Hello,

Where is the line drawn between Aspergers and exceptional(profound?) giftedness? Why are they so seemingly similar to me? Can anyone clearly outline the differences? Maybe it becomes more apparent when these children grow out of the preschool years. Any information on this subject would be Greatly appreciated.

Ps- if anyone has had the same thoughts as me, feel free to list the reasons/ traits that have caused your suspician... (Eg. Echolalia, sensory processing issues....)

Aspergers is on the autistic spectrum, for which the key elements are social communication deficits and repetitive behaviors. Neither one of these are essential elements of giftedness. (In fact, data suggests that GT individuals, on the average, have stronger social communication skills than NT individuals, and are no more prone to repetitive behaviors than those of average intelligence.)

Some of the overlap comes from Aspergers being defined as requiring average to above average intelligence, which tends to enrich the population diagnosed with Aspergers with higher-cognitive individuals, and from the difficulty some NT social groups have in assimilating some GT individuals. It is no more surprising that a GT child whose cognition is comparable to a fifteen-year-old would have difficulty relating socially to five-year-olds than it is that an NT fifteen-year-old would. This is often due to her more sophisticated social skills, rather than impairments.

Wow, thank you for that! That really helps me understand the differences.
Can you give some specific examples of what the repetitive behaviours might be? Is it playing with the same things at playtime, or playing with them in the same way every time without being flexible? Or is it weird obscure things that they repetively do like a ritual?

Repetitive behaviors can include obsessive fascination with certain topics (e.g., trains, or baseball stats), rituals (having to do everything in the bedtime routine in exactly the same sequence every night, and getting disproportionately upset if anything chances to change), rigidity/resistance to change, or more classic stereotypies, like hand flapping or rocking.

Some level of rigidity and fascination with specific topics or activities is normal for toddlers and preschoolers, and plunging deeply and obsessively into certain topics is not uncommon among GT individuals. This is probably another source of confusion about ASD and giftedness.

If you are concerned about a specific child, you may consider introducing the idea of having Early Intervention take a look at him/her. There are many developmental delays that present similarly in early childhood; there is also a wide range of normal development. A team experienced with young children may be able to provide the child's guardians with some perspective on what is in the range, questionable, or concerning.

You've received great info from aeh. I'll just add that an individual may be both gifted and on the Autism Spectrum.

If you're looking for links to more resources here are a few:
1) Article on Davidson Database
2) CDC summary of diagnostic criteria for ASD
3) DSM-5 factsheet on ASD
4) SENG article on misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children
5) 2e newsletter
6) Hoagies Gifted Education Page

Despite the stereotype, it is very important to note that *most* people with Asperger's have average or near-average intelligence.

I thought the definition (before the DSM-V) was that intelligence had to be above average.

I could be wrong and I only have a DSM-V on me here in the office.

Isn't there also an issue with ADHD-hyperfocus vs. autism obsessive fascination?

I'm just throwing that out as an issue here.

DSM-IV: "There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood."

That is, no significant cognitive impairment. People with Asperger's could be average or above average. (There is still a bell curve in play; we are just slicing off the leftmost portion of it.) If cognition as measured by IQ was significantly below average, they were more likely to be diagnosed with Autism (Kanner autism) instead. Of course, this all changed with DSM-V.

The idea that all people with Asperger's are "geniuses" is misguided and fairly unhelpful in practice.

Sometimes they appear more intelligent than they are because of their tendency to master large bodies of factual material that interests them.

Sometimes they are EG or PG; but it's a small percentage of the population.

In my DH's case (who has recently been diagnosed with ASD - old Asperger's diagnosis) while he is quite bright (gifted not sure as he's never been tested) he has no clue about social rules (what's appropriate or not etc) and really suffers from Echolalia.

Ive had close watch on this issue since we have a son (and the heritability of ASD as DH's father also has it). PG/EG runs in my family and DS has been assessed as being PG. He's completely fine so far in social situations as long as he has a connection and doesn't have Echolalia at all.

I did a lot of reading when he was younger as he started to read at 2.5yrs old and came across some research that mentioned 1/3 of kids who read that early would exhibit ASD-like symptoms but they would disappear around the time of starting school.

For what it's worth, the tester who tested DS8 (who presented with a lot of autism like traits when he was younger, such as rigidity, rituals, anxiety, low coordination, sleep issues, social awkwardness, some mild stimming behaviours, but NOT the central features ie mind blindness and lack of empathy) that many HG+ children appear to have autistic traits because of their extreme need for logic in their lives, which makes them try to apply that logic in all walks of life including emotions and social interactions.
As I understand it, it is not that the intuitive and emotional pathways for understanding social interaction are not accessible for them as they would be for autistic children, but that they prefer trying to make sense of the world using other pathways which they feel more comfortable with. If you look at it like that, it makes sense that they can learn how to apply these other pathways as they mature, which makes them look as if they had outgrown autism.
Experts on this board, I'd love to hear your take on my lay understanding of this!

