Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums Pre-school Gifted or Aspergers?

VERY well-stated.

My DD was a child that-- at least on paper, as the sum of a number of her traits-- would have seemed to be a prime candidate for an ASD diagnosis at 2 until about 8 years of age.

Until you met her and watched her as she interacted with other human beings, that is. I'm not a professional, by any means-- but even those who are such professionals had ZERO concern about a possible spectrum diagnosis after about five minutes with her. She wasn't like other NT people, all right-- but it was often because she was MORE capable, and was choosing to either blend in completely, or to be Jane Goodall, in any given situation. The difference between her and someone with an ASD is probably that she has a CHOICE, and is aware of deciding what to do, socially and interpersonally.

Checklists are currently a very imprecise means of flagging, much less diagnosing, someone with ASD. I'm convinced that among children with sensory sensitivities, the potential overlap and misdiagnosis is substantial.

That isn't to say that I don't think that ASD diagnoses represent real challenges that those individuals (and their families) face-- but to say that I've seen and interacted with enough people with such diagnoses to know that no list of traits is capable of capturing what it is that makes them "different" in ways that make it challenging for them to live in a world made by and for NT people. It's real, but good luck putting it into a short list of terms. They are people first, and people with ASD second.

It's something about communication and social connection with other human beings and human conventions/institutions-- and more than that is wading knee deep into controversy/unknowns. Gifties, in general, have the flexibility in thinking to be capable of meeting those things without overt gaps, and those with ASD tend not to be (because it's not a voluntary thing, but an involuntary one)-- probably, anyway.

EVERYTHING else that I've ever read, observed, or heard about ASD indicates to me that some people with high cognitive ability and without ASDs will also "match" on some traits. Nothing is completely pathognomonic.

This is like claiming that most people with trisomy 21 have "friendliness" as a generally present trait, and then looking to see if "friendly" is predictive of a trisomy 21 diagnosis-- much less whether or not it can be used to exclude such a diagnosis if it isn't present.

indigo does not need to justify their defense of Autism Speaks (if you can even call it that). The links in and of themselves are informative and meant to be helpful to the OP.

I was afraid this would get fanned into a flame and I'm sorry that it has. But I felt that leaving the thread alone and not presenting the larger view of Autism Speaks as an organization (and some people's perception of it) would be an injustice.

Yes. It just isn't wise to oversimplify human beings-- reductionism, particularly when it comes to any disabling condition, is dehumanizing.

From this post, what main points do you take away? This is what I see:

1) dislikes concept of remediation/training/direct teaching
"...cures..."
2) dislikes concept of diagnosis
"lens of pathology" harmful to own self-esteem, son's self-confidence
3) dislikes funding long-term research, including genetic research
"...far future generations..."
4) would like research to provide immediate interventions
"providing immediate, deliverable employment, housing or medical services to current generations"

Are your take-aways similar? Do you wish to share your take-aways?

It is my understanding the page is intended as a simplified checklist with illustrative examples (summarizing the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria). What words or tone would you find to better communicate this?

For an organization to publicly post that a member left in disgust may be seen by some as a legal/ethical issue.

From his post, what main points do you take away? This is what I see:

1) dislikes op-ed piece by Suzanne Wright, co-founder of Autism Speaks
2) acknowledges dichotomy: autism's gifts (this may be confused for "gifted", as in intellectually gifted, by some readers), autism's disability.
3) wants to keep the gifts while relieving the suffering and disability.
"...changing society to make it more accommodating for people who are different... developing therapies, treatments, and tools..."
4) one may choose to act in socially acceptable or socially unacceptable ways (possibly untrue for some who first may require direct teaching on social thinking)
5) some individuals on the ASD spectrum may not want help, some may want a little help, some may want a lot of help. When some ask for help, not enough is available.
6) link to Autism Speaks to Washington - A Call for Action, which was the final straw:
6.a) urgent need
6.b) 3 million affected
6.c) caregiver/support needs
6.c.1) daily in-home care needs
6.c.2) needs for larger number of medical professionals in multiple locations
6.c.3) educational advocacy support services needs
6.c.3) financial assistance needed

Are your take-aways similar? Do you wish to share your take-aways?

Yes to everything HK said.

I might go further and say that even psychopaths are unfairly dehumanized. It has been established that the population of criminals and persons who otherwise hurt others is enriched for psychopathy, but it does not follow that everyone on the psychopathy spectrum is harmful to either individuals or society at large. I suspect that the majority of them go unremarked, in relatively ordinary, socially-acceptable roles (depending on your view of surgeons, corporate CEOs, Wall Street, and politicians, I suppose).

A diagnosis or constellation of traits describes only a very small slice of any human being's existence and experience.

In context, paraphrasing: I stated that the fact that some may regard Autism Speaks as controversial was not a reason for me to withhold posting the Glossary of Terms and description of Asperger's.

I apologize for any confusion; Admittedly, it was a long sentence and could have been better crafted for clarity. However, rest assured it was not an accusation/allegation of anyone censoring me.

In context, paraphrasing: I stated that the fact that some may regard Autism Speaks as controversial was not a reason for me to withhold posting the Glossary of Terms and description of Asperger's.

I apologize for any confusion; Admittedly, it was a long sentence and could have been better crafted for clarity. However, rest assured it was not an accusation/allegation of anyone censoring me.