Talk:Asperger syndrome

Films

Recent film about a man with Asperger's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_%28film%29 Maybe a new section should be started if there are other similar films,tv shows,etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem w/ citation 1 DOI

Citation 1's DOI doesn't resolve. I'd fix it, but I don't have time at the moment. Spekkio (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is misleading

When I first heard I had AS, I checked this article and was like "What? That's not me at all."

Eventually, I tried reading other online articles and realized "Hey! That's exactly like me!"

Anyways, I happen to know I am not the only person who has expressed confusion after reading this article. The fact that numerous Yahoo! Answers search results provide an easier-to-understand explanation of AS than this article does should be a clear indication that this article is misleading.

My guess is that it's the result of all the excess jargon. Yes, jargon is more accurate, but the fact is that most people looking for answers about AS are not people who are familiar with the jargon, and those who are familiar with the jargon are probably not making wikipedia their first stop for information. Just something to consider... 140.158.253.22 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has been misleading from the beginning. That a diagnosis of Asperger's makes one officially regarded as having a mental illness and removes one from consideration for a number of occupations and security clearances has been deliberately kept out, as has the cultural bigotry of Dr. Tony Attwood, despite there being citable quotations on the web to validate it. Consensus among a bullying majority is that this evidence is not to be allowed in the article as Attwood's other work is too important to allow his flaws in thinking about the syndrome to be included, even with evidence of it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have specific suggestions as to how to improve it? Doniago (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also been diagnosed with AS - and I believe my symptoms fit those listed in the "Characteristics" section rather accurately. I suppose it's possible that you've been misdiagnosed - and you also need to be aware that this is a 'spectrum' disorder - ranging from people who are very close to 'normal' all the way through to people who could just about be diagnosed as 'autistic'. Also, some people who are characterized with this syndrome not have all of the symptoms - and some of us have discovered (or been taught) techniques to ameliorate the worst of the social issues.

If you still feel the article is incorrect, perhaps you could describe what you feel is wrong - and we can pursue reliable sources to ensure that the article is correct.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If I look at the article now, I can read through it and be like "Oh, OK, yeah, that makes sense, but the statements throughout definitely didn't (and still don't) click immediately with me like other online sources did (and still do). Perhaps the best section to improve would be the characteristics section, since this is often the one most people are likely to seek out first for information. The main problem in this section is that there are certain sentences (even entire paragraphs) which are composed almost entirely out of jargon that would not be familiar to the typical lay person. For example:

"Although individuals with Asperger syndrome acquire language skills without significant general delay and their speech typically lacks significant abnormalities, language acquisition and use is often atypical. Abnormalities include verbosity, abrupt transitions, literal interpretations and miscomprehension of nuance, use of metaphor meaningful only to the speaker, auditory perception deficits, unusually pedantic, formal or idiosyncratic speech, and oddities in loudness, pitch, intonation, prosody, and rhythm."

I have never seen or heard the word "prosody" before, in any context, as far as I can ever remember. In the Fire Truck/IQ episode of Family Guy, Peter began misusing the phrase "shallow and pedantic" because he heard it on a verbose, intellectual television discussion... I think that's a pretty good (if not humorous) sign that "pedantic" is not a term most people are familiar with. Overall, this article needs to be less verbose if the average person is expected to be able to understand it. 67.10.112.12 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Characteristics section would benefit from a brief list of some of the most common 'signs' in the first section, all written in lay man's terms. They would not have to be perfect descriptions, nor very detailed, but a quick list would provide a good, brief overview for many. Example: avoids eye-contact, poor motor-skills, good understanding of language, average to above-average intelligence, poor social skills... etc. The 'stereotypes' people are going to notice, written in layman's terms. 67.10.112.12 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is based on reliable sources, and should not be not be used for diagnosis nor should one's own perceived symptoms or beliefs influence the page's contents. AS has a very diverse presentation, so there's not really much of a "short list" that could be included. The current four items seems reasonable. Prosody is linked and is a medical term - could be reworded, but it's not a huge deal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look up "Aspergers Disorder" in the "Diagnostic Criteria" from DSM-IV (which is pretty much the gold standard for describing psychiatric terms like "Aspergers") - it describes the syndrome in more or less the same terms as the paragraph you quote - it may not 'click' with you - but I don't think it's wrong. But again, if there is something specific you think we should change to make it a better description of the symptoms you have - then let's discuss it. Maybe we can find a reliable source that covers that change.

