[bigfont]

Thanks for the comment. It looks like we mostly agree.

> The purpose of the "disorder" is to group common pathologies and their respective treatments (methods to improve).

So nice to see this expressed. Classification helps when it lets us find effective treatment approaches. We do want to give people effective tools to face life difficulties.

That said, a problem happens when a classification has many different presentations. Person A with high functioning autism might need help staying focused on disliked tasks. Person B with high functioning autism might have trouble expressing emotions (but do fine with disliked tasks). As the classification widens, so does the range of presentations, and that increases the risk of treating people like B for difficulties that they don't have.

We can remove that risk if we treat the difficulty directly. Instead of `person -> classification -> difficulties -> treatments` we go `person -> difficulty -> treatment`. Simply match difficulties to treatments directly.

"Lots of people have difficulty staying focused on tasks they don't like. These things tend to help... "

> Many people with high functioning autism don't see it as a disorder and view it as a "different thinking style".

It's just so nice to see that. Happily, the DSM may remove high functioning autism, at least in part. Good! We did the same with homosexuality in 1973. The classification was the stigma.

It looks like we agree that classifications can help, if it points to effective treatment. I like to point out that wide categories obscure effective treatments and also introduce stigma. By dropping the classification, we can focus on the person, their real difficulties, and to normalizing their human experience.