Hi everyone.

I have wondered how many people on Dakka have Aspergers Syndrome or other forms of Autism.

My mother who is a psychiatrist has had many clients who are Aspergers which ironicly all enjoy wargames ie, Warhammer/40k to which my mother says is one tell tale sign of Aspergers so I figured that thier maybe some on Dakka Dakka

I myself had been dioagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome when I was 16 years old.

I use to have trouble fitting in at school when I was young. I would always get picked on and was in alot of fights and I didn't know why people didn't like me or why.

I couldn't play well with others, it wasn't until I went to a psychiatrist that I found out I have Aspergers Syndrome.

Life is alot better for me now I have manage to learn how to fit and be aware of my social problems and have been able to make good friends with people.

I can't say I don't hate having Aspergers Syndrome because its who I am and I've always had it.

I do wish I knew about it earlier on so I could have been able to fit in better at school but thats in the pass.

So Dakka is thier any others out thier with Aspergers or Autism?

I have aspergers, thankfully as my mum has quite a bit of experience working with aspergers kids I was diagnosed and got quite a lot of help at a young age.

It's pretty noticeable when I'm stressed or angry though.

corpsesarefun wrote:I have aspergers, thankfully as my mum has quite a bit of experience working with aspergers kids I was diagnosed and got quite a lot of help at a young age.

It's pretty noticeable when I'm stressed or angry though.

Well you were lucky even when my Mum is a psychiatrist she didn't think I had Aspergers until my psychiatrist told her

I've never been properly diagnosed as aspergers and didn't realise I had it until I started dealing with a friend's autistic kids. I looked in to autism and aspergers and everything clicked into place.

I get the overstim effects when I'm stressed or if too many unexpected things happen at once.
I have to overcome the uncomfortable feelings to make eye contact with people I don't absolutely trust (even then it makes my skin crawl sometimes).
I also go autist on tasks a lot and block out the real world.

My partner says I don't talk much and occasionally I have to take myself off to another room when our kids are causing me to overstim.

I haven't had formal treatment as these are just things I have learned to live with. They are easier to deal with now that I know where they come from.

I should say that I'm old enough that things like Aspergers, Dyslexia and ADHD weren't recognised when I was at school and I don't see much point fussing about it now.

I don't have it personally, but my little sister does. It wasn't diagnosed until she was seven years old, but now she's in a proper school program and is doing very well.

Yak9UT wrote:

I have wondered how many people on Dakka have Aspergers Syndrome or other forms of Autism.

My mother who is a psychiatrist has had many clients who are Aspergers which ironicly all enjoy wargames ie, Warhammer/40k to which my mother says is one tell tale sign of Aspergers

I'm sorry if I sound harsh but that's rediculous! I think it is just a perpetuation of the 'wargamers are sad, introverted, 'uncool' kids stereotype and tries to relate that to the triad of imparement. If wargaming is a 'telltale' sign of aspergers then everyone on the site must have huge potential to be on the autistic spectrum. I have had 7 years experience working in Autism specific care and have never had anyone show interest in wargaming. Also I don't quite understand how it would be ironic?

I appreciate you would be making a thread to find other wargamers with autism but I think the quote and assumption are ill-assumed and unprofessional.

1/3 people have some form of it, most don't even touch wargames, as far as I know.

remilia_scarlet wrote:1/3 people have some form of it, most don't even touch wargames, as far as I know.

The CDC claims that the rate of autism is like 1 per 1000.

Though, on the internet, 1/3 may be close to the actual claim rate.

dogma wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:1/3 people have some form of it, most don't even touch wargames, as far as I know.

The CDC claims that the rate of autism is like 1 per 1000.

Though, on the internet, 1/3 may be close to the actual claim rate.

Autism and asperger's syndrome are thought to be related but are not the same. Aspies are able to operate fairly normally but have some noticeable symptoms of autism.

Sonophos wrote:Autism and asperger's syndrome are thought to be related but are not the same. Aspies are able to operate fairly normally but have some noticeable symptoms of autism.

Even if we're talking about the autism spectrum as a whole (And, admittedly, I didn't know what remilia was referencing.) its like 6-8 per 1000; far less than 1 in 3.

I think the self diagnosed rate is perhaps 1 in 3, whereas diagnosed by professionals is 6~8 per 1000.

Bloodfever wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:

I have wondered how many people on Dakka have Aspergers Syndrome or other forms of Autism.

My mother who is a psychiatrist has had many clients who are Aspergers which ironicly all enjoy wargames ie, Warhammer/40k to which my mother says is one tell tale sign of Aspergers

I'm sorry if I sound harsh but that's rediculous! I think it is just a perpetuation of the 'wargamers are sad, introverted, 'uncool' kids stereotype and tries to relate that to the triad of imparement. If wargaming is a 'telltale' sign of aspergers then everyone on the site must have huge potential to be on the autistic spectrum. I have had 7 years experience working in Autism specific care and have never had anyone show interest in wargaming. Also I don't quite understand how it would be ironic?

I appreciate you would be making a thread to find other wargamers with autism but I think the quote and assumption are ill-assumed and unprofessional.

Uh, no. When me and my friends play 40k we smoke (tobacco and cannabis), drink and generally have a laugh. The average 40k gamer from what i've seen, both in Games Workshop and at Warhammer World, looks like he's never spoken to a girl irl at all. Most of them must be on some kind of spectrum. Admitidly I was pretty much the same until i was about 19/20 (made about 5 friends during all of two years at uni, go me) but some of these people you seriously have to wonder how they leave the house without being set upon by wild dogs.
Even the hobby itself is very..."left-brained". How many wargamers do you think know all of the base rules off by heart, as well as their own codex (stats, point values, equipment). Probably a fair few. I know people who play 40k who have to look up the rules for their models every turn, but they're definitely the minority.

I have heard from some that as many as 1 in (insert number greater than 2 here) men suffer some form of Asperger's.

I am doubtful of 1 in 3 but if one is talking about Asperger's and taking into account that it wasn't really recognised until 1994 there will be a large number of undiagnosed people out there.


Some of them would come across as cold, unemotional and obsessed with accuracy but I couldn't think who would fit that bill.

Joey wrote:The average 40k gamer from what i've seen, both in Games Workshop and at Warhammer World, looks like he's never spoken to a girl irl at all.

The average gamer I see playing in a GW or indie store is ~12, so that makes some sense.

Joey wrote: When me and my friends play 40k we smoke (tobacco and cannabis), drink and generally have a laugh.

Same here. FWIW I think that there's a massive underground railroad of gamers like that. They just tend to avoid GWs because they're full of weirdos, preferring instead to play with their mates in the sort of environment you described. There's more of us than you think.

Albatross wrote:

Joey wrote: When me and my friends play 40k we smoke (tobacco and cannabis), drink and generally have a laugh.

Same here. FWIW I think that there's a massive underground railroad of gamers like that. They just tend to avoid GWs because they're full of weirdos, preferring instead to play with their mates in the sort of environment you described. There's more of us than you think.

Word....

Id throw my hat into the "secret club of gamers" as well. I like to act goofy and have a good laugh when playing, people that play in major shops just dont have a sense of humor and it makes me edgy right off the bat.


Also to actually stay ontop, my niece has been diagnosed with Aspergers by a profession as well. Shes pretty much a normal kid, but you can tell there is something a little off with her, when compared to her siblings. Great kid though, I call her mouse girl, because she has a tiny nose like a little baby mouse, adorable.

