Talk:Asperger syndrome

College internship program

[1]

"Now College Internship Program -- with campuses in Massachusetts, Indiana, California and Melbourne -- is among a handful of places where young people with Asperger's can attend college while getting the support they need to help them succeed. Another, called the College Living Experience, has five locations around the country, including a program in Fort Lauderdale." This may be worth mentioning somewhere, although I'm not sure where exactly. Management?

Also, "People with AS/Asperger snydrome/Asperger's" appears way too often in the article. Is there something else we could replace it with? I was thinking "those affected by" (rather than suffering from), but this may imply friends and family members. Any ideas? MichaelExe (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That source is fairly weak, as it's a popular-press article that (to be honest) reads like a press release. Please see WP:MEDRS for the sort of sources that we'd prefer. If we can find a better source, that sort of thing is covered in Prognosis now, which'd probably be a better home for it. I agree that "those affected by" has the wrong implication, and cannot think of a better alternative wording offhand. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't introduce the POV term "suffering from". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In some contexts - e.g. forms of cancer - the term "suffering from" may be appropriate. It does in this context introduce a POV - since most very high functioning people with AS do not suffer except at the hands of other ignorant people. This is not generally their own fault! This does not mean that no help is wanted to cope with a largely NT society. Soarhead77 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'm suggested we not use "suffer". Many of these use "affected" as I've suggested. The problem I had is the common use of "affect(ed)" and "suicide". The depictions in the medias have actually lead me to admire people with Asperger syndrome (see, it does sound bad XP), like Sheldon Cooper, Bones, and Adam (which I'm still waiting to see, though). Of course, not all "aspies" are geniuses: Nature vs. Nurture. MichaelExe (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And the article is supported by the American Psychological Association (of course: "This news story is not produced by the American Psychological Association and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the association."). We wouldn't use it to describe Asperger syndrome. Here are a couple more direct sources: http://www.brevardcenter.org/ and http://www.collegeinternshipprogram.com/ MichaelExe (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't need to go to fictional characters for people to admire with Asperger Syndrome - there are a considerable number of real people - Gary Numan, Vernon L. Smith, Richard Borcherds are good examples of very successful people in the mainstream of society with Asperger sydrome in some form. (I am aware that Richard Borcherds is not formally diagnosed since he has no distress. As he says most mathematics departments have people wierder than him anyway.)

I have some good evidence of the nature side of things - myself and my great nephew (at opposites in age!) have both been formally diagnosed with AS. There are several other people in our extended family who I would speculate might have or had it, but they are either in denial or dead. Soarhead77 (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been suggested that genetic factors play a pretty big role in it. "Evidence for a genetic link is the tendency for AS to run in families and an observed higher incidence of family members who have behavioral symptoms similar to AS but in a more limited form (for example, slight difficulties with social interaction, language, or reading)." Then again, personality traits are also inherited (not genetically, of course), so some of your relatives may just be mimicking certain types of behaviour they commonly see. I have no doubt that people with Asperger syndrome can succeed (Daniel Tammet, William James Sidis, etc.). There are also people speculated to have been autistic (Einstein, Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.). Mind you, it is only speculation. MichaelExe (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ASD, not AS, is characterized by

A recent change to the lead sentence lost some important information, namely, that ASD in general is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. The changed wording "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests" gives the mistaken implication that only AS is characterized that way and that other ASDs are characterized differently. I changed it back. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but the difference is of one word (therefore). It seems that adding it would have proven a better use of your time than reverting and commenting on the talk.

How about "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder and, consequently, is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported."? Give or take the commas.

"people with it", and "therefore" just sound very cheesy/awkward and unprofessional to me. MichaelExe (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In difference format, this proposed change is:

"Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder , and people with it therefore show and, consequently, is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."

I'm afraid this change doesn't work well. First, it's not grammatical. Second, the "characterized by" suffers from the same mistaken implication noted in the first paragraph in this thread. Third, the phrases "consequently" and "characterized by" are harder to understand than the text they replace. WP:LEAD says that the lead "should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article", which means that, other things being equal, it's better to use easy-to-understand words. I don't sense the cheesiness that you do, but is there some other way to write the lead that avoids the cheesiness and also avoids the three problems noted here? Eubulides (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"characterized" (which is used in several other articles concerning medical diagnoses, namely autism and autism spectrum) may be harder to understand than "people with", but it isn't that hard to understand. The following sentence is probably worse in that sense ("It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development."). I think most of us would have understood the first sentence with an 8th grade level vocabulary.

