Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Introduction

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

AS is the common shorthand for it. Or ASP

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

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

What is Acapedia -> see talk:Acapedia

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

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

Um...hi. I`ve never written anything on a wikipedia thing before. I just wanted to say that this artivle was really really good. I didn`t get all the fetal development stuff but I`m sixteen so i think that`s okay. My boyfriend has asperger`s (which apparently is asperger syndrome, but my boyfriend asys he has asperger`s so I`m sticking with that), and this artivle was scarily accurate to the way he his. The obsession with small things, the neede for routine and order. He can`t break any rules told to him, or even the ones he creates in his mind. I just want to say that if you have asperger`s it`s okay. It`s not the end of the world. Once you figure out how to deal in society and find someone who makes you feel lekk awkward, you`ll be totally okay. My boyfreind has lots of friends and I`m madly in love with him and totally accept him the way he is. he actually started feeling empathy about a month ago. Which is amazing because he never did before. It was because I started crying and he was totally freaking out because he was in pain and didn`t know why. Anyway. Asperger`s is not the end of the world. It`s managable. It`s okay. It`s okay to be different.

This is an outstanding article that I found to be highly evolved and a really great read. The only personal link I have to Autism was with a woman I dated with three autistic children. She was phenomenal to endure the perpetual frustration of teaching them and attending to their needs. From then on, I have been keenly aware of autism clinical trials and am looking forward to potential diagnostic, clinical, and therapeutic breakthroughs in this often confounding disease. --Piewalker 05:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Got 1 at youth club :) Einstien, Gates, Newton, Keanu Reves.... All on there. Plenty of people whom it is suspected they had Aspergers... One day I'll be on that list ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bahhhhhhahahahahaha - I know 3 girls w AS (shorthand for aspergers) and they are all obsessed with something, be it Pigeons, Anime or Star Trek.....

(wo)Man, quit this! I know at least five boys with it (when I take myself in the count) and only one girl. In game therapy, when I was a child, I was in a group where there were as many as five boys and only one girl. So in my personal experience the share of boys in the total group of aspergerists is even bigger than 3 out of 4.--Caesarion 13:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Hey, whats ur hobby? Mine is designing war games for the PC and space based stories. Plus board games.... --Chris

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

Same here --Chris again :P

This is a serious question, raised in the "Criticism" section of the main article. I have met a number of women with AS, and most of them would not come across as particularly masculine personality types. AS is a complex phenomenom which can affect people differently, and there is a lot more to it than unusual or obsessive interests, but going by something one woman with AS said to me once, it is possible that some girls with AS can show an exceptional interests in traditionally "feminine" activities e.g. dancing. Even a lot of men with AS are about the last people you would expect to find getting into a fight in a bar. PatGallacher 01:29, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Someone has tried to reply to this on the actual article, but the article is now getting confused. When Baron-Cohen, rightly or wrongly, advanced his theories about AS being an extreme form of "male intelligence", he really did mean by that mental traits you tend to get in men, not just a socially constructed phenomenom. Therefore this does raise some important issues about females with AS. The person who attempted to reply to this is entitled to their opinion, which may merit discussion, but it is not the same as Baron-Cohen's opinion. PatGallacher

Genetic Traits

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

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

truely -> truly; precient -> prescient

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

Is ADD genetic? I read a book about ADD called "Scattered Minds" I forget the writer. He was asking where it come from as well. ADD tends to be more prevalent if a parent has ADD as well. He also found that ADD tends to be more prevalent in people with emotional problems relating to parents, specifically feelings of love and acceptance. His theory is that there is a genetic portion of it that makes us more sensitive to developing it and that emotional relationships as a child are the source. It is hard to say though, many people with ADD may actually have Aspergers syndrome, it can have similar symptoms, including obsessive behaviour. I do show obsessive behaviour, but the obsession seems to drift and refocus on other things all the time. The writer of the book also showed obsession, he spent more than 1000 dollars in a week (I think that was the figure) on cds... specifically classical music.