KingCracker wrote:Id throw my hat into the "secret club of gamers" as well. I like to act goofy and have a good laugh when playing, people that play in major shops just dont have a sense of humor and it makes me edgy right off the bat.


Also to actually stay ontop, my niece has been diagnosed with Aspergers by a profession as well. Shes pretty much a normal kid, but you can tell there is something a little off with her, when compared to her siblings. Great kid though, I call her mouse girl, because she has a tiny nose like a little baby mouse, adorable.

When did being "a little off" mean you were disabled? Everyone's different.

Pretty sure I never mentioned she was disabled there bud. Either read properly, or dont make up gak, just a suggestion

Joey wrote:
Same here. FWIW I think that there's a massive underground railroad of gamers like that. They just tend to avoid GWs because they're full of weirdos, preferring instead to play with their mates in the sort of environment you described. There's more of us than you think.

+1

KingCracker wrote:
Also to actually stay ontop, my niece has been diagnosed with Aspergers by a profession as well. Shes pretty much a normal kid, but you can tell there is something a little off with her, when compared to her siblings.

And thats the double-edged sword compared to other mental disabilities.

Aspergers hampers social function so what alot of the time is an attitude/response etc due to the aspergers gets mistaken for someone just being a d**k. Aswell as other social events and helping the day-to-day running of self-supported living, I had to accompany a 19 yo with aspergers when he went to college because he was always having arguments, fights and communication and attitude issues with students and teachers alike. Until he was diagnosed a few months before I worked with him everyone assumed it was just down to him being a very rude and spiteful person. Unlike the other end of the autistic spectrum where it is usually obvious there is the disability, with aspergers, the majority of the time they can appear to be, or come across as 'normal'.

As people have mentioned the stereotypical guy that hangs around the GW stores, and the lack of social etiquette and graces they may display, this to an extent can be compared with the social ideosyncrasys of aspergers resulting the 'wargaming is a sign of asprgers' assumption.

Yea shes got the anger part of it for sure, and she'll just get triggered for little things. I could walk into her room, and move 1 doll and she could just blow up. But like I said,other then a couple small things, shes pretty normal

KingCracker wrote:Pretty sure I never mentioned she was disabled there bud. Either read properly, or dont make up gak, just a suggestion

Asperger's is a disability. If you are not "severe" enough for it to be a disability then it should not be diagnosed as such.

My 15 year old son is a aspie.

The best treatment we've found through the years? Team sports. Forcing him to see that his actions directly affect his teammates. Missing a block, missing a assignment, has immediate and very visible consequences.

Don't have it, nor does anyone else I know, surprisingly.

Sounds like an awful condition, and my sympathies are yours.

Joey wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Pretty sure I never mentioned she was disabled there bud. Either read properly, or dont make up gak, just a suggestion

Asperger's is a disability. If you are not "severe" enough for it to be a disability then it should not be diagnosed as such.

Incorrect. One can be diagnosed with a multitude of things, and not be "Disabled" or have a 'Disability'. A condition is only 'disabling' if you are affected adversely by its symptoms. Aspergers is part of a 'spectrum',ranging far and wide in effect and severity. Guy's right. Don't make up gak, and especially don't try and feed it to people who live with it. (Or work with it, or have it, for that matter.)

I'm getting some serious deja vu. Didn't we have this thread before it and blew up because of the exact same reason that's being brought up now?

(The whole spectrum and what kind one has and feeding it to people and all that)

As for the topic I do not have it, nor do I know anyone who has it.

Necroshea, I can't say as I've seen a thread like this before, but I can imagine exactly how it went, as people peddle myths and half-truths as "facts", or just lack understanding of a complex mental health situation.

.(Like most subjects I suppose, but when one is discussing peoples families and children, things can get a lot more tense. )

Last count I heard (by the way) was 500,000+ people with Autism in the UK. And that was this Monday, at an Autism Act Guidance Committee meeting, so its probably fairly up-to-date.

There was a thread not long ago that derailed into AS, though I don't believe it was the original point of it, but it was discussed and much of this is almost the same ground.

I'm generalising here so not aimed at anyone in particular but I think it has to be understood that just because someone may suffer from Autism or know someone with autism, it doesn't mean they understand it and could easily fall into misinformation, the myths, assumptions or even the 'rainman' expectations.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Joey wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Pretty sure I never mentioned she was disabled there bud. Either read properly, or dont make up gak, just a suggestion

Asperger's is a disability. If you are not "severe" enough for it to be a disability then it should not be diagnosed as such.

Incorrect. One can be diagnosed with a multitude of things, and not be "Disabled" or have a 'Disability'. A condition is only 'disabling' if you are affected adversely by its symptoms. Aspergers is part of a 'spectrum',ranging far and wide in effect and severity. Guy's right. Don't make up gak, and especially don't try and feed it to people who live with it. (Or work with it, or have it, for that matter.)

a)you don't know what I do and don't "have"
b)In the UK Asperger's is classed as a disability
Please try to think rationally rather than looking for reasons to be offended (classic modern response to any difference whatsoever is to look for opportunities to be offended, well done).

Bloodfever wrote:
Aspergers hampers social function so what alot of the time is an attitude/response etc due to the aspergers gets mistaken for someone just being a d**k.

Conversely, its easy to confuse someone being a dick for someone with AS.

Its also easy, especially at an early age, to misdiagnose AS.

The word "disability" is one of the least technical words in the English Language, in that it means vastly different things depending on context. It's also rarely a medical term, but rather a legal one.

That said, and keep in mind that I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, the DSM IV diagnostic criteria are pretty heavy stuff:

Diagnostic criteria for 299.80 Asperger's Disorder
(cautionary statement)

A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D. 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).

E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/asperger.htm

The criteria describe a fairly impaired individual. It's the double edged sword mental disorders: you don't' want people to assume that they are "different," but they, by definition, are!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
a)you don't know what I do and don't "have"
b)In the UK Asperger's is classed as a disability
Please try to think rationally rather than looking for reasons to be offended (classic modern response to any difference whatsoever is to look for opportunities to be offended, well done).

Classed by who as a disability? I don't know much about UK disability law, but I know the US stuff like the back of my hand.

No mental professional will ever consider a diagnosis a disability. In almost no instances does the law do the same.

Many disorders can be "disabling," which is a very different thing.

I've personally listened as a licensed doctor explained why a child with confirmed cystic fibrosis was not "disabled." A diagnosis is not a destiny.

Polonius wrote:
(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

When I was 5 I was diagnosed with AS on the basis of the above criteria, or criteria very much like them (I'm sure they've changed since 1991). Now, I don't have AS, and it turns out that when your family moves every 3-4 months these behaviors often manifest in children.

The point being that, while its easy to picture a person fitting the clinical criteria as someone who personifies their extreme, its also easy to apply them to someone who is just distant, kind of an ass, and really into math (Speaking of myself at age 7...and maybe age 25).

Aspergers syndrome disorder is classed as a mental disability as it has a detrimental effect on social interaction and understanding. People with the disorder do not intentionally chose to struggle understanding body language or lack empathy and the multitude of other ASD symptoms, but because of the condition the social and sometimes, physical effects (alot of 'Aspies' appear to be clumsier) thier lives are affected negatively.

