Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- From: Jumbo <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:15:03 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 15, 5:04 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 15, 11:34 am, Jumbo <ch...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:33 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I'm disturbed by is the fadishness (faddishness?) of the label.
Dyslexia was regarded as faddish at one time. Back in the day, people
were regarded as 'stupid' because they couldn't read. I'm sure people
were disturbed about the 'label' dyslexia when it began to used
commonly.
I'm worried that perceptions of faddishness in the current case will
obstruct further advances in awareness of this matter.
I've read up, in a minor way, on the symptoms and many people I know
(most of whom are creative people) exhibit a number of these
"symptoms", including myself.
I know exactly what you mean. When I've tried to explain my boys'
symptoms to people they often (nearly always) say something like 'well
I'm like that' or 'everyone's like that' or 'I know someone like
that'. But that is why experts talk about a spectrum. This is a
question of degree. It's one thing for a child to feel shy in company
with other children. It's quite another for that child to produce a
constant wall of sound to block out the presence of those children.
If someone, as you say, produces a wall of sound to block out the
presence of other children, then you are indeed describing a clinical
issue that needs treatment. However, I've studied Van Gogh's life in
a "not minor way" (my minor was Art History and he was one of the main
artists I focused on) and in no way can his behavior be described as
such. The little knowledge I have of Dylans childhood, as well as
Einsteins, also tells me that labelling them with this particular
"syndrome" is also incorrect. I don't know enough about the other
people mentioned to make a judgment, but they certainly don't strike
me as people with a disease, just a particular constellation of
personality traits.
The spectrum that includes this syndrome appears to me to be a very
natural human form of diversity. People that demonstrate the mild
forms should not be included with those who display a debilitating
form. These are just human differences - and there are indeed
personality types. It's like equating getting the blues when things
go bad in a persons life with clinical depression. Some people have
pessimistic personalities, some people have disease that needs to be
treated.
I
feel clumsy saying this, because it's never about one symptom. When
this syndrome (and I continue to use this word despite your
reservations in the other thread, which I acknowledge) is diagnosed,
it's not about answering yes or no to this question or that. Hundreds
of questions are asked and answered, and further consultations take
place over a number of years before even a tentative diagnosis is
made. I note you say you've read up 'in a minor way' and , without
wishing to score points (I'm trying not to approach this in a typical
rmd way! so if I seem to be aggressive, I don't mean to, obviously I
have a personal involvement in this issue) I would suggest that the
word 'minor' is key in what you say. This applies to your next
sentence:
Basically, anyone who is slightly
different for others,
It's really not about being 'slightly' different. As you say, EVERYONE
is slightly different to everyone else. It's about patterns of
behaviour, with scores of similarities indicating an identifiable set
of genetic features. People who have children with these syndromes are
advised about the chances of further children being born with the same
or similar characteristics. Like you, I'm sure, I personally would not
let this have any effect whatsoever on my choices about having
children. I only mention this to emphasise there is an identifiable
(non-environmental) genetic element involved.
displays a strong and specialized interest in a
particular subject, and shows signs of being a loner with highly
developed intellectual skills associated with their area of interest
can be labelled with this.
I think you are over-simplifying the case here. A host of
environmental factors could be involved in the symptoms you mention.
My objection is precisely the oversimplification that tends to
happen. Remember, we're discussing a news story that has included
several people who have been "diagnosed" without the benefit of the
testing that you are describing. That is why I titled my original
post "Casual diagnosis".
Yes, but I said all along that I totally agreed with your basic point,
that pontificating about the mental state, without proper
consultation, of famous people is offensive and misguided.
It was your other point - that you find the very identification of
such a syndrome 'disturbing' that I was answering.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- From: Pilgrim
- Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- References:
- Asperger's Syndrome
- From: QuinRobin2
- Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- From: Jumbo
- Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- From: Pilgrim
- Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- From: Jumbo
- Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- From: Pilgrim
- Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- From: Jumbo
- Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- From: Pilgrim
- Asperger's Syndrome
- Prev by Date: Re: Casual diagnosis
- Next by Date: Re: Casual diagnosis
- Previous by thread: Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- Next by thread: Re: Asperger's Syndrome
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading