people with autism are a untapped resource in IT.

[matzoball]

What does that mean?

 

it's a scottish saying - sort of like 'oyvey' pronounced 'oaft'

[Adam Mars]

 

There's an old saying that 'Those who can, do and those who can't teach'. Obviously it's an oversimplification

 

 

'an oversimplification'? As someone who can and does, and also teaches other people to, I'd say the phrase you're looking for there is "steaming pile of meaningless prejudice".

 

Seriously, nothing annoys me more than people who trot out a half-understood quote from George Bernard Shaw as though its constant repetition lends it any truth (Well, nothing except war. And preventable diseases. And famines. And racism. And hundreds of other things that annoy me more). It's one of those arguments "that carries inherent value judgements about others based on prejudice".

 

Almost exclusively, those who can learnt how to do from those who could also do, but who chose the harder, less well rewarded career of teaching what they knew how to do.

[baddad]

Whaaaa?

 

Autism and Aspergers were being simultaneously researched by Kanner and Asperger in the 1940's... according to wikipedia, in fact, the term 'autism' was actually first used (in its modern sense) by Asperger after he adopted the term from research papers published by Eugene Bleuler at the turn of the century...

However, I digress... Asperger's syndrome was recognised as a 'distinct' (separate) diagnosis from autism from the early eighties onwards...

 

That diagnosis has increased - both for autism and Aspergers - is, of course, an accurate statement, so by definiton today's medical models of autism and AS, retrospectively applied, would provide a net through which many adults would have previously slipped. Leaving aside any consideration of autism as an environmentally triggered phenomenon (food, water, vaccinations, pollution etc etc) or as a 'progressive degenerative' phenomenon (i.e. a genetic predisposition that becomes more likely to emerge in successive generations), however the fact that more people are being diagnosed with autism isn't necessarily an indication of more people being autistic - just a broadening of the 'umbrella' under which autistic people are clustered. If you renamed the common cold 'swine-flu' the incidence of swine-flu worldwide would jump hugely, but it would not mean that the people who had colds shared the full range of symptoms of those who had 'proper' swine-flu. One positive would be, statistically, that far less people died of swine-flu - which could be 'spun' to look as though swine-flu medications were actually far more effective than they actually are! Of course, with autism you'd get the reverse effect if there was any sort of environmental trigger; a huge smokescreen that obscured the trigger rather than promoting the cure.

 

If, as seems the case, the vast majority of people on the spectrum AREN'T brilliant with computers isn't it a negative thing to promote a stereotype that suggests they are and which can only serve to doubly marginalise the vast majority who aren't?

 

ooft, BTW, I looked up on urban dictionary...

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ooft

 

I'm going to assume it was meant in the first sense as I'm fairly sure matzoball would have no reason for thinking anyone on the forum was particularly 'fit' (meanings 2 or 3), and wasn't falling asleep or impersonating an almost barking dog (4 & 5)... I'll also flatter myself that her response in the first sense was to my observation (in a nutshell) that 'two wrongs do not make a right', though that may well, of course, be pure arrogance on my part!

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited July 11, 2011 by baddad

[matzoball]

easy now peoples....

 

also - ooft is more commonly used the way I describe it, at least on the west coast of Scotland

Edited July 11, 2011 by matzoball

[bid]

There's an old saying that 'Those who can, do and those who can't teach'.

 

Woah...

 

Well, that's told me, Mumbley, Kathryn and all the other peeps on here who teach/have taught...

 

And indeed...der-der-DER...SUPER NANNY!!!

 

Bid

[baddad]

'an oversimplification'? As someone who can and does, and also teaches other people to, I'd say the phrase you're looking for there is "steaming pile of meaningless prejudice".

 

Seriously, nothing annoys me more than people who trot out a half-understood quote from George Bernard Shaw as though its constant repetition lends it any truth (Well, nothing except war. And preventable diseases. And famines. And racism. And hundreds of other things that annoy me more). It's one of those arguments "that carries inherent value judgements about others based on prejudice".

 

Almost exclusively, those who can learnt how to do from those who could also do, but who chose the harder, less well rewarded career of teaching what they knew how to do.

 

 

yeah... right.... And I do understand it, even if I'm not clever enough to teach or do!

 

Welcome to the forum, Adam, you'll find many more of my 'steaming piles' (pass the preparation H!) dotted around the place so I'm sure we'll be posting alongside each other in future!

 

L&P

 

BD

 

Bid - don't you start! I did say it was an oversimplification! Then again, I don't understand the quote in the first place, apparently, so you'll just have to forgive this po' li'l ign'rant peice o' tray-la traysh

 

BUT -IF we're gonna have a defense of 'those who can't teach' can we have it in the education section where I'm ORLWAYS trying to point out that teachers aren't the spawn of Beelzebub!

Edited July 11, 2011 by baddad

[baddad]

it's a scottish saying - sort of like 'oyvey' pronounced 'oaft'

 

 

Heaven forbid - a Jewish Scotsman (Oy Vay!) - bet he'll be in the bogs when it's his turn to get 'em in!

[bid]

 

Bid - don't you start! I did say it was an oversimplification! Then again, I don't understand the quote in the first place, apparently, so you'll just have to forgive this po' li'l ign'rant peice o' tray-la traysh

 

BUT -IF we're gonna have a defense of 'those who can't teach' can we have it in the education section where I'm ORLWAYS trying to point out that teachers aren't the spawn of Beelzebub!

 

Hehe!!

 

Sitting on naughty step as I type

 

[Mumble]

Then again, I don't understand the quote in the first place

That may be because you didn't punctuate it correctly and it made no sense what u wrote...

[bid]

That may be because you didn't punctuate it correctly and it made no sense what u wrote...

 

I've budged up...plenty of room for a littlun'!!

 

[baddad]

That may be because you didn't punctuate it correctly and it made no sense what u wrote...

 

Ahhhhh, or did I? I'm assuming you mean the comma after 'can't'?...

 

No, hands up, it was a typo. I'm now being a clevor trever after the event

 

 

Oh - and yes, I am aware of the other comma too

 

(NLASA)

Edited July 11, 2011 by baddad

[Mumble]

(NLASA)

What is this thread - write a strange random combination of letters (which may or may not be related to dogs, sleeping or the Scottish dialect) and leave others to guess their meaning? It's taking on a Mock the Week theme...

 

Not Laughing At Slanderous Accusations?

[matzoball]

Heaven forbid - a Jewish Scotsman (Oy Vay!) - bet he'll be in the bogs when it's his turn to get 'em in!

 

um, I'm jewish...

[baddad]

Mumble - Nobody Loves A Smart Ar*e!

 

Matzoball - Mozzletoff!

 

[indiscreet]

 

That diagnosis has increased - both for autism and Aspergers - is, of course, an accurate statement, so by definiton today's medical models of autism and AS, retrospectively applied, would provide a net through which many adults would have previously slipped.......

 

Agreed

 

however the fact that more people are being diagnosed with autism isn't necessarily an indication of more people being autistic - just a broadening of the 'umbrella' under which autistic people are clustered.

 

What evidence do you have for making this statement?

 

If, as seems the case, the vast majority of people on the spectrum AREN'T brilliant with computers isn't it a negative thing to promote a stereotype that suggests they are and which can only serve to doubly marginalise the vast majority who aren't?

 

Acknowledging that some people on the spectrum (possibly a bigger proportion that among NTs) are brilliant with computers isn't creating a stereotype, anymore than the fact that so many Asians are employed in this work is creating a sterotype that marginalises those Asians who aren't.

[baddad]

 

What evidence do you have for making this statement?

 

Erm, the increased incidence of diagnosis and the widening of the diagnostic criteria from DSM III to DSM IV etc. You've said yourself / agreed that dx has increased and have ruled out yourself the alternative explanations - that can ONLY leave a change in (broadening of) the definitions...

 

 

Acknowledging that some people on the spectrum (possibly a bigger proportion that among NTs) are brilliant with computers isn't creating a stereotype, anymore than the fact that so many Asians are employed in this work is creating a sterotype that marginalises those Asians who aren't.

 

The difference being that Asians aren't a 'marginalised' group in the same way that disabled people are marginalised. If I ever hear the phrase or read it in one of the horrible hate-spreading newspapers that target immigrants I'll change my mind, but as yet 'bl00dy autistics coming here and taking all our jobs' isn't exactly an everyday phrase... The whole point of the company mentioned in the original article is that they are addressing a very specific employment issue that directly disenfranchises autistic people. To highlight a very tiny percentage of autistic people as 'employable' by definition disnfranchises further those who are not highlighted within that very tiny percentage. Which is not to say, of course, that Asian and other ethnic minorities aren't often disenfranchised because obviously they are, but they are not being stereotyped by a job description that only a tiny minority of them can fulfil...

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited July 11, 2011 by baddad

[indiscreet]

Erm, the increased incidence of diagnosis and the widening of the diagnostic criteria from DSM III to DSM IV etc. You've said yourself / agreed that dx has increased and have ruled out yourself the alternative explanations - that can ONLY leave a change in (broadening of) the definitions...

I don't agree that a broadening of the definitions can be the ONLY reason for an apparent increase in those diagnosed as being on the spectrum. In fact what seems to be more likely is that more people are coming forward to ask for testing to see if they are on the spectrum - and that many, in fact, are.

 

I don't know how the figures work out with children but if there are X number of children with autism/Asperger's in the population it stands to reason there are X number of people on the spectrum in adults who are now in the 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.

[baddad]

I don't agree that a broadening of the definitions can be the ONLY reason for an apparent increase in those diagnosed as being on the spectrum. In fact what seems to be more likely is that more people are coming forward to ask for testing to see if they are on the spectrum - and that many, in fact, are.

 

I don't know how the figures work out with children but if there are X number of children with autism/Asperger's in the population it stands to reason there are X number of people on the spectrum in adults who are now in the 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.

 

Yes. But if the definitions hadn't broadened the people coming forward wouldn't fit them. Or, to put it another way, if the definitions had been as broad then as they are now they would have been picked up then! Or, to put it another another way, if the definitions hadn't broadened they would not have 'recognized' themselves from the old definitions and come forward to ask for testing. Or, to put it another another another way, if the definitions had remained static then there would be no growth in the incidence of autism for all of the reasons mentioned in the other anothers unless there was another another factor arising from the environmental/degenerative issues you've already said you do not feel apply....

You can argue against the broadening defintions as much as you want, but the reality is it's quite clearly there as a factor reflected in the changes in the DSM criteria every time they've been updated. And that's going to change again when the DSM V comes out! And it may not be the only factor, but it is certainly, inarguably - if you acknowledge the logic of all those quite logical 'anothers' - the single most important factor. In the simplest terms, you would not have fit the criteria for a dx of autism had you fetched up in a doctor's office in the 30's 40's or 50's, regardless of whether you fit today's criteria or not and regardless of whether you did fetch up in a doctors's office in the 30's 40's or 50's and weren't diagnosed because you didn't fit the criteria or whether you didn't fetch up in a doctor's office in the 3o's 40's or 50's and weren't tested because you didn't...

 

I really hope that makes sense to you this time, because I really haven't got the time, energy or inclination to explain again what is simply the only logical conclusion anyone can possibly reach if they look at the evolution of the DSM criteria for autism and the statistics regarding diagnosis.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

PS: Actually, with regard to the personal observation in the penultimate paragraph that's not strictly accurate, because there are of course autistic adults who would have fit the criteria but who did 'slip through the net' in the 30's 40's and 50's just as there are likely to be now (but in smaller numbers for all of the reasons mentioned above about broader definitions) and you could be one of those - I wouldn't possibly know! - but in general terms all of the factors above must apply.

[darkshine]

Hasn't increased awareness and a shift in social acceptance got anything to do with it at all?

[indiscreet]

I really hope that makes sense to you this time, because I really haven't got the time, energy or inclination to explain again what is simply the only logical conclusion anyone can possibly reach if they look at the evolution of the DSM criteria for autism and the statistics regarding diagnosis.

 

No it doesn't make sense to me this time because what I said was "adults who are now in the 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.". I would have thought that it was clear that I was referring to their age now and not the years - even if I should perhaps have written "their" rather than "the".

[baddad]

Hasn't increased awareness and a shift in social acceptance got anything to do with it at all?

 

I said, with regard to broader definitions:

 

And it may not be the only factor, but it is certainly, inarguably - if you acknowledge the logic of all those quite logical 'anothers' - the single most important factor.

 

Do you have to have all of the other factors implied by 'not the only factor' listed for you? If so, you'll have to ask someone else.

 

Indiscreet - does the fact that I read '30's 40's 50's as decades rather than ages make the slightest difference whatsoever to the inarguable fact that the DSM criteria is now wider than it was and that situation has evolved through every amendment to the DSM? What part of that don't you 'get'?

Edited July 12, 2011 by baddad

[darkshine]

I said, with regard to broader definitions:

 

Do you have to have all of the other factors implied by 'not the only factor' listed for you? If so, you'll have to ask someone else.

I don't really see the need for that tone. I saw that you said broader definitions, I was just checking that was all.

[baddad]

I don't really see the need for that tone. I saw that you said broader definitions, I was just checking that was all.

 

so now you've checked.

[indiscreet]

Indiscreet - does the fact that I read '30's 40's 50's as decades rather than ages make the slightest difference whatsoever to the inarguable fact that the DSM criteria is now wider than it was and that situation has evolved through every amendment to the DSM? What part of that don't you 'get'?

What I don't 'get' is why the widening of the DSM criteria appears to be such a problem for you, since the umbrella always widens as a result of further research and deeper understanding of disabilities, diseases, etc. This happened in 1994 when Asperger's Syndrome was recognized and later when it was confirmed that females as well as males were affected by it.

[baddad]

What I don't 'get' is why the widening of the DSM criteria appears to be such a problem for you, since the umbrella always widens as a result of further research and deeper understanding of disabilities, diseases, etc. This happened in 1994 when Asperger's Syndrome was recognized and later when it was confirmed that females as well as males were affected by it.

 

Because I think it is now too wide and is having a detrimental effect on the general population of autistic people. Actually, that's not strictly true because I don't think it's necessarily too wide, rather than being applied too widly, with too many concessions being made and too much cherry-picking of symptoms... And sadly this is not just among the casual diagnosers, but professionals too (IMO). Often these days it seems more to be a case of ignoring all those bothersome details that don't fit the criteria and then over-emphasising those that do - frequently 'bending' the definitions until they can be made to fit along the way.

 

If 'what you don't get' is why the broadened defintions bother me, why have you spent so much time and made so many posts challenging the fact that they have?

 

In the very very simplest of terms - if we actually go one stage further than the stage we're at now where anyone who wants to be autistic can be (and yes, we could argue over that too, but I have absolutely no doubt that's the case and would love to see a Panorama special or something exposing the problem) and just say the whole world IS autistic the paltry amount of support available to autistic people will disappear completely. This has already happened with AS and most SS 'disability teams', with adult diagnosis services (a catch 22 because it further undermines the reliability of adult dx's which created the problem in the first place), and with access for people with AS to services like CAMHS, and it aint going to improve as the 'high functioning' end of the sepctrum becomes even more 'high functioning' and the more profoundly affected autistic population becomes a further marginalised, lower percentage of the 'indistinguishable other than when it suits them and they say so' whole.

 

And again, Asperger's Syndrome wasn't 'recognised' or 'discovered' in 1994 - it just entered the DSM then as a 'distinct' dx and is about to lose that distinction in the next edition as it's largely agreed to be a pointless one anyway. I actually don't think it is a pointless one, because most casual/woolly/self diagnosis are labelled with the 'AS' badge, and while that's not a good thing in itself at least it helps draw some sort of line in the sand... Neither was it 'confirmed' that 'females have AS as well' in the 90's.... While gender differences and how autism manifests are huge issues in their own right, it is a far more complex situation than the one you're implying.

 

L&P

 

BD

[Mumble]

Often these days it seems more to be a case of ignoring all those bothersome details that don't fit the criteria and then over-emphasising those that do - frequently 'bending' the definitions until they can be made to fit along the way.

I think a good way of understanding this is to use something someone used to describe how a doctor recently gave me an incorrect diagnosis (not ASD, something medical, but the same process fits here). This doctor tried to make the evidence fit the diagnosis, rather than the diagnosis fit the evidence. It might seem like semantics, but it has profound implications. She took the bits of my symptoms and extenuated those that fitted the dx she had in mind, whilst ignoring all the bits of my symptoms that didn't fit. Hey presto she had the evidence needed for my dx. What she should have done was found a dx/diagnoses that fitted all of the presenting symptoms.

 

I believe that the above may be attributable to some of the rise in dx - especially home dx and private dx - where people fit what they see to what they believe they have. I wouldn't say that this is (necessarily) a conscious process even and people may not be aware of how they are focusing on only some aspects and ignoring things that don't fit. That's why I think it's so important to go through a full dx procedure that does look at what else might be going on and is able to pull out all the symptoms, not just those the individual is focusing on.

[chris54]

I hear people saying things like "we're hoping for a diagnosis of Autism" surely no one hopes to have Autism. I can understand a hope to get an explanation of what the course of a problem is and how to deal with it.

 

My son was diagnosed at 7 with H.F.A. As naive as it may seem now it was only towards the end of the diagnosis process (about 12 months) that I realy become aware that Autism was in the frame.

 

Many of the traits that are associated with Autism we put down as family traits, that a number of us have or had.

I wonder how many of us (My family) would get a diagnosis if we put ourselves forward.

I am certain now that my father would now be diagnosed with AS. maybe his father, from what I remember. But back then it was accepted as being "Just the way you are".

 

As far as my son is concerned, having a formal diagnosis has helped with accessing (some) additional help at school. But that's about it.

 

It has made no difference to home life, He is the same now as he has always been and is treated the same as always.

 

Back to the original point raise. My son was head and shoulders above the rest of the class when they were doing Monitoring and Control in ICT, and "his knowledge of science is above many of his peers" something he is interested in. How much of this is to do with his Autism and how much to do with what we "Do" at home is anyone guess.