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

(Comment) I have aspergers and attend a youth club for people with aspergers. We have 5/6 female members. So far, 1 is obsessed with pigions, 1 with Anime, 1 with star trek and the other 2/3 we arnt sure about. Out of the remaining 2 or 3, 1 shows obsession with people like michal jackson, but im not sure if that counts.

The male members do suffer obsessions also. I myself am a computer and war game fanatic. My freind alan is a star wars fanatic, my freind danny a guitar nut etc....

While it may be genetic, females and males act very similar in most respects.

Also, my youth club attendances have helped, as have other strange freinds in other places (Epilepsy, dislexia and at 1 point a strange goth creature named shaun....) :P However, I'm probably 1 of the more nomal people with aspergers... ---Chris Barrett, Dec 31, 2004

I agree with the original poster that AS is very much a social construct and I say that as someone diagnosed with AS myself and initially saw it as an explanation for my teenage woes. By defining AS as an autistic spectrum disorder in effect the psychiatric establishment claims our brains are deviant, abnormal, pathological.. yet the scientific evidence is very inconclusive and very few AS-diagnosed adults have had a brain scan (fMRI or PET) anyway. Besides most of the alleged differences in the orbito-frontal cortex can be attributed to neuroplasticity. If you spend most of your time alone glued to a computer screen or game console, then inevitably your brain will rewire itself to adapt to the new environment. The obsessive interests you mention are pervasive in our decadent society. Indeed I'd say most people are obsessed with one thing or another, usually watching soaps or indulging in consumer junk. Society is literally driving people insane, amplifying subtle neurological differences that set in train much more profound differences in the development of personalities and performance levels. See [All in the Mind]. ---Neil Gardner, 16 Aug 2005

Possible Copyright Violation

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

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

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

Protected because of persistent vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important

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

Thank you all, and have a great day. memzy

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

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

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

Wikipedians and Asperger's

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

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

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

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

Heh, Agreed. BlackLiger/Chris

Minor changes

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

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

Deleted material

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

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

Portrayals of Asperger's in the media

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

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

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

neurotypicals

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

How is it offensive or POV? How else do you intend to describe those that are neurologically typical? "Normal" has much stronger connotations; neurotypical is accurate and generally devoid of those connotations. 134.53.96.154 01:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I personally find the term less offensive however would also have to aggree that it is POV, after all neurotypical is similar to the term normal which is defined by ones relative definition of normality to a large degree, excessive usage of the term is also I feel not really required to make the point MttJocy 11:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neurotypical is a neat term but I think it has all the problems that normal has. For our purposes here, though, it's a useful word to have when dealing with the struggle to fit in, for a person with AS or something similar. Normalcy is essentially just a contract between people who don't want to (and don't have to) stand out, and it is helpful to have a term to describe the beneficiaries of that contract, for those of us who do stand out. — FJ | hello

As a neurotypical person who is the parent of an autistic person, I don't find the term offensive whatsoever, but merely descriptive. --DaveSeidel 02:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

popular sites?

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

over emphasis of "disorder"

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

Asperger's Syndrome or Asperger Syndrome?

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

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

There's a re-direct at Asperger syndrome (with an existing history) - does that mean an administrator needs to move it? As far as I know (not having a copy of the DSM IV) it's the "official" name, so I think the page should sit there and this should be the re-direct. If anyone disagrees, please say so. Guettarda 19:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No disagreement. Both are acceptable usages and neither is "official". In the early 1970s (I think) a number of editors of major medical journals and some geneticists and other doctors decided to try to promote consistency with syndrome names and tried to enforce dropping of the 's from eponymous syndromes. They would prefer Asperger syndrome to Asperger's. There was a noticeable increase is use of the plain form in the medical literature, but the 's forms have never completely gone away, and there is no body with power to make either the "official" way to do it. alteripse 04:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I did use "official" in quotes for that reason. So it comes down to common usage - either using the "official" Wikipedia standard of Google (tongue-in-cheek because I disagree with the extent to which it's used to solve disputes): 179,000 hits for "Asperger's syndrome", the top hit being a page titled "Asperger Syndrome"; 311,000 for "Asperger syndrome", or, usage by medical journals (which, you say also leans toward Asperger). Guettarda 18:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pro-cure POV attack

Someone is trying to push here pro-cure POV. I analyze their contributions in detail.

