I find it rather annoying that people like myself get lumped into this as well when such broad definitions are being used.
Do I prefer to be alone/ in a small group most of the time? Hell yes! It's more exclusive and I get more work done. In a social situation, less people means more signal, less noise.
Do I sometimes completely avoid social situations? Of course! But it's solely due to the fact that sometimes, I just can't be arsed to care about dealing with someones trite problems.
When push comes to shove and I need to be social with large groups, there isn't an issue aside from the usual inherent "stage fright", but this is a quality that can affect anyone that doesn't spend the majority of their time as a public speaker.
Some of us exhibit the "qualities" in the article purely by choice, not by challenge. I'm pretty sure at some point in my youth, some poor misguided soul tried to diagnose me with some placement on the spectrum, but I would say that nowadays this incorrect classification is more common than not. Had someone told me every day that I was an autist, maybe I would have ended up exhibiting more of those behaviors simply by association. Maybe we should make a slight effort to stop telling schoolchildren that they're special or different, and more time letting people fend for themselves a bit first.
You clearly don't understand how the diagnosis of these things works.
There is a spectrum of behaviors, raging from healthy to problematic.
Drinking alcohol has a range too: from abstaining to enjoying in moderation to alcoholism. Neither abstaining nor moderate enjoyment are problematic. While the parallel is awkward, just as occasionally having one beer too many doesn't constitute alcoholism, occasionally avoiding social situations is different from always avoiding them (the reasons for avoiding them are important too!).
If you don't understand the criteria for determining when a behavior is problematic enough to warrant a symptom and when it is not, and you read through the DSM-IV (which defines mental disorders), you will think you qualify for many of the disorders listed: in all likelihood you do not qualify for any of them. Why are the definitions written this way? Because mental disorders are often characterized by normal behaviors happening to an extreme degree (being anxious before a big potentially career-altering presentation is healthy, having panic attacks as a result of everyday situations is problematic). Also because the DSM-IV is meant to be used by trained professionals who already understand this distinction.
You really hit the nail on the head here and said exactly what I (and probably others here) have been thinking.
As much as it's a very humanly thing to do, I think it's ridiculous to try to lump people into categories, especially when the differences are so minute that it's almost as if there's one way that people should be, and if someone doesn't fit that mold exactly, they must be classified as different. This leads to unnecessary (and unintentional) segregation and gives common folk more reason to disproportionately view and treat certain individuals differently.
The problem with this is that you're thinking that these symptoms define aspergers. They don't - they're just symptoms, resulting out of other issues which you (and everyone else) can't see.
Just like every other medical and mental disorder, just because you have some of the symptoms doesn't mean that you have the actual condition. Jeff Foxworthy has a great joke about this - seeing a program on a disease, his wife says "I have everyone of these symptoms! I've got it..." To which he responds "No, you do not have testicular cancer!"
If you don't have aspergers, great! I'm happy for you; there are many things about being NT that I wish I had as well. But at the same time, don't classify aspergers as not being a real problem just because you share some symptoms without the underlying cause.
I agree that the article perpetuates broad over-generalizations about people with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
On the other hand, if you are high-functioning enough for the advice in the article to not apply to you, I would also hope that you are high-functioning enough to tell your manager(s) and co-workers what accommodations you do and don't need.
As someone who was diagnosed with Aspberger syndrome, reading that article made me want to throw up. There can be significant differences between a number of people with the same diagnosis, and generalizing them all under one mocking nickname of "aspie" is disrespectful. My diagnosis is not obvious to anyone talking to me unless I were to disclose it, and I have done very well in school leadership activities; I particularly enjoyed being involved in a debate club. I don't want Aspberger's to define me, and I wish that CNN would be more supportive of people who are working to overcome their disabilities instead of writing a puff piece about how special and disabled we are.
I couldn't agree more - as another person with Aspbergers I feel that this article tried to fit us in to the broken genius pattern, rather than recognize that these kind of syndromes manifest themselves differently in every person.
I am in no way special or helped by my syndrome, I am not difficult to work with, I am not in any way disabled, like normal people I have issues with emotional repression and other peoples point of view, but that being said I am human, first and foremost.
No one (outside of medical and psychological circles) except my girlfriend, mum and best friend know I have Aspbergers, my differences are just a part of my personality.
Completely agreed. I found the article mildly infuriating. Aside from the fact that it manifests in many different ways, I wouldn't even think of Aspergers as a disability in the "traditional" sense; people with Aspergers are just different, it's not like they function any less well than people without Aspergers. I don't have Aspergers myself but a good friend of mine does, and the casual stigma and misinformation I've observed drives me crazy.
Some of the mass media articles about Zuckerberg have just been absolutely venomous taunting about his Asperger's. You can be the most successful internet billionaire of your generation and average people will still sneer at you for having a mental disorder. The stigma against it is still incredibly strong (even though it has no connection to violent/abusive behavior).
> As someone who was diagnosed with Aspberger syndrome, reading that article made me want to throw up.
As another 'Sperg, I can't help but think you're overreacting. Sure, the article was a tad patronizing at times, but the overall tone was positive. It's not a problem that it was a bit of a "puff piece", as you said, because it'll help people perceive us in a more positive light.