I agree with Dogma, it can be easy to misdiagnose ASD and alot of children are diagnosed with ADHD before ASD or on the other hand are 'normal' but just feeling the effects of thier enviroments. or are going through a 'phase'.

dogma wrote:
When I was 5 I was diagnosed with AS on the basis of the above criteria, or criteria very much like them (I'm sure they've changed since 1991). Now, I don't have AS, and it turns out that when your family moves every 3-4 months these behaviors often manifest in children.

The point being that, while its easy to picture a person fitting the clinical criteria as someone who personifies their extreme, its also easy to apply them to someone who is just distant, kind of an ass, and really into math (Speaking of myself at age 7...and maybe age 25).

Also, mental disorders are seldom diagnosed based on mental status examination and other observations/findings alone. Instead, a patient's history and reported symptoms play a huge part in any diagnosis.

In children, what a parent says is often used to make the diagnosis. I'm not accusing your parents of anything, but in a quick examination, a doctor is likely to hit the bullet points with the parent, and slap a diagnosis on a kid.

There is also the incredible squishy nature of diagnostic criteria, where descriptors like "marked" can have very different meanings to two different practitioners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bloodfever wrote:Aspergers syndrome disorder is classed as a mental disability as it has a detrimental effect on social interaction and understanding. '.

Again, be aware that the term "disability" is almost always a legal definition, not a medical one.

Polonius wrote: I'm not accusing your parents of anything, but in a quick examination, a doctor is likely to hit the bullet points with the parent, and slap a diagnosis on a kid.

Well, having been expelled several times probably didn't help my cause.

I was misdiagnosed with Aspgergers when I was 14. I have been re-diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Joey wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Joey wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Pretty sure I never mentioned she was disabled there bud. Either read properly, or dont make up gak, just a suggestion

Asperger's is a disability. If you are not "severe" enough for it to be a disability then it should not be diagnosed as such.

Incorrect. One can be diagnosed with a multitude of things, and not be "Disabled" or have a 'Disability'. A condition is only 'disabling' if you are affected adversely by its symptoms. Aspergers is part of a 'spectrum',ranging far and wide in effect and severity. Guy's right. Don't make up gak, and especially don't try and feed it to people who live with it. (Or work with it, or have it, for that matter.)

a)you don't know what I do and don't "have"
b)In the UK Asperger's is classed as a disability
Please try to think rationally rather than looking for reasons to be offended (classic modern response to any difference whatsoever is to look for opportunities to be offended, well done).

A) Do you have a diagnosis of an Autism Spectrum Disorder? Your previous post does not appear to imply such, but rather a degree of neurotypicality.
B) Being the father of two autistic children, having an autistic partner, being on the spectrum, and working in Mental heatlh on the "Adult Autism Team" with DISCO-trained staff, , whilst working alongside the Local Authority on their compliance with the Autism Act 09, of course would have absolutely no idea about Aspergers in the UK, how it occurs, how it is diagnosed and how it is classified, and should bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the subject. May I ask what your experience actually is, by the way? (Other than 'having difficulty making friends", as you say. I assume from your authority on the subject that you must therefore have some other experience, because by itself, being a billy-no-mates can be symptomatic of something as simple as an abrasive or unpleasant personality, bad personal hygiene, being arrogant, and sundry other things.

By the way, I wasn't "taking offense" at what you said. I was correcting it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Extra point: DSM IV is currently busy getting chopped and changed around for DSMV, and there is much disagreement about where Aspergers will be, what it will mean, whether it will exist, or whether the diagnostic criteria will change. Top names in the field are fiercely divided over it. Fun Times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
When I was 5 I was diagnosed with AS on the basis of the above criteria, or criteria very much like them (I'm sure they've changed since 1991). Now, I don't have AS, and it turns out that when your family moves every 3-4 months these behaviors often manifest in children.
.

We unofficially classified this as "Learned Aspergers". A lot of the diagnostic criteria can be met by people who have been exclusively home-schooled, or raised in unusual circumstances, such as rapid movement between homes, that sort of thing. Unfortunately false diagnosis is what misleads people into thinking that a neurological disorder which involves a physical difference in the brain can be 'cured'.

Joey wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Joey wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Pretty sure I never mentioned she was disabled there bud. Either read properly, or dont make up gak, just a suggestion

Asperger's is a disability. If you are not "severe" enough for it to be a disability then it should not be diagnosed as such.

Incorrect. One can be diagnosed with a multitude of things, and not be "Disabled" or have a 'Disability'. A condition is only 'disabling' if you are affected adversely by its symptoms. Aspergers is part of a 'spectrum',ranging far and wide in effect and severity. Guy's right. Don't make up gak, and especially don't try and feed it to people who live with it. (Or work with it, or have it, for that matter.)

a)you don't know what I do and don't "have"
b)In the UK Asperger's is classed as a disability
Please try to think rationally rather than looking for reasons to be offended (classic modern response to any difference whatsoever is to look for opportunities to be offended, well done).

And Im sure you know FAR more about diagnosing peoples problems then a board certified Doctor that has focused her career on these types of things for I think my brother said, 15 years? Ya....sure.....go find that bobcat already would ya?

What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

In the words of a not so wise man:

<liverpudlian accent> calm down! calm down! </liverpudlian accent>

you are arguing over minutia and semantics again.

Maybe its because your being an donkey-cave about it. Im sorry for misreading your donkey-cave remarks, as non donkey-cave remarks. My apologies. Pro tip though, when your being/coming off as a complete ass, specially talking about someones family, they tend to get all up in arms about it. Im not the first person to tell you something similar on DAKKA either.

While Joey is being fast and loose with language in a way that's almost deliberatly inflammatory, he does raise a good point: autism is the new ADHD.

The upside is that the treatment is almost equally beneficial to kids without Asbergers as with, so it's not really a problem.

OTOH, if your niece is "pretty much normal," I would be at least mildly skeptical about the diagnosis. Doctors aren't without bias, and mental disorders are notoriously fuzzy on diagnosis.

No shes definitely got it, Im not going into every little nook and cranny of her personality to prove it.

Joey wrote:What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

Meaning what?

Disability means at least four different things in American law.

You probably mean the word "disorder."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:No shes definitely got it, Im not going into every little nook and cranny of her personality to prove it.

then, and I mean no offense, she's not "pretty much normal."

By definition, a person with AS is not within normal ranges for emotional/social ability.

She might be highly functional, but if she's capable of everything a normal girl her age is... she can't have AS.

KingCracker wrote:No shes definitely got it, Im not going into every little nook and cranny of her personality to prove it.

All any child needs is love and the more the better.

(Please no indecent inuendos)

See if he said disorder, I wouldnt of been offended and gotten pissed about it. Disability is rather insulting IMO. I have a close friend with pretty bad Muscular Dystrophy, Im talking breathing tube and full time nurse to help her do anything more then talk. And telling her shes disabled causes her to want to murder the person for it, so yea, its not a pleasant word to casually toss around

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

Meaning what?

Disability means at least four different things in American law.

You probably mean the word "disorder."

Hence why I said "the UK". It's a nessesary perquisite for state help/funding. If people are offended by the term "disabled", that's their problem. My mum has Parkinson's and is therefore "disabled", I'm not going to gak my breaches because someone on the internet says "parkinson's is a disability".

KingCracker wrote:Maybe its because your being an donkey-cave about it. Im sorry for misreading your donkey-cave remarks, as non donkey-cave remarks. My apologies. Pro tip though, when your being/coming off as a complete ass, specially talking about someones family, they tend to get all up in arms about it. Im not the first person to tell you something similar on DAKKA either.