Edited July 14, 2011 by chris54

[indiscreet]

Because I think it is now too wide and is having a detrimental effect on the general population of autistic people. Actually, that's not strictly true because I don't think it's necessarily too wide, rather than being applied too widly, with too many concessions being made and too much cherry-picking of symptoms... And sadly this is not just among the casual diagnosers, but professionals too (IMO). Often these days it seems more to be a case of ignoring all those bothersome details that don't fit the criteria and then over-emphasising those that do - frequently 'bending' the definitions until they can be made to fit along the way.

 

If 'what you don't get' is why the broadened defintions bother me, why have you spent so much time and made so many posts challenging the fact that they have?

 

In the very very simplest of terms - if we actually go one stage further than the stage we're at now where anyone who wants to be autistic can be (and yes, we could argue over that too, but I have absolutely no doubt that's the case and would love to see a Panorama special or something exposing the problem) and just say the whole world IS autistic the paltry amount of support available to autistic people will disappear completely. This has already happened with AS and most SS 'disability teams', with adult diagnosis services (a catch 22 because it further undermines the reliability of adult dx's which created the problem in the first place), and with access for people with AS to services like CAMHS, and it aint going to improve as the 'high functioning' end of the sepctrum becomes even more 'high functioning' and the more profoundly affected autistic population becomes a further marginalised, lower percentage of the 'indistinguishable other than when it suits them and they say so' whole.

 

And again, Asperger's Syndrome wasn't 'recognised' or 'discovered' in 1994 - it just entered the DSM then as a 'distinct' dx and is about to lose that distinction in the next edition as it's largely agreed to be a pointless one anyway. I actually don't think it is a pointless one, because most casual/woolly/self diagnosis are labelled with the 'AS' badge, and while that's not a good thing in itself at least it helps draw some sort of line in the sand... Neither was it 'confirmed' that 'females have AS as well' in the 90's.... While gender differences and how autism manifests are huge issues in their own right, it is a far more complex situation than the one you're implying.

I think the reason why I've spent so much time and made so many posts challenging the fact that the broadening definitions bother you is because, from my own perspective, I found it disturbing.

 

I've spent my life fighting against the constraints which I felt stopped me living like other people. I had difficulty with all kinds of relationships. I was awkward in social situations (I've lost count of the times when I was young when I fled from a party - once through a window so no one would actually see me leave).

 

Over the years I learned to become more 'normal'. Elocution lessons stopped me talking in a monotone. I forced myself to make eye contact, I learned to smile at people and so many other things but it was all an act and an enormous strain, resulting I'm convinced in IBS and high blood-pressure.

 

I had no idea there were other people like me and all I knew about autism was that it was something children had and was often associated with learning problems. When I first came across Asperger's Syndrome in a character in a play I recognized many of my own traits but on investigation found that only males suffered from this. Later, when I read about three women who, at the end of the article, were revealed to have AS I felt that I possibly came into the category too. After research I asked my GP if I could be tested and after a great deal of effort on her part (because I have reached retirement age) I was seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist from the local psychiatric unit who confirmed that I am on the spectrum and reassured me that I have done exceptionally well in the light of my difficulties.

 

The relief I felt was like having a burden lifted and I found it disturbing to keep reading posts when you appeared dismissive of people life me obtaining a diagnosis. That's why I've gone into such detail here over why I kept challenging you on the subject of broadening definitions. That's really all I have to say.

[Lyndalou]

I think the reason why I've spent so much time and made so many posts challenging the fact that the broadening definitions bother you is because, from my own perspective, I found it disturbing.

 

I've spent my life fighting against the constraints which I felt stopped me living like other people. I had difficulty with all kinds of relationships. I was awkward in social situations (I've lost count of the times when I was young when I fled from a party - once through a window so no one would actually see me leave).

 

Over the years I learned to become more 'normal'. Elocution lessons stopped me talking in a monotone. I forced myself to make eye contact, I learned to smile at people and so many other things but it was all an act and an enormous strain, resulting I'm convinced in IBS and high blood-pressure.

 

I had no idea there were other people like me and all I knew about autism was that it was something children had and was often associated with learning problems. When I first came across Asperger's Syndrome in a character in a play I recognized many of my own traits but on investigation found that only males suffered from this. Later, when I read about three women who, at the end of the article, were revealed to have AS I felt that I possibly came into the category too. After research I asked my GP if I could be tested and after a great deal of effort on her part (because I have reached retirement age) I was seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist from the local psychiatric unit who confirmed that I am on the spectrum and reassured me that I have done exceptionally well in the light of my difficulties.

 

The relief I felt was like having a burden lifted and I found it disturbing to keep reading posts when you appeared dismissive of people life me obtaining a diagnosis. That's why I've gone into such detail here over why I kept challenging you on the subject of broadening definitions. That's really all I have to say.