> My diagnosis is not obvious to anyone talking to me unless I were to disclose it
I grew up without a clue about Asperger's or having it. It just wasn't known back then, so I operated under the assumption of being just an ordinary (or "normal") person, and despite some quirks, even pulled off the role.
But immediately upon reading about Asperger's, my sister recognized the characteristics in me. The point is that someone who knows the "symptoms", may well recognize them in you. It may even be obvious.
> I don't want Aspberger's to define me
It doesn't, but it inevitably does to an extent. You probably display most of the characteristics, but at least some of them are under your control. For example, sometimes you'll want to "fit in", so you'll refrain from being as blunt as you'd like to.
Upon close inspection, no one is "normal". I'm a little wary to take these syndromes at face value, because every year they discover a different one. Some years ago ADD didn't even existed, nowadays 1 in 2 people would be diagnosed with that.
Maybe Asperger's is just a personality trait. Maybe it's just not putting up with other's people crap. There are days I would be diagnosed as having Asperger's, for sure.
A kid in my CS program and my dorms in college had Asperger's and I'd probably hire him, depending on the company. He is an absolutely brilliant person who would read a textbook in a night and immediately have all of it committed to memory and able to use in a problem. He would program in classes because he already knew everything the professor was lecturing on, only stopping to raise his hand and correct the teacher when they flubbed up or weren't totally clear. (By the end of our program teachers were trying to make sure they didn't have him in their classes.)
He did a few jobs during school and a buddy of mine worked with him at a software development shop. He said that they put him (my co-student with Asperger's), in an office by himself with a computer and a desk phone and gave him assignments of things to code. His code was awesome, but whenever he wanted to ask someone about a project he was working on, people rarely answered him. Being the genius that he was, he figured out how to hack his office phone to be able to transmit his voice through every office speaker in the entire office without anyone having to pick up their phone. They quickly started answering him more.
So my $.02 are the same with working with any individual - understand who they are, what they care about, and give them what they need. My co-student with Asperger's was a total genius in CS (actually he was a CE double major now that I think of it), but ultimately had trouble getting people to just listen to him.
The posed question is kind of offensive and arrogant if you think of it. It is kind of along the lines of 'Will/do you hire someone who is a woman/foreign/handicapped/ugly?' Suddenly the proposed properties are super offensive. "Women are smart", "Women think differently", etc. "Dave Wellman has managed several employees who were women." Eh what?
How about asking "Will/do you hire someone who is good for the job?". The question asked here though is more along the lines of "Will/do discriminate in your hiring process and how much?"
Furthermore the article is pretty biased, for example: "Aspies are intelligent -- and independent".
I have met dumb 'aspies'. I don't know about figures, but I would argue that there are both dumb and intelligent 'aspies'.
> The posed question is kind of offensive and arrogant if you think of it. It is kind of along the lines of 'Will/do you hire someone who is a woman/foreign/handicapped/ugly?'
...
> How about asking "Will/do you hire someone who is good for the job?". The question asked here though is more along the lines of "Will/do discriminate in your hiring process and how much?"
I don't disagree with you, but I think it's important to realize that this article is written to address and correct some common human biases. People whose moral development exceeds a certain level are less likely to subconsciously classify and stereotype people based on a handful of social cues, but are more likely to evaluate people as individuals. This article is not written for such people. It is written for people whose moral model of a person is so simple as to equate "autistic" with "dysfunctional" and ignore the individual characteristics of a person.
It may be offensive or arrogant to discuss autistic spectrum individuals in this way, but it's also necessary because most people are simply going to stereotype and dismiss them unless they're prompted to think more thoroughly about the issue. Decades in the future, when humanity's collective moral reasoning has hopefully progressed, we will be able to look back on articles like this and marvel at how simpleminded people were at the time. But articles like this are a necessary step to getting there.
As others here have pointed out, "Asperger's" covers a broad spectrum of behaviors and it's not fair to a) put this label on anyone who displays some of the behaviors (that covers too many people), nor b) try to minimize the diversity of behaviors by focusing on just a few (the diversity is much, much greater). The same thing happens with the horribly named "gifted" label. People only focus on the high achievers and completely miss the fact that not all gifted or Asperger's fit that stereotype. It's just so easy to label people and move on without really considering what's going on. A great article called the "Misunderstood face of giftedness" on this was just in Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-kuzujanakis/gifted-ch...
Don't worry. Asperger's syndrome will be removed from DSM-5 next month. So next month, the person won't have the syndrome anymore...The syndrome won't even exist anymore...
Much of the DSM is toxic legacy from the dark ages of psychiatry -- an era that we've yet to transcend.
Meanwhile, your conclusion doesn't seem to fit with the text of the article you linked.
You say:
> Asperger's syndrome will be removed from DSM-5 next month.
> So next month, the person won't have the syndrome anymore...
> The syndrome won't even exist anymore...
From the article:
> DSM-V, will come out in May and Asperger’s will be
> notably absent, replaced with the broader definition
> of “autism spectrum disorder.” Previously, Asperger’s
> was thought to be a milder form of autism.