Stop looking for things to be offended by. You have chosen to be offended, get over yourself.

You still have yet to define the term disability.

Keep in mind that in the US, disabled means, at least in Social Security, and inability to work even minimum wage full time work. It's a pretty strict standard.

BTW, you actually aren't using the term correctly:

The definition of ‘disability’ under the Equality Act 2010
In the Act, a person has a disability if:

they have a physical or mental impairment
the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities
For the purposes of the Act, these words have the following meanings:

'substantial' means more than minor or trivial
'long-term' means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least twelve months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions)
'normal day-to-day activities' include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068

So, much like any other defintion of disabilty I've encoutnered, it's not based on diagnosis, but on severity of limitations.

Polonius wrote:While Joey is being fast and loose with language in a way that's almost deliberatly inflammatory, he does raise a good point: autism is the new ADHD.

The upside is that the treatment is almost equally beneficial to kids without Asbergers as with, so it's not really a problem.

OTOH, if your niece is "pretty much normal," I would be at least mildly skeptical about the diagnosis. Doctors aren't without bias, and mental disorders are notoriously fuzzy on diagnosis.

If you are skeptical about the diagnosis then you clearly have not had much/any interaction with people who have aspergers. I have met/worked with many people with aspergers and the majority do appear 'normal' where the expressions of the diability can easily be assumed just to be character just traits. You may be under the 'rainman' assumption where they have to have some super-power or the other end of the spectrum which they struggle with verbalisation, have 'ritualistic' behaviours, extreme agression, self-harm etc.

And regardless of American medical or law terminologies, in the UK, in the mental disability care sector, it is refered mto as a disability. It seems people are trying to force some 'PC' argument out of it.

EDIT: I think people may be focusing on the more 'extreme' for lack of a better word, of disability. Disability is a broad word that can, and does, encompass many different severities.

If it is a Disability I certainly havn't got any pay cheques

Bloodfever wrote:

Polonius wrote:While Joey is being fast and loose with language in a way that's almost deliberatly inflammatory, he does raise a good point: autism is the new ADHD.

The upside is that the treatment is almost equally beneficial to kids without Asbergers as with, so it's not really a problem.

OTOH, if your niece is "pretty much normal," I would be at least mildly skeptical about the diagnosis. Doctors aren't without bias, and mental disorders are notoriously fuzzy on diagnosis.

If you are skeptical about the diagnosis then you clearly have not had much/any interaction with people who have aspergers. I have met/worked with many people with aspergers and the majority do appear 'normal' where the expressions of the diability can easily be assumed just to be character just traits. You may be under the 'rainman' assumption where they have to have some super-power or the other end of the spectrum which they struggle with verbalisation, have 'ritualistic' behaviours, extreme agression, self-harm etc.

And regardless of American medical or law terminologies, in the UK, in the mental disability care sector, it is refered mto as a disability. It seems people are trying to force some 'PC' argument out of it.

Lol, I actually work for the Federal Government in disabiilty. I've read enough doctor's notes to know that mental health diagnoses of children are based more on guesswork than clinical findings. I was skeptical becuase KC made it a point to say that she was "pretty much normal." A family member that interacts with the patient over time would have more insight into her actual social functioning. Taking that at face value, I doubted the diagnosis. OTOH, many people want to reassure others that a person with a disorder is as normal as possible.

Joey wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

Meaning what?

Disability means at least four different things in American law.

You probably mean the word "disorder."

Hence why I said "the UK". It's a nessesary perquisite for state help/funding. If people are offended by the term "disabled", that's their problem. My mum has Parkinson's and is therefore "disabled", I'm not going to gak my breaches because someone on the internet says "parkinson's is a disability".

KingCracker wrote:Maybe its because your being an donkey-cave about it. Im sorry for misreading your donkey-cave remarks, as non donkey-cave remarks. My apologies. Pro tip though, when your being/coming off as a complete ass, specially talking about someones family, they tend to get all up in arms about it. Im not the first person to tell you something similar on DAKKA either.

Stop looking for things to be offended by. You have chosen to be offended, get over yourself.

Joey: Could you just say that you did not mean to cause offense? (it is a simple phrase that is and isn't an appology)
People get touchy on some subjects. They don't choose to be touchy, life gets people that way sometimes and things get lost in translation.

To demonstrate: Mrs Thatcher was the best Primeminister Britain has ever had.

Bloodfever wrote: I think people may be focusing on the more 'extreme' for lack of a better word, of disability. Disability is a broad word that can, and does, encompass many different severities.

Which is one reason the medical community in the US is eliminating the term, unless referring in specific to a funcitonal or participatory limitation.

Nearly all people view disability as, well, the state of being unable to do something, due to a medical cause.

=Polonius

Lol, I actually work for the Federal Government in disabiilty. I've read enough doctor's notes to know that mental health diagnoses of children are based more on guesswork than clinical findings. I was skeptical becuase KC made it a point to say that she was "pretty much normal." A family member that interacts with the patient over time would have more insight into her actual social functioning. Taking that at face value, I doubted the diagnosis. OTOH, many people want to reassure others that a person with a disorder is as normal as possible.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, there is a vast difference between reading doctors notes and first-hand experience. There is a reason there is such a high number of people with ASD that are fully self sufficiant in society; because they are very much 'normal', but struggle with socialisation, which many people without ASD do aswell. I can pretty much guarantee you have met many people without ASD and have not even known. KC himself said she had been diagnosed so there was no reason whatsoever to question that, as you said, it is family that should really know the most.

Polonius wrote:

Bloodfever wrote: I think people may be focusing on the more 'extreme' for lack of a better word, of disability. Disability is a broad word that can, and does, encompass many different severities.

Which is one reason the medical community in the US is eliminating the term, unless referring in specific to a funcitonal or participatory limitation.

Nearly all people view disability as, well, the state of being unable to do something, due to a medical cause.

And that is exactly why ASD/autism is a disability.

I think you're missing my point completely.

In my experience, there can be a profound disconnect, in any disorder, between what a doctor diagnoses based on self report (or a parents report) and that person's actual functional state.

I'm not second guessing the diagnosis now, but KC's earlier comment suggested that such a disconnect occured.

Keep mind, 75% of my job is explaining to people why the government doesnt' believe them about their alleged disability. I have a pretty narrow view of the medical establishment.

Let's just say that it's not unheard of for an emotional parent to provide a history that gets a doctor (that specializes in a disorder) to diagnose that disorder. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Polonius wrote:You still have yet to define the term disability.

Keep in mind that in the US, disabled means, at least in Social Security, and inability to work even minimum wage full time work. It's a pretty strict standard.

BTW, you actually aren't using the term correctly:

The definition of ‘disability’ under the Equality Act 2010
In the Act, a person has a disability if:

they have a physical or mental impairment
the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities
For the purposes of the Act, these words have the following meanings:

'substantial' means more than minor or trivial
'long-term' means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least twelve months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions)
'normal day-to-day activities' include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068

So, much like any other defintion of disabilty I've encoutnered, it's not based on diagnosis, but on severity of limitations.

So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"? Then I can't say I see the point in giving a diagnosis in the first place. Hell, one of the reasons I gave up in trying to get help at university from the NAS was because even if I had jumped through all the hoops there was actually feth all they could do to help me with my studies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:
Joey: Could you just say that you did not mean to cause offense? (it is a simple phrase that is and isn't an appology)
People get touchy on some subjects. They don't choose to be touchy, life gets people that way sometimes and things get lost in translation.