As for 'prosody', English-Wikipedia's style isn't to dumb-down the language - so 'prosody' (which is certainly a word that I know and even (rarely) use) is quite acceptable. Just because we occasionally come across words we don't personally understand - that's not a reason to simplify. (I had to look up "schizoaffective"). To try to explain this, consider that there is a version of Wikipedia that uses extremely simplified english (http://simple.wikipedia.org) and it has an article about Aspergers that's written in easier language: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome - but even that incredibly simplified language uses hyperlinked scientific terms. When a precise scientific term is required (as is the case here with this term from linguistics) then we use it - and link it for the benefit of those not familiar with the term. The meaning of 'prosody' in linguistics is rather precise and we'd have to use several sentences of plain english to accurately convey the meaning. Bottom line - if you don't understand it - click on it! SteveBaker (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the personal opinions about what Asperger's is. We have references and do not need individual opinions added on to them.72.200.71.185 (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)]

Could you point specifically to the problem comments? Aspie Lover (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lacks empathy?

I have Aspergers and I don't think we necessarily "lack empathy", we are fine giving empathy to other people its just receiving it. It feels awkward and uncomfortable. For instance, I will hug someone who is crying, but if I'm crying I don't like someone hugging me. When being diagnosed by four doctors, they all linked this to aspergers.

I also have to agree it needs to be more simple, maybe not plain english but more clear.

"described children in his practice who lacked nonverbal communication skills, demonstrated limited empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy." Not clumsy, don't lack empathy. I have not seen or read about one person who has aspergers and is clumsy. As a child, yes, adult/older, no.

The speech and language section is a complete and utter disaster in my opinion, that should be dumbed down but not to simple, just to where an average joe can read it and get a general understanding instead of "Huh?". Like, "Children with AS may have an unusually sophisticated vocabulary at a young age and have been colloquially called "little professors", but have difficulty understanding figurative language and tend to use language literally." yes, "Abnormalities include verbosity, abrupt transitions, literal interpretations and miscomprehension of nuance, use of metaphor meaningful only to the speaker, auditory perception deficits, unusually pedantic, formal or idiosyncratic speech, and oddities in loudness, pitch, intonation, prosody, and rhythm." good god. I think I remember showing that to a friend and saying "did you get any of that?". And like it or not, people are going to use pages like this for self diagnoses, just if they misdiagnose themselves they can't sue wikiepdia, that's why we have disclaimers. ItsWolfeh (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, I have Aspergers and I have no empathy whatsoever. When I see a "tragedy" on TV I think "who cares?" and when someone cries near me it's just annoying also, I'm very clumsy. I walk into walls, spill drinks and occasionally lose my balance and fall down. The example you gave about it being to complicated was also very easy to understand. So by my count you're wrong in all three points you were trying to make. 71.84.126.174 (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As for showing empathy, I fully agree with the above comment. I am not amoral, but I have no empathy. The concept still baffles me. After years of guidance I can now show what some consider to be empathy, not because I feel it, but because I've been schooled into it. Trying to display empathy allows me to get along better with peers, and it therefore benefits me. I see empathy like playing a musical instrument: the neurotypical chords are never intuitive... I am looking at the music sheet at all times, and making lots of mistakes. 88.104.195.241 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to continually remember that we're talking about a spectrum disorder. There isn't one clear set of symptoms. You can't say "Victims of Aspergers' have no empathy" because some do, some don't, some have less empathy than neurotypical but not none whatever. My problem with empathy is that I can only get it in retrospect. The canonical example was when I discovered (quite by accident) that my son is colorblind. I immediately wanted to find out to what extent and in what ways - so I was looking online for colorblindness tests and generally getting very excited about learning all about this...quite forgetting that my poor kid had just heard that he has defective eyesight and couldn't see what the rest of us can see. It was only in retrospect - that I could look back and realize what he must have been going through - and I feel terrible about the whole incident. I can certainly empathize with what he must have been going through now...but at the time, it was purely an interesting intellectual discovery. There are times when having Aspergers' really sucks - and that was definitely one of my low points. But, because it's a spectrum, some aspies would have managed to come through with the right reaction at the time - others would still be wondering what the problem was. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to develop new material at User:Penbat/Asperger syndrome

I am slowly intending to develop new material on Asperger Syndrome for Wikipedia at User:Penbat/Asperger syndrome. It includes, for example, Asperger syndrome and bullying, and Asperger workplace managers. If anybody can help feel free.--Penbat (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aspies and alcohol/drugs

