Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 4

message: The article uses the term "aspie" to refer to people with Asperger's.  Is this an accepted term?  Could it be perceived as inappropriate?  I really don't know the answer to this, but it just sounds strange to me.
Yes Aspie is an entirely accepted, if perhaps less than scientific sounding, way to refer to a person diagnosed with Asberger's. In fact your use of "people with Asperger's" is in many ways more offensive as some people like myself do not consider themselves to "have" Asperger's but rather to "be" Asperger's. Symmetric Chaos 14:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an informal term, meant to sound less imposing (and possibly less judgemental) than "person with Asperger's Syndrome". By comparison you might want to note that the article Left-handed speaks of such people as "lefties". -- Writtenonsand 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry guys - I didn't read this first before making changes, but even in this light, unless we're going to explain the use of Aspie and provide sources to verify that this is commonly used and provides no offence to anyone then, for the moment, I'm taking them out. Some may still take offence or find the phrase unnecessarily informal, and as it doesn't aid in any way to use the phrase (in fact when reading the article I didn't know what it meant) I see no benefit in leaving it in. Tompagenet 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section from Controversies in autism about autistic vs person with autism should be inserted here and in Autism to illustrate the concept and controversy. --Rdos 12:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Aspie"

message: It seems that academic and psychiatric authorities (eg national institute of neurological disorders and stroke, part of the nih, at http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/detail_asperger.htm) prefer to call it "Asperger syndrome" rather than "Asperger's syndrome."
I have seen parallel mentions on reputable sites of "Asperger syndrome" and "Asperger's disorder."  (ie, the possessive apostrophe is only used with "disorder," not "syndrome."
I suggest we move the page to reflect this.  When I was trying to figure out which way was most correct, I came to Wikipedia; so I think we should try to be as accurate as possible, even if it's a rather quibbling change.tej
:I agree - in fact despite not being mentioned in wikipedia much Asperger syndrome still gets more google hits. I'll wait a day for possible objections - so if anyone objects please say so now :) - otherwise I'll move it tomarro. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tej. Though I saw it called both Asperger Syndrome and Asperger's Syndrome in the course of my research, the former seems to be significantly more common, especially in material from the last few years. Asperger's Disorder is preferred by the one practicing psychiatrist I've mentioned it to but I would prefer to steer clear of that for reasons related to the "Shift away from view as a disease" material in the article. PurplePlatypus 21:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: i'm glad to see the move happened.  does anyone know why the normal "move" function didn't work?  i can't find a good explanation.tej 08:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal:  move page (rename) to "Asperger syndrome" 

message: the second I find who keeps changing my edits about that quack sowell..Shit..their in for it..! (unsigned comment by 68.193.45.148)
:Your edits are making the article's content more biased. This is why they keep getting reverted. We need to present both sides of the issue, as it is currently a controversial issue. Sowell may be a quack but there are a lot of people who may believe what he does, so it should be mentioned in the article. ManekiNeko | Talk 00:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to sowell quackery

message: Sowell is not a doctor or a autism expert in anyway. [personal attack removed --fvw]. I WILL keep changing it and if you ban my IP i'll do under a different IP.
:So what? Autism experts and doctors have an agenda. They want to keep their jobs. That's why we see the research crap coming out of there, like "extreme maleness" theories, viral infections, brain damage and you name it. --Rdos 08:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And then we'll ban that IP and keep reverting you. Discuss your changes or give up, you will not get your way by blindly reverting. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 02:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't see any particular need to mention Sowell either. This anon guy may be obnoxious, but he's also right as far as I can see. PurplePlatypus 03:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read Sowell, and from what I see here, I certainly wouldn't agree with Sowell, but the content does not seem to be inappropriate to me -- it seems to be a reasonable presentation of the POV those who don't think autism is involved. The fact that I (and many here, clearly) may think Sowell's idea is hogwash isn't relevant to whether his ideas should be mentioned here. What is relevant is whether Sowell is in any way notable enough to be mentioned in this context, I think. If he is, I thought his theory was addressed fairly. I don't know if he is or isn't that notable as I was trusting other editors on that issue. The content didn't have a whiff of linkspamming or anything like that -- I really do think it was written up in a neutral way. ManekiNeko | Talk 09:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, Tern, how's the weather in Edinburgh? Funny how the edits coming from the public library IP, 193.39.159.3 are on topics you edited with the Tern account. ManekiNeko | Talk 12:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It may be unbiased but it's still quackery 

message: so what about a vote on removing that part on sowell... (unsigned post by 68.193.45.148)
:Actually it seems like there's a consensus to remove it... Anyone agree/disagree? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree -- I don't understand why presenting an alternate viewpoint should not be done. (However, as I mentioned, I have not read Sowell, and I do not know what sort of reputation he has in this area. Maybe the whole world thinks he is a quack. And based on the presentation of his ideas here, I certainly don't agree with him.) It still seems that people are trying to remove the content specifically because they don't agree with Sowell, and that is POV. That is my concern here.  However, if I'm the only one who feels that way, so be it. I will go by the consensus and won't revert. I just think presenting conflicting ideas in controversial topics neutrally is generally a Good Thing. 68.193.45.148, I think based on your edits you are perhaps leaning a bit towards POV (trying to add the list of suspected autistic celebrities, wanting Sowell's anti-AS ideas removed), and I sympathize with your intent (as an aspie myself who does not support pro-cure ideas, etc.), but I just don't see Wikipedia as the place to make that point. But being rigid about objectivity is undoubtedly one of my more aspieish traits... ManekiNeko | Talk 11:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus or not, NPOV requires the article to mention alternative theories. Since psychiatry is not very inclined to present alternative, non-dysfunction theories, there has to be a lot lower threshold of published material on competing theories. Remember that even BS Sensory Integration Dysfunction has a published record, but no confirmative research. i vote for keep --Rdos 08:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't around when this discussion was talking place, but I notice that there are no Sowell references in the article anymore. I've read his main book on the subject. While probably non-scientific, I think it's of general interest. I'd say a mention of that probably belongs in the high functioning autism article. Sowell deals with kids who have speech delay. Aspie kids don't have speech delay ("clinically significant" speech delay according to the DSM, whatever that means.) In any case, it should be noted that he's an economist. His observations are based on the fact that his son was a late talker, and I guess he didn't like his son labeled autistic or retarded. His son I believe is now a software engineer, which Sowell takes as proof that he's of course not autistic. (I'm a software engineer too.) I've heard rumors that his son does in fact appear to be autistic. Sowell's criteria for distinguishing between HFA kids and "Einstein Syndrome" kids is vague, ad hoc and uncientific; basically this: (1) They have several engineers or musicians as close relatives and (2) They understand at least some of what they are told. Sowell I believe tracks the progress of many kids who have been referred to him. It's silly to suppose that his group of kids are, in any significant proportion, going to grow up to be like Einstein or Edison. However, his results may be of interest in other respects. I don't recall the exact claim, but I believe most of his kids start to speak within 2 years of the parents starting to worry (without so much as speech therapy most of them). Isn't that pretty much equivalent to the results of some ABA studies? (ABA has not been validated by double-blind studies and it's unclear how kids are selected). Now imagine that these kids had been referred to Lovaas instead of Sowell. He also refers to research of a professor, Camarata I believe is the name -- if this professor has some published results, that would be more scientifically relevant as well. Neurodivergent 14:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, while we were discussing whether to keep the Sowell references in the article, 68.193.45.148 seemed to agree to leave the material in while a discussion was ongoing in here, but then deleted the material only a few minutes later while it was still being discussed. I was tired of dealing with him so I didn't put it back that time. Since no one else has either, I guess one could say that consensus is that the material isn't necessary. But I did find it inappropriate to delete it under those circumstances. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Patience... give people a few days to respond. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 11:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you think we should vote on sowell part

message: so should i remove it... (unsigned post by 68.193.45.148)
:Patience... give people a few days to respond. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 11:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: why not?