My interpretation is that it's still the generic spectrum disorder that we never really understood, but now the DSM reflects this reality better than it did previously.
Of course, I concede to the prevailing stance of people more experienced in and affected by this decision.
The UK has concepts of "Reasonable adjustments". Some things are intrinsic parts of a job. A taxi driver must be able to drive. An accountant does not need to be able to drive. Thus, you can justifiably not employ someone for a taxi driver if their disability prevents them from driving, but you could not justifiably not employ an accountant if their disability meant they could not drive.
> As a manager, you should understand how to handle the unique opportunities and challenges that come with hiring an Aspie.
Wait, what? This is weird. Now tell us what it's like employing Jews.
I generally agree with the intent of the article but it comes over a bit "Oh the proud and noble Aspie".
> They will never accept "no" for an answer without being told the reason for it.
That's probably true, but some people with Asperger's will have given up on asking why, knowing that sometimes people use stupid incomprehensible bizarre sub-optimal reasons. When someone tells me no I tend to just accept it, because I know that asking why leads to a rabbit-hole of bitter argument and disappointment.
I sound overly critical of the article. I don't mean to. Oh well.
Honestly, halfway through the article the question popped up on whether I was reading an Article on understanding "Aspies" or whether I was reading an Article on "Aspie"keeping. "Dog's become agressive when stared into the eyes by humans as for Dog's, this signals a fight" vs. "Many people with Asperger's are challenged by large crowds, looking people in the eye and reading common social cues". I don't mean to bash the article, but if anybody shares that feeling about the language used in it...
Asperger's doesn't particularly exist. IIRC it is being removed from the DSM-V; 99.5% of sufferers are self-diagnosed with information that they found on the internet, and sometimes have confirmed with helpful psychiatrists.
The criteria seems to be that one has a terrible personality, is simultaneously high-maintenance and inconsiderate of others, thinks very highly of one's self, but lacks any other connection with the autism spectrum.
You're mixing in two different things, self diagnosis according to Internet reading, and professional diagnosis which use the DSM for insurance payments. Don't confuse them like this. Professional diagnosis may well be growing faster than you like, but the same is true for prison population which is also based on a very good but imperfect system (juries and trials).
I'm not even sure how to respond to this. For one, there's a distinct difference between Asperger's and High-Functioning Autistics, and while they may have taken it out of the DSM, it doesn't change the fact that these changes in characteristics exist and when diagnosed correctly, can still identify the subset of issues each are facing and how to respond/deal with those issues.
Secondly, people forget that autism, as a spectrum, is being studied further and further and as such, we are finding more reason to believe that it actually does affect a lot of people -- not necessarily that it is grossly misdiagnosed. Furthermore, the number of doctors knowledgeable enough in diagnosing someone at any range of the spectrum is low. As we learn more about it, we are seeing people their 20s, 30s, some even well into their 50s and 60s finally being diagnosed because they were able to adapt well-enough that it seemed nothing was wrong on the outset.
Similarly, females on the spectrum are also often misdiagnosed with anxiety, depression or eating disorders because of how it affects them, and therefore we think that autism primarily affects men even though that may not be the case at all. Society tends to prime girls at a young age to be more sociable (but doesn't frown upon them being shy either), so they are often able hide under the radar, but continue to suffer in other ways. I'm on the spectrum myself, and I've had doctors laugh at me for wanting to be tested because "I 'look' and 'act' 'normal'," to them, which is incredibly insulting. Additionally, those that are trained to detect autism are often pediatricians, not general practitioners that aren't taking into consideration the adult patient's learned-skills over time. This is often what leads people to try to figure out what is wrong with them through other means, and I don't think we should be going around telling other people who they are and aren't. There will always be hypochondriacs, but this is one of those situations where I feel like we should try to take people seriously before we write them off entirely.
So thanks for the armchair neuropsychology, but nobody needs it; we still have a lot to learn.
> The criteria seems to be that one has a terrible
> personality, is simultaneously high-maintenance and
> inconsiderate of others, thinks very highly of one's self
If I was a person with Aspergers, I would be extremely annoyed that the term 'Aspie' is used here. Why not, 'for these people,' type of wording? Coining or perpetuating a term like that only serves to isolate anyone that might otherwise have been just a person with Aspergers.
My experience is that the use term "Aspie" divides the people I know who are diagnosed with Asperger's; it's similar to the way people are divided over the use of the word "hacker".
It has negative connotations to some, but if you are precise in the way you define the term, it can be a source of pride.
I thought it was a term of endearment and wasn't considered offensive by Aspergers folks... er.. "those with Aspergers"... seeing why the diminutive label is useful here. What do you call such a person? You don't call them an "Aspergers". "Aspie" seems to work.
Reading this post makes me wonder if I have Asperger's...it pretty much described me to a tee.
Extremely uncomfortable in crowds/parties (actually, I pretty much refuse to attend parties at all), always looking at something else when speaking to someone 1 on 1, "rambling" when describing something or telling a story when someone else would only take 1~2 sentences, speaking my mind and a tendency to avoid small talk, and sensitive in terms of how I react to something (I tend to over-analyze and find a reason for everything that involves me).