Is there any research as to whether Aspies in general feel any more or less comfortable drinking alcohol or taking drugs such as cannabis and LSD than non-Aspies ? I once knew an Aspie who was into cannabis and LSD.--Penbat (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I once knew an Aspie who couldn't stand to eat broccoli and didn't pay back the five bucks he borrowed from me - maybe we should add that to the article too! :-)

Really - you can't possibly imagine that EVERYTHING in a person's character makeup comes from a single factor like this. Also, you can't tell a thing about a widespread condition from a single person. SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. The meat of my post was the question in the first sentence. The second sentence was an incidental observation. Aspies dont come from outer space - they take drugs like anybody else.--Penbat (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a recent study that has been done and published in book form under the title "Asperger's Syndrome and Alcohol: Drinking to Cope", i think maybe a couple of years back........I was DXed with AS 3 years ago, having been a heroin/cocaine/meth needle addict for 10 years, now an alcoholic......the book sheds some light on these few Asperger cases who "drink to cope". Perhaps there should be some mention of it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonKing22 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read that book - but it sounds like they are essentially saying that people who have a hard time coping with life more often turn to drug/booze - and since Aspergers sufferers sometimes have a hard time coping with life - they sometimes turn to drugs/booze. It doesn't sound like this is an actual symptom of the syndrome...just a consequence of coping with it. SteveBaker (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Executive Function Lacking in "my" Aspie

One Aspie I know very well (my ex-husband) has little or no executive function. I learned of that aspect of personality at a UCLA symposium when my Aspie was diagnosed by Tony Attwood. I find his lack of executive function is the most disabling aspect of his AS. There is nothing in this article on executive function and its lack being a problem for Aspies.

Executive function is the ability to plan, to see all of what is involved in a task or project, and to see the end as well as the beginning. It includes being able to sort, and to organize, for example all the pieces of paper that come into one's life. (I made that up from my experience, rather than looking it up.) My Aspie knows a lot about cars, and is an excellent car mechanic. However, when he starts a car project, using the manufacturer's Guide to the procedure, he reads only the first sentence, and does that. Then the next sentence, and does that. If the article says, "use the bearing grease to lubricate the bearing" he will go to the store to get the bearing grease or the bearing. He never reads through the whole article to find out all the parts and tools he will need. He ends up going to the store several times, and his projects always take much longer than an NT's. I find that very frustrating, as it wastes so much time going back and forth to the store. This is the example I commonly use, but the problem extends throughout his life.

I think lack of executive function should be included in the section on Other.

Mlboozphd (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)mlboozphd

Since personal experience is not acceptable, content may be added with sources, per WP:RELIABLE. JNW (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a feature of conditions on the spectrum (and many other conditions), mentioned in Autism, and certainly should be covered here. A simple search for "executive function" + asperger's at PubMed yields a number of papers that could form the basis of a paragraph in this article. Would you like to compose something, Mlboozphd? If you're interested but need help accessing papers, email me (left column on my talk page). -- Anthony (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

History

The following text can be found in the History section: "photographs taken during his seminal work show that he had an earnest face with an intense gaze" Is this really necessary there??? - It doesn't sound very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.188 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dan Akroyd

See Dan Akroyd#Personal life, well discussed long ago when people tried to add this to many articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

sarcasm/irony

I would like to change the most recent change. Asperger's cases tend to have difficulty regognizing "irony"....so it should be "recongnizing instances of irony as well as sarcasm"

thank you,

CK —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonKing22 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have Aspergers and I can tell you that irony is something that is easy to see. In fact I use irony lots. This is very distinct from sarcasm which is definitely a common problem for Aspies. So unless you have a reliable source to contrary, I recommend that you don't edit the article. Aspie Lover (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again: We must continually remind ourselves that Aspergers is a spectrum disorder. Just because you don't have some particular symptom isn't grounds for saying that others don't.

IMHO, (and from my personal experience) the problem isn't quite as the article states. It's not that we are somehow not wired to understand or use irony and/or sarcasm - it's more like a spin-off of our more general lack of the ability to understand how someone else is feeling/thinking. It means that in general conversation it's often hard to tell when someone is being ironic or sarcastic...or making a joke or telling a lie or using a metaphor or 'signalling' some kind emotional state. So we tend to take their words literally. But, if I'm watching a TV comedy show, where it's reasonable to expect that people will be using irony and/or sarcasm - I can readily understand and appreciate its use. But when I'm chatting with a co-worker about some generally serious matter and they toss in an ironic or sarcastic remark - the odds are high that I'll take the remark dead seriously...it's not that I don't understand irony - it's just that I can't pick out the cues that distinguish irony/sarcasm from serious statements of fact.