 

Bravo Good on you

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lyndalou

[baddad]

I'm sorry, i don't know why you've taken anything I've said personally - I don't know you! I couldn't possibly be dismissive of 'people like you', because i don't/didn't know anything about you, your 'symptoms' your route to diagnosis or any other aspect of what you appear to have found challenging in my posts. And even if I did, that doesn't explain in any way why you would continually deny or refuse to acknowledge the established fact that the diagnostic criteria has widened.

 

Further, I would add that I don't know anything about your life, your upbringing, your experiences, your mental health, your psychology or any of the other things that would provide a diagnostician with enough information to diagnose you with autism and to reject the many alternative diagnoses that could equally apply to the symptoms you have described...

 

And that's precisely the point I'm making; that effective diagnosis should arise from a full and holistic assessment rather than a 'pin the tail on the donkey' approach that cherry-picks one or two symptoms that might relate to ASD and rejects everything else, which is what I believe is now happening in far greater numbers than ever and to the detriment of the autistic community as a whole.

 

As I said, I haven't necessarily got an issue with the 'broadening' of the criteria, more the problem that it is being applied to broadly, casually, and automatically.

 

So I'm sorry if you are personally sensitive to some of the issues that get discussed on the forum or by me expressing my opinions, but that's not really my fault or my problem, whereas the issue of autistic people being 'judged' inappropriately on the basis of increasing numbers of people with woolly diagnoses who tend to use tham 'as and when required' or as a justifiaction for treating other people shabbily that IS my problem, because my son is one of the people suffering the brunt of such completely unreasonable and unjustified judgements.

 

L&P

 

BD

[darkshine]

I think the reason why I've spent so much time and made so many posts challenging the fact that the broadening definitions bother you is because, from my own perspective, I found it disturbing.

 

The relief I felt was like having a burden lifted and I found it disturbing to keep reading posts when you appeared dismissive of people life me obtaining a diagnosis. That's why I've gone into such detail here over why I kept challenging you on the subject of broadening definitions. That's really all I have to say.

I experienced this too with regard to BD's statements and also felt like I had to sort of justify myself. I find it hard to take when I didn't even go searching for this dx that I feel as though BD lumps me in with the people he is describing.

 

Here's the thing - when the responses he says in the same posts as me are on these lines I cannot separate or identify whether they are just in the same posts, or whether they are actually directed at me.

 

I asked and BD says not and that its my problem if I take it that way, in which case if its bothering me I should look closer at myself.

 

This just confused me more because personally I did not even want this dx and I certainly don't want to pick it up and use it as ever and whenever its "useful" to get something that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. And a key reason it bothers me is the reduced mentioning of adults who actually are on the spectrum and have a load of feelings about that because of circumstance and late dx

 

I'm sorry, i don't know why you've taken anything I've said personally - I don't know you! I couldn't possibly be dismissive of 'people like you', because i don't/didn't know anything about you, your 'symptoms' your route to diagnosis or any other aspect of what you appear to have found challenging in my posts. And even if I did, that doesn't explain in any way why you would continually deny or refuse to acknowledge the established fact that the diagnostic criteria has widened.

 

Further, I would add that I don't know anything about your life, your upbringing, your experiences, your mental health, your psychology or any of the other things that would provide a diagnostician with enough information to diagnose you with autism and to reject the many alternative diagnoses that could equally apply to the symptoms you have described...

 

And that's precisely the point I'm making; that effective diagnosis should arise from a full and holistic assessment rather than a 'pin the tail on the donkey' approach that cherry-picks one or two symptoms that might relate to ASD and rejects everything else, which is what I believe is now happening in far greater numbers than ever and to the detriment of the autistic community as a whole.

 

As I said, I haven't necessarily got an issue with the 'broadening' of the criteria, more the problem that it is being applied to broadly, casually, and automatically.

 

So I'm sorry if you are personally sensitive to some of the issues that get discussed on the forum or by me expressing my opinions, but that's not really my fault or my problem, whereas the issue of autistic people being 'judged' inappropriately on the basis of increasing numbers of people with woolly diagnoses who tend to use tham 'as and when required' or as a justifiaction for treating other people shabbily that IS my problem, because my son is one of the people suffering the brunt of such completely unreasonable and unjustified judgements.

 

L&P

 

BD

You said this to me to, but if you make statements like you do than people are sometimes gonna react and take it personally - you say its not your problem, but its you who causes it, so wouldn't it even be slightly worth the consideration that you play a role in it?

 

I think this issue occurs maybe because of fine lines in what you are saying and maybe people are picking up on the wrong bits (their prob not yours) since you clearly explain in this post it makes it clearer for some of us reading them. The answer you give here explains very well, and I believe I understand your point a little better now (seeing as I still previously felt that your past statement was directed personally even though you said it wasn't).