That being said, does anyone know how accurate his list is?
Coming to a blog post, why most computer specialists relate to autism. It is very important to keep in mind there is a broad spectrum. Holding two strong relationships with a total of three children with Asperger's or high functioning autism (ages: 3-6, 7-9, 10-12) and a few here and there, it has really broadened my view on the subject.
First, language is a barrier. Social awkwardness naturally follows that barrier. Trained social reflexes and loosely coupled connections and relationships. From an industry perspective, computer specialists seem to form a deeper relationship and bonds with the logical machine.
Social skills are a technical trait that can be trained... 'why are you looking at me while I use the urinal?' In my experience, these children live on rules, and the rules define them as an adult. Computers are rule based too.
Zoning, stimming, and hyperfocusing seem to be common characteristics in the spectrum. Countless hours spinning objects, humming notes, doing routines, slightly ocd to an extent. Much like the caffeinated nights at the terminal for endless hours.
Multitasking as an obvious detour from an objective. Focus on a, achieve a, move on to b. Multitasking skills are found in the ADHD varieties, but interestingly, my observation has been a determined rigorous approach to solve solutions. Tinker until it is done. Modify. Read the rules manual word for word XOR ignore it completely. We see this behavior in our field.
Egos and emotions. Nothing more to say.
And I too have Asperger's syndrome. I have never been formally diagnosed with testing, partly because it was unheard of in my time. I visited a psych last year and she was shocked that my symptoms had not been tied to the spectrum. Yet, I am a trained individual, hyperfocusing my way to my goals and have been without guidance. My main issues stem from processing/speaking language. I am strong willed, persistent, introverted, curious, clever, quirky, and shy. I've self medicated my Asperger's and ADD with depression and anxiety... ruining my social reflection to the world.
The computer is my relationship. It is my mind, body, and soul. If something goes wrong, it is either my fault, someone's fault, or fixable. No quirky social rules to interpret and apply to the problem. Phone conferences in the phreaking days and IRC had my friends for the longest time.
The question 'is will/do you hire someone with Asperger's syndrome?', and the answer is: 'if they are qualified.'
Some of you will be parents soon. If you see the signs, get your children enrolled in a speech therapy program.
Peak their interests with gears (KNEX), LEDs and motors and batteries, circular/cylindrical objects, simple math/chemistry in the home.
The sooner the rules begin to form, the less the fear applies, grabs hold, and ruins the experience. Warn them about the quadratic equation, Bayes', matrices... years in advance. Eradicate the fear, spawn the curiosity.
As a father with a child with autism spectrum disorder (it is not fully diagnosed until 6-8) I strongly second to have your children tested and enrolled as soon as possible (ideally as soon as you have any doubt or see any sign). Therapies can have almost magical effects if started early, much less as time passes.
Another frequent side effect of Asperger's is the impulse to fix things and make sure everything runs smoothly. (I think this is not limited to Asperger's but is common to many people who are uncomfortable with emotion.) A frustrating aspect of Asperger's is that you don't feel the same emotions at the same times for the same reasons as other people. People ignore you or discount your feelings because the logic behind your emotions seems bizarre to them. And the disconnect goes both ways, of course, since people with Asperger's have a hard time understanding others' emotions and responding to them constructively. For many young Aspies it is a simple bedrock truth that whenever emotion and personal interaction mix, it's a clusterfuck, because engaging with other people emotionally ends in failure and trauma. So you keep your emotions inside, studiously avoid responding to others' emotions, and structure your interactions with other people around what you _are_ capable of doing right, which is fixing things that cause bad emotions in the first place.
In this way, having Asperger's is kind of like the opposite of being a drama queen. This is not to say that people with Asperger's are always emotionally appropriate or easy to get along with. What I mean is that some people love emotional chaos because they deal with emotion very well and always seem to come out on top in emotional confrontations. They relish the chance to stir up chaos because to them it's another chance to put their skills on display and come out ahead. Aspies are not like that at all; when they get into an uncomfortable confrontation, it's a mistake, and they don't enjoy it. People who deal poorly with emotion go around fixing things and (some) people who thrive on it go around breaking things. Sounds like a good reason to hire Aspies to me.
I sometimes wonder whether the human species would be better off if everyone had a strong case of what we call Asperger's.
So many tribal/cultural conflicts arise because of people's ability to connect strongly... Consider religious zealoutry and jihad, and other culturally-derived sources of conflict.
Our ability and willingness to be led (at a scope unique in the animal kingdom) has been a great organizing force in human history; but it has also been very destructive. The jury's still out as to whether it's a net positive.
If we all had strong Asperger's, would logic and reason rule the day more often than it does? Would that in turn be net positive?
Food for thought: Would we then need to treat non-Asperger's people as having a disorder of their own? The question sharply illuminates the true purpose of medically treating someone with Asperger's and other autism-spectrum "disorders": To help them fit in better with the majority and hopefully be happier. Not to "fix" them.
As someone who is highly social and has two ASD sons, I just want to note that verbal communication (aka "language") takes two. It annoys the fool out of me when people fail to communicate with someone with some mild challenges and then just blame them for it. I always want to say "If you are so fucking socially adept, then surely you can bridge this small gap for the other person."