BUT in all such matters, we are falling afoul of WP:OR when we use our own symptoms (especially our own self-observed symptoms!) to guide what the article should and should not say. We have to find reliable sources and actual research (preferably from medical literature) to back up these kinds of statement in the article.

A good analogy for what seems to be going on is that it's as if Aspies were communicating using keyboard and screen all the time. Neurotypical people often have trouble discerning emotion and correctly spotting irony and sarcasm in emails. Most Aspies have that problem all the time - even in spoken conversation. Neurotypical people suffer the lack of the cues that they usually read in body language and voice intonation when they converse in bland typewritten text. Most Aspies are simply unable to pick up those cues in face-to-face communication. I suspect that one reason why so many Aspies love computers and online conversations is that it levels the playing field for us.

Just the other day my wife complained about me leaving the toilet seat up. I don't do that - so I was surprised at her comment and took offense at it. Only with much hindsight and subsequent careful re-examination of the conversation could I realize that she was REALLY saying that I was being a "typical guy" in more general aspects of daily life and using this as a metaphor (after all these years, you'd think she'd know to tell me simply and directly wtf she's going on about! But the habit of relying on these 'out of band' communication mechanisms runs deep in neurotypicals and they can't abandon that reliance anymore than most aspies can pick up on them. Probably there was some clue in body posture or tone of voice that should have told me that...but I could no more see it than a blind man can tell the difference between a red ball and a blue one.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just want to point out that I was putting CK in his or her place and actually applying what you applied to me to him or her, if you follow what I'm saying. It was certainly never my intent to change the article upon what I was saying because you're right. It's OR. I think we agree on the point of sources. Aspie Lover (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Error to be corrected

I can't correct this myself for some reason, but the last edit; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&curid=37556&diff=398780273&oldid=398367413 Removed the capital "P" from "People" in the section "Cultural Aspects". Someone want to put that back? Aspie Lover (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aspie Lover. The page is semi-protected. You'll be able to edit it once you've made 10 edits to unprotected articles. Welcome to Wikipedia, it's good to have you here. I've inserted the "P". Anthony (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible libelous material

I will have to admit, that the article like it stands now, is angled towards a very "disorder" POV. A person with Asperger can be an as good member of the society as a "neurotypical" person. E.G. my big brother, he has Asperger, and he has a master's degree in economy, works for a big company as an executive, is married and has a little daughter. He is not happy to be told that he has a "disorder" and wants to advocate to better people's opinion towards Aspergers. The article should be re-written, as it is not neutral and persons with Asperger may find the content libelous. And, the picture in the infobox has no direct relation to the topic, it is just a boy who is playing with some molecular biology structures. MikeNicho231 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to deal with such general objections. If you could point to specific things that you think are inappropriately stated, it would be easier to know how to respond. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture in the infobox should be removed, as a boy playing with molecular structures is not relevant. And I feel the article should be re-written, as it is too heavy focus on the "disorder", and is presented in a way that reminds people of a mental illness. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your unsourced additions, deletions of sourced text, and POV text introduced. Please see WP:MEDRS, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OWN#Featured articles and discuss your proposed changes on talk to gain consensus for them. The boy in the picture is a boy with AS, and was supplied by his father, a WIKI editor. AS is a disorder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can take a picture of any person, and claim that that person has AS. A picture of a boy playing with molecular structures has nothing to do with the subject, it would be more appropriate in an article about molecular biology. And I have removed some possible libelous, unsourced material. I asked my brother to read through the article, and he stated he was "horrified" over the POV in the article. He says that the article should have a focus on individuals with AS in society and everyday life, and not symptoms, management, therapy and epidemiology. MikeNicho231 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What you have to do now, Mike, is read some policy. I suggest you start with WP:3RR. Read that before you revert again on this article. Your request for explanation in your last edit summary has already been answered. Wikipedia articles are built on policy and guidelines. Once you've read WP:MEDRS, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OWN#Featured articles, other editors will be happy to answer any questions you have. Anthony (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read those guidelines, and I am fully aware of their content. I though want a fair and neutral POV in the article. Again, I point out that the article is too focused on the "disorder" and does not focus on people with AS in society and everyday life, and such topics. MikeNicho231 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We go by what the WP:MEDRS sources say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mike, your point of view is reasonable, given the ignorance about the cause of the difference between those with Asperger's and those without. But what you need to do is find sources compliant with WP:MEDRS that back up the changes you want to make. Presently, your changes are either not cited, or not supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Get familiar with that policy, and discuss your points here with suitable sources. It's a matter of civil argument and persuasion. If you bring appropriate sources here, you'll find support for inclusion.