Autistic people do not lack empathy. It's not part of the definition. Some autistic adults have described their state of mind as having too much empathy-- not being able to process because it's too intense to witness the feelings of others.

Science is still not clear on this one, but it's not a diagnostic feature.

What you describe to me sounds more like an HG+ child who is 2e (with an ASD or maybe dyspraxia). While there are plenty of HG+ 2e kids, there are others (such as my DS) who have never had these traits... who, if anything, trend the other way (highly coordinated, unusually flexible, etc.)

As far as I know, there is no such thing as an emotional pathway for understanding social interaction. Obviously, social interactions come more easily to some kids than others, but that is more likely due to a variety of factors (some of which may be rooted in neurological differences). It is also not uncommon for a child with ASD to "grow out of" autistic traits as they get older and learn to compensate more effectively. But you can't grow out of being autistic any more than you can grow out of being gifted.

When DS9 was younger there were definitely some things that had me wondering a little if he was ASD. Note that I'm not a psychologist so some of the things that made me wonder might be based on inaccurate stereotypes so take it with a grain of salt. In the end he is HG+ (we don't have extended norms here so hard to say how much +) and 2E but his second is in written expression and I no longer suspect ASD (and he's been through 2 full psych ed evaluations and they haven't suspected it either).

Here's some of the things that had me wondering at various points...
- delayed speech - at 2y3m he had less than 10 words (and I use words generously - "meh" was milk) and that was with 8 months of intensive speech therapy... A year and a half later you would have never known it and he was shocking people with his crazy vocabulary though.
- sensory issues (tags on clothes, certain fabrics, etc - he's still pretty picky about this stuff)
- obsessive fascination with topics - dinosaurs, then black holes & particle physics, now he's branched out a lot more
- routines - dropping him off at school up until grade 2 involved a 17 step handshake/wave sequence, it was crazy
- upset if anything changes - so many examples here but this is improving with age
- eye contact - this is something that we've had to focus on teaching him (although admittedly this is something I have to think about and I kind of think that most people don't, but maybe I'm wrong there). DD by comparison just does it automatically and we've never said a word.
- anxiety
- sleep issues (more when he was younger, not bad after about 2 or 3)
- has issues with people that break rules or aren't logical - kids at school often fit into this category

In our case I can definitely understand the confusion.

While the DSM-5 may not directly list deficit in demonstrated empathy among diagnostic symptomology for ASD, it is my understanding empathy is assessed by the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS).

The CDC has an "act early" campaign which shares milestones, free downloadable resources, and tips on steps to take if there is a concern.

The descriptipn of Asperger's and Glossary of Terms, by Autism Speaks, may also be helpful.

Indigo,

I'm sure you didn't mean any harm by posting a description of Asperger Syndrome from the Autism Speaks website, but Autism Speaks is an extremely controversial organization and is much hated among many autistic self-advocates. The position statement on the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) on "Unethical Fundraising Tactics Must Stop" is largely aimed at Autism Speaks:


To provide a different perspective on autism, here is ASAN's definition: http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/about-autism/

Additionally (bringing this back to the topic thread a bit), here is ASAN's take about autism "recovery": http://autisticadvocacy.org/2013/01/asan-statement-on-fein-study-on-autism-and-recovery/

Thank you, George.

This is correct.

Some may say that any division among the ASD, 2e, and gifted communities is not a reason or justification for censorship, effectively promoting only one view to the exclusion of all others, such as precluding the posting the Glossary of Terms and description of Asperger's by Autism Speaks... amongst other resources shared in a thread discussing distinction between ASD and gifted traits.

My post was not about fundraising, nor extolling the virtues of any particular organization. Do you have issue with the specific links in my post - in other words, do you find that Autism Speaks has errors/inaccuracies in their Glossary of Terms and/or their description of Asperger's?

Was there anything in the linked Autism Speaks Glossary of Terms and/or description of Asperger's which you found to match ASAN's concerns (describing not as human beings but as burdensome, devaluing people on the Autism spectrum, messages of stigma, dehumanization, hysteria...) ?

While this list may be helpful to some, and I would not attempt to censor your presentation of it, I do not see the connection between each point mentioned and the DSM-5 and/or the ADOS. Lacking clear connection to DSM-5 and/or ADOS, some may question this definition. At the bottom of the ASAN definition of Autism which you linked, ASAN states that the content was sourced from a page on change.org, called What is Autism... apparently either the link is broken, the page moved, or no longer exists, further calling the definition into question.

Some may say that in using the term "Recovery", the ASAN article may have mischaracterized the 2013 research, which does not argue that a recovery has occurred, but reports on assessment results and asks appropriate questions. A 2015 research follow-up is also available.

The OP and others may benefit from reading about the various vantage points within the ASD, 2e, and gifted communities, including changes over time such as changes from DSM-IV to DSM-5 (2013) and the resultant ripple effects.

What about theory of mind? The absence of this is a characteristic of autism, and wouldn't empathy be connected to theory of mind?