Sounds like a lot of us here fit the description pretty well.
I'm not convinced this is anything more than the various styles of potential people. Take for example that I don't read or watch fiction. I haven't been able to cope with it my whole life. I read non-fiction and much prefer it.
Is that a preference? Is that some meaningful indication about who I am?
I don't know. I am hearing the spectrum answer from a lot of people. That sounds like an answer with no way to refute it, so the value of it is meaningless.
I really don't know much about this topic, and haven't given it the time to learn. My input is not particularly valuable in this discussion.
However my best guess is that this is trying to explain the range of human possibility with a diagnosis as opposed to simply thinking that there are different people with different traits, and that's all okay.
I used to be "unable" to do a lot of tasks of a business professional and just coded and worked alone.
Then I was promoted until I was unable to do what I was good at, and has to learn how to do the business tasks. Now I am doing them.
It wasn't that I was unable. I just didn't desire to do it on my own, and wasn't in a position where I had to regardless.
I sort of think of all of this like ADHD. The majority of parents I know tell me their kid has ADHD, and many are on medication for it.
And I watch them feed their children coke regularly.
If the consequences weren't so tragic, I would laugh out loud at all this about Asperger's. Consider the following points:
1. Human evolution is still going on, and in the long term, Asperger's might represent a positive evolutionary adaptation, especially in a world increasingly dependent on technology. Only nature knows, and nature doesn't reveal her secrets willingly.
2 After a recent epidemic of overdiagnoses, psychologists are reluctantly abandoning the Asperger's diagnosis -- it's being removed from the DSM. The reason? Too many people wanted the diagnosis -- it was the first truly fashionable mental illness. After all, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates are/were thought to have this "disease".
3. There is a positive psychological trait called "Grit":
People who have "grit" tend to focus on a few objectives, or just one, for months or years. It's a "good thing™" -- psychologists say so. But the exact same behavior can lead to an Asperger's diagnosis. Have psychologists resolved this contradiction? Not remotely.
As far as I'm concerned, and in the opinion of an increasing number of psychologists, Asperger's refers to something real, but it shouldn't have been categorized as a mental illness -- unless intelligence should also be listed.
If psychology was a science this might all be different, but there's little hope for that.
Reminds me of working at Noom. The management were complete crooks. They'd lie in job ads and justify it by saying they get more people to apply, agree to things in public company wide meetings then quash them in private when it didn't look as bad, pirate software then toot their PR horn saying if any employee needs any software for their job they'd buy it, frequently forget to pay you or pay too little unless you fought for the right amount, etc.. Very difficult culture for someone who likes logical connection between things and details that all make sense put together.
I believe, without hard date to support, that the more HR people a company has in general, the less likely they are to hire people with Asperger's. And if those same companies do hire an employee review process that becomes very political/subjective/social is going to filter employees with asperger's out.
If you have a job that fits their skills and don't ding them for not say golfing with the "team" I think there are opportunities to pick up highly talented people that other companies are not chasing who will stick around.
Um, not to hate or anything, but there is a reason it is called autistic syndrome. Autistic people lack the ability to form a "theory of brain", which means they just do not understand other people's intentions that well. You can't ignore this fact and hope it will go away.
[+] [-] fein|13 years ago|reply
Do I prefer to be alone/ in a small group most of the time? Hell yes! It's more exclusive and I get more work done. In a social situation, less people means more signal, less noise.
Do I sometimes completely avoid social situations? Of course! But it's solely due to the fact that sometimes, I just can't be arsed to care about dealing with someones trite problems.
When push comes to shove and I need to be social with large groups, there isn't an issue aside from the usual inherent "stage fright", but this is a quality that can affect anyone that doesn't spend the majority of their time as a public speaker.
Some of us exhibit the "qualities" in the article purely by choice, not by challenge. I'm pretty sure at some point in my youth, some poor misguided soul tried to diagnose me with some placement on the spectrum, but I would say that nowadays this incorrect classification is more common than not. Had someone told me every day that I was an autist, maybe I would have ended up exhibiting more of those behaviors simply by association. Maybe we should make a slight effort to stop telling schoolchildren that they're special or different, and more time letting people fend for themselves a bit first.
[+] [-] a_c_s|13 years ago|reply
There is a spectrum of behaviors, raging from healthy to problematic.
Drinking alcohol has a range too: from abstaining to enjoying in moderation to alcoholism. Neither abstaining nor moderate enjoyment are problematic. While the parallel is awkward, just as occasionally having one beer too many doesn't constitute alcoholism, occasionally avoiding social situations is different from always avoiding them (the reasons for avoiding them are important too!).
If you don't understand the criteria for determining when a behavior is problematic enough to warrant a symptom and when it is not, and you read through the DSM-IV (which defines mental disorders), you will think you qualify for many of the disorders listed: in all likelihood you do not qualify for any of them. Why are the definitions written this way? Because mental disorders are often characterized by normal behaviors happening to an extreme degree (being anxious before a big potentially career-altering presentation is healthy, having panic attacks as a result of everyday situations is problematic). Also because the DSM-IV is meant to be used by trained professionals who already understand this distinction.