The Asperger’s Syndrome community, particularly on the internet, is deeply divided along ideological lines into two broad groups loosely known as the “pro-Aspie” group and the “pro-cure” group. ~~That's right.~~

Pro-Aspie groups believe that Asperger’s is not a disability, but simply a part of the individual’s personality. Therefore, they actively oppose many forms of treatment of the condition. They strive to change the world to accommodate them based on the assumption that the condition will never be cured as a matter of principle. To this end, they encourage social skills education for sufferers and education for those living with people with Asperger’s. Word sufferer isn't appropriate for an article that strives for NPOV. It is indifferent for pro-Aspies whether you can "cure" Autism or not, so don't start to talk about it here.

Pro-cure groups are opposed to and offended by the pro-Aspie culture likening it to the growing Pro-anorexia culture on the internet. Pro-cure groups claim that their position is supported by scientific fact. They believe that the primary aim for sufferers is to not suffer any more. They want to be cured, and in the mean time, want to be able to live life as best as possible despite their condition. You can't compare pro-autism to pro-anorexia movement. Those conditions differ remarkably. Autism doesn't kill you. Pro-anorexia movement claims that anorexia is a choice, but everyone (including pro-autistics) knows that autism isn't. I am also curious what are those scientific facts. Discrimination and planning schools and other institutions only for NTs don't count, then we also had to eliminate the blacks, the blind and the lefthanded.

It is worth noting that one is more inclined to adhere themselves to a group or a website if it involves expressing a desire to remain as one is rather than to change. Why join a group with the express desire to no longer be a part of the group? This explains why you may find many pro-Aspie sites on the internet but few pro-cure communities. This does not mean that all Aspies are pro-Aspies, or even a majority. The overwhelming majority of parents and those who face the daily realities of living with a sufferer support the search for a cure, as do most adult sufferers. What is your source on this opinion survey?

Further inspection of the forums on the pro-Aspie community websites as well as the autism wiki reveals an anti-responsibility, anti-employment, almost anarchist agenda whose scope extends far beyond the limited topic of developmental disorders. Opinions are labelled as “ignorant” and “a misconception” even though they are held by many sufferers themselves. This kind of defaming isn't allowed in Wikipedia! I am curious how many pro-autistic website have you read. I might know what community is in question, bu I say no names... One community isn't reliable sample.

I'd like to know if there are pro-cure communities and organizations outside US. I haven't heard any before stumbling on Cure Autism Now Foundation in Internet. (My location is Finland, that matters in this subject.) -Hapsiainen 13:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I went further and asked about pro-cure groups from a neuropsychiatrist I know. She is specialized in Asperger's syndrome. She had never heard of them, and was staggered. -Hapsiainen 23:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I modified the section to be NPOV, but I still dispute the factual accuracy. I don't see a "division" in the online Asperger's community among autistic/Asperger's people surrounding the cure issue. I think the claim to the contrary needs a reference if the section is to stay in the article. Q0 11:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here are some more things that need referencing in the "Asperger's on the Internet" section:

It is claimed the anti-cure group is known as the "pro-aspie" group. I have never heard of this naming scheme for the anti-cure group. I would like to see a reference for it.
I have heard a few autistic/Asperger's people express a desire for a cure, while the overwhelming majority that I have met do not and I have not seen a "division" of any kind in the online community. The section claims some people believe the pro-cure Asperger's people are the majority and that there is a division. I would like to see a reference for this.

Q0 03:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to emphasize that the my mother tongue isn't English and I don't understand all the nuances of the text. I thought that division could also be 1:50, not necessary 2:3 or 1:1. When I commented the text, I didn't notice that it stated "two broad groups". There is only one broad group. I have corrected my comments. I haven't also heard of word "pro-aspie" before. Maybe they derived it from pro-anorexia. Putting pro in front of a word show that the phenomenon has remarkable opposition. Hence pro-aspie can't be a neutral word, because it assumes the oppositon, which isn't the case. -Hapsiainen 03:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

In addition to having never heard of a pro-cure faction (I and my son both have AS), my neurologist has never heard of such a "faction." Is there any evidence for the existence of such a group that would warrant keeping the section? - Rjstreet 04:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have met some people on the autistic spectrum who wanted to be cured, but I'd say about 90% were opposed to one. I think it can be mentioned that some autistic (or Asperger's) people support a cure but I don't think it should say there is a pro-cure "faction" unless evidence is found to support it. Q0 19:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neanderthal mt DNA?

This assertion needs some supporting references - I could find no hits on google or google scholar about this idea. What is the source for this? Guettarda 00:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I saw a program on the science channel (I think it is owned by the same company as discovery channel) that found a skeleton with a combination of human and neanderthal characteristics which dated at some time after the Neanderthals were believed to have gone extinct. It is possible that everybody is part Neanderthal. I'm not sure if I taped it or not but I'll provide more information if I do find it. However, I don't think the show mentioned Asperger's or mitochondrial DNA. Q0 03:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is almost no evidence for human-neanderthal hybridisation (see, e.g., this NYTimes article) - some questionable skeletons, but no mt DNA evidence as far as I am aware. There is one external reference, but I couldn't find evidence, just speculation. AFAIK the neanderthal DNA which has been extracted is very different from modern human DNA, suggesting that is hybrids did occur, they were either did not have offspring (reasonable, hybrid sterility is common) or were very rare. The incidence of autism/AS is far too high to be explained by this.

More to the point though, the information is in the article, and seems to have been accepted with absolutely no evidence. I may have missed the announcement, but it seems that if the "evidence" suggested in the article really existed, that knowledge of this stuff would have made its way to participants in a workshop on Neanderthals (cf, the NYTimes article). Guettarda 20:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that mtDNA is independant of nuclear DNA, unlike nuclear DNA, mtDNA comes only from the mother. A lack of Neanderthal mtDNA in modern humans only tells us that no purely female lines of Neanderthal descent current exist. Some positive references for Neanderthal Hybrids.

Entropy888 04:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point people towards this essay on the subject - http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.html This is, as far as I am aware the source of "neanderthal theory". Gareth Nelson, Aspies for Freedom

Vaccines

Don't remove the section that says that Asperger's is linked to early vaccinations. My mom attended a seminar about Asperger's (when you have the duty of raising a boy with Asperger's, you tend to learn a bit about it) and that is what they thought the cause was. As these early vaccinations rose, the cases of Asperger's also increased.

Please don't write a response to the vaccine-case on this talk page. Do it on mine. - B-101 13:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) (User talk:B-101)

That all the people interested had to go from here to your talk page? How clumsy, this is the natural place for the response. The theory that the vaccines cause Autism isn't accepted by the scientific community. Some weaknesses of the theory (from Quackwatch.org):

The known number of ASD cases has been increasing since 1979, but there was no jump after the introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988.
Cases vaccinated before 18 months of age had similar ages at diagnosis as did cases who had been vaccinated after 18 months or not vaccinated, indicating that vaccination does not result in earlier expression of autistic characteristics.
At age two years, the MMR vaccination coverage among the ASD cases was nearly identical to coverage in children in the same birth cohorts in the whole region, providing evidence of an overall lack of association with vaccination.
The first diagnosis of autism or initial signs of behavioral regression were not more likely to occur within time periods following vaccination than during other time periods.
A weak statistical association existed between MMR vaccination and initial parental concern, but this appears to have been due to parents' difficulty in recalling precise age at onset and a preference for approximating the age as 18 months.