 

Actually I find this quite funny/ironic cuz I've repeatedly apologised/clarified my bad explanations and here I am saying that this one of yours is better than the previous so maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't always think to use the exact right words every single time I say something hehe.

 

So what do you think of the phrase "we're all on the spectrum"? Cuz its something I am hearing and seeing and I always think yeah, fine, we might all have these traits that are broadening but are we all having this extreme impairment in life? NO. We aren't.

[baddad]

I experienced this too with regard to BD's statements and also felt like I had to sort of justify myself. I find it hard to take when I didn't even go searching for this dx that I feel as though BD lumps me in with the people he is describing.

 

Here's the thing - when the responses he says in the same posts as me are on these lines I cannot separate or identify whether they are just in the same posts, or whether they are actually directed at me.

 

I asked and BD says not and that its my problem if I take it that way, in which case if its bothering me I should look closer at myself.

 

This just confused me more because personally I did not even want this dx and I certainly don't want to pick it up and use it as ever and whenever its "useful" to get something that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. And a key reason it bothers me is the reduced mentioning of adults who actually are on the spectrum and have a load of feelings about that because of circumstance and late dx

 

 

You said this to me to, but if you make statements like you do than people are sometimes gonna react and take it personally - you say its not your problem, but its you who causes it, so wouldn't it even be slightly worth the consideration that you play a role in it?

 

I think this issue occurs maybe because of fine lines in what you are saying and maybe people are picking up on the wrong bits (their prob not yours) since you clearly explain in this post it makes it clearer for some of us reading them. The answer you give here explains very well, and I believe I understand your point a little better now (seeing as I still previously felt that your past statement was directed personally even though you said it wasn't).

 

Actually I find this quite funny/ironic cuz I've repeatedly apologised/clarified my bad explanations and here I am saying that this one of yours is better than the previous so maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't always think to use the exact right words every single time I say something hehe.

 

So what do you think of the phrase "we're all on the spectrum"? Cuz its something I am hearing and seeing and I always think yeah, fine, we might all have these traits that are broadening but are we all having this extreme impairment in life? NO. We aren't.

 

 

Hold on... I haven't really read the above, just glanced over it, but it's not 'me who causes it'. I just say what I believe, and generally - apart from when I keep getting hauled over the coals over the same points over and over again - say it quite reasonably!

 

If I say something about ineffective parenting I am not calling any individual parent ineffective. I am talking about ineffective parenting, which is quite clearly a huge problem nationally, as our education system, crime statistics, jo frost et al clearly highlights. If me talking about it makes some people uneasy what's the options? Do we not discuss these things, only discuss them from one direction, assume that if autism is a factor then all the statistics can't apply?

 

Again, I believe the ever widening definitons of autism and the cherry-picking of symptoms that now occurs and the overlooking of symtoms that don't fit and ALL those issues are having a huge and detrimental impact on how autistic people are generally perceived, and i've offered, repeatedly, several explanations for why that erosion of diagnosis is damaging both for the wider autistic community and for the people potentially being misdiagnosed and habving their real issues brushed aside. If anyone's got counter arguments to those points, rather than just problems with me having the audacity to express them or personal issues with the implications of the points, we could explore them, but don't just deny them and shoot the messenger!

 

My opinions are opinions. People can reject them if they don't like them and for whatever reason they don't like them - be it denial or because they really aren't 'valid' to them. The last thing they should do is rally against them, especially if the argument their presenting is one that personalises them and/or is full of holes... just ignore 'em!

 

L&P

 

BD

[darkshine]

Hold on... I haven't really read the above, just glanced over it, but it's not 'me who causes it'. I just say what I believe, and generally - apart from when I keep getting hauled over the coals over the same points over and over again - say it quite reasonably!

And if you read it properly maybe your answer would reflect that!!!! As I see it BD your biggest fault is not that you say what you think, and it also is not that people interpret it in their own way...

 

It's that you aren't hearing/reading what people are saying as I'm sure you'll see if you read my reply again properly...

[baddad]

And if you read it properly maybe your answer would reflect that!!!! As I see it BD your biggest fault is not that you say what you think, and it also is not that people interpret it in their own way...

 

It's that you aren't hearing/reading what people are saying as I'm sure you'll see if you read my reply again properly...

 

As you see it... one post in which I fully acknowledge that I've only glanced at a post (because of timing) is an indication of a general trend of not hearing / not reading what people are saying? Seriously?

 

Darkshine, go back to the very top of the thread and start again!