[+] [-] tfb|13 years ago|reply
As much as it's a very humanly thing to do, I think it's ridiculous to try to lump people into categories, especially when the differences are so minute that it's almost as if there's one way that people should be, and if someone doesn't fit that mold exactly, they must be classified as different. This leads to unnecessary (and unintentional) segregation and gives common folk more reason to disproportionately view and treat certain individuals differently.
[+] [-] falcolas|13 years ago|reply
Just like every other medical and mental disorder, just because you have some of the symptoms doesn't mean that you have the actual condition. Jeff Foxworthy has a great joke about this - seeing a program on a disease, his wife says "I have everyone of these symptoms! I've got it..." To which he responds "No, you do not have testicular cancer!"
If you don't have aspergers, great! I'm happy for you; there are many things about being NT that I wish I had as well. But at the same time, don't classify aspergers as not being a real problem just because you share some symptoms without the underlying cause.
[+] [-] cbhl|13 years ago|reply
On the other hand, if you are high-functioning enough for the advice in the article to not apply to you, I would also hope that you are high-functioning enough to tell your manager(s) and co-workers what accommodations you do and don't need.
[+] [-] hh22|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _p62c|13 years ago|reply
I am in no way special or helped by my syndrome, I am not difficult to work with, I am not in any way disabled, like normal people I have issues with emotional repression and other peoples point of view, but that being said I am human, first and foremost.
No one (outside of medical and psychological circles) except my girlfriend, mum and best friend know I have Aspbergers, my differences are just a part of my personality.
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyllo|13 years ago|reply
Here's one well-known example: http://gawker.com/5885196/the-tech-industrys-asperger-proble...
[+] [-] white_devil|13 years ago|reply
As another 'Sperg, I can't help but think you're overreacting. Sure, the article was a tad patronizing at times, but the overall tone was positive. It's not a problem that it was a bit of a "puff piece", as you said, because it'll help people perceive us in a more positive light.
> My diagnosis is not obvious to anyone talking to me unless I were to disclose it
I grew up without a clue about Asperger's or having it. It just wasn't known back then, so I operated under the assumption of being just an ordinary (or "normal") person, and despite some quirks, even pulled off the role.
But immediately upon reading about Asperger's, my sister recognized the characteristics in me. The point is that someone who knows the "symptoms", may well recognize them in you. It may even be obvious.
> I don't want Aspberger's to define me
It doesn't, but it inevitably does to an extent. You probably display most of the characteristics, but at least some of them are under your control. For example, sometimes you'll want to "fit in", so you'll refrain from being as blunt as you'd like to.
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|13 years ago|reply
Maybe Asperger's is just a personality trait. Maybe it's just not putting up with other's people crap. There are days I would be diagnosed as having Asperger's, for sure.
[+] [-] mtext|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miles_matthias|13 years ago|reply
He did a few jobs during school and a buddy of mine worked with him at a software development shop. He said that they put him (my co-student with Asperger's), in an office by himself with a computer and a desk phone and gave him assignments of things to code. His code was awesome, but whenever he wanted to ask someone about a project he was working on, people rarely answered him. Being the genius that he was, he figured out how to hack his office phone to be able to transmit his voice through every office speaker in the entire office without anyone having to pick up their phone. They quickly started answering him more.
So my $.02 are the same with working with any individual - understand who they are, what they care about, and give them what they need. My co-student with Asperger's was a total genius in CS (actually he was a CE double major now that I think of it), but ultimately had trouble getting people to just listen to him.
[+] [-] mosselman|13 years ago|reply
How about asking "Will/do you hire someone who is good for the job?". The question asked here though is more along the lines of "Will/do discriminate in your hiring process and how much?"
Furthermore the article is pretty biased, for example: "Aspies are intelligent -- and independent".
I have met dumb 'aspies'. I don't know about figures, but I would argue that there are both dumb and intelligent 'aspies'.
[+] [-] john_b|13 years ago|reply
...
> How about asking "Will/do you hire someone who is good for the job?". The question asked here though is more along the lines of "Will/do discriminate in your hiring process and how much?"
I don't disagree with you, but I think it's important to realize that this article is written to address and correct some common human biases. People whose moral development exceeds a certain level are less likely to subconsciously classify and stereotype people based on a handful of social cues, but are more likely to evaluate people as individuals. This article is not written for such people. It is written for people whose moral model of a person is so simple as to equate "autistic" with "dysfunctional" and ignore the individual characteristics of a person.
It may be offensive or arrogant to discuss autistic spectrum individuals in this way, but it's also necessary because most people are simply going to stereotype and dismiss them unless they're prompted to think more thoroughly about the issue. Decades in the future, when humanity's collective moral reasoning has hopefully progressed, we will be able to look back on articles like this and marvel at how simpleminded people were at the time. But articles like this are a necessary step to getting there.
[+] [-] molbioguy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] catzhang|13 years ago|reply
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/04/aspergers-syndrome-to-be-...
[+] [-] danneu|13 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, your conclusion doesn't seem to fit with the text of the article you linked.