They do choose to get touchy, I know plenty of people who've had life happen to them without pissing themselves and getting "offended" all the time. It's called being a rational human being and being able to control your emotions rather than a 12-year old girl and feeling the need to respond to every emotional stimulus.

Bloodfever wrote:

Polonius wrote:Nearly all people view disability as, well, the state of being unable to do something, due to a medical cause.

And that is exactly why ASD/autism is a disability.

Well, sure, but by that reasoning nearly every person has a disability.

Nearly all people have some body hair, and so are technically "hairy."

That's not what people mean when they say "I saw a hairy guy at the beach."

As someone who has Aspergers syndrome I don't think its a diasabilty,

I am still capable of working and I am in no need for special help or care to live normally.

I see it as something that can be improved with pratice and training.

II may have some difficulty socially but it dosen't revolve around my life.

I am still a capable human being.

Joey wrote:[So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"?

Yes.

A person with AS can take care of hygiene, walk, communicate, have superficial interactions with others, and perform nearly all non-emotionally related functions.

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:[So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"?

Yes.

A person with AS can take care of hygiene, walk, communicate, have superficial interactions with others, and perform nearly all non-emotionally related functions.

Then what need for a diagnosis is there? Other than a badge saying "I'm special and clever".
Either you're disabled and need help, or you're not and you don't.

Yak9UT wrote:As someone who has Aspergers syndrome I don't think its a diasabilty,

I am still capable of working and I am in no need for special help or care to live normally.

I see it as something that can be improved with pratice and training.

II may have some difficulty socially but it dosen't revolve around my life.

I am still a capable human being.

I think it's really important to remember that diseases and disorder cannot be "disabilities."

Saying "Autism isn't a disability" is like saying "guns aren't bullet holes."

It's true because the first thing can't possibly be the second. The first might cause the second.

Polonius wrote:I think you're missing my point completely.

In my experience, there can be a profound disconnect, in any disorder, between what a doctor diagnoses based on self report (or a parents report) and that person's actual functional state.

I'm not second guessing the diagnosis now, but KC's earlier comment suggested that such a disconnect occured.

Keep mind, 75% of my job is explaining to people why the government doesnt' believe them about their alleged disability. I have a pretty narrow view of the medical establishment.

Let's just say that it's not unheard of for an emotional parent to provide a history that gets a doctor (that specializes in a disorder) to diagnose that disorder. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Well if it is your job to make these assessments then I can see why you could question peoples claims. In all honesty I have sometimes have doubts too, especially with people over the net, as we have all come across at one time or another, people who make false claims (aimed at nobody in particular and not just regarding mental disability) to either troll, appear 'cool' or for some other reason. But on the other hand, there are alot of people with ASD that do not get diagnosed for years as the expressions can all be explained to be something a 'normal' person would do.

Regading the terminology, I believe the term 'disability' is correct and people shouldn't get hung up on the stigma of it, thats why PC has got utterly stupid these days. In the US it may not be used, but in the UK, 'disability' is a valid classification and is only really offensive if you chose it to be.

Just out of interest does anybody know why suffer's of tourettes chose swear words when they have an attack?

Wolfstan wrote:Just out of interest does anybody know why suffer's of tourettes chose swear words when they have an attack?

Isn't it because they can't control the angry/emotional part of the brain that deals with swear words?
Anyway what does that have to do with anything?

Wolfstan wrote:Just out of interest does anybody know why suffer's of tourettes chose swear words when they have an attack?

That is only a very rare subset of Tourettes. Most Tourettes suffers experience physical ticks rather than verbal ticks.

Bloodfever wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think you're missing my point completely.

In my experience, there can be a profound disconnect, in any disorder, between what a doctor diagnoses based on self report (or a parents report) and that person's actual functional state.

I'm not second guessing the diagnosis now, but KC's earlier comment suggested that such a disconnect occured.

Keep mind, 75% of my job is explaining to people why the government doesnt' believe them about their alleged disability. I have a pretty narrow view of the medical establishment.

Let's just say that it's not unheard of for an emotional parent to provide a history that gets a doctor (that specializes in a disorder) to diagnose that disorder. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Well if it is your job to make these assessments then I can see why you could question peoples claims. In all honesty I have sometimes have doubts too, especially with people over the net, as we have all come across at one time or another, people who make false claims (aimed at nobody in particular and not just regarding mental disability) to either troll, appear 'cool' or for some other reason. But on the other hand, there are alot of people with ASD that do not get diagnosed for years as the expressions can all be explained to be something a 'normal' person would do.

Regading the terminology, I believe the term 'disability' is correct and people shouldn't get hung up on the stigma of it, thats why PC has got utterly stupid these days. In the US it may not be used, but in the UK, 'disability' is a valid classification and is only really offensive if you chose it to be.

The whole 'concept' of ASD is that it restricts social awareness. There is no specific way it affects, but generally I would say lack of empathy and understanding body language can be a disability towards communication. Again, it is a very broad term. Oh, and there is no reason to be perdantic about it.

Joey wrote:Then what need for a diagnosis is there? Other than a badge saying "I'm special and clever".
Either you're disabled and need help, or you're not and you don't.

Bloodfever wrote:Regading the terminology, I believe the term 'disability' is correct and people shouldn't get hung up on the stigma of it, thats why PC has got utterly stupid these days. In the US it may not be used, but in the UK, 'disability' is a valid classification and is only really offensive if you chose it to be.

Well, this is where the term "disability" becomes pretty fast and loose. Which isn't shocking, because it's many words have a wide range of meanings, particualry adjectives.

I think that there is a difference between the medical and legal definitions, in which the medical definition is "a disorder that causes a functional limitation." Nearly all legal definitions tack on the words "which prevent normal activities of living (usualluy work)."

So, a person with autism might be disabled in that they are limited socially, which prevents them from reaching a theoretical "normal" level of functioning. However, they can at least make some small talk, not freak out in crowds, etc. so they have reached a more practical "minimal" level of functioning.

So, most governmental agencies focus disability resources on people that can't get through life: can't work, care for themselves, go to school, etc.

A person with AS might not be able to make emotional connections, but if they can get a job, they might be denied resources.

I don't find the term disability offensive, it's just being used far more broadly than I use in my line of work.

Joey wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:[So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"?

Yes.

A person with AS can take care of hygiene, walk, communicate, have superficial interactions with others, and perform nearly all non-emotionally related functions.

Then what need for a diagnosis is there? Other than a badge saying "I'm special and clever".
Either you're disabled and need help, or you're not and you don't.

Some do, some don't. If you are impared to the point where you really can't deal with people then help may be required like a foreign dignatary needs a translator.

I can deal with people on a fairly normal basis but my ability to read emotion has been learnt in later life. I don't like dealing with people when I don't have a frame of reference for the interaction. I can seem strange and stand offish and my leg constantly twitches which annoys people after a while.

I have a VERY strong sense of fairness and get very wound up by selfishness when I see it in adults. I get overstimulated by odd things and can lose my temper for what seem to others to be nothing.

It is not a disability it is a difficulty for me but I have met some that have a really difficult time relating to the world and have to do things in a set pattern to avoid the unpleasentness that is over stimulation.

You end up avoiding things because it has a very physically unpleasant sensation. When this gets to the point where you can not function then fight or flight often kicks in.

BTW. I need a shower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:Just out of interest does anybody know why suffer's of tourettes chose swear words when they have an attack?

Not all of them do.

Tourette's is:

1 or more verbal ticks

and

2 or more physical ticks.

Which I think is where the trouble lies. Terminologies can be technically correc,t in general, or certains sectors but there is usually a problem somewhere, be it legal or the sake of 'PC'. In the UK we have a srvice called 'DLA' (Disability Living Allowance) which helps people with all types of disabilities, be it physical or mental. But as you stated, some people are not hampered by thier disorder so may not struggle to get a job, but others, with the same disorder may do, so need finacial support.
As I stated, alot of the trouble is within the sector. 'Mental Retardation' is still a used term, but only really in contained cercumstances, as it is generally frowned upon by the public. Mental disability is still one of the terms used in mental health care, but again, some people still take offence from this. It's very much a big grey area.

Joey wrote:

Then what need for a diagnosis is there? Other than a badge saying "I'm special and clever".
Either you're disabled and need help, or you're not and you don't.

To me, that is a sign of either very narrow thinking, trolling, or just being offensive.

As many of us have stated, ASD is a SOCIAL disorder. They can live very 'regular' full, self-sufficiant lives but struggle when it comes to interaction and communication with other people so for example, may just need assistance when dealing with such situations.

Sonophos wrote:

Joey wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:[So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"?

Yes.

A person with AS can take care of hygiene, walk, communicate, have superficial interactions with others, and perform nearly all non-emotionally related functions.

Then what need for a diagnosis is there? Other than a badge saying "I'm special and clever".
Either you're disabled and need help, or you're not and you don't.

Some do, some don't. If you are impared to the point where you really can't deal with people then help may be required like a foreign dignatary needs a translator.

I know there are some people with AS who really struggle in society, and of course they have my sympathies.

Sonophos wrote:
I can deal with people on a fairly normal basis but my ability to read emotion has been learnt in later life. I don't like dealing with people when I don't have a frame of reference for the interaction. I can seem strange and stand offish and my leg constantly twitches which annoys people after a while.

I have a VERY strong sense of fairness and get very wound up by selfishness when I see it in adults. I get overstimulated by odd things and can lose my temper for what seem to others to be nothing.

hah, tell me about. I often find adherence to logical rules is more important than my immediate surroundings, which makes me come across as "stupid", I think things like that are just numbers though. Most people get upset by x, therefore it's socially acceptable to be upset by x.

Sonophos wrote:
It is not a disability it is a difficulty for me but I have met some that have a really difficult time relating to the world and have to do things in a set pattern to avoid the unpleasentness that is over stimulation.

You end up avoiding things because it has a very physically unpleasant sensation. When this gets to the point where you can not function then fight or flight often kicks in.

I sympathise with that, when I'm in public I'm usually listening to music and in my own little world. I can be in the middle of a crowded street and quite forget that there's other people around. I think that's why I get annoyed when I bump into someone I know, even if I like them.

Sonophos wrote:
BTW. I need a shower.

So do I, actually.

For the referrence to the milk snatcher earlier.

I see. Just curious as the post had me thinking about other conditions that people have to struggle with. As per most things, the media concentrate on a certain feature.

Wolfstan wrote:I see. Just curious as the post had me thinking about other conditions that people have to struggle with. As per most things, the media concentrate on a certain feature.

This is a constant problem. OTOH, it makes my job easier when a person fakes schizophrenia by acting like he thinks psychotics act, rather than how they actually do.

Wolfstan wrote:I see. Just curious as the post had me thinking about other conditions that people have to struggle with. As per most things, the media concentrate on a certain feature.

If you are interested in tourettes and Aspergers try http://www.touretteskaraoke.com/

It is not as insensitive as it sounds but I do give a laguage warning.

Joey wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:What?
In the UK, Asperger's is a disability. Why do you find this so hard to grasp? "disabled" is a legal term.

Meaning what?

Disability means at least four different things in American law.

You probably mean the word "disorder."

Hence why I said "the UK". It's a nessesary perquisite for state help/funding. If people are offended by the term "disabled", that's their problem. My mum has Parkinson's and is therefore "disabled", I'm not going to gak my breaches because someone on the internet says "parkinson's is a disability".

KingCracker wrote:Maybe its because your being an donkey-cave about it. Im sorry for misreading your donkey-cave remarks, as non donkey-cave remarks. My apologies. Pro tip though, when your being/coming off as a complete ass, specially talking about someones family, they tend to get all up in arms about it. Im not the first person to tell you something similar on DAKKA either.

Stop looking for things to be offended by. You have chosen to be offended, get over yourself.

Actually Aspergers is unlikely to merit any state help or funding on its own, be it from the DWP (DLA, where it will be disregarded) or the Local Authority (where it does not generally fulfill Fair Access to Care Criteria.) Co-morbid conditions may lead to help, but Aspergers generally gets you titty. This is not up for debate, its a fact. If it were not a fact, I would not be on the committee fighting to get people with Aspergers better support. But no doubt you know more about my own job than I do, with your vast but as yet unexplained experience?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"? Then I can't say I see the point in giving a diagnosis in the first place. Hell, one of the reasons I gave up in trying to get help at university from the NAS was because even if I had jumped through all the hoops there was actually feth all they could do to help me with my studies. .

People are perfectly entitled to seek a diagnosis for just about anything. What they then choose to do with that diagnosis is entirely up to them. If they feel they are capable of living without extra support, they can carry on regardless. Some people prefer to KNOW what they have, rather than be ignorant of it, even if they do not want actual help.

And the NAS are often complete clowns, with incredibly variable knowledge of the condition. I've heard all manner of myth spouted as fact by NAS employees, who are no doubt well-meaning, but generally ill-understanding. Very variable service. Generally Autism support is just as variable no matter who is providing it, NAS or local authority. There is a meeting in March of many Local Authorities to see if services can be brought into line with one another (amongst other things.) so that they are providing what the law states they must provide. Trying to get the NAS to attend is nearly as hard as getting the DWP to attend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Joey wrote:[So it's possible to be diagnosed with Asperger's without it being "minor or trivial" and without it affecting "their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities"?

Yes.

A person with AS can take care of hygiene, walk, communicate, have superficial interactions with others, and perform nearly all non-emotionally related functions.

Then what need for a diagnosis is there? Other than a badge saying "I'm special and clever".
Either you're disabled and need help, or you're not and you don't.

Because being superficially functional is not the same as being fully functional. Its a variable disordre, affecting different things at different times, in different ways in different people. I can tolerate frequencies of sound that send my children bat-gak crazy. They can tolerate different frequencies that make me go bat-gak crazy. We might not encounter those frequencies for months, and be "able". Then bang, up one pops and we're stuffed. And that's just hyper-sensitivity to sound.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Actually Aspergers is unlikely to merit any state help or funding on its own, be it from the DWP (DLA, where it will be disregarded) or the Local Authority (where it does not generally fulfill Fair Access to Care Criteria.) Co-morbid conditions may lead to help, but Aspergers generally gets you titty. This is not up for debate, its a fact. If it were not a fact, I would not be on the committee fighting to get people with Aspergers better support. But no doubt you know more about my own job than I do, with your vast but as yet unexplained experience?

Fact?? It's not a fact, if it was a fact, I wouldn't have been able to help somebody with ASD get a sucessful DLA claim, which I did.

I've processed a successful child's disability claim based on food allergies.

That doesnt' make a later claim any less likely. It's not impossible, just unlilkely, which is all that Arbeits said.

Severity means more than diagnosis.