This is from the DSM-V: "Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity..." ...so maybe it's not that they completely lack empathy but rather process it in a way that we don't recognize and therefor categorize as a deficit?

Yes, while empathy is not specifically mentioned, it is my understanding that it is referred to in that excerpt of DSM-5, thereby explaining the assessment of empathy as a part of the ADOS.

I may be wrong, but I believe the assessed symptomology for empathy is deficit in demonstrated empathy (an observable characteristic, what one sees from the outside), not in one's self-reported experience of empathy (what one feels on the inside).

Not everyone agrees. Some people with autism pass TOM tests with no trouble.

Simon Baron Cohen's work (asserting that autism is explained by lack of empathy and lack of TOM) has had a lot of press, so it's widely known, but not everyone in the scientific community agrees with it.

For example:
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/16/6/311.abstract

Many Autistic people feel that not only is SB-C wrong, but his ideas are defamatory and dehumanizing. It is easy to find these critiques with Google.

Interesting. Now I'm trying to remember what I was taught (I'm a TA and have training in this area). We did cover theory of mind in some detail with specific examples of how to identify it, but I can't recall now if it was considered a given in Autism or if it's simply a characteristic that many but not all share. The students on the spectrum who I've worked with definitely lacked it, and I had a student who was very spectrum-like in other ways but failed to meet the criteria for ASD, and he had good theory of mind. But maybe my exposure has been too limited.

It just goes to show you how much of a "spectrum" this profile really is... as they say, when you've met one person with Autism, you've met one person with Autism.

And also that ideas and stereotypes that float around as "maybes" in the press are highly influential-- whether or not they are true.

"Awareness" is good but not always sufficient for understanding of a particular person's needs. IMO.

I did not mean to imply that your post was uninformative. I meant my post to be supplemental to yours, to put Autism Speaks as an organization into context for people who may be unaware of the impact they have had on the autistic community at large. To some, Autism Speaks represents everything that is wrong with the public perception and focus of autism research and does not speak for autistics. Linking to a glossary of terms from the Autism Speaks website is somewhat akin to linking to a glossary of LGBTQ terms from the Westboro Baptist Church website. The organization itself becomes the elephant in the room.

Here is a post fairly typical example of the sentiment against Autism Speaks: http://thescientificparent.org/autism-speaks-but-does-it-listen/

The glossary of terms is benign enough, though overall I would question the motives of what is included and what is not. The page seems rather focused on differentiating between normal and abnormal behavior - including "Red Flags for ASD."

They mention John Elder Robison on the Asperger's page. What they do not mention is that he resigned his role at Autism Speaks in disgust: http://jerobison.blogspot.com/2013/11/i-resign-my-roles-at-autism-speaks.html

Your analogy is unfair. WBC is just vile. Austism Speaks is not in the same category.

Would you share the main points in Theory of Mind (TOM) which are found to be defamatory/dehumanizing?

For a bit of balanced perspective, the 2007 abstract which you linked states, in part "Current research supports the view that autism involves delays and deficits not only in the development of a theory of mind but also in additional aspects of social-affective information processing that extend beyond the traditional boundaries of theory of mind." This does not seem to strongly counter the work of SB-C, but rather continues research of his work from nearly 30 years ago.

Regarding a question posed in the abstract, "How can we explain why some children with autism pass theory-of-mind tasks?", it is my understanding that some individuals may successfully answer social questions in an academic sense, but are unable to apply the information in context, at the opportune moment.

Simon Baron-Cohen's Theory of Mind hypothesis dates to 1987, and he is currently associated with Cambridge University and the Autism Research Centre (ARC) in the UK, and is an author/co-author of several books. Although his work may be controversial, he has demonstrated considerable perseverance, dedication, and productivity.

IMO, Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg makes a fairly strong refutation here: https://autismandempathyblog.wordpr...hizing-systemizing-e-s-theory-of-autism/

The claim that Autistic people have "no empathy" may be understood (and has been used) as a way to see them as less than fully human.

Baron-Cohen links autism to psychopathy, in which "empathy deficits" lead to acts of cruelty or violence. This despite the fact that autistic people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. (His theory of empathy is more complex than this, but what gets coverage is the gist of it.)

This kind of characterization of Autistic people is only one part of a larger problem of understanding and (dare I say it) empathy. When a homicidal parent kills an autistic child (happens a couple of times a year in the US), the press often demonizes the child as "impossible" to live with or care for, lacking all loving reciprocity-- thus implicitly justifying the parent's actions.

Indigo, I do not understand what your stake is in this conversation, but no one censored your post (as you claimed). You in turn have not justified your continued defenses of Autism Speaks (on this and other threads).

Agreed. How is it censorship to present another perspective and say that not everyone agrees with Autism Speaks? No one demanded your post be taken down. More context and an alternate POV were presented.

Not wishing to stray off-topic, I'll address your post briefly: I make no "continued defenses" of Autism Speaks. Would you point me to the words in my posts which cause you to believe I've made "continued defenses" of this organization?

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.