You say:
From the article: My interpretation is that it's still the generic spectrum disorder that we never really understood, but now the DSM reflects this reality better than it did previously.Of course, I concede to the prevailing stance of people more experienced in and affected by this decision.
[+] [-] DanBC|13 years ago|reply
> As a manager, you should understand how to handle the unique opportunities and challenges that come with hiring an Aspie.
Wait, what? This is weird. Now tell us what it's like employing Jews.
I generally agree with the intent of the article but it comes over a bit "Oh the proud and noble Aspie".
> They will never accept "no" for an answer without being told the reason for it.
That's probably true, but some people with Asperger's will have given up on asking why, knowing that sometimes people use stupid incomprehensible bizarre sub-optimal reasons. When someone tells me no I tend to just accept it, because I know that asking why leads to a rabbit-hole of bitter argument and disappointment.
I sound overly critical of the article. I don't mean to. Oh well.
[+] [-] solistice|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|13 years ago|reply
The criteria seems to be that one has a terrible personality, is simultaneously high-maintenance and inconsiderate of others, thinks very highly of one's self, but lacks any other connection with the autism spectrum.
[+] [-] tobylane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteysd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnicole|13 years ago|reply
Secondly, people forget that autism, as a spectrum, is being studied further and further and as such, we are finding more reason to believe that it actually does affect a lot of people -- not necessarily that it is grossly misdiagnosed. Furthermore, the number of doctors knowledgeable enough in diagnosing someone at any range of the spectrum is low. As we learn more about it, we are seeing people their 20s, 30s, some even well into their 50s and 60s finally being diagnosed because they were able to adapt well-enough that it seemed nothing was wrong on the outset.
Similarly, females on the spectrum are also often misdiagnosed with anxiety, depression or eating disorders because of how it affects them, and therefore we think that autism primarily affects men even though that may not be the case at all. Society tends to prime girls at a young age to be more sociable (but doesn't frown upon them being shy either), so they are often able hide under the radar, but continue to suffer in other ways. I'm on the spectrum myself, and I've had doctors laugh at me for wanting to be tested because "I 'look' and 'act' 'normal'," to them, which is incredibly insulting. Additionally, those that are trained to detect autism are often pediatricians, not general practitioners that aren't taking into consideration the adult patient's learned-skills over time. This is often what leads people to try to figure out what is wrong with them through other means, and I don't think we should be going around telling other people who they are and aren't. There will always be hypochondriacs, but this is one of those situations where I feel like we should try to take people seriously before we write them off entirely.
So thanks for the armchair neuropsychology, but nobody needs it; we still have a lot to learn.
[+] [-] auctiontheory|13 years ago|reply
Speaking of self-diagnosis ...
[+] [-] mturmon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eitland|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MoOmer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbhl|13 years ago|reply
It has negative connotations to some, but if you are precise in the way you define the term, it can be a source of pride.
[+] [-] nsxwolf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylanhassinger|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fyi80|13 years ago|reply
The meaning and intent matters, not the phrase.
[+] [-] hjay|13 years ago|reply
Extremely uncomfortable in crowds/parties (actually, I pretty much refuse to attend parties at all), always looking at something else when speaking to someone 1 on 1, "rambling" when describing something or telling a story when someone else would only take 1~2 sentences, speaking my mind and a tendency to avoid small talk, and sensitive in terms of how I react to something (I tend to over-analyze and find a reason for everything that involves me).
That being said, does anyone know how accurate his list is?
[+] [-] bradleyjg|13 years ago|reply
Just something to keep in mind before you answer the question in the title!
[+] [-] pekk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ambiate|13 years ago|reply
First, language is a barrier. Social awkwardness naturally follows that barrier. Trained social reflexes and loosely coupled connections and relationships. From an industry perspective, computer specialists seem to form a deeper relationship and bonds with the logical machine.
Social skills are a technical trait that can be trained... 'why are you looking at me while I use the urinal?' In my experience, these children live on rules, and the rules define them as an adult. Computers are rule based too.
Zoning, stimming, and hyperfocusing seem to be common characteristics in the spectrum. Countless hours spinning objects, humming notes, doing routines, slightly ocd to an extent. Much like the caffeinated nights at the terminal for endless hours.
Multitasking as an obvious detour from an objective. Focus on a, achieve a, move on to b. Multitasking skills are found in the ADHD varieties, but interestingly, my observation has been a determined rigorous approach to solve solutions. Tinker until it is done. Modify. Read the rules manual word for word XOR ignore it completely. We see this behavior in our field.
Egos and emotions. Nothing more to say.
And I too have Asperger's syndrome. I have never been formally diagnosed with testing, partly because it was unheard of in my time. I visited a psych last year and she was shocked that my symptoms had not been tied to the spectrum. Yet, I am a trained individual, hyperfocusing my way to my goals and have been without guidance. My main issues stem from processing/speaking language. I am strong willed, persistent, introverted, curious, clever, quirky, and shy. I've self medicated my Asperger's and ADD with depression and anxiety... ruining my social reflection to the world.