"characterized by" does not suffer from the same mistaken implication noted in the first paragraph in this thread, because it's preceded by "consequently", a synonym of "therefore". If you use the same logic, the conclusion is the same: people with Asperger syndrome AND autism show blahblahblah....

Other than the comma I just removed (before "and consequently", the grammar should be sound; I fail to see how it isn't, if it isn't). If you'd like to repeat "is", that's fine, but it shouldn't be necessary.

To properly dumb down the lead, it should have been written like so: "Asperger sickness is an autism sickness, and people with autism sicknesses, like Asperger sickness, have a hard time with others. They also do the same things the same way almost all of the time and like some stuff a lot. Asperger sickness is different from other autism sicknesses, because people that have it can usually learn like most of us. Even though you don't need them for the doctor to tell you that you have it, clumsiness and weird talking are common." Writing that was surprisingly amusing. XP MichaelExe (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we don't want to dumb down the lead with invented and head-scratching phrases like "autism sickness"; this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Still, it makes sense to use simpler wording in the lead when it is just as sound as the more-complicated wording. There certainly is a grammar problem in a sentence of the form "X is a Y and characterized by Z", which is the form discussed here. Inserting an "is" before "characterized" fixes the grammar but makes the sentence even more awkward. "Is characterized by" does not mean the same thing as "has the following characteristics"; the former implies that the following set of symptoms in some sense completely describes or bounds the disease, whereas the latter means only that the disease has the following symptoms (and perhaps some others). In the proposed sentence, "is characterized by", which means the former, is used in the place where the former meaning is wrong and the latter meaning is correct. (This is independent of the "consequently".) Because of the evident confusion about "characterized" in this thread, and because of the way that "consequently" gets in the way of the flow, the proposed rewording is worse than the original. That is not to say that the original can't be improved. Eubulides (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I guess "is" would sound better, because you can avoid the alliteration, if you leave it between "consequently" and "characterized".

"is characterized by" is not the same as "is limited to". [2] It more or less means that the following symptoms are the big markers (it's distinguished/marked by), not the only markers, for AS. A majority of mental disorder articles use "characterized by", and they don't imply the same meaning. Hell, even the first sentence of "Classification" uses "characterized by": "Asperger syndrome (AS) is one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior." The second sentence of "Characteristics" is "It is characterized by qualitative impairment in social interaction, by stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities and interests, and by no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or general delay in language. Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody, and physical clumsiness are typical of the condition, but are not required for diagnosis." To say that "characterized by" is not appropriate in this case, would mean having to replace it in all mental disorder articles using it. If you'd like to see how often we use it, try this (Results 1 - 500 of 2,405 for characterized disorder). Of course, these are not all mental disorders (although most of them are medicine-related), but it still demonstrates the essentially standardized use of "characterized" in these types of articles. MichaelExe (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MichaelExe, please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So it's wrong to be consistent even within the same article? "characterized by" appears twice already in this article, in sentences that are paraphrases of each other, and the lead is also a paraphrase. That policy is a bit of a stretch in this situation. MichaelExe (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I linked that in the context of comparing WP:FAs to other psych articles. These featured articles are very well developed, thanks in large part to Eubulides, and other articles should compare to them, not vice-versa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is consistent within this article. Also, do we absolutely need to repeat these characteristics three times? There seems to be enough overlap between "Classification" and "Characteristics" to merge the two sections (into "Classification and Characteristics"?). Plus, we classify based on characteristics. MichaelExe (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Is characterized by below. Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is characterized by

• The previous comments are based on a misinterpretation of the phrase "is characterized by". As the abovementioned thesaurus reference makes clear, "is characterized by" is similar to "is distinguished by". That is, if condition A is characterized by X and Y, you can use the presence of X and Y to distinguish the condition A from other conditions. That is the sense that "is characterized by" is used in the body of Asperger syndrome. And it is the sense that "is characterized by" is used in medical literature. In contrast, the proposed wording in the lead misuses the phrase "A is characterized by X and Y" to mean that A has X and Y, plus some other key characteristics not mentioned, so that one cannot use X and Y to distinguish A from other conditions. This is a misuse of the phrase "is characterized by". Furthermore, even if the phrase "is characterized by" were technically correct, which it's not, this still wouldn't address the point that the proposed wording is harder to understand than the original. As far as I can see, the only reason being proposed for the new wording is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a strong enough reason to introduce harder-to-understand (and incorrect) wording. Please don't keep reinserting this wording against consensus. Instead, please try to find wording that addresses the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT problem while not making the lead sentence both incorrect and harder to understand. For now, I've reverted the change.
• The distinction between Characteristics and Classification is standard in medical articles on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) #Diseases/disorders/syndromes.

Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever unmentioned key features should be mentioned. When "characterized by" is used, "primarily" is implied, but also a redundant addition. The use of "consequently, is characterized by" and "people with it therefore" both imply that autism and Asperger syndrome share these distinguishing characteristics. "People with it have" said characteristics is also an "A has X and Y". It should be even more obvious this way. Their uses are synonymous in this instance.
• So is it okay if I replace "characterized by" in all of the mental health disorder articles (including this one, which uses it twice already), because almost all mental disorders are subjective, and can't be limited to a set amount of symptoms? I'll gladly replace all of the "characterized by"s and "distinguished by"s in this article with "people with it have".
• I have the argument of consistency (within Wikipedia and THIS SAME ARTICLE, in case you hadn't read it the first couple times) on my side; you've got understandability, which is also subjective. I don't think "characterized by" is hard to understand at all. If you dumb that down, there's a lot more of dumbing down to be done in the lead. You're using policy conditionally, and ignoring my arguments, because you're obviously attached to this article. Also, whose consensus is this, other than your own?
• As for Classification and Characteristics, you're right, but then Classification should go deeper into etiology and pathogenesis ("Diseases may be classified by etiology (cause), pathogenesis (mechanism by which the disease is caused), or by symptom(s)."). It mentions the fact that it has some mutual and different causes with other disorders but does not name these causes. It still doesn't make much sense to repeat the same paraphrased sentence 3 times in 3 consecutive sections, either. MichaelExe (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And please address all of my arguments, not just those you think you can argue against. MichaelExe (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please stop using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument; other articles are not our concern here, this one (an FA) is. I can't discern any problem with the previous wording, except that you don't like it, so I'm unsure why this is still being argued. The current wording is accurate. Also, please refrain from edit warring; you have installed now three times a version that did not have consensus, in spite of talk page discussion. Hammer out wording here that we can all agree on; WP:3RR is not a license to revert three times in 24 hours, and three reverts without consensus is still edit warring. Work on improvements in the text, not by edit warring in the article, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please stop ignoring my argument that "characterized by" and "distinguished by" are also used within this same article. Please be consistent in your use of policy.

My first edit was an error, and Eubulides corrected it. I've made one revert, and it was after explaining my reasoning (which still hasn't been argued against properly). Your latest revert also goes against Eubulides' consensus (that "characterized by" and "distinguished by" are not only too obscure to understand in the lead, but that they're also incorrect). That logic means that all use of "characterized by" and "distinguished by" in a similar type of structure is incorrect and should be subject to removal. I edited within the "consensus" (albeit to point out the flaw in Eubulides' argument); you edited against.

And please clarify; what is the consensus? I've until now witnessed contradictory positions in you and Eubulides, and any other editors have yet to comment. MichaelExe (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

AAAAAAANNNNNDDD, if it is appropriate to compare this article to other featured articles (namely the other featured mental disorder articles: Autism, Down syndrome, Major depressive disorder, Schizophrenia, and Tourette syndrome, which all use "characterized by" in their leads), your FA argument is moot. Featured articles can still be improved; believe it or not. It says so in the template! =O MichaelExe (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• The previous comment incorrectly says that SandyGeorgia and I have contradictory positions here. We don't. We have agreed so far in this thread.
• "Whatever unmentioned key features should be mentioned." They are mentioned, in the next sentence (the 2nd sentence in the lead), which starts "It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by...".
• "So is it okay if I replace "characterized by" in all of the mental health disorder articles" No, "characterized by" should be replaced only where it is being misused, which it generally isn't. It's not being misused in its two instances in this article.
• "I have the argument of consistency" No, because the other instances of "characterized by" in this article are being used properly: they list the attributes that, taken together, characterize the condition in question, and distinguish the condition from others.
• "Classification should go deeper into etiology and pathogenesis" There's no need for that, since the Causes section is what is supposed to cover etiology deeply, and the Mechanism section is what's supposed to cover pathogenesis deeply. These sections are also discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) #Diseases/disorders/syndromes.
• "It still doesn't make much sense to repeat the same paraphrased sentence 3 times in 3 consecutive sections" It could well be helpful to remove unwanted repetition. Could you please propose specific wording to fix this problem? Whatever wording is used should accurately reflect what the reliable sources say.
• "My first edit was an error, and Eubulides corrected it. I've made one revert" You've made three edits (1, 2, 3) that attempted to replace the phrase "and people with it therefore show" with a phrase involving "is characterized by". All three edits have had errors involving misuse of "is characterized by". Please don't keep inserting that phrase against consensus.