What seminar did you visit? I have to remove the the parargraph you added, because it is simply false. Instead I put a link to an article about the subject. -Hapsiainen 15:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

There may be more to it than just co-incidence - many people will argue very strongly that their child never showed any signs until they were vaccinated (autism or AS). However, vaccination is a traumatic experience, and it might serve as a trigger in children with AS/autism. I am (by word of mouth, though I could find out if it's published or not) that trained professionals could identify children with autism or AS in first birthday videos, even though the parents did not suspect anything at the time. So the first time a parent notices it may not be the onset - after all, most parents first experience with a baby with AS or autism is their own child. Guettarda 15:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to underscore what Guettarda said - doesn't vaccination typically take place at about the same age when symptoms of "minor" forms of autism such as AS would first become readily noticable? It's not like you can easily tell if a six-month-old is an Aspergian, most of the symptoms involve things that just don't tend to come up that early in life.

My mom attended a seminar near where we live. She has a copy of the power point presentation, but I'll double-check the information. It may be coincidence, but she really has learned a lot about it.- B-101 15:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dog eating homework idiom

The text says: "When a teacher asks a child with Asperger's, "Did the dog eat your homework?","

Well, what would a non-aspie child answer if she was unfamiliar with the idiom?

I was an intelligent child, and they thought I was aspie (even a couple of years before that became a fashionable diagnosis in my region), and one of the reasons was that I always questioned idioms like that. I would answer "No, I don't have a dog" and the NT teacher would balk at that. I still don't know if I was/am aspie or not, (I've got a diagnosis that says I am, but I don't have any problems "reading other people"), but I wonder what a non-aspie child would answer, and I think it's a weird example.

Not everyone (especially children!) has heard that expression or would make sense of it.

I think a better example of an idiom would be "I don't bite." It's commonly used as a slightly disparaging thing to say to somebody perceived as "shy", and might be something most aspies have heard directed at them at one time or another, and had no idea what it meant. Kaibabsquirrel 04:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality in possible causes and origins

In the seventh paragraph of the section 'Possible causes and origins' the final sentence reads:

'Although this theory has a degree of popular currency and has been discussed in a number of documentaries on the subject, it fails to address the basic empirical observation that Asperger's and related disorders are overwhelmingly predominant in males, yet children of the two sexes are immunised in roughly equal numbers.'

I have no knowledge of the matter or opinion either way, however this sentence ignores the fact that immunisation could have increased the chance of autism or Asperger in males, and not so much in females? I suggest the following out of want for a more neutral standing, however I am not willing to make the change because of my lack of knowledge about the topic. Could someone better equipped take a stand?

'Although this theory has a degree of popular currency and has been discussed in a number of documentaries on the subject, it does not address the empirical observation that Asperger's and related disorders are overwhelmingly predominant in males, yet children of the two sexes are immunised in roughly equal numbers.'

-- Chris Hughes 00:56 GMT 14/03/2005

The most important issue is that studies which have looked for a correlation between vaccination and AS/autism have failed to find any correlation.
If immunisation was somehow "causing" AS or autism, then you should see similar levels in males and females because the proportions immunised are similar. So the underlying cause must be something other than immunisation. Of course it could be possible that the relationship between immunisation and AS/autism could be different in males and females - but that is a totally separate argument (and, AFAIK, not supported by the existing studies). Guettarda 01:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The claim that AS is higher in first children of older parents is a very interesting one. It was the first I have seen of this, but I was the first child of older parents myself. This claim should certainly be sourced, but it should not have been deleted just like that. PatGallacher 00:14, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

But if it stays in the article, people think it is already sourced. The same user User:68.193.103.52 have also put other unsourced claims to the article, but haven't returned to explain them. The user has also added other text to other articles, which people have reverted as unsourced. (Special:Contributions/User:68.193.103.52) -Hapsiainen 11:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any cures or treatments for Asperger's syndrome?