Bloodfever wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Actually Aspergers is unlikely to merit any state help or funding on its own, be it from the DWP (DLA, where it will be disregarded) or the Local Authority (where it does not generally fulfill Fair Access to Care Criteria.) Co-morbid conditions may lead to help, but Aspergers generally gets you titty. This is not up for debate, its a fact. If it were not a fact, I would not be on the committee fighting to get people with Aspergers better support. But no doubt you know more about my own job than I do, with your vast but as yet unexplained experience?

Fact?? It's not a fact, if it was a fact, I wouldn't have been able to help somebody with ASD get a sucessful DLA claim, which I did.

Generally. As mentioned several times, its a spectrum disorder with variable symptoms. Generally Aspergers in its own will not merit a DLA reward. You can receive DLA without any sort of diagnosis at all of anything, but if you send in a form that says "I have Aspergers", you will get the verbose and officialese version of the response "We don't care." This does not mean that people with Aspergers cannot get DLA for co-morbid disorders, or for particularly strong symptoms of things like hyper-sensitivity, but generally speaking it will not get you DLA. It is even less likely to get someone the DLA replacement PIP when it is introduced.

So yes, its still a fact. Bully for you helping a fellow out, but there are plenty of people with ASD that get feck all, especially if they don't have anyone to help them. It's part of my job to find them support, and argue their case to the authorities. Not easy when all you hear from Social services is "But they don't meet FACCs, so they must be fine."

what I don't get, and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin.

We'll if we are going to be pedandic about this, you stated "(DLA, where it will be disregarded)" and you stated "or the Local Authority (where it does not generally fulfill Fair Access to Care Criteria.)" therefore you stated it was local authority where it does not generally reward financial aid. You claimed DLA will be disregarded. Also, the DLA was given because he has ADS, nothing else. So no other afflictions, or mental disorders, JUST because he has aspergers, and I don't think me assisting helped achieve DLA in his favour at all, it was him who spoke to the service to set up the aid so for all they knew he was doing it unassisted. But thats a moot point to be honest as you claim to be helping others too but have not had as much sucess. I think you may just be disheartened by this therefore assuming it is not possible.

Bloodfever wrote:There is a reason there is such a high number of people with ASD that are fully self sufficiant in society; because they are very much 'normal', but struggle with socialisation, which many people without ASD do aswell. I can pretty much guarantee you have met many people without ASD and have not even known.

People with AS have a very noticeable, and particular difficulty with socialization once a certain age is reached. I played football with a guy with AS, and have known several other people with AS, they were noticeably distinct from people that were merely awkward. Awkward people can be taught how to socialize, and understand why certain conventions exist but lack enough practice to properly leverage them, people with AS cannot, and do not.

Bloodfever wrote:
KC himself said she had been diagnosed so there was no reason whatsoever to question that, as you said, it is family that should really know the most.

That's not true. There are issues of social pleasantries that arise, but often people that are the closest to an issue are the least qualified to assess it. Its sometimes called the mortician's dilemma. Basically, people that hold an emotional stake in an issue, be it the final resting place of their loved one, or the reality of their child's health, are easily influenced by pleasing language.

In essence, they hear only what they want to.

Of course, none of us have any insight into the situation of KC's niece. I'm merely explaining the general principle.

remilia_scarlet wrote:what I don't get, and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin.

They bash it because of the high self-diagnosis rate.

remilia_scarlet wrote:what I don't get, and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin.

I suspect a bit of self-deprecation. I make fun of fat neckbeards, in spite of being a fat neckbeard myself.

dogma wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Autism and asperger's syndrome are thought to be related but are not the same. Aspies are able to operate fairly normally but have some noticeable symptoms of autism.

Even if we're talking about the autism spectrum as a whole (And, admittedly, I didn't know what remilia was referencing.) its like 6-8 per 1000; far less than 1 in 3.

Statistics are funny. My favorite was for some herpes drug saying 1/4 people have herpes........really? I'm not a foil hat wearer but it really seams the medical establishment (mannnn) over diagnosis people just to sell drugs and treatments. (God I sound like one of those hippies, I want to kill myself)

Cold-sores are a manifestation of a type of Herpes, so it's not that unbelievable...

Albatross wrote:Cold-sores are a manifestation of a type of Herpes, so it's not that unbelievable...

The rate is actually more like 60%, though that's only HSV-1.

HSV-2 is the one people generally think of when they think of herpes.

You seem to know a lot about herpes.





Interesting.

I had a buddy that was diagnosed with Aspergers, great guy, really intelligent, but just awkward. It always seamed that social norms were not intuitive to him but given time he figured out how he is supposed to act. Music really helped him a lot and he picked up the Bass guitar and joined a band, that helped him interact with people. His math skills were phenomenal and he got a full ride to Princeton, he even worked with John Nash with Game theory stuff. He is now the head game theory professor at a large university. He is still a little off, but he recognized what was going on and forced himself into social situations. He met a great girl who understood him and also forced him to be social and taught him how to be "Civilized". I still catch him doing weird things every now and then.

He was really quite entertaining in his teens as he had very little understanding of social norms and we would catch him doing the weirdest stuff, not for attention, but just because social conventions really made no sense to him and he really did not know any better. So many great stories. Great guy.

I remember this one time I took him to a gym because he really wanted to go and this hot instructor was showing us all the new equipment, she made this really disgusting face. There was my buddy nonchalantly wiping a bugger on this brand new equipment. When I looked at him, he made his classic "I f'd up didn't I" look. He looked at the machine and said "Probably should not have done that huh?" Needless to say we never joined that Gym.

Andrew1975 wrote:His math skills were phenomenal and he got a full ride to Princeton, he even worked with John Nash with Game theory stuff. He is now the head game theory professor at a large university.

Which university?

If he works with game theory, I probably know him, or know of him.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:His math skills were phenomenal and he got a full ride to Princeton, he even worked with John Nash with Game theory stuff. He is now the head game theory professor at a large university.

Which university?

If he works with game theory, I probably know him, or know of him.

I'm not sure I want to out him. He's pretty normal now. His first name is Tim, he's in his mid 30s

remilia_scarlet wrote:what I don't get, and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin.

So the racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al, you understand and are ok with, but mocking AS is somehow baffling to you?

Ahtman wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:what I don't get, and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin.

So the racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al, you understand and are ok with, but mocking AS is somehow baffling to you?

Is bring upset by something suddenly exclusive, he never indicated it was the only thing he did not understand. Taking it as that is the only thing he doesn't get would mean he gets everything else, the entire understanding of the universe except his one failing, I'm sure that was not implied. Does someone need to list all the things they get and don't get every time they want to bring up a topic? He never said the ONE thing I don't get.

Could he not be upset about all these thing, however bringing up them all would be cumbersome and off topic?

Andrew1975 wrote: I'm sure that was not implied

You would be wrong, of course.

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote: I'm sure that was not implied

You would be wrong, of course.

Scarlet's "not getting x" certainly did not imply that to the exclusion of getting everything else.

The proper and untrolly way to read the statement would be.

(while we are on the subject) what I don't get, and cannot stand (while we are discussing Aspergers on a thread titled "Aspergers/Autism thread" not the "racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al,"thread) is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin

Not

what I don't get,(In exclusion to everything else in the universe) and cannot stand is why sites like /tg/ boards and such have this thing where they feel the need to bash people with aspergers, as though they themselves are perfect. it's always gotten under my skin

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote: I'm sure that was not implied

You would be wrong, of course.