Eubulides (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• You've yet to say what you've agreed upon. So far, the consensus seems to be that the article should remain as it is, without any attempt to improve it. Perfection is unattainable, but status quo can not bring us any closer to it.
• Logically, how are the following sentences any different in meaning? "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder and consequently, is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported." "Asperger syndrome (AS) is one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior." "A pervasive developmental disorder, Asperger syndrome is distinguished by a pattern of symptoms rather than a single symptom. It is characterized by qualitative impairment in social interaction, by stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities and interests, and by no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or general delay in language. Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody, and physical clumsiness are typical of the condition, but are not required for diagnosis." I can see that this last does not necessarily imply that all pervasive developmental disorders have these characteristics, but the first two infer that AS and ASD share the characteristics. Either way, "characterized by" and "people with it" still appear identical in usage to me, in all three instances.
• Then why say that some key features were unmentioned? This must have been a misunderstanding. If something is mentioned later on, that does not mean it is unmentioned. =/
• And the Characteristics section is supposed to cover the characteristics. I don't mean a long explanation on the other criteria for classification, but if you introduce the characteristics, the others should be introduced, as well.
• Changing the wording still makes the sentences paraphrases of each other. I meant the removal of the one in the Classification section, but as you mentioned, characteristics are used in classification, so strike this out.
• Obviously I was unaware of any consensus in the first edit. Your wording also suggests that you aren't supporting SandyGeorgia's conclusion that my edits were reverts. The second edit was also made after I explained myself, and you had yet to respond; I admit I was hasty. For the third, however, I still don't see how the use of "characterized by" and "distinguished by" is different in each instance. I also did not change the use of "people with it" in the lead, I added it to the other sections.

MichaelExe (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• "You've yet to say what you've agreed upon." It was your claim that we held contradictory positions. That claim was incorrect.
• "Logically, how are the following sentences any different in meaning?" The first one (incorrectly) characterizes AS as having a certain set of symptoms. The second one (correctly) characterizes ASD (not AS) has having that set of symptoms. The third one (correctly) characterizes AS as having a different set of symptoms.
• "If something is mentioned later on, that does not mean it is unmentioned." It was not mentioned in the proposed sentence, which attempted (incorrectly) to define AS as being characterized by a particular set of symptoms. This error cannot be repaired by mentioning the correct set of symptoms elsewhere in the article.
• "And the Characteristics section is supposed to cover the characteristics." Agreed, though I don't follow the point there. What specific wording change is being proposed here?
• "Your wording also suggests that you aren't supporting SandyGeorgia's conclusion that my edits were reverts." No, I was supporting that conclusion.
• "I also did not change the use of "people with it" in the lead, I added it to the other sections." Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted your last edit. I've struck that part of my comment. However, wasn't the third edit an example of being WP:POINTY? at any rate, it seemed to rely on a mistaken interpretation of what "is characterized by" means.

Eubulides (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is taking a lot of time on what appears to be a rather insignificant semantic matter; MichaelExe, if you want to change wording, please just propose the wording you want, wait for consensus based on talk page discussion, and then changes can be installed. That will be a more effective way of working than edit warring; also, pls read WP:TLDR and keep it as brief as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Saying that something is incorrect does not prove it wrong. Please explain what the consensus is.
2. They all characterize AS as having a same set of symptoms, though. In the first (with "and people with it therefore"), AS and ASD both "show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests." With "and consequently, is characterized by", AS and ASD still show the same symptoms. "Consequently" and "therefore" are synonyms; I'm sure we can agree on that, so we can set that aside. "is characterized by" and the "it" in "people with it" both refer to AS (and also to ASD through "consequently" and "therefore"). So either way, the sentence says that both AS and ASD are characterized by "significant difficulties..." We may need a couple of other opinions on this, because our positions don't seem to be getting any clearer to each other.
3. AS is characterized by a particular set of symptoms. The same set of symptoms is used in all three instances, but the preservation of linguistic and cognitive development is attributed to AS in the autism spectrum. The second does not mention these developments at all (because it describes all ASDs/PDDs). In the third, intense interests are considered unnecessary for diagnosis, but the first sentence only says clumsiness and atypical use of language are.
4. You implied that information on etiology and pathogenesis (mechanism) (which are also used in Nosology) should be left only for the respective sections, but characteristics appears in Classification. I'm saying etiology and pathogenesis should be mentioned in Classification.
5. Okay.
6. I was not aware of that policy, and I was not breaking any other policies/guidelines. However, I was going against the consensus, but I was unaware of the consensus (and it still hasn't been explained to me, tbh), too. I apologize; I won't do it again.

I'm switching to numbers, so it's easier to comment on each. MichaelExe (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, we're already discussing my proposed wording. I just don't understand Eubulides' logic that "and, consequently, is characterized by" is incorrect and doesn't have the same meaning as "and people with it therefore show". They both refer to AS (and people with it), and imply that the characteristics in the sentence are also present in ASDs (and people with them). At the moment, we're discussing more than one issue, too, so I can't keep it much shorter. MichaelExe (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Is characterized by 2 below. Eubulides (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is characterized by 2

• "They all characterize AS as having a same set of symptoms, though." No, they don't. The first wording says that Asperger's "is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests." This is incorrect, because that is what ASD is characterized by; it is not what Asperger's is characterized by. The other two wordings do not have this error.
• "The same set of symptoms is used in all three instances" No, it is not. The first instance (incorrectly) says that Asperger's "is characterized by" a smaller set of symptoms that the third instance (correctly) gives.
• "You implied that information on etiology and pathogenesis (mechanism) (which are also used in Nosology) should be left only for the respective sections" No, I said only that in-depth coverage of the topics should be in the sections devoted to the topics. In other medical articles, shallow or brief introductory coverage of etiology and pathogenesis is sometimes helpful in Classification. In Asperger syndrome, however, such coverage would not help, as the classification of it and related conditions is currently done entirely by signs and symptoms; causes and mechanism are not used in classification.
• "Saying that something is incorrect does not prove it wrong." I see no point to continuing this part of the thread, as it's not about improving the article.

Eubulides (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think I see the problem. Both Asperger syndrome AND autism spectrum disorders are characterized by these symptoms. When using "and people with it therefore show", "it" is referring to Asperger syndrome; if it isn't supposed to, "and people with one (autism spectrum disorder) show" should be used. "Therefore" would be dropped, because it implies that both people with Asperger syndrome and the other autism spectrum disorders share these symptoms. However, if Asperger syndrome was not characterized by these symptoms, why would we describe only autism spectrum disorders in the lead of an Asperger syndrome article?
• Following up with "It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development." corrects this. P"reservation of linguistic and cognitive development" is not technically a symptom; it's the lack of one (and only useful for comparing to other autism spectrum disorders). "characterized by" does not suggest that the symptoms in the sentence are the only symptoms, because the second and third sentences of the lead add to the symptoms (but they aren't the focus of the symptoms). When diagnosing someone with autism, you'd note impairment in "linguistic and cognitive development"; in Asperger syndrome, this would be used only to distinguish it from other autism spectrum disorders. However, if you ignore the fact that Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, you'd still be able to diagnose a patient with it - without noting "relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development".
• I see your point. We'll discontinue this one, as well.

MichaelExe (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a case where we have two different conditions that are characterized by the same symptoms. Asperger's is a subset of ASD, and its characteristic symptoms are therefore a superset of ASD's. The fact that its characteristic symptoms includes what you're calling a "lack of a symptom" doesn't change this. All sorts of behavior can be a symptom. If you're sneezing, that can be a symptom, and if you're not sneezing, that can also be a symptom that is useful in diagnosing your condition. One cannot use just the ASD characteristics to diagnose someone with Asperger's, because if one did that, one might diagnose someone who actually has PDD-NOS as having Asperger's. Eubulides (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence ("It differs from other autism spectrum disorders...") still distinguishes Asperger Syndrome from other autism spectrum disorders, whether "consequently, is characterized by" or "people with it therefore show" is used. "consequently, is characterized by" does not imply that people with Asperger syndrome do not relatively preserve linguistic and cognitive development. MichaelExe (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