Asperger's syndrome isn't a disease, so there isn't. Aso there isn't a neurological "quirk" common to all Aspergers. But there are therapies, support groups etc. They help Aspergers to interact with neurotypicals, to stay awake and go to sleep in reasonable times, to not get lost etc. The problems vary from person to person. -Hapsiainen 13:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Aspie & aspiette

I have never heard of this distinction: "The word Aspiette is a female Aspie, whereas Aspie can be described as male." I found no pages in English with word aspiette from Google, so I removed the paragraph. -Hapsiainen 13:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have heard this term used sparingly on the ChatAutism IRC network however it does seam quite rare and most are quite happy with simply Aspie MttJocy 00:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I am the inventor of the word Aspiette. Just because my word isn't popular yet, it doesn't mean you can change the original definition that I made of it! Geez - since when you do have the control over the word that I invented? It was, after all, a natural progression from the nickname Aspie to adding the 'ette' onto the end of it. If that doesn't sound like a logical step to invent a new word, then I really really don't know what is! http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=17986 Kitkatsavvy 10:27, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Just as Wikipedia is not for original research, it is not for reporting what you think should be the case or popularizing usages that don't have wide acceptance. When it becomes widely accepted, then it will belong on the page, and not a moment sooner.

I feel the word has validity, it is the feminine of an existing word - Aspie. If it is in popular usage within a minority group, but not in the wider world, it still has a valid existence within that minority. AmyNelson 12:11 12 Jul 2005 (BST)

Is there a need for a feminine term at all? I don't see anything male-specfic about "aspie" or "aspergian". I can't think of any good reason I would ever have to use the term in other than an ironic way.

Geek vs. Asperger's

One section of the page makes pains to distinguish being a "geek" from having Asperger's. There is no black and white distinction here, its all shades of grey. Ask "geeks" about there childhoods, you'll find that Asperger's/autistic childhoods arn't all that uncommon. Even amongst the many "geeks" who never fully fit the current diagnostic criteria, you will find many autistic traits.

The question shouldn't be "do I meet the DSM criteria?" but rather, "are these my people?". Believe me, you'll know pretty damn fast when you walk into a room full of Aspie's and/or autistics if you belong there. Or maybe you partly belong there, but whatever the case you don't need a doctors note to know what you are.

Imagine how far the gay culture and gay rights would have gotten if you needed a doctors diagnosis of homosexuality to identify as gay. Regrettably Asperger's is a label which we do not define for ourselves. I honestly wish there was another word for "us" which isn't up to the experts to define. Entropy888 05:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. As recently as April 2003 I didn't think I was quite allowed to count as an aspie, just because I don't have the trait of taking metaphorical phrases literally! All books on aspies up to then treated it as an essential defining symptom, just because of its interest to NTs. Yet my social aspieness is major enough that I got diagnosed in a single session. Tern, Aug 19, 22:33

Jeff Chon?

who's that? the name just turned up in the list, but no wiki page exists on him? is that encyclopedia worthy, or just someone who wanted to be named in the same sentence as eg Bill Gates? (clem 22:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

he's a collumnist for Savant magazine--Marc pasquin 2 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

another disabilities

Does anyone have an idea what's the frequency of dyslexia and dyscalculia among aspergerians? 84.228.249.227 00:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the official stats from empirical research, but during my Psych training, we were taught that the traits for autism spectrum disorders and dyslexia/dyscalculia cosegregate, or occur together in family trees of related individuals. Dyscalculia is especially common in aspergians whose particular troubles involve complex abstract reasoning. It is often the case that aspergians have excellent memory retention skills, but a very concrete experience of the world that makes intensive abstract reasoning, such as in algebra and so on, particularly difficult. --adam black 22:44, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Gillberg thinks that dyslexia is probably no more (or less) common in aspergians than in the general population, but that dyscalculia probably is overrepresented (despite a high incidence of Aspergians being exceptionally good at math).