Scarlet's "not getting x" certainly did not imply that to the exclusion of getting everything else.

If one is not singling out an attribute, they would say "one of the things that bothers me", or a variation on that, not "The thing that bothers me". Sure, one can still not like the other things, but going by what was stated, this one thing stands out, and considering all the lunacy going on there, to focus on that is a bit odd.

Calling someone a [Against Board Rules] doesn't warrant mentioning or making a post, but calling someone an 'aspie' gets a response.

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote: I'm sure that was not implied

You would be wrong, of course.

Scarlet's "not getting x" certainly did not imply that to the exclusion of getting everything else.

If one is not singling out an attribute, they would say "one of the things that bothers me", or a variation on that, not "The thing that bothers me". Sure, one can still not like the other things, but going by what was stated, this one thing stands out, and considering all the lunacy going on there, to focus on that is a bit odd.

Calling someone a [Against Board Rules] doesn't warrant mentioning or making a post, but calling someone an 'aspie' gets a response.

I'm baffled by many things and don't understand them, and things that bother me. of course, ahtman, I wouldn't expect less from you, since you fancy calling me out at every turn. you know what I meant, you know english is a second language for me, and yet you still have to commentate, rather than asking me to explain, and again, I wouldn't expect less from you.

Bloodfever wrote:We'll if we are going to be pedandic about this, you stated "(DLA, where it will be disregarded)" and you stated "or the Local Authority (where it does not generally fulfill Fair Access to Care Criteria.)" therefore you stated it was local authority where it does not generally reward financial aid. You claimed DLA will be disregarded. Also, the DLA was given because he has ADS, nothing else. So no other afflictions, or mental disorders, JUST because he has aspergers, and I don't think me assisting helped achieve DLA in his favour at all, it was him who spoke to the service to set up the aid so for all they knew he was doing it unassisted. But thats a moot point to be honest as you claim to be helping others too but have not had as much sucess. I think you may just be disheartened by this therefore assuming it is not possible.

Or you are just lucky in that your decision making officer is a reasonable person? It must happen in some places. There are always exceptions to every rule, (and they invariably pop up in any thread on any forum where someone makes a statement that they don't quantify and qualify down to the last apostrophe***) and anyone who gets a DLA award based on JUST an Aspergers Diagnosis is fething lucky.

These days anyone who gets a DLA award period is lucky.

And I didn't claim to have had less success in anything, because I'm not helping individuals fill out applications. I work with the people who have done that, and have seen the results of multiple attempts to get help. But I'm not fighting individual battles. I went up a layer or two. I'm helping to create a service which will help them more efficiently despite the budget situation, and the current media penchant for demonising the disabled, and the Government being the Government.

Edit: *** Ahtman's argument parallel to this is a great example of what happens when you don't qualify, quantify and specify.

remilia_scarlet wrote:I'm baffled by many things and don't understand them

And that is fine, and no one has said there is anything wrong.

remilia_scarlet wrote:ahtman, I wouldn't expect less from you, since you fancy calling me out at every turn.

I'm not 'calling you out', whatever that means. Is this some weird victim mentality? It can't just be an generally impersonal comment, it has to be an aggressive act and very personal?

remilia_scarlet wrote:you know what I meant, you know english is a second language for me

I honestly don't think of you enough to remember that. I also didn't make a charge of poor English at all so I'm not sure why you think that my response had to do with ESL.

remilia_scarlet wrote:and yet you still have to commentat, rather than asking me to explain, and again, I wouldn't expect less from you.

I commented because singling out that one aspect of 4chan as a bugaboo is odd to me, when it is filled top to bottom with offensive statements/pictures/ideologies. For all the human degradation that goes on,m to single out that is perplexing to me. It isn't about you specifically (I'm sorry, I guess you need to feel it is) but just the general idea. Anyone could have posted that and I would have had the same response.

Ahtman wrote:
I commented because singling out that one aspect of 4chan as a bugaboo is odd to me, when it is filled top to bottom with offensive statements/pictures/ideologies. For all the human degradation that goes on,m to single out that is perplexing to me. It isn't about you specifically (I'm sorry, I guess you need to feel it is) but just the general idea. Anyone could have posted that and I would have had the same response.

no complaints from me about the chan of 4 being awful. it is everything wrong with the world after all, and I'm glad you weren't calling me out this time. it is, how you say, the bashing of people with aspergers on 4chan is a single peanut in a sea of gak and it's something that disturbs me, along with everything else on there, and it's uncalled for, and it happens, like many other things. I could make a list of all the things I don't understand, but I'd be banned for spamming.

If one is not singling out an attribute, they would say "one of the things that bothers me", or a variation on that, not "The thing that bothers me". Sure, one can still not like the other things, but going by what was stated, this one thing stands out, and considering all the lunacy going on there, to focus on that is a bit odd.

Calling someone a [Against Board Rules] doesn't warrant mentioning or making a post, but calling someone an 'aspie' gets a response.

True, if we were on the "racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al," Thread and discussing what is wrong with the whole universe. Since we were on a thread called Aspergers/Autism, it's pretty obvious that the statement was about "The Thing that I don't get (about Aspergers/Autism) is x".

Andrew1975 wrote:

If one is not singling out an attribute, they would say "one of the things that bothers me", or a variation on that, not "The thing that bothers me". Sure, one can still not like the other things, but going by what was stated, this one thing stands out, and considering all the lunacy going on there, to focus on that is a bit odd.

Calling someone a [Against Board Rules] doesn't warrant mentioning or making a post, but calling someone an 'aspie' gets a response.

True, if we were on the "racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al," Thread and discussing what is wrong with the whole universe. Since we were on a thread called Aspergers/Autism, it's pretty obvious that the statement was about "The Thing that I don't get (about Aspergers/Autism) is x".

Making the same point again doesn't lend it any more weight. I still feel your interpretation is based on assumptions and what isn't said, when I am just going by what was said.

Making the same point again doesn't lend it any more weight. I still feel your interpretation is based on assumptions and what isn't said, when I am just going by what was said.

On a thread called "Aspergers/Autism thread". Don't be coy.

So many times in Dakka people use general statements about a threaded topic.

Could you imagine this conversation

"I hate space marines!"

"So the racism, sexism, pedophilia, incest,et al, you understand and are ok with, but you hate Space marines?"

It's just kind of a D move.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Making the same point again doesn't lend it any more weight. I still feel your interpretation is based on assumptions and what isn't said, when I am just going by what was said.

On a thread called "Aspergers/Autism thread". Don't be coy.

I'm not being coy. I am amused that you are getting into a lather becuase you choose to interpret one statement very broadly (by not mentioning the other problems they must have also meant they have other problems) while interpreting mine very narrowly (you can only mean they they can not find other things problematic). You can give yourself whiplash if you keep that kind of thing up.

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Making the same point again doesn't lend it any more weight. I still feel your interpretation is based on assumptions and what isn't said, when I am just going by what was said.

On a thread called "Aspergers/Autism thread". Don't be coy.

I'm not being coy. I am amused that you are getting into a lather becuase you choose to interpret one statement very broadly (by not mentioning the other problems they must have also meant they have other problems) while interpreting mine very narrowly (you can only mean they they can not find other things problematic). You can give yourself whiplash if you keep that kind of thing up.

I'm not really in a lather, I just thought it was interesting that you would purposely get into such a horrible flawed semantic argument just to give someone a hard time by basically be a smart alec.