message: I made the edit to the sowell part. I thought this time there was a bit of consenus on it but nooo..
It get's reverted! Who keeps doing this? (unsigned comment by 68.193.45.148)
:The history for the page will show who is doing it. Several people have done it; not just one. Be patient, though. Give people a chance to comment. (For example, I was unable to get to Wikipedia to post a response to your "vote" request until now.) By the way, you should sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of each one. Thanks! ManekiNeko | Talk 11:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alright..I removed it,there is consenus it doesn't belong why is it there? 

message: there are a couple of soultions to this.That list it include in the back of "a gift or a curse" I'm going to take out I didn't know about that source rule witht names .I still think that the sowell has got to go but I'll hold off for a while Alright! Does any one think it has relevence? Relavance is certianlly more important that NPOV if you ask me...and the section i had with the links on gift and curse why does that get removed god...I'm new...for just  a bit's sparing please 68.193.45.148 11:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for signing your post! :) Clearly our edits are overlapping at the moment here and on the article page. I reverted the article just now for two reasons -- you probably figured out that one reason is that we are in here discussing this issue right now.  So I rv'ed that for the moment so we can at least discuss this for a bit longer if anyone wants to contribute.  (As I mentioned above, I will go by what consensus says -- it's just that no one had really responded yet to Ryan's request for disagreement, and now that I have... well, I hope we can have a discussion.) Also, the list of rumored autistic celebrities is a separate issue -- those shouldn't be posted here without sources. (Not just random websites, either.) So that had to be reverted as well.  That's been discussed here on the Talk page in the past, I think. If there are other changes to your stuff that you are asking about, I'm not sure because I didn't do them, but maybe someone else will answer. ManekiNeko | Talk 11:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  alrirght...Geez 

message: I don't know about this.I did actually do these edts i'll check it once and leave it.'kay..I'll just leave it. 
: Wow, yeah, it looks like someone else started vandalizing the article right after we were talking about it here... things have been getting wacky out there! ManekiNeko | Talk 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PS. 

message: I saw that Ryan reverted a link to the AQ test. I suppose (reading the other discussion about Geeks), he think self-diagnosis is a horrible thing. However, this too is a NPOV-issue. Many people are interested in self-tests for AS. For instance, more than 1000 people take the Aspie-quiz each month. Therefore, I think there should be a section about this, or a separate article on the subject. Suggestions are welcome. --Rdos 04:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link to the Geek Syndrome article and even a mention that the AQ test may be found with the article. So it's not completely inaccessible. I don't really think that it's Wikipedia's place to provide self-diagnosis links, though -- do we do this for other syndromes and conditions? It seems maybe less than encyclopedic. OTOH if the test is mentioned in the article a link to it is not a bad thing. ManekiNeko | Talk 04:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No we don't have this for other syndromes (I've looked at a ton of them) and WP:NOT a how-to guide. We'd be treading on thin water if we did so. Besides, the link to the wired magazine article is there in the references - we need to keep the links to major organizations etc. otherwise it turns into the linkfarm thing again.  Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Moreover, describing the AQ as a "self-test for AS" is, at best, a gross and misleading oversimplification. PurplePlatypus 05:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- I think Dr. Baron-Cohen would probably be horrified! ManekiNeko | Talk 05:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Baron-Cohen has done serious studies including the AQ test. But the results weren't "If you score highly on the test, you have AS" -- more like "If you score highly on the test, you might want to get evaluated for AS, because Aspies score highly on the test as well." There is a difference. Thinking of the test as the super-duper Aspie test is simplifying it way too much. As far as the Aspie-quiz and Geek test, have studies been done on the reliability of those tests? Re: INTP, I don't think of that as a syndrome or condition, really. Though admittedly there is a fine line there... (forgot to sign when I posted this, so here's a sig now) ManekiNeko | Talk 09:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the first version of the Aspie-quiz was evaluated using a control group which selected several available diagnosis. The NT-cntrol group was first people that selected "I don't know", then it used various neutral web-sites through the referral mechanism. There is an extensive evaluation at: . The evaluation of version II is not ready yet. I do not agree with you that Aspie and AS is not basically the same thing. --Rdos 04:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self identification 

message: Just to let everyone know I moved the page as outlined above. It was extremely involved and exausting though. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the page to match the new title. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 10:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAGE MOVED 

message: any research anywhere about what professions have significantly higher proportions of people with asperger? from what i read in the article one could surmise science, applied research and technology are fields in which some with asperger would thrive. i have close friends and family in this category and wondered if there is any research? Tiksustoo 17:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to see that too, but as I noted in the Prevalence section, there isn't much systematic research on Asperger adults (dammit). There is a study that shows that of those with AS who go to university, most are in math and the hard sciences (to nobody's great surprise - what I would like to know is how many of the ones in arts are in philosophy, but the study didn't say). There were also some comments in one of the books I consulted to the effect that more Aspies than you'd think settle into undemanding, repetitive jobs, such as most factory work, because apparently they mind the repetiveness a lot less than most non-autistics. Which on a personal note, is so far from accurately describing me that it's one of the reasons I'm not that sure that I'm an aspie myself. PurplePlatypus 05:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A mention in one book is hardly conclusive and besides Asperger's is a spectrum not a highly specific diagnosis. Symmetric Chaos 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  asperger and vocational choices 

message: User 68.4.112.118 deleted the link to the category Eponymous Diseases. I didn't see any reason for this, so I reverted it. Now that I think about it, it may be that he/she had an issue with calling AS a "disease."  But since the editor didn't leave a summary there is no way to know. Anyway, it's back for now.  I didn't think of the "disease" angle possibly being a problem until I'd already reverted it. What do you guys think? ManekiNeko | Talk 10:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect "disease", not "eponymous", was the reason, but as far as I can see the category should stay until someone makes a case otherwise here. PurplePlatypus 04:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. I do think "disease" is an incorrect term in this case, and it does bother me, but it seems to me that the intent of that category is to include conditions and syndromes such as AS. ManekiNeko | Talk 21:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponymous diseases 

message: Bill Gates and Glenn Gould. Just stick those somewhere if you feel the need.
:Only if you've got a reference for it. This has been discussed to death (and both of those have been mentioned before, especially Gates); the prevailing view is to hold such speculations to a rather high standard of verifiability. PurplePlatypus 04:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  other famous aspergerites 

message: There was a few years ago a website that had an article about Gates having Aspergers syndrome but it's not up anymore that I know of.--Che Perez 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are rumors he was diagnosed, but there are similar rumors about Spielberg. If they are in fact diagnosed and not disclosing that, I can only conclude they are ashamed of themselves, which is a shame. It's the gay equivalent of being "in the closet". I understand Gates stims more than most Aspies, is socially ackward, and was into computers at a very young age. It's not a huge leap of reason to suggest he's Aspie. (An argument could be made that he doesn't fit the DSM-IV criteria in the strictest sense because he's successful). Neurodivergent 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the afore mentioned