We can't have you imposing unilateral changes on the article, though, so no more reverting, please. I and another editor have reported this situation to Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring so there's a chance you might be blocked for 24 hours per WP:3RR now. If you continue inserting stuff into the article against consensus the way you have been, you'll definitely be blocked. Anthony (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mike: I think all of us here would strongly agree that there are "high functioning" aspies like your big brother. I put myself into that category - I get paid a small fortune for writing computer games, and I have a wonderful (albeit long-suffering!) wife and a great son (who is almost certainly also an aspie). But we are truly the lucky ones and this article is about the entire spectrum from the nearly normal people to the borderline-Autistic. Many Asperger sufferers get all of the downsides and none of the benefits - or are (for whatever reason) unable to turn the benefits they have into the kind of respect that society delivers to those who have degrees, families and good jobs. If you go to meetings or classes for Asperger sufferers, you'll meet people there who are so socially crippled as to be painful or impossible for neurotypical people to deal with. Nobody wants to listen to a two hour, one-sided "conversation" about what color the planets are from a person who stares at the ground and totally ignores all of your efforts to turn the conversation to another topic - or even just escape to talk to someone else! Those people can't get a job of any kind, are never likely to marry and have kids, and may be so utterly focussed on a teeny-tiny area of subject matter that they will do poorly in conventional educational settings. Perhaps your brother is far enough down the spectrum to avoid the worst of those issues - but truly, none of us come away unscathed by the disorder - we just manage to deal with it well enough to get by and perhaps do well. Heck - I'm easily drawn into it. I somehow got interested in an obscure car (the Mini Moke) a few years ago and accidentally turned my aspie focus in that direction. I could not stop myself from buying literally EVERY book, toy, poster and magazine that talked about it - and had to get a serious lecture from my wife to prevent me spending $20k on buying one and importing it into the US from Australia! I am now probably the world expert on the damned thing (there is a reason that Mini Moke was a featured article for a while!)...but why? It was a ridiculous, stupid, waste of my time and money - but I could no more stop doing that than I could stop breathing. That's a symptom of a "disorder" and it's important to recognize that...while understanding that using that exact same 'symptom' to become a total computer graphics geek will earn you respect, money and everything that comes with it.

In light of that, you REALLY cannot deny that the term "disorder" applies to the spectrum in general. It's not just a "difference".

Even high-functioning aspies like myself and your brother had to have been diagnosed against the DSM IV criteria - which says that in order to be considered to have Asperger's syndrome, you have to exhibit at least two out of the four social impairments and one out of the four restricted/repetitive behavior patterns (I think I scored 3/4 and 2/4 respectively). If someone has been correctly diagnosed, they do have some degree of behavioral "disorder".

Having said all that, (and as others have pointed out) if you can find referenceable sources (I'm not sure they have to be as tightly constrained as WP:MEDRS demands - but they do have to be pretty solid) - and if they back up whatever points you want to make - then everyone here will be more than happy to discuss how that material can be rolled into the article. Wikipedia is all about sources - it's not what you know it's what sources you can find...and congratulate your brother...he did good despite the difficulties! SteveBaker (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, and rollback removed for second time using rollback to edit war; I'm not aware of any reliable sources that back most of MikeNicho231's edits, which were mostly opinion and anecdote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the view that Asperger's might just be another type of person, not a disorder. The view is shared by a significant minority in the lay community, but not by me - though I'll welcome anything into WP MED articles that complies with policy and is relevant. Anthony (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's a distinction without a difference. There are indeed 'differences' between aspies and neurotypical people - but whether that constitutes a "disorder" or "another type of person" is simply a matter of linguistics.

To avoid ruffling feathers here - let's pick another example:

Pretty much everyone would agree that people with adult lactose intolerance syndrome have a "disorder" - but they also have a distinct difference in their DNA that makes them be "another type" of person - genetically different from other humans. The term "disorder" is pinned on some distinct "types of people" when the difference they have from the majority of the population happens to be a disadvantage.

In the case of lactose intolerance - those with lactose intolerance are actually of an older genetic group from which "normal" lactose tolerant people evolved about 4000 years ago. So who has the "disorder"? If you wish to consume products with lactose in them - then it's obviously going to seem to be a "disorder" if you have stomach pains and throw up afterwards...but if you lived in a part of the world where cow/goat milk was unavailable then lactose intolerance is actually an evolutionary advantage in that it assists the weaning of older children from their mother's milk. That's why nearly all non-human mammals have adult lactose intolerance...because it's an advantage to them).

Does everyone who is lactose tolerant have a "disorder" or does everyone who is intolerant have the "disorder"?

It's not a matter of science - it's a matter of culture and linguistics.

So it is with some (but not all) aspies. If you work in the computer industry and happen to be on the right part of the spectrum (as I do), then it can be a significant advantage. But if when you need to make your way in a social situation, it's a significant "disorder".

Rightly or wrongly, we label minority medical differences as "disorders" and "syndromes" if they have significant downsides - regardless of the upsides. That is perhaps an unfortunate thing - but it most certainly is how the term "disorder" is used in the English language. So both possibilites are true - people with Aspergers' do indeed have a "disorder" and they are also "different types of people".

This is a linguistic convention - not a factual error in our article. It is not a reason to edit war. It is ESPECIALLY not a reason to abuse the 'rollback' privilege which is specifically NOT to be used for reverting good-faith edits. It's for rapidly reverting vandalism and nothing else).

SteveBaker (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing libellous about the article, and using the term "disorder" rather than "difference" does not imply a person is a bad person or that they are a lesser human being. Asperger syndrome is diagnosed by an impairment in certain abilities, not by, say, being good at maths or computers. The sensitivity over the terminology applies here rather than lactose intolerance or myopia, for example, because Asperger syndrome does have an effect on one's personality and so is take as more of a description of the person than just their body. The article does cover the minority viewpoint that it is a "difference" not a "disorder" (in the lead and the Cultural aspects section). Colin°^Talk 10:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The text that was added ("Individuals with the diagnosis are most usually well functioning members of the society, above-average level of education, standard of living and income.") is not supported by the source [1]. To establish such a statement, one would have to preform a serious academic survey of the population, which would typically be published in a scientific journal. Newspapers, generally, are not reliable sources on such issues. Colin°^Talk 10:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, indeed. The problem with the question of whether aspies have above-average educational attainment/standard of living/income is a difficult one because of the nature of a spectrum disorder. I'm sure we wouldn't maintain that someone with full-on autism would be above-average in any of those regards - it's pretty certain that at that end of the spectrum, we'd find people being considerably below average in that regard. Those so close to the other end of the spectrum as to be almost neurotypical would also be unlikely to have any significant benefits to push them far above the average. Any such study would have to arbitarily pick some fixed portion of the spectrum...and that's a horribly fuzzy grey area...the further up towards the autism end of the spectrum you include - the less likely you'd be to see any statistical advantage. It's certainly possible that in the age of the computer and the Internet, many mid-spectrum aspies can overcome enough of their social disadvantages by predominantly interacting with people online - and perhaps use their ability to focus and obsess about small areas of study over long periods into a good degree and a job with high income. But it's impossible for us to assert that in the article without some kind of referenceable study that proves that it's true. Personally, having dealt with a lot of fellow aspies over the years, I'm inclined to doubt the claim. But we need a reference before we can mention this...period. SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I notion that there are any advantages is controversial and not supported by much evidence either. See PMID 17947290, which is mentioned by this article. Colin°^Talk 18:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I at least think that is should be a section about aspies in society. Many aspies are high-functioning individuals and this should be emphasised. A reader with little knowledge of the subject will think of it as a serious mental disorder, which is not true at all. Baron-Cohen says that aspies are misunderstood, and that they in reality are above-average gifted. MikeNicho231 (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Asperger's by definition excludes low-functioning individuals (the requirement is that the person is "without significant delay in language or cognitive development.") The article makes that clear. It also emphasises the overlap/confusion with "high-functioning autism". There is a section on Cultural aspects, which is of appropriate size for the article. We have numerous other articles linked to this such as Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Please can you supply a reliable source with evidence for the "above-average gifted" assertion. Colin°^Talk 13:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The DSM IV definition excludes delays in cognitive/language development - but the lack of such a delay doesn't prevent someone with Aspergers from being "low functioning" - there are plenty of other ways that the "clinically significant impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning" can result in someone who is low-functioning. SteveBaker (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is probably not beneficial to argue over the precise definition of "high-functioning" and "low-functioning". There is no formal definition (AFAIK), the term is jargon within autism research, and probably more useful as a relative statement (higher/lower) than a threshold. Colin°^Talk 