The computer is my relationship. It is my mind, body, and soul. If something goes wrong, it is either my fault, someone's fault, or fixable. No quirky social rules to interpret and apply to the problem. Phone conferences in the phreaking days and IRC had my friends for the longest time.
The question 'is will/do you hire someone with Asperger's syndrome?', and the answer is: 'if they are qualified.'
Some of you will be parents soon. If you see the signs, get your children enrolled in a speech therapy program.
Peak their interests with gears (KNEX), LEDs and motors and batteries, circular/cylindrical objects, simple math/chemistry in the home.
The sooner the rules begin to form, the less the fear applies, grabs hold, and ruins the experience. Warn them about the quadratic equation, Bayes', matrices... years in advance. Eradicate the fear, spawn the curiosity.
[+] [-] gtufano|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkarl|13 years ago|reply
In this way, having Asperger's is kind of like the opposite of being a drama queen. This is not to say that people with Asperger's are always emotionally appropriate or easy to get along with. What I mean is that some people love emotional chaos because they deal with emotion very well and always seem to come out on top in emotional confrontations. They relish the chance to stir up chaos because to them it's another chance to put their skills on display and come out ahead. Aspies are not like that at all; when they get into an uncomfortable confrontation, it's a mistake, and they don't enjoy it. People who deal poorly with emotion go around fixing things and (some) people who thrive on it go around breaking things. Sounds like a good reason to hire Aspies to me.
[+] [-] davidp|13 years ago|reply
I sometimes wonder whether the human species would be better off if everyone had a strong case of what we call Asperger's.
So many tribal/cultural conflicts arise because of people's ability to connect strongly... Consider religious zealoutry and jihad, and other culturally-derived sources of conflict.
Our ability and willingness to be led (at a scope unique in the animal kingdom) has been a great organizing force in human history; but it has also been very destructive. The jury's still out as to whether it's a net positive.
If we all had strong Asperger's, would logic and reason rule the day more often than it does? Would that in turn be net positive?
Food for thought: Would we then need to treat non-Asperger's people as having a disorder of their own? The question sharply illuminates the true purpose of medically treating someone with Asperger's and other autism-spectrum "disorders": To help them fit in better with the majority and hopefully be happier. Not to "fix" them.
[+] [-] Mz|13 years ago|reply
/rant
[+] [-] Freaky|13 years ago|reply
Pique, "to excite or arouse" :)
[+] [-] fyi80|13 years ago|reply
Define them, or guide them?
[+] [-] AndyNemmity|13 years ago|reply
I'm not convinced this is anything more than the various styles of potential people. Take for example that I don't read or watch fiction. I haven't been able to cope with it my whole life. I read non-fiction and much prefer it.
Is that a preference? Is that some meaningful indication about who I am?
I don't know. I am hearing the spectrum answer from a lot of people. That sounds like an answer with no way to refute it, so the value of it is meaningless.
I really don't know much about this topic, and haven't given it the time to learn. My input is not particularly valuable in this discussion.
However my best guess is that this is trying to explain the range of human possibility with a diagnosis as opposed to simply thinking that there are different people with different traits, and that's all okay.
I used to be "unable" to do a lot of tasks of a business professional and just coded and worked alone.
Then I was promoted until I was unable to do what I was good at, and has to learn how to do the business tasks. Now I am doing them.
It wasn't that I was unable. I just didn't desire to do it on my own, and wasn't in a position where I had to regardless.
I sort of think of all of this like ADHD. The majority of parents I know tell me their kid has ADHD, and many are on medication for it.
And I watch them feed their children coke regularly.
[+] [-] lutusp|13 years ago|reply
1. Human evolution is still going on, and in the long term, Asperger's might represent a positive evolutionary adaptation, especially in a world increasingly dependent on technology. Only nature knows, and nature doesn't reveal her secrets willingly.
2 After a recent epidemic of overdiagnoses, psychologists are reluctantly abandoning the Asperger's diagnosis -- it's being removed from the DSM. The reason? Too many people wanted the diagnosis -- it was the first truly fashionable mental illness. After all, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates are/were thought to have this "disease".
3. There is a positive psychological trait called "Grit":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)
People who have "grit" tend to focus on a few objectives, or just one, for months or years. It's a "good thing™" -- psychologists say so. But the exact same behavior can lead to an Asperger's diagnosis. Have psychologists resolved this contradiction? Not remotely.
As far as I'm concerned, and in the opinion of an increasing number of psychologists, Asperger's refers to something real, but it shouldn't have been categorized as a mental illness -- unless intelligence should also be listed.
If psychology was a science this might all be different, but there's little hope for that.
More on this topic: http://arachnoid.com/building_science
[+] [-] malaporte|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lnanek2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnrgrace|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swayvil|13 years ago|reply
Anybody here relate?
[+] [-] p6v53as|13 years ago|reply
Um, not to hate or anything, but there is a reason it is called autistic syndrome. Autistic people lack the ability to form a "theory of brain", which means they just do not understand other people's intentions that well. You can't ignore this fact and hope it will go away.
[+] [-] brian_wendt|13 years ago|reply
This TedTalks takes an interesting approach to Autism in the professional world. Enjoy.