there was no mistaking either of them as normal.

AS is very much more subtle, but after someone keeps you pinned in a corner for two hours delivering an uninterruptable monolog of an encyclopedic nature with no apparent care about whether your interested, you will begin to see how it can be socially problematic.

I don't think I've ever done that, nor have I ever actually witnessed anyone with AS do that. I'm pretty sure such reports of two-hour monologues are a combination of stereotype and hyperbole.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not really, if it were a self-fulfilling prophecy then all social interaction would be such and I wouldn't be doing so much better in college than I did in high school.

And it seems you too are becoming the centipede tricked by the ant.

It's so funny you mention that story. It was a favorite of Glenn Gould, the pianist who was unofficially diagnosed with AS by a long time friend who was both a psychiatrist and an amateur violinist.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393318478/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I have been meaning to bring Gould into the conversation. I was wondering if you'd ever read this book by Ostwald and if you thought Gould fit the AS profile.

 

[355113]

It's so funny you mention that story. It was a favorite of Glenn Gould, the pianist who was unofficially diagnosed with AS by a long time friend who was both a psychiatrist and an amateur violinist.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393318478/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I have been meaning to bring Gould into the conversation. I was wondering if you'd ever read this book by Ostwald and if you thought Gould fit the AS profile.

I have not. Honestly, I've never been too terribly interested in speculating which people may or may not have had AS- and I've heard all kinds of wild conjectures of people alleged to have AS, from Jefferson to Newton and Einstein to Beethoven to Hitler, and the list just goes on and on to include pretty much every famous person who ever once acted slightly strangely. We can't really know, so I'm don't bother with it. Certainly some people had AS before it was recognized as a diagnosis, but it's futile trying to diagnose them in retrospect.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not necessarily; most people would not recognize me as AS. I know at least two other AS people (there likely are more who are either undiagnosed or have not mentioned their diagnosis) who do not present significantly differently, or at least not enough so that it is immediately obvious that they are different. But I also knew two AS kids in high school who very obviously were much different- communication skills in particular were severely impaired in both. They were both fairly bright, and one was simply a genius in Academic Team, but there was no mistaking either of them as normal.

I would say most people in the general population have never heard of Aspergers and wouldn't think, therefore, to consider you in that light, despite the fact they might notice odd things about you here and there.

At the cafe where I went last night there is a guy who works behind the counter whom I always notice because he never makes eye contact with anyone he waits on. His eyes dart around glancing everywhere and anywhere except at the person he's talking to. Again, in conjunction with this thread, I polled the people I was with to see if they'd noticed this and if they thought it was odd. They all admitted they'd observed it, but dismissed it as unimportant. One girl even said it made him "cute". I then asked if any of them knew what "Asperger's" was, and none of the five of them had ever heard of it.

The general trend, I think, is for people to automatically dismiss and smooth over any oddities they notice in others, for the sake of social comfort. There is often a big gap between what people notice about a person and what they'll call attention to.

I think you're right that AS is, more often than not, not obvious at first. It usually comes out over time in a slowly building awareness of a constellation of peculiarities.

I don't think I've ever done that, nor have I ever actually witnessed anyone with AS do that. I'm pretty sure such reports of two-hour monologues are a combination of stereotype and hyperbole.

Indeed, you may never have done this, but I have had this done to me by four separate AS people. It may not be something every AS person does, but it is no myth.

 

[355113]

I would say most people in the general population have never heard of Aspergers and wouldn't think, therefore, to consider you in that light, despite the fact they might notice odd things about you here and there.

More than one person I know who was familiar with AS expressed surprise on hearing that I had been diagnosed with it; many people with AS have worked hard at fitting in and passing for NT.

Indeed, you may never have done this, but I have had this done to me by four separate AS people. It may not be something every AS person does, but it is no myth.

Really? I think you are, at least, exaggerating the length of these monologues. Even if they were inclined to rant about some topic for such a prolonged period, no reasonable person would sit there for two full hours listening to it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

More than one person I know who was familiar with AS expressed surprise on hearing that I had been diagnosed with it; many people with AS have worked hard at fitting in and passing for NT.

This I can believe. It's what we were saying before: once you have insight the coping mechanisms can be completely successful. However, if you think about it, can anyone who has specifically and deliberately worked on obscuring their behaviors be presented as proof that not all such people have such behaviors?

Really? I think you are, at least, exaggerating the length of these monologues. Even if they were inclined to rant about some topic for such a prolonged period, no reasonable person would sit there for two full hours listening to it.

I believe two hours was accurate in at least once incident. I had nothing else to do.

These aren't what you'd call "rants". They are more like free form lecture/monologs delivered with no interstices in which to comfortably interject anything. The tone is often academic or technical, or encyclopedic. One guy is into a kind of history/economics/politics dynamic, another is into cars and machines, another is into sci-fi and fantasy, and the last is into Renaissance fair/SCA/Pirate re-enactment stuff. You don't feel the discomfort of listening to a "rant": i.e. emotional venting. Instead, what seems fairly interesting at first slowly becomes monotonous and unvarying and eventually you realize there is no point being made, you're just listening to a sort of waterfall of facts, lists, statistics, and encyclopedia entries. It does not stop. It only ends when you force an interrupt and walk away.

Over time, after many encounters with these people, the diagnosis came out, mentioned in an off hand way while talking about something else and was played down by them as unimportant. One of these guys, in particular though, seems to be exerting himself lately to pick up and respond to non-verbal signs of disinterest. I though it was interesting that this was preceeded by a couple of days of monologs about body language and paralanguage: he'd been doing some reading, I guess, and some of it sunk in.

 

[355113]

This I can believe. It's what we were saying before: once you have insight the coping mechanisms can be completely successful. However, if you think about it, can anyone who has specifically and deliberately worked on obscuring their behaviors be presented as proof that not all such people have such behaviors?

Completely successful? No, not always.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Completely successful? No, not always.

You're still young. There'll come a day when you can present as so normal that everyone around you will feel like they're riddled with complexes and syndromes, and be asking themselves "Why aren't I as even-tempered and well adjusted as 355113?"

 

[355113]

You're still young. There'll come a day when you can present as so normal that everyone around you will feel like they're riddled with complexes and syndromes, and be asking themselves "Why aren't I as even-tempered and well adjusted as 355113?"

That seems unlikely, and wouldn't be a goal of mine anyways. I can get along without people thinking I'm a complete weirdo (most of the time) and once I've accomplished that I'd rather focus on other things.

 

[tgt]

Avoidance of situations that are likely to involve large crowds. Also, to deal with bullying, I've developed a remarkably thick skin- it is close to impossible to actually offend me now. Most of my own issues are either related to sensory or social problems, and I've found that people in college seem to be more accepting than people in high school were. I can easily enough ignore those who aren't accepting, though. The sensory issues are harder to get around.

So withdrawl is your main form of defense mechanism? Any others?

 

[mgb_phys]

I can get along without people thinking I'm a complete weirdo (most of the time)

Presumably if you notice what other people think about you - you don't really rate on the aspergers scale

 

[355113]

So withdrawl is your main form of defense mechanism? Any others?

I suppose it is. What other defense mechanisms would there be? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[355113]

Presumably if you notice what other people think about you - you don't really rate on the aspergers scale

Not even remotely true. I have no idea where you would have gotten such an idea, but it is completely wrong.

 

[OmCheeto]

I took http://glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/Faces/EyesTest.aspx" , and once again, I score as being more able to read facial clues than the average human.
Which I guess means that nearly everyone around me must have AS, and I don't.

There must be something wrong with me.

I wonder how accurate these http://www.psychforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18065&sid=bdb34ce890aaf9c906e1b656fe59aecd" are?

But looking over the following criteria, I can't imagine not having AS:

http://www.aspergers.com/aspcrit.htm"

1.Severe impairment in reciprocal social interaction
(at least two of the following)
(a) inability to interact with peers
all my peers are idiots. how can I interact with them? it's like interacting with rocks.
(b) lack of desire to interact with peers
see (a) above
(c) lack of appreciation of social cues
So I'm supposed to act like an idiot because everyone else does?
(d) socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior
I do not consider turning my back and walking away from an idiot inappropriate. I call it self defense.

2.All-absorbing narrow interest
(at least one of the following)
(a) exclusion of other activities
It's call work. You have to work to pay the morgage.
(b) repetitive adherence
If you don't go to work everyday, they will fire you.
(c) more rote than meaning
That's why they call it work!

3.Imposition of routines and interests
(at least one of the following)
(a) on self, in aspects of life
I'm not supposed to be interested in the things I'm interested in?
(b) on others
I'm not supposed to share my interests with others?

4.Speech and language problems
(at least three of the following)
(a) delayed development
How am I supposed to remember? I was 3!
(b) superficially perfect expressive language
Now that is just stupid
(c) formal, pedantic language
Only after I look up "pedantic" in the dictionary so I'll know how to do it.
(d) odd prosody, peculiar voice characteristics
prosody? I think the author of this test exhibits the characteristics of (b) and (c)
(e) impairment of comprehension including misinterpretations of literal/implied meanings
Ok. I didn't understand that statement. I have AS...

5.Non-verbal communication problems
(at least one of the following)
(a) limited use of gestures
So there are no Italians with Aspergers.
(b) clumsy/gauche body language
So everyone with cerebral palsy has Aspergers.
(c) limited facial expression
And Joan Rivers has it.
(d) inappropriate expression
And George Bush.
(e) peculiar, stiff gaze
Dead people.

6.Motor clumsiness: poor performance on neurodevelopmental examination
Klutz's all have it.

(All six criteria must be met for confirmation of diagnosis.)

I think AS is the creation of a bunch of bored psychiatrists.

UNSUBSCRIBE!

 

[355113]

I took http://glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/Faces/EyesTest.aspx" , and once again, I score as being more able to read facial clues than the average human.
Which I guess means that nearly everyone around me must have AS, and I don't.

There must be something wrong with me.

I wonder how accurate these http://www.psychforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18065&sid=bdb34ce890aaf9c906e1b656fe59aecd" are?

The AQ and rdos tests aren't bad. I score around 41 on the AQ test. Don't remember the rdos score, but it was definitely pretty strongly in the AS range. The eye expression test isn't really for AS specifically, but IIRC I did quite badly on that one. I don't have a good enough grasp of Spanish to take the other test there, or at least not while I'm as tired as I am now.

But looking over the following criteria, I can't imagine not having AS:

The Gillberg criteria aren't officially recognized anywhere that I am aware of. In the US we have the DSM-IV and elsewhere there is the ICD-10. Anyways, your subsequent analysis of Gillberg's criteria is rather shallow and petty; obviously you can find a number of people who satisfy any given trait, but for a diagnosis you would have to meet a certain number of traits from each category, and exhibit them in sufficient intensity that you are markedly different from what is considered typical. Most of your comments appeared to be simply an attempt at deliberately misinterpreting the diagnostic criteria for an attempt at humor. If this was not the case, then you simply lack basic reading comprehension.

I think AS is the creation of a bunch of bored psychiatrists.

And you're wrong.

 

[Marcus3141]

Hi there everyone.

I'm new to this forum and I thought Id join seen as I like physics and am planning on going to university to study it eventually.

I stumbled across it after searching for information regarding Asperger's Syndrome. I thought it would be a good idea to start on this thread because I have aspergers syndrome myself and was wondering if there is anyone else on this forum who has it because it would be interesting to talk somebody who is in the same boat as me.

 

[tgt]

Hi there everyone.

I'm new to this forum and I thought Id join seen as I like physics and am planning on going to university to study it eventually.

I stumbled across it after searching for information regarding Asperger's Syndrome. I thought it would be a good idea to start on this thread because I have aspergers syndrome myself and was wondering if there is anyone else on this forum who has it because it would be interesting to talk somebody who is in the same boat as me.

I've got HFA. Is that close enough?

 

[355113]

I've got HFA. Is that close enough?

I normally consider HFA and Asperger's to be the same thing, for all intents and purposes.
My diagnosis is Asperger's.

 

[DarthPickley]

In social interaction, many people with Asperger's syndrome demonstrate gaze avoidance and may actually turn away at the same moment as greeting another...

when I look into other people's eyes while they are talking to me, I become 'entranced' and highly distracted and cannot pay any attention to what the person is saying. Additionally, sometimes it causes me to spontaneously have a spasm or something, like I'll pass by a mirror and see my reflection and then I'll freak out and fall on the floor...
it has happened. I only glance at people's eyes while talking to them, for less than half a second, if at all. it is easier to listen if there is no unrelated imagery in my view. so I stare at a wall or something to listen the best and be undistracted while listening.

but the eyes thing... it just feels weird to know that someone else is looking at you. I mean, if I looked at someone else's eyes and they weren't looking at mine, it would be easier actually. but when they are locked... its like a hole of blackness...

thank goodness none of that stuff is there in online communications! complete focus on the text that you are writing.

 

[Gerder10]

Welcome to WrongPlanet , fellow Aspie here!

 

[bohm2]

I have major performance anxiety and GAD and there was a suspicion I might have Asperger's primarily because of my intense interests/obsessions (?), sensory issues (misophonia) and inward focus. I don't think my social skills are particularly lacking but I do have trouble understanding what purpose a lot of social activities have (e.g. unecessary social interaction, weddings, funerals, graduations, ceremonies, handshakes, greeting cards, calling people by names, clapping, obsessions with celebreties, friends beyond mates and family, etc.). In my research in this area I do think there is some overlap in symptoms between Social (Performance) Anxiety Disorder, Introversion and Asperger's (AS). Here are some of the most interesting stuff that I found:

A grand unified theory of autism?

A physicist famously wanted to find the grand unifying equation behind the laws of nature, in a form that you could put on a t-shirt. Neuroscientists Kamilla and Henry Markram have proposed a grand unifying theory of autism, and the key to it is in this picture. I wouldn't want to be seen wearing it quite yet, but if the theory pans out, I'm sure we could come up with a more torso-friendly diagram. So what does this mean? The Markrams call their idea the Intense World Theory. Essentially, they propose that all of the diverse symptoms of autism are direct or indirect consequences of the autistic brain's being hyper-responsive to stimuli.

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/01/grand-unified-theory-of-autism.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010743/pdf/fnhum-04-00224.pdf (full article link-very interesting)

Is There an Up Side to Autism?

In certain settings, autistic individuals can fare extremely well. One such setting is scientific research. For the past seven years, I have been a close collaborator of an autistic woman, Michelle Dawson. She has shown me that autism, when combined with extreme intelligence and an interest in science, can be an incredible boon to a research lab.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/479033a.html

And then the more speculative, but interesting thesis paper:

Introversion and Autism: A conceptual exploration of the placement of introversion on the Autism Spectrum

To advance the understanding of introversion, I propose that it is a continuous segment of the non-clinical part of the autism spectrum, and that it is not the same as the inverse of extraversion. When introversion and autism are placed on the same continuum, the nature of the relationship of the traits becomes more apparent, and new possibilities are available for exploration of both autism and introversion.

http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0003090/Grimes_Jennifer_O_201005_MA.pdf

And then the much more speculative (read: highly questionable) but interesting article proposing an advantage for ASD in our past evolutionary history:

Conceptualizing the Autism Spectrum in Terms of Natural Selection and Behavioral Ecology: The Solitary Forager Hypothesis

Solitary animals are thought to eschew unnecessary social contact as part of a foraging strategy often due to scarcity and wide dispersal of food in their native environments. It is thought that the human ancestral environment was often nutritionally sparse as well, and this may have driven human parties to periodically disband. Inconsistencies in group size must have led to inconsistencies in the manner in which natural selection fashioned the social minds of humans, which in turn may well be responsible for the large variation in social abilities seen in human populations. This article emphasizes that individuals on the autism spectrum may have only been partially solitary, that natural selection may have only favored subclinical autistic traits and that the most severe cases of autism may be due to assortative mating.

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110603122849.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks for posting all that. I read the first article but it could be some time before I can read all the links.

In response to the "unified theory" take a look at this short article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autistic-males-have-fewer

which focuses on the amygdala, alone.

I suppose if someone could demonstrate how having fewer neurons in the amygdala would lead to it becoming hyperactive, then this study would support the "unified theory".

 

[bohm2]

In response to the "unified theory" take a look at this short article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autistic-males-have-fewer

which focuses on the amygdala, alone. I suppose if someone could demonstrate how having fewer neurons in the amygdala would lead to it becoming hyperactive, then this study would support the "unified theory".

That in itself would probably argue against their "Intense World Hypothesis" but the authors do discuss that study and pretty well every study on the relationship betweem amygdala and autism but they arrive at some seemingly surprising conclusions:

The proposed deficits in reading other people’s feelings and thoughts and the lack in empathizing with other people have been commonly used to explain the impairments in social interactions and communication as well as inappropriate responses in social encounters even in high-functioning forms of autism such as in an Asperger. It was suggested that these deficits are mediated by a not sufficiently activated amygdala. These and other data, such as post-mortem examinations of amygdaloid morphology , amygdala lesion studies in non-human primates , as well as comparison between amygdala- lesioned patients and autistics have led to the Amygdala Theory of autism . In its current version it implies that the amygdala is hypo-functioning, thus the autistic person does not “feel” enough or does not process socio-emotional cues sufficiently .

On the other hand there is evidence that the amygdala may be overly activated in autism. First, structurally the amygdala is enlarged in autism as early as 18 months of age and this enlargement persists throughout childhood until about 12 years of age. In adolescence the enlargement disappears and by early adulthood the amygdala may even end up smaller than in control subjects . These changes may reflect an over-activation of the amygdala in early childhood. Second, functional hyper-reactivity was demonstrated when autistic subjects are confronted with socially relevant stimuli, such as faces and eyes . For example, Kleinhans et al. (2009) showed that compared to controls the amygdala of autistic subjects exhibits attenuated habitation to facial stimuli and that increased amygdala- arousal in autistics was associated with increased social impairment. Monk et al. (2010) recently showed that right amygdala activation is enhanced in autistic subjects during face processing when controlling for attention, that is when the autistic subjects pay attention to the stimuli. Dalton et al. (2005) revealed that high-functioning autistics showed greater activation in the right amygdala when viewing familiar and unfamiliar faces and greater activation in the left amygdala and also in the left orbito-frontal cortex when viewing emotional faces. Both areas form part of the emotion circuit of the brain and increased reactivity to faces in these areas means a heightened emotional response to these stimuli.

Moreover, in autistics, but not in controls, the amount of eye gaze fixation was strongly correlated with amygdala activation when viewing both, inexpressive or emotional faces (Dalton et al., 2005). This suggests that that eye gaze fixation is associated with emotional and possibly negative arousal in autistics and this could explain why autistics have “trouble looking other people in the eye.” Eye contact and watching the facial expressions are one of the first signs of cognitively healthy infants, are natural to people, and serve to build the basis for successful navigation through a social environment. For an autistic person however, these stimuli may be just too intense or even aversive to cope with and hence they are avoided. The Intense World Theory proposes that amygdaloid hyper-reactivity and hyper-plasticity may in particular provoke a dis-proportional level of negative emotions and affect in autism, such as elevated stress responses and anxiety as well as enhanced fear memory formation. Enhanced phobias and anxiety levels were first noted by Kanner himself in his original case studies and later confirmed by population studies on children with autism. However, contrary to the deficit-oriented or disconnected Amygdala Theory and Theory of Mind of autism, we propose that the amygdala may be overtly active in autism, and hence autistic individuals may in principle be very well able to attend to social cues, feel emotions and even empathize with others or read their minds, but they avoid doing so, because it is emotionally too overwhelming, anxiety-inducing, and stressful.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010743/pdf/fnhum-04-00224.pdf

Also, note, it has been suggested that there are 2 types of empathy (cognitive and emotional empathy). I think they are receptive to the idea that there is imbalance between the 2 types in empathy in autism (high emotional empathy combined with low cognitive empathy) as suggested here:

The Empathy Imbalance Hypothesis of Autism: A Theoreti cal Approach to Cognitive and Emotional Empathy in Autistic Development

http://cogprints.org/6799/1/TPRVol59No3-SMITH.pdf

I don't understand this stuff very well but this "intense world hypothesis" is interesting and arguably counter-intuitive but it is consistent with some of the phenomena including some of the major sensory issues which is being considered in the new DSM-V guidelines as 1 of the criteria of ASD:

Hyper-or hypo-reactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of environment; (such as apparent indifference to pain/heat/cold, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, fascination with lights or spinning objects).

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=94

 

[Soaring Crane]

I apologize in advance for just skimming all of the posts in this thread and for just clicking on some of the links. By doing so, I hope that I am not repeating any thoughts expressed in this thread.

However, have there been recent research developments in identifying genes or chromosomal regions that may potentially aid in the diagnosis/treatment of Asperger’s syndrome?

 

[bohm2]

I apologize in advance for just skimming all of the posts in this thread and for just clicking on some of the links. By doing so, I hope that I am not repeating any thoughts expressed in this thread.

However, have there been recent research developments in identifying genes or chromosomal regions that may potentially aid in the diagnosis/treatment of Asperger’s syndrome?

Given that there are proposals to eliminate Asperger's syndrome as a separate disorder, and instead merge it under autism spectrum disorders (ASD), I'm not sure what that will mean? Here is their justification for eliminating Asperger's from DSM-V:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=97# (click the link "Rationale")

Many genes have been implicated with respect to ASD/Autism. I'm not sure about how that relates to Asperger's because the latter is seen as a "milder" form of autism/ASD. See 2 links below. The problem though is that even ASD may be a heterogeneous condition and maybe researchers/psychiatrists don't have the right categories? It would be the equivalent of trying to find the link between neurosis and genes? Neurosis may have had some usefulness at one time but it was too broad of a category to be particularly useful. I'm not sure if the same can be said for ASD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism
http://www.intechopen.com/source/pdfs/17278/InTech-Genetic_heterogeneity_of_autism_spectrum_disorders.pdf

 

[Evo]

Given that there are proposals to eliminate Asperger's syndrome as a separate disorder, and instead merge it under autism spectrum disorders (ASD), I'm not sure what that will mean? Here is their justification for eliminating Asperger's from DSM-V:

That was done almost 2 years ago. (Feb 2010)

February 10, 2010
Asperger's Officially Placed Inside Autism Spectrum

Asperger's syndrome is really just a form of autism and does not merit a separate diagnosis, according to a panel of researchers assembled by the American Psychiatric Association.

Even though many researchers already refer to Asperger's as high-functioning autism, it hasn't been listed under the autism category in the official diagnostic guide of mental disorders, called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or DSM. The DSM serves as a guide for mental health professionals and government agencies.

But a new draft fifth edition released Wednesday moves Asperger's officially into the autism category, provoking a wide range of responses among people with Asperger's — some of whom say they do not want to be labeled as autistic.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123527833

 

[bohm2]

That was done almost 2 years ago. (Feb 2010)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123527833

No. It's not yet official (in draft, yes). But I'm guessing there aren't likely to be many changes before release in 2013?

The DSM-5 Task Force and Work Group members have spent much of 2008-2010 formulating their proposed draft criteria. This includes conducting extensive literature reviews, performing secondary data analyses, and soliciting feedback from colleagues and professionals. Although DSM-5 will not be published until 2013, the revision experts have several important tasks ahead of them in finalizing the development of this volume. Below is a detailed summary of the DSM-5 timeline leading up to the May 2013 deadline.

http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/Timeline.aspx
http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

 

[Evo]

No. It's not yet official (in draft, yes). But I'm guessing there aren't likely to be many changes before release in 2013?



http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/Timeline.aspx
http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

Do you have anything that particularly states that the decision that was made to include aspergers under autism will be changed? I have found nothing that says they are considering reversing that decision?