message: I myself have Asperger's Syndrome. This is a good article, don't argue about changing it. It is fine the way it is. JONJONAUG 16:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's a great article. I also have Asberger's. Cryomaniac 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bravo 

message: I have Asperger syndrome, and am fairly active in self-advocacy.  I don't personally know anyone who has an eidetic memory, though certainly some of us have a very strong memory for our areas of interest (in the same way a non-Autistic person who spent many hours a day in a mentally involving hobby or job would be likely to remember details that would be seen as minor by the general population).  I think saying eidetic memory is in any way "usual" is decidedly pushing it.  -- Pakaran 20:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eidetic memory 

message: Someone has placed a merge proposal on the article. My opinion: that's quite silly. Asperger's is mentioned in the Autism article, as it should be, but there is really no question that the topic deserves its own article which can provide more detailed information. Merging the content of the AS article with the Autism one would make a huge article (they are both already huge enough!). Not to mention that both are featured articles in their own right. I don't understand why it was felt necessary to suggest a merge in this case. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The merge proposal is ludicrous. PurplePlatypus 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Such a proposal would need some very good arguments indeed even if this hadn't been a featured article. I see this as vandalism. Besides, I'd say that a one-sided merge proposal is rather strange (s/he didn't place a merge proposal on the Autism article). The other edits by the same anonymous user were also problematic so I've reverted the article to the previous version. However, since I'm a relative newbie editor, any advice would be appreciated (e.g. do I need to do anything else or is the reversion enough?). Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've just gone over today's edits by user (172.213.9.73). Although I had to correct one more edit (see DiGeorge syndrome), most edits were useful so I think any vandalism was not intended. The merge proposal may have been another way of saying that Asperger syndrome and classical autism belong together.  AvB ÷ talk 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Thanks to all writing and fxing up this article. I have this disorder and could not have written a better article. Everything in there is true. There is nothing for me to edit! --Winter 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank You!

message: There's a reference in the IMDB database which IMHO warrants inclusion in the Asperger syndrome article. Stephen Spielberg's entry says loud and clear: "Diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome." Comments anyone? Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going to need something better than that - IMDB can be unreliable at times. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to back up RN, it seems to be this exact point has been made before and someone listed several really dumb errors in IMDB. (It wasn't me and I don't think I even participated in the discussion.) Nobody seems to know where IMDB got their information, which I take to be the key question. PurplePlatypus 07:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! One of the reasons I'm asking is that I'm still a relative newbie here on WP and thought I'd check if I'd got a handle on the part of the NPOV rule I've interpreted as follows: WP does not report the truth as the editor knows it but as reported in the various media/etc. Even if it's wrong (unless other citable sources or common sense dictate otherwise). But that's just one interpretation of one rule, and I have already seen there's more than meets the eye on WP so any additional pointers from more experienced editors (present company included) would be much appreciated.  AvB ÷ talk 11:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have indeed hit on a point that is difficult, subjective and sometimes a source of disagreement. I don't have a 100% satisfactory response to your point about "as reported in various media/etc"; Wikipedia runs on consensus, so if enough people disagree with RN and myself (and their reasons for doing so aren't total crap), then IMDB magically becomes a valid source. Personally I view them much the same way whoever wrote some of Wikipedia's FAQs suggests viewing Wikipedia itself; a good starting point for your research but not something to be relied upon as your sole source. I guess it comes down to how reliable one views a particular source as being. One example that is used often; we would not use the website of an extremist political group as a source, except for the purpose of reporting the views of that group specifically. But it must be admitted that this one may not be so clear-cut. PurplePlatypus 07:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your insights, which I find very helpful. FWIW, from my own Internet searches I get the impression that this started out as a speculation around March 2002. I now agree that it would be better to leave this info out (or if it is mentioned in a WP article, to cite IMDB as its source). One would certainly expect that any reliable confirmation originally not available on the Internet (from e.g. a magazine interview) would have been picked up and posted all over the place by now, so we only have the one source, the IMDB. As pointed out elsewhere, Spielberg himself is probably aware of the info but has done nothing to dispel it so perhaps he agrees that he has AS traits. He probably doesn't find the AS label in any way offensive. Thanks again :-)  AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: should be easy to just write to gates and spielebergs PR people and get a statement?Tiksustoo 00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this option looks attractive, one of the Wikipedia rules explicitly forbids original research, and for good reason. AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Spielberg source / Famous Aspies 

message: User:207.99.90.253 wrote:
:Proponents of the extreme male brain theory often refer to systemizing vs emotionalising intelligence rather than male vs female intelligece in order to avoid possible confusion that autistic people are extremely masculine. Studies published in Science have shown that men fall almost universaly into the systemizing category and women almost universally into the emotializing category.
I started cleaning this up a bit, then realized it had already been said in the first paragraph of the Extreme male brain theory section. Any comments would be welcome. This is the cleaned-up version:
:Proponents of the extreme male brain theory often refer to systemizing vs empathizing/emotionalising intelligence rather than male vs female intelligence. This may avoid possible confusion that autistic people are extremely masculine. A study (PMID: 16272115) published in Science has shown that females are stronger empathizers and males are stronger systemizers.
 AvB ÷ talk 15:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of my comment was to point out that the "extreme male brain" section focuses heavily on male v female which is not what the theory really states. User:207.99.90.25312:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Why not add it to the article? (But don't forget policies/guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:CITE.) Also, could you please sign your Talk page edits? Simply add a space and four tildes before clicking on Save. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your take on the theory. However, this paragraph describes a (minority) response to the theory. I see you're new to Wikipedia so I'll try to explain a bit further. If such a minority is large or notable enough (see e.g. WP:CITE and WP:V), Wikipedia needs to document its existence and probably the counter-responses it may elicit (see WP:NPOV). Before removing the paragraph and repairing the rest, you may want to check the discussion page and its archives to see whether or not the existence of the minority has been verified. If not, you may even play the devil's advocate and try to find reputable external sources that report the variant view. Bottom line - you can remove the paragraph unless reputable sources reporting the minority view are presented. (Also, ideally, things should be balanced out by the description of the theory itself...) AvB ÷ talk 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. But do you think then that it could be made more clear that it is a minority view in the article? Or don't you think that would be a good idea?Raoul Harris 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea. Perhaps others would like to comment on this and also on Raoul's idea to remove the paragraph altogether? Anyone aware of reputable sources reporting on this particular criticism of Baron-Cohen's "extreme male brain" theory? Thanks.  AvB ÷ talk 12:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, no response for three days! Time to remove, I think. AvB ÷ talk 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced paragraph removed (see above), section slightly rewritten, sources checked and added. AvB ÷ talk 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edit moved from article to talk for discussion 

message: Would it be useful to say that autism ahs nothing to do with the usual meaning of psychopathy? Apokrif 06:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion in Talk:Psychopathy#Other meaning of "psychopathy", it looks like the word has another meaning in German, which is close to "psychosis" or cluster A personality disorder. Apokrif 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "autistic psychopathy" 

message: After being on wikipedia for half-a-year, the self-identification article has been nominated for deletion, and has indeed been deleted. The last time this one-sided view of autism / AS showed it's ugly face was when the Neanderthal theory of autism were deleted. It seems like every new idea coming from autistics is voted for deletion by pro-cure neurotypicals. So much for the NPOV of wikipedia, and especially the horrible side-taking of the autism and Asperger's articles. IMHO, both should loose their featured status. --Rdos 16:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the article was nominated for deletion by an Aspie. And at least one other Aspie voted to delete it. I rather doubt either of them are "pro-cure", and they aren't NT. You might wish to be careful when you toss such accusations around. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is a pro-cure vs. anti-cure conflict. I think this is an inclusionists vs. deletionists conflict. Q0 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree there's no conspiracy to sensor certain POVs. But I'd think at least one self-identification test, Simon Baron Cohen's AQ Test, meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and should appear somewhere. Neurodivergent 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More vandalism from the pro-cure camp 