 

You will see, I'm sure, the exact opposite of what you are suggesting if you read my numerous replies and the challenges to them properly! :lol:

[darkshine]

As you see it... one post in which I fully acknowledge that I've only glanced at a post (because of timing) is an indication of a general trend of not hearing / not reading what people are saying? Seriously?

 

Darkshine, go back to the very top of the thread and start again!

 

You will see, I'm sure, the exact opposite of what you are suggesting if you read my numerous replies and the challenges to them properly! :lol:

I was referring to the post by me that you posted about and was referring to yourself and not a general trend within your history of=r the rest of the posts within this topic - but I didn't think your answer on the post you were referring to by me - after admitting you hadn't read it suggested that you may need to read it again cuz you didn't understand what I said at all - or i said it so badly that you didn't - but i find it hard to believe that it is my fault for this every single time i say something...

[baddad]

Hold on... I'll edit out the bits in the middle (which if you double check don't alter the meaning in any way whatsoever) so it's clearer...

 

As I see it BD your biggest fault is... that you aren't hearing/reading what people are saying

 

Now, don't you think 'your BIGGEST fault' implies a general meaning rather than a single post specific meaning? Go on... admit it... it will do you far more good than harm... Stop being so defensive...

 

And in case you're missing it, this reply is light hearted with a semi-serious undertone and not admonishing or overtly critical... and that qualifications was meant helpfully, not sarcastically. Come on, gimme a break, i'm trying to cover all the bases here...

 

L&P

 

BD

[darkshine]

Hold on... I'll edit out the bits in the middle (which if you double check don't alter the meaning in any way whatsoever) so it's clearer...

 

 

 

Now, don't you think 'your BIGGEST fault' implies a general meaning rather than a single post specific meaning? Go on... admit it... it will do you far more good than harm... Stop being so defensive...

 

And in case you're missing it, this reply is light hearted with a semi-serious undertone and not admonishing or overtly critical... and that qualifications was meant helpfully, not sarcastically. Come on, gimme a break, i'm trying to cover all the bases here...

 

L&P

 

BD

Defensive? moi? I think not well maybe a little - shrugs - but I can't be defensive all on my own now can I?

 

Admit it you say... I'll admit plenty - but I don't think it'll do me any good - I meant you biggest fault in the context of the posts we are referring to here - how can I possibly say that its your biggest fault generally?

 

I will admit I have said it to you before - and I'll admit that I don't think you always read things properly - but I won't admit that its your biggest fault - I actually think that your BIGGEST fault is not this at all!!

 

I'm giving you a break here and just replying is all but you have to admit that you still haven't responded to what I said cuz you might have re-read it. Is this because you see the meaning is not what you were replying to? Or is it cuz you are glazing over that fact in order to not agree?

 

No love but peace

 

darkshine

[Adam Mars]

Hold on... I'll edit out the bits in the middle (which if you double check don't alter the meaning in any way whatsoever) so it's clearer...

 

 

 

Now, don't you think 'your BIGGEST fault' implies a general meaning rather than a single post specific meaning?

 

 

 

Don't you think editing out the part that placed it firmly in the present tense - and so implied a single post specific meaning rather than a general meaning - is a little disingenuous?

[matzoball]

Original Post anyone?

 

I think it would be a good idea to (figuratively speaking) for everyone walk away from this thread as it's become a bit of an unpleasant read after it originally was trying to point out something positive.

[baddad]

Don't you think editing out the part that placed it firmly in the present tense - and so implied a single post specific meaning rather than a general meaning - is a little disingenuous?

 

No Adam, that's not what I did. The post very clearly moved from a general comment on one post to a sentence that was quite sepcifically, erm, general!

 

But as you missed it first time i'll reproduce the whole so you can see it:

 

And if you read it properly maybe your answer would reflect that!!!! <(that bit's post specific)

 

As I see it BD your biggest fault is not that you say what you think, and it also is not that people interpret it in their own way... <(that bits general)

 

It's that you aren't hearing/reading what people are saying , <(that bit's general and then we move back - via an 'as' to:

 

as I'm sure you'll see if you read my reply again properly... <(a bit that's post specific)

 

It is EVER so easy, unless you're being deliberately disengenuous, which I suspect you're probably being...

 

Darkshine: rereading your post yes, I do acknowledge that you weren't only saying 'it's you who causes it', but that phrase is a pretty key one that would almost certainly put anyone's back up. Particularly after days and days of the same people arguing the same points, despite those points being fully addressed and responded to. TBH, I think I'm being incredibly polite under the circumstances, but I'm begining to wonder why I'm bothering... which is not, of course, to say that i'll stop saying what i think, just that i'll stop trying to qualify it and/or make it palatable for people who are probably being 'wilfully ignorant'...

 

L&P

 

BD