'"consequently, is characterized by" does not imply that people with Asperger syndrome do not relatively preserve linguistic and cognitive development' Sorry, but it does imply that, because it says (incorrectly) that Asperger's "is characterized by" the same set of symptoms that ASD is characterized by. Rather than going around and around about this, how about proposing a different wording that fixes the problem you perceive with the current text (a problem that apparently nobody else perceives)? Surely that will be a more efficient way of addressing this issue. Eubulides (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It only implies that it's characterized by these common symptoms. It does not imply that it shares ALL of the same symptoms.

If we wrote: "Like other autism spectrum disorders, Asperger syndrome is characterized by..."

"Asperger syndrome (AS) is one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior." In this case, "characterized by" refers to ASD, PDD (and less directly, AS). In the lead, "characterized by" refers to AS and less directly, ASD. I don't see how that's any different (except PDD, which is neglected in the lead, of course).

Tbh, I'd rather just get a couple others' opinions on the use of "characterized by" in this context. Should we start a poll/vote (not for using "characterized by" in the lead, but for defining "characterized by" in this context)? MichaelExe (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• "It only implies that it's characterized by these common symptoms. It does not imply that it shares ALL of the same symptoms." "Is characterized by" means that this set of symptoms distinguishes ASD from non-ASD. It is an error to say that the same set of symptoms distinguishes Asperger's from non-Asperger's.
• "Like other autism spectrum disorders, Asperger syndrome is characterized by..." Sorry, no, that makes the same error.
• "In this case, "characterized by" refers to ASD, PDD (and less directly, AS)" No, in that case "characterized by" clearly refers only to ASD or PDD. It does not refer to Asperger's per se.
• "Should we start a poll/vote" This matter has already taken up far too much of both of our time. Let's not prolong it by asking for a vote. The phrase "is characterized by" has a standard meaning in medical literature; let's not use it to mean something different here. It's perfectly reasonable to dislike the current wording for stylistic reasons, but it's not reasonable to replace it with incorrect wording.

Eubulides (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It would also be unnecessary to start a poll, since no other editor is concerned about the current wording, which is accurate. This discussion has taken too much time already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To chime in a little late here, the original wording is fine, there is one editor that does not like it, consensus says keep it as is it seems to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, the 'people with it' wording does look a bit odd to me. I don't think it's a way of wording it that is commonly used. Fenke (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's what "consequently" is for; it links the symptoms to both.
• When you use "like", it also links the symptoms to both. Basically, Asperger syndrome, ASD and PDD are all characterized by...
• If all PDD and ASD are characterized by certain symptoms, and AS is a PDD/ASD, ASD is characterized by these same symptoms. They are not distinguished from each other, but from everything else with these characteristics.
• That's telling me to admit I'm wrong without understanding why. I will admit I'm wrong if/when I understand why. If someone corrected a test of yours and marked something as wrong, and you don't understand their explanation, would you be satisfied?
• If we simply wrote "Asperger syndrome is characterized by..." and follow up with "other PDD and ASD share these symptoms" (obviously excluding preservation of development), would this be correct?

Yes, the current wording is accurate, but it could be better (therefore it's a matter of improvement, not just of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which we can ultimately choose not to follow without getting banned, being an essay): "For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his movie pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. By and large, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project." This is a similar case. "people with it" is almost never used when describing the actual disorder. And while you're here, you might as well comment on the use of "characterized by". MichaelExe (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

lack of empathy?

Isn't it a little extreme to say they lack empathy? They lack the meanns to fluently express themselves and understand others but they don't lack the ability to care how others feel. A lack of empathy sounds like something you'd associate more so with a psycopath not about someone who simply doesn't understand the world around them. Saying this about people who don't deserve seems disrespectful and condescending ... if people out there are using this article as a first source for info on aspegers then its setting a pretty bad impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.152.236 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that people with Asperger's "lack empathy". It says that they have a "lack of demonstrated empathy", which is pretty much agrees with the previous comment. Eubulides (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this as even a demonstrated lack of empathy is not typical of AS. Gingermint (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources saying that a lack of demonstrated empathy is a core sign of Asperger syndrome. Do you have reliable sources to the contrary? Any edits to the article need to be based on reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As a psychologist I can assure you that lack of demonstrated empathy is not a "core sign" of Asperger's syndrome. If I did believe that then I'd have to practice in some backward place like England where medicine and the soft sciences are 50 years out of date. I believe that this article, which is full of errors, is the kind of thing that develops when people who are not expert in a field try (even with the best intentions) to research what they do not understand. Articles on Psychology should be written and researched by real psychologists. Gingermint (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, unfortunately, your experience as a psychologist isn't what we base articles on. Per Wiki's core policy of WP:V, and the guideline of WP:MEDRS, text is based on reliable sources. Reviewing the full-text of the journal articles cited should help clear up your concerns. If you have other reliable sources that say differently, let's discuss them here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome, like (other) mental disorders affects everyone differently, so I agree that we shouldn't claim that the lack of empathy affects all people with Asperger syndrome, although it should still definitely be noted as a symptom, and adding "often" or "may" is unnecessary. Perhaps finding a DSM list of symptoms would be best, if there is one. MichaelExe (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here should be based on reliable sources, not editor opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To the original poster: the lack of empathy (the ability to try and put yourself in someone's position, or feel what they feel) in a psychopath/sociopath/antisocial/dissocial and in Asperger syndrome (as well as other autism spectrum disorders, schizoid personality disorder, schizophrenia, etc.) is probably the only common symptom. What truly separates the former from the latter(s) is the recklessness and lack of remorse of the former. The personality types of people with Asperger syndrome tend to be INTJ, INTP, ISTJ, ISTP (in that order, from [3], although may be reasons why other personality types aren't on the forum) and introversion usually conflicts with antisocial behaviour. I'd say people with Asperger syndrome lack empathy because they focus their attention on objects, while a psychopath would focus on himself. Lack of empathy doesn't necessarily mean selfishness. MichaelExe (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong planet is not a reliable source; please see WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:V; Wikipedia uses reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some reviews supporting the lack of empathy in Asperger syndrome, if, by chance, we don't have enough already: PMID 1924004 PMID 16596080 PMID 15376613 PMID 11234553. MichaelExe (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Worsening via medication

I feel that the source given for the statement "for example, misdiagnosis can lead to medications that worsen behavior." (Fitzerald and Corvin, 2001) is not a very good source for that specific statement. The relevant element in the paper is simply "[...]; misdiagnosis as ADHD [leads] to the prescription of psychostimulants (e.g. methylphenidate), which can cause deterioration in behaviour in this population." and is unsourced. This is essentially a blank assertion, and if it is considered common knowledge in this study area, surely there are sources expounding on this specific aspect? Circeus (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosis - "Challenge of obtaining payment"

This phrasing seems to be less relevant to Asperger Syndrome itself and more of a comment on the features of the health care system in a given country. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.129.210 (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, probably US-centric since this is the only English-speaking country without a functioning national healthcare system. I've reworded this to say "The cost and difficulty of screening and assessment can delay diagnosis." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on my experience with TS, I'd not say that the UK or Canadian systems are "functioning" well, but I do agree that your new wording covers the issue more globally and correctly. The difficulties of getting a correct TS or AS diagnosis in the UK or Canada are worse than in the US. But that's just my opinion, not an RS. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Even in the US, a lot of finding proper assessment or any kind of specialist is either random luck or having to wait around and hope you get a tip from a tip that someone else in your normal clinic might have heard about someone moving in. Complete fluke. In my case, to even try an evaluation process would have meant endless visits 100+ miles to Chicago that would have been out-of-pocket expense until I got extremely lucky when an incoming specialist showed up. Others I've spoken to generally have the same opinion that getting something very reliable decreases with overall population density, meaning it goes from nearly impossible down to lottery-jackpot-winner impossible. Any data from the US would be skewed I fear, since a lot cases of "confirmed diagnosis" via shady school counseling tend to happen so it would both inflate total cases and presumably lower cost (to nothing, in those cases). Well, might balance out? But still poor statistical data. Different insurance companies may also treat it differently depending on the classification of doctor/therapist seen, or might not cover assessment for ASD above a certain age at all... or just not at all in the first place. Since AS is "new", no one in a million years would have known to try to evaluate me over it 15-20 years ago when a normally diagnosed age, which means adults are more likely to pay out-of-pocket as well. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)