message: I've categorized the causes into different models. I think this is more proper, at least to get the neurodiversity thinking into this section. I'm not sure where to place the "extreme maleness theory". While I have strong dislike for it, I still realize it might be more of a neurodiversity model than a pathology / disease model. Possibly the social construct theory should be changed to social construct model instead, and described as such. I don't really think social construct is a theory as it proposes no actual theory as to how the various traits of AS could be caused by cultural forces. I suppose the "refrigerator mother theory" could be a social construct model theory. --Rdos 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes and origin section 

message: The Asbergers Syndrome page contains many possible causes all of which are classified as  "theory". However scientificly a theory means that a possibility has been proven beyond all doubt. This clearly cannot be true of all the "theories" and I suggest a change Symmetric Chaos 12:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not correct. (The theory article explains a bit, but that could be improved). In general, for something to be scientific, it should be falsifiable, have some empirical evidence to back it up, make predictions, follow the Occam's Razor heuristic, be tentative, and so on. Neurodivergent 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All that means is that theories in the autism field are very tentative and not backed up very well at this point. Also, it's possible for many different theories to explain different aspects of something. For example, extreme male brain and social construct explain different things and are not incompatible. (In evolution, consider the theory of natural selection vs. the theory of genetic drift). Also, autism is likely a blanket term in addition to a social construct, so it's not surprising that it's full of different models. Some models really may explain what it is in a small portion of the cases. Neurodivergent 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is very likely that all of the presented theories will be more or less wrong, not only because all of them cannot be passed as the best, but because they all are more or less inconsistent with each others and does not explain more than a tiny part of the autism spectrum --Rdos 06:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory? 

message: User:211.31.229.20, you can only add Bill Gates as diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome if you provide one (preferably more) citations from reputable sources per WP:NOR. I have reverted your edit for now. AvB ÷ talk 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Gates

message: I would like to hear the opinion of other editors on the following:
This subsection describes the theory and states that it is controversial. However, this is just one of the various Autism/Asperger theories already mentioned in the Possible causes section, which already characterizes it as part of an "area of debate and controversy". In addition, these theories are already described elsewhere, e.g. in the Models section of the Autism article (as also argued above by Raoul Harris). I think this can be removed entirely from the Asperger Syndrome article. (The alternative would be to extend the section with descriptions of the other theories as all are controversial according to the article itself). Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That theory is no more controversial than any other mainstream theory. Neurodivergent 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not just place a note that says all theories about the origins of Autism and Asbergers have a certain level of controversy, and then elaborate on each theory as new information comes to light? Symmetric Chaos 12:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer if the theory & causes sections of the autism and Asperger's articles were placed in a separate article and merged. Currently, the Asperger's article has very rudimental description of autism-theories while the autism article has lots of theories --Rdos 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like these suggestions, especially Rdos' idea of a seperate cause theories article. My current favoured plan of action would be to just stick Symmetric Chaos' controversy note in to the section in place of the extreme male brain theory bit, then move all theories into a seperate article (with the new article based on the models of the autism article). I know I'm not really adding much like this, just saying I favour a certain combination of views, but I would like to see if other people agree with me or not.Raoul Harris 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The proposal is to remove from the Controversies section, perhaps to move it elsewhere. As to your question, there's a rough correspondance between those tests and a diagnosis. But there's really no test that can replace a subjective psychiatric diagnosis at the moment. Neurodivergent 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: AS is NOT a medical condition. Because it is not a medical condition, it is not necesary to include etiology nor causes. If causes should be mentioned, non-medical causes must also be mrntioned. Currently, the autism article is a long speculation about medical causes, less so the AS article --Rdos 05:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, the autism article's Etiology section is missing a 'natural variation' explanation. The models section already has the social construct theory, but I guess it could also have a neurodiversity entry, assuming it can be presented as a behavior model, which I'm not certain it is. Neurodivergent 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rdos calm down nobody is saying AS is a medical condition. But because there are theories about the reason for the existance of AS they all deserve to be mentioned. Placing all the theories into a new article seems good, but as this discussion proves people have very heated POVs so the article must be monitored closely and have a mention of the on going debate. Symmetric Chaos 12:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BrianGCrawfordMA proposed that AS were a medical condition and thus should have causes and etiology --Rdos 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Instead, it looks like there need to be several new articles: Etiology of autism, Autism behavior models, and perhaps Autism management strategies or something. Then both the autism article and this one would use main tags pointing to the new articles in the corresponding sections. Any takers? I'd take on those projects myself but I've gone thru that before and it's too time-consuming for me at the moment. Neurodivergent 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  A collection of articles each with a Austism box at the top of each article which provides users easy access and context to the whole series.  Its a big project though to undertake.  --Ben Houston 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove the "extreme male brain theory" subsection

message: in regard to the list of arguments supporting the theory of einstein having asperger's as quoted in the  article, i thought it necessary to delete "was a late talker", as asperger's is associated with early talking, and indeed being a late talker is oftentimes cited as evidence against speculation of particular famous people having had asperger's, including einstein
:According to DSM-IV "there is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)". This seems to suggest that language is normally developed not before the usual time and not much (though possibly a bit) afterwards. Of course there are exceptions, and the DSM-IV could just be completely wrong on this matter. But I don't know of any evidence to support your early talker claim, could you please give a link or something?Raoul Harris 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DSM is basically a concensus reached by a show of hands, and it's still a pretty subjective guide. Researchers sometimes apply different criteria and some have said that there's really no difference between high-functioning autism and Asperger's. Psychiatrists might apply their own biases and there can be diagreements as to the right diagnosis. I understand there's one study that compares long-term outcome finding no significant differences. In the autistic community there's no concensus as to whether a difference exists at all. Some have made fun of it. See . Neurodivergent 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  albert einstein 

message: I think this section would be more useful if it could identify the episodes in which or names of characters with AS appeared, since the articles they link to don't (and probably shouldn't unless it is a recurring character).Schizombie 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TV shows and films which have dealt with Asperger syndrome

message: ive done some research on asperger's and ive discovered that there is a strong overlap between the traits of simple introversion and asperger's syndrome, and that many people who are just introverted could be misdiagnosed as asperger's, or asperger's itself is just introversion.
There are many, "casual" traits of asperger's that relate most strongly to introversion some of which ill list now:
.deliberate avoidance of peak performance for fear its not good enough
.(more coming.......)
Ill get on to those later, but i'd like to point out that "casual" traits get to the true meaning of the matter, coz, among other things, they are less grounded in biased perception. I've got alot to say in this section.
COMMUNICATION DIFFICULTIES: I'd like to note the differences in communication between introverted and extroverted children, based on very limited vocaularies(being young).
The introvert: hasn't got sufficient vocabuary to communicate needs to a sufficient point of exactitude,when coaxed puts energy into trying to find the words well enough; avoids letting loose ideas out into the open.(As you might guess from this,introversion correlates highly with perfectionism, another highly mentioned trait of asperger's.
The extrovert: (more coming)
PLEASE PUT ANY COMMENTS IN OTHER SECTION!
* People with Aperger syndrome don't MEAN to be introverted, in fact, many are frustrated that they have social difficulty and want to be as socially comfortable as everyone else is.  Introverts CHOOSE to be introverts, people with Asperger syndrome just have social difficulty.
WTF? you...er....don't know what introversion means, do you?
Discuss! (keeping in mind whats said above)
: What about Wing's claim: "There is no question that Asperger syndrome can be regarded as a form of schizoid personality" ? I think this is actually questionable, because in theory schizoid people are not interested in social relationships, while AS people want such relationships (although different causes can lead to similar behaviors) Apokrif 16:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  asperger's or introversion? 

message: Personally, Im at a loss as to why people put asperger's above, say, intj, because "its just a personality test", you know, like, "which beetle are you?", and because of the mystique , formality and percieved "hard logic" of psychiatric diagnoses. People adopt an attitude of "yeah, this intp thing seems to fit you, but at THE END OF THE DAY, you have been diagnosed"(By an all-knowing) . In reality, the dsm is very subjective and unprofessional and typology completely outstrips it in scientific value.Where psychiatric diagnosis is just listing a bunch of arbitrary and ambiguous negative traits of some people with little to no insight into the cause of these behaviours, typology provides a full functional analysis among other things grounded in many many years of research.I cannot emphasize this enough.Sure, it draws many natural critcisms, but have you ever tried to argue with a parrot? I would call a kid intj before asperger's anyday, and if he didnt want me to cal him that, call him a perfecty natural human temperament, then I wouldnt, and so I certainly would not call him a psychiatric abnormality based on a few undesirable behaviours, and, with his little knowledge of anything outside of this, have him beleive that.(though, being an intj, this might not be so much of a problem:)  
: I think you are oversimplifying things. Yes, INTP and AS is more or less the same thing, but based on slightly different traits. The problem is that the traits of INTP/AS are not acceptable in today's society. It will not be better if you just view AS/INTP as a personality-type, because then psychodynamically schooled people will inevitably demand that these kids receive intensive teraphy for their "quirks", because it might help in their world. Even worse, some totally scruplus social authorities will take the kids actions as a sign that they should be placed in foster-care. --Rdos 08:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While many people with AS may test as INTP, I disagree that you can call the groups 'more or less the same' unless most INTPs have AS. Compare the percentage of population which tests INTP with the percentage on the autistic spectrum. If I remember correctly, the latter is much smaller.
Why are only INTp and not INTj mentioned in the article? --Gronau 11:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This poll on wrongplanet.net has some interesting figures: 30% INTJ, 31% INTP, 8% INFJ, 6% INFP and 23% other. Assuming that the prevalence of asperger's is about one in 166, and comparing with the figures on the MBTI page (2.1% INTJ, 3.3% INTP, 1.5% INFJ, 4.0% INFP) would indicate that about 9% of INTJs, 6% of INTPs and 3% of INFJs have AS. Sure, it's not very scientific, but it does give a rough indication. Cat Fish 21:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intp 

message: (comments on first one)
Orrr! or Arrh! Brian G. Crawford 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aspergers or introversion? 

message: The acronym "NT" is used in this section with no indication of its meaning.  This should either be spelled out in full or, if it refers to the use of "Non-autistic" above, should be indicated there -- particularly since "NT" does not logically flow from "non-autistic".  Also, it looks odd that "aspie" is uncapitalized while "Non-autistic" is capitalized in that comparison; shouldn't they match capitalization? — Lomn Talk 15:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, upon re-reading, it is explained above, though the juxtaposition of "non-autistic" and "NT" still seems obtuse to me.  Is there a preference for using one or the other for the sake of consistency? — Lomn Talk 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "NT" implies more than simply non-autistic. It stands for neuro-typical and refers to someone who is not neuro-divergent, someone who is, for lack of a better word, normal. Someone who exhibits no disorders, autistic or otherwise. So a preference for consistency sake is kind of impossible since they are in fact talking about different things, and while interchangeable in some sense, they aren't synonymous.(FossaFerox 03:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That would make sense if three paragraphs up it didn't say that NT's were just non-autistics :). Anyway, I cleaned it up and removed the NT stuff because it is inspeak which should be avoided. We really need a reference for that theory though, because as is it definately looks like OR to me. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted this. Neurotypical has it's own article, and thus cannot be OR. I agree that NT shouldn't be used without explaining it. Better to use neurotypical throughout. --Rdos 08:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Impairments: "NTs"

message: Removing this link as the forum seems to have less than 100 registered users and no content other than a forum. Perl 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On the Spectrum" 

message: (Prevalence, 2nd paragraph)
Does this make sense? Is 2.3 to 1 what is intended?
:Yes, and yes. PurplePlatypus 03:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2:3 to 1 

message: "Additionally, Asperger's is frequently accompanied by other conditions including Clinical Depression, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Bipolar Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. However, like many other symptoms, they are not universal amongst those with Asperger's." 
This text was recently added; however I can find no published work on PubMed that does more than spectulate about the correlation or causation of these conditions with AS. Does anyone have peer-reviewed references that support this claim? I think as it stands, that paragraph is misleading. It should certainly mention that it's spectulation, and I'd rather it be removed completely. Thoughts?--inksT 19:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no reference then I think it should be removed completely. If there is a reliable reference then keep it. If there is a  reference which is unreliable then keep it, but add a note with the text saying so. I think that pretty much sums up my opinion on all issues like this. Raoul Harris 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are references, and they are reliable. That aside, I reworded it to indicate a weaker connection between the disorders. The resemblance between them is widely acknowledged and in fact is one of the biggest obstacles with diagnoses. There is research suggesting that indicates there is far more than a resemblance between the conditions, but it isn't entirely conclusive. I'll try to find some of the studies and let you wiki experts decide if you want to change it back to a less speculative wording. For starters, the connection to bipolar disorder can be found in "Wozniak et al (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997;36:1552-60)". (FossaFerox 05:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is research suggesting that indicates there is far more than a resemblance between the conditions The problem is that you can find resemblances between all disorders, or occurrences of various disorders in a family (suggestiong they share a common genetic origin): AS shares inattention (and perhaps sensorial) problems with ADHD, stereotyped moves with OCD (which itself looks like obsessive-compulsive personality), AS looks like schizoid personality, which is not very different from schizotypal personality, which in turn looks like schizophrenia. And I recently saw a book claiming there is a link between bipolar disorder and OCD. Apokrif 15:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AS and associated disorders 

message: Self-diagnosis is not reliable. Period. No matter how badly you want it to be. We've had this discussion before. Every expert in the relevant field says it's not reliable, including the ones you tried to point to as saying it was. Wikipedia is for verifiable information found in reliable sources, and you will not find a reliable source that says self-diagnosis is reliable. Saying the experts are all wrong, with nothing to back that up, simply doesn't wash.
So quit edit-warrring over it already. PurplePlatypus 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't start an edit war over this minor issue. I really don't care if Bram is mentioned or not, and I did the revert mostly because of the claims that "self-diagnosis" would be unreliable. Now I see another claim that AS is a "medical condition"! Why can't these ignorant wikipedians keep-off this article if the don't know more about AS than that it's part of DSM? I'm sure I've mentioned before that I have hard evidences that self-diagnosed AS is just as reliable as "medically diagnosed". Self-diagnosis might not qualify for support, but it sure isn't any more unreliable than professional evaluation. --Rdos 12:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's more a case of you reading more into the phrase "medical condition" than is intended. In any case, if you have this hard evidence, point me to it. You are correct that you claimed to before, or at least said something similar. To be blunt, I didn't believe you, and I still don't. (I think I also pointed out that even if it exists, it would at best have to be mentioned alongside the consensus of professionals, not supplant it). PurplePlatypus 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the personal attack! Asperger syndrome is a condition identified, researched, and treated by by medical professionals. It is a medical condition, like color-blindness. Bram has no training in how to distinguish "has AS" from "doesn't have AS" so as to agree reliably with people who research it, and even if he did that wouldn't enable him to make a disinterested evaluation of his own personality. Gazpacho 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do psychiatrists distinguish "has AS" from "doesn't have AS" in your opinion? Frankly, what Rdos says is probably right. The Asperger autistic is obviously more aware of what he is than a person examining from the outside. Neurodivergent 01:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The "disinterested evaluation of his own personality" is an especially important point, especially among people with conditions like AS, because (and I speak here as someone who until recently thought he was one - and still would if I thought self-diagnosis was workable) part of what it is to have such a condition is for one's perceptions of one's own actions to be less than reliable. But this is straying into original research; it's the consensus of professionals that we have to reflect in our writing here, not our own reasoning. PurplePlatypus 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "One's perceptions of one's own actions... less than reliable" sounds to me like "Aspies have bad judgement". Can you clarify? I'd certainly hope this doesn't become one more baseless stereotype about Aspies. Neurodivergent 15:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So, Gazpacho insists that AS is a medical condition? Comparing to color-blindness? Since when did color-blindness become a medical condition? Cancer, heart-failure, asthma and so on are medical conditions that can be diagnosed on physical traits. AS is no such thing. It cannot be diagnosed with any reliable physical method, and instead professionals ask patients lots of questions. To me it is quite clear that a knowledgable patient could "self-diagnos" without the help of a professional. To back up my claims I simply refer to the close to 10,000 individuals that have answered Aspie-quiz. There is no meaningful difference between the group that identifies as "self-diagnosed" and the group that identifies as "professionally diagnosed". --Rdos 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, Rdos, would be original research and wishful thinking. We know you believe in self-diagnosis, but that is not the point. I approach from the experience of seeing firsthand how psychological diagnosis has become a convenient "grease" for public school bureacracy. Nowadays when a teacher wants to get rid of a disruptive student, the teacher fills out a questionnaire in the appropriate way to get the kid declared ADHD or passive-agressive or what have you. I don't accept their diagnoses and I don't accept diagnoses from the subjects themselves for the same reason. Gazpacho 05:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't support schools giving kids DSM diagnoses to "get rid of them". I'm not sure I support any of these diagnosis myself, but then I see the reality also. They are needed because otherwise far more dangerous things would happen to these kids. So until we have some better attitudes in society towards autism and ADHD, we'll just have to accept "medical diagnosis" of them. --Rdos 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is not so much kids to be given a diagnosis of AS, any more than it would be a problem for kids to be given a diagnosis of left-handedness. The problem is that kids are being told their brains are disordered. Imagine having to go through school with that label on you. Kids who in the past would've been considered gifted and geeky are now given a brain disorder label (example). It's fine to recognize that some people are different, but to suggest that the difference is invalid and disordered is really unjustified IMHO. Neurodivergent 15:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I'm also fairly interested in the treatment Gazpacho talks about. AFAIK, there is no treatment for AS. As for researched, yes you are right, it is mostly researched by professionals. Unfortunately, because they have been doing a pretty lousy job, IMO. --Rdos 22:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unfamiliar with them as well but recently there have been a lot of developments, such as being nearly able to distinguish and diagnose autism based on brainwaves (? I think brianwaves... something to do with the brain anyway...) as well as treatments based on that. There was quite a bit on it in an episode of Dr. Phil - but I think it is still somewhat experemental, but I'm not sure. Supposively they were going to treat the people on the show with it, as least IIRC. Oh, and autism IS a medical condition. Maybe in the article we can say "the vast majority of professionals consider it a medical condition" if you'd like but it pretty much just IS AFAIK. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I doubt it. Do the brain waves distinguish someone who is a little autistic from someone who is not quite autistic? How is the boundary determined? And how good a predictor is it? Even genetics probably can't predict more than 60% for classic autism and 90% for a broad spectrum. Neurodivergent 01:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, if a medical test did exist, this section would make some sense. At the moment AS is an arbitrary DSM-IV classification, so it's not surprising there exist self-diagnosis, mis-diagnoses, diagnoses of the dead, diagnoses over the internet, etc. Diagnosing AS is no different to diagnosing "geek", the only difference being that in the case of AS there are self-described (self-diagnosed) experts who pretend to be able to do it. Neurodivergent 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PING Rdos 

message: External links must be discussed before they're added/removed. Someone removed a link recently that had already been discussed and had been in the article for more than a year. WrongPlanet is the largest online support organization and I frequent it daily. Perl 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add that it only seems to be anonymous users doing this so the people reading this page probably aren't the ones who even need to read this. Perl 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think its redundant since the Autism and Asperger articles are each geared towards two separate audiences whereas the website is geared towards both. Perl 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I am currently in the process of being diognosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I have already been diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsionate Disorder and have deep difficulties concentrating on school work and other simple things. I recently found myself in grave trouble because of an incident I had with a fewllow female classmate. I am curious, is Asperger's Syndrome a cause of poor relations with the opposite sex? If so, what kind of difficulties do Asperger's Children face? And what kind of sensitive topic issues (drugs, alchol, sex) so Asperger's Children find difficult to talk about with other much more socially developed children?
I am also curious if Asperger's Syndrome is the cause of violent behaviour seen with William Fruend or if violent behaviour associated with Asperger children is that cause of others bullying against children with the syndrome.
-Capt.Nero
:I have no research or statistics to quote here offhand, but I can tell you that by the very nature of the condition of course people with Aspergers will have more difficulty communicating with members of the opposite sex. Aspergers is termed a high-functioning condition. This is because people who have it can, in time, learn to compensate. It's a matter of learning the rules of social interaction on an intellectual level rather than being blessed with an innate understanding of what goes on in social interaction. Growing up I was horribly uncomfortable going into any situation where I didn't know the "rules" that governed it. This would include everything from taking part in new extracuricular activities to talking with girls. Children with Aspergers syndrome go through social integration much later than normal children. Heck, I'm 20 years old, a college student, and still working on it (only had one serious girl friend thus far). As for the bullying though, I'm a bit torn here myself. Children with Aspergers aren't inherently violent, not all of them at the very least. I have seen research that suggests many or even most are as children, but in all the instances I've seen it fails to be conclussive. There's a lot of research and findings concerning Aspergers that are unconfirmed at best (such as people with Aspergers being prone to self-injury as babies/toddlers). It's best not to put too much faith in it. On a personal level, I would say this is especially true for you. Forgive me if I'm reading too much in to this, but it looks like you are looking to use Aspergers as a crutch and a justification for violent behavior. I don't think you can or should be able to do that. Instead you should try to control your anger. The bullying that many people with Aspergers (myself included) is usually the result of us just being "different". Different in the sense that we aren't as social as others expect or are often odd in our early social interaction before we've developed a full understanding of what is expected of us. (FossaFerox 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only language that aspies understand is disipline, you just have to discipline aspies more than usual children. Out of all aspies I've met the "stranger" ones are the ones whose parents accept their children's odd behaviour. 213.89.67.167 17:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are of course "dead wrong" in your claim. Discipline is *not* the way you teach your Asplings to behave. Just look at the correlation between autistic traits and ODD. You don't want them to ignore everything you say by commanding (or worse hitting) them. This is a bad strategy. The good strategy is to convince them they need to learn the social language and motivate them. You cannot do this with discpline. Nobody becomes motivated with discpline. --Rdos 13:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow... /=| Alister Namarra 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Out of all aspies I've met the "stranger" ones are the ones whose parents accept their children's odd behaviour." People eat tasty food; people eating that food must cause it to become tasty. Many people with lung cancer smoke, so lung cancer causes smoking (that was actually suggested by someone). You need to be careful with cause and effect. You could be right, but the effect you describe could just be due to the parents of "stranger" autistic children giving up on changing their children. Raoul Harris 06:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You both provide a very good point, you shouldn't force your children to become something that they aren't. HOWEVER if you want the best for your children and they are aspies they will eventually have a high risk of being bullied, or just have great difficulty to make friends. So if you want the best for your childrens mental well being then you should still try to learn them to supress some things that other people may find odd. And then have them work on their social interaction. Cognitive therapy is often a very good aid for aspie children. XSpaceyx 09:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fair enough. I agree that it could be a good idea to encourage austistic children to act more normally (I don't believe you should force them too much though). But my interpretation of 213.89.67.167's post was that it is more severe "discipline" than that. My main point was to suggest that you should be sure before you make a link like that (even if it could be a correct link). Raoul Harris 12:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a correct link. One should not look at how "strange" they are, but how well adapted they are. Also, not everybody understands that many Aspies, and especially the ones which are oppositional to authority (parents and others), need a different type of motivation to learn how to behave. You need to convince them (verbally) that it is in their best interest to behave in a certain way. The whole process relies on mutual acceptance and respect, not one party telling the other how to behave --Rdos 13:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well of course, there has to be a balance and like I said I don't think you should use the kind of "discipline" that 213.89.67.167 was reffering to. However I do believe that it is important that you inform your children about themselves and how their surroundings my intercept things. XSpaceyx 20:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asperger's Childrens relations with opposite sex individuals

message: Does anyone have info as to whether AS results in a high IQ?  The article seems not to mention this, am I merely mistaken? physicsboff 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a largely unresearched issue. I will probably attempt to relate g factor in intelligence tests to Aspie-quiz either by including highly g-loaded questions or by some other means. This will give an indication on the average IQ of autistics and the correlation between IQ and autistic traits. --Rdos 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Autistic intelligence is different, not superior or inferior to NT intelligence. Check out the work of Dr. Mottron for some research that's starting to look into this. It appears autistics score higher than the norm in the Raven (PRM) IQ test, but lower in the Weschler. The Weschler inadvertently measures a type of linguistic intelligence NTs are good at, and which probably is useful to get by in the world we live in. BTW, this research suggest classic autistics are smarter in the Raven than Asperger autistics, thus contradicting what the introduction of this article seems to imply. Neurodivergent 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, autistic intelligence is different, but I still think autistic IQ, as a whole, is higher than normal. This is required to offset the problems we have in the social domain. If not, we would not be here. Evolution would have selected out our genes.  I don't know about classic auistics beeing smarter than Asperger autistics on Raven. Do you have a reference for that claim? --Rdos 05:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the RPM vs. Weschler graph here. There is an error in the test norming, so Autistics scoring in the 80 percentile might not be exactly right, but the shape of the graph should still be valid. Compare to a bit over 60 percentile for Asperger autistics. I don't know if these are "classic autistics" but from this I infer that "more autistic" means "smarter in the Raven" (provided the individual is testable). I should caution this research is unreplicated as of yet. Neurodivergent 15:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the first pargraph of the wiki, "In very broad terms, individuals with Asperger's have normal or above average intellectual capacity". I have an IQ of 149 and the other Aspies I know tend to be well above average as well, but that's somewhat circumstantial of course. (FossaFerox 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a strong question here of correlation vs causation. We might want to avoid saying that AS "results in" a high IQ, even if there is a correlation between the two. -- Writtenonsand 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, Asperger's doesn't result in a high IQ. Perl 01:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have 115 in IQ so I wouldn't say that aspies have a higher IQ no 213.89.67.167 17:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What has your iq got to do with anything? I can't see any relevance of it to a discussion on the average iq of people with asperger's syndrome. Raoul Harris 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my own personal experience, all the aspies I know well have high IQ.  No evidence of causality, but as there seems to be a correlation it's worth research.  Anyone who can research it please do!  It sometimes drives me mad trying to think whether or not it's causal.  CMIIW 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm continuing work on getting professional IQ tests into the next Aspie-quiz. The recent article claiming that autistics do better on Raven than WISC is intruiging. I think it would be necesary to use at least two different types of IQ-tests, verbal and non-verbal. I'll read the book "The G Factor" by Jensen to be able to understand the theory behind IQ tests. BTW, my IQ is around 135. --Rdos 16:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IQ is notoriously hard to quantify and meausure in anyone. But results are very unreliable when facing Aspies whose thought patterns and preferences can cause extremely high scores on certin tests and well below average on others. For the most part on a subject of facination to an Aspie scores will go through the roof but can vary wildly in other subjects.Symmetric Chaos 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FossaFerox, your comment only serves as anecdotal evidence. Only a peer reviewed study can infer any relationship between IQ and Asperger syndrome.--Suspected 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AS => +IQ? 

message: I just saw that the word brainstorming was added to the article in this sentence: "Meanwhile, the child sits rarely speaking, brainstorming, feeling frustrated and wronged and often having no idea how to express these feelings." Why would the child be brainstorming? The article brainstorming only talks about the method for coming up with ideas. I looked around for other definitions and the closest I found was "Brainstorm (n) A sudden, violent disturbance of the mind", which I don't find to be enough justification for the statement, so I'm going to remove the word brainstorming unless anyone can provide a reason for it being there. Raoul Harris 06:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Alister Namarra 10:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I third that motion XSpaceyx 09:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Brainstorming"?

message: Is there a connection between Asperger's and a normal MRI scan as mention in the article please clarify. Does the statement "However on medical tests such as electroencephalogram (EEG) and MRI they may have normal brain activity." make sense or should it be removed.
I'd assume it to be normal unless otherwise stated, but if there is an atypical MRI then we'd be spreading false information. Remove it. Alister Namarra 10:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asperger's and MRI  

message: It was noticed that there is nothing in the articles about Aspergers writing issues. There is a large majority of people who have difficulty writing and may have dysgraphia, I am one of them. I found an article, Myles (2003), that supports my idea and added it to a sub category under characteristics. If you can try to expand it instead of deleting it. I know that this information is new and a working progre but I feel that it is important contribution to the article. Please fill free to comment on this issue.
:That was a good addition: I've just copyedited it a bit. I did however remove the instruction to limit computer time, as I don't think this article should contain instructions, just general strategies. They'll probably develop an obsession with the computer anyway. I speak as someone who has to use computers to read and write information, otherwise I'll have to develop repetitive strain injury from banging on a Perkins Brailler all day long. Graham talk 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspergers and Dysgraphia 

message: I'm just wondering if it is actually possible to develop AS, I have a friend that has grown very fond of a game (addicted) and now lately he seems to have developed many symptomps that could be could be considered symptomps of AS. He has become very anti-social and has even developed problems with focusing on things besides the game. Besides that well, he has isolated himself pretty much only going outside when he has to. Just wondering if it could be that it is possible to develop AS over time
:There is a book today called Eat Right for Your Type: Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia and it mentioned that there might be a blood type, dietal cuase of Autism and Asperger's. It suggests that people with A blood have an increase prevalence of Autism and Aspergers, it also states that it might benefit from eating a low lectin, high secretin diet (D'Adamo and Whitney 104-105). See the updated causes section of the articles for more information. I suggest that you do not delete the articles just expand on it. see blood type diet
No, one can only be born with aspergers, not develop it later. Alister Namarra 22:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concensus is that autism, unlike schizophrenia, is present since birth. This is not entirely true, however, if you consider what are called "regressions". Even some adults report becoming "more autistic" sometimes, and the reasons for this are unknown. Given that there's no medical test for autism, and no organic characteristics that absolutely must be present in all autistics, it's not impossible to suppose that a completely average individual biologically could display autistic behavior. Neurodivergent 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all unusual for people on the Autistic_spectrum to be entirely unaware of any difference between themselves and NTs until that difference is demonstratively shown to them with emphasis on specifics. Because of this, it is entirely possible for someone with AS to go through decades of their life intellectually compensating for what NTs do innately and never know it. However, the author of this article has proposed (although not in the article) that such compensation, or "faking NT-ness" as some might call it, takes a physical toll on the brain, which has a cumulative effect, leading to an early burn-out of the specific brain infrastructure needed to maintain the compensation. This, in turn, makes compensating less and less possible with age. If, like I propose, someone has been compensating all their life without realizing it, the decay in compensating ability may appear to the uninitiated to be "development" of AS later in life. I hope my 2¢ on this talk page can serve to refocus any possible self-investigation of the issue. 66.218.54.163 06:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaining Asperger's? 

message: I'm an aspie, too.
What's even more rare is that I'm a girl.
Very nice article!  Ebb
:It is not so rare as might be expected to find Aspie-girls online.  --Rdos 06:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  very nice. 

message: Is it just me or does this article only seem to reference Atwood in the text and nobody else, even though there is a long reference list at the end? Simply south 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: I've never heard of a "Social IQ" before, and certainly no one has offered me to take a social IQ test. Where/how can I take one? Now that I know about such a thing, I think I'll need to take one right away! --Shultz IV 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Social IQ]]" tests 

message: I have doubts if this really could be correct. Among the autistic people I know, most live independently. I think this should go or doubts about the claim should be added to the article. --Rdos 08:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree based on recent data collected by the [National Autistics Society http://www.nas.org.uk/content/1/c4/28/61/ignored.pdf] since they come from a credible source they should not be religated to another article which is not likely ro be read by people searching from the internet. Another reaoson is that this study is collected on 217 adults not children which is rare for studies. Please read the study provided by the link before moving the data to another article. Please, do not forget to comment before moving. In addition the data says that 50% live at home, 33% live in residental setting, 8% live in independent with residental persenal or family support, and 3% live independent. Natche24 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the study link. It is clear that this study is extremely biased and unscientific. The study depends on *parents* views of their children. It doesn't survey already adult autistics. Another problem is that only 38% answered the survey, which is also very problematic. We have no idea why 62% didn't answer. For this reason, the results might not even be representable of the *parent* population views. Another problem is that the AS diagnosis is quite new, and not many children who received their dx with help of parents is anticipated to be old enough so we can assess if they can live independently or not. Another problem is that at another location it is claimed that as many as 50% of adults are undiagnosed. Clearly, most of these do live independently, because otherwise they would need to pursue an dx. I suggest these claims should be removed until a study on a mixed-age *adult* population can be presented. --Rdos 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, it is no wonder that 50% live at home. This is the natural consequence of the survey methodolgy. We don't know how many of these 50% will still live at home in 10 years time. It is possible (even probable) that autistics leave home later than normal, but this is not what is claimed. --Rdos 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link I agree with Rdos and have deleted the biased and unscientific study. Whos needs it in this article. 199.254.212.44 13:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  only 3% live independently - is this really correct? 

message: Here are some indications:
Aspie-quiz II: 237 diagnosed, 365 self-diagnosed (1.54:1)
Aspie-quiz III: 608 diagnosed, 1319 self-diagnosed (2.17:1)
Aspie-quiz ND: 161 diagnosed, 449 self-diagnosed (2.79:1)
Total: 1006 diagnosed, 2133 self-diagnosed (2.12:1)
If Aspie-quiz is an indication, twice as many are
self-diagnosed than professionally diagnosed. --Rdos 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A caveat with your data above is that diagnosed individuals might be less likely to take the test. Why take it if you already know what you are? I'd be interested to know what the relative scores of self-diagnosed vs. diagnosed are. Neurodivergent 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. there are some problems with whom takes the test. Another problem is that only people that have access to Internet can take the test. The scores of diagnosed and self-diagnosed are virtually identical, with self-diagnosed a bit higher. The ADHD group score very simuilar as well, although usually a little below. 
Aspie-quiz II: Diagnosed 117 AS-score, 73 NT-score; Self-diagnosed 120 AS-score, 69 NT-score.
Aspie-quiz III: Diagnosed 122 AS-score, 80 NT-score; Self-diagnosed 125 AS-score, 78 NT-score. 
Aspie-quiz ND: Diagnosed 138 AS-score, 53 NT score; Self-diagnosed: 140 AS-score, 48 NT-score. --Rdos 06:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting that the self-diagnosed score is a bit higher. But this doesn't necessarily mean that self-diagnosed individuals are more "severe". The prevalence of ASD in ADHD seems to be around 30%, so high scores for ADHD are not surprising. What this test is missing is data on how sensitive it is, i.e. how well it predicts a psychiatric diagnosis, and how many autistics does it miss. With this information, you could provide the quiz to a random sample of adults, and find the prevalence of ASD in the adult population. Neurodivergent 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some information on "sensitivity". In the neurodiversity-version, 14% of diagnosed AS is given the "NT-label". 73% get the "very likely Aspie"´. It is possible to get down to around 6% of "misdiagnosis", however, I'm not sure if this really is wanted. Using the PCA-loadings as criteria, increases the misdiagnosis to around 25%, which was how Aspie-quiz III was scored. This seems to show that the official diagnosis is not exactly related to the factors that questions in Aspie-quiz generate. I am tempted to give both an Aspie/NT-score based on PCA-loadings and a judgement if a professional diagnosis is feasible. --Rdos 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the ratio of diagnosed versus self-diagnosed? 

message: In the Prevalence section there is a sentence that is not clear to me, "A high percent (95%) are either unemployed or underemployed." I do not know if 95% is true because a I know people with outism and all of them have jobs or at school. Plus the source of this sentence is not found in (Frey 2006) as indicated in the article. Should it be kept or removed. Natche24 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "underemplyed" defined? That's the sort of word that can mean whatever any given researcher wants it to, really. PurplePlatypus 06:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The comment was deleted (by pro-autism peoples). Please reinsert it. Skinnyweed 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information was reinserted into the article but the source of that statement is still unknown and needs to be cited. Natche24 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the "citation needed" tag to the appropriate information. Martin 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unemployed or underemployed. 

message: Shouldn't there be references also to psychologists who do not accept the existence of such a syndrome...?
There would be if there were enough psychologists who denied the existence of Aspergers or autism. I think the article does have a section on alernate theories that might interest you. Symmetric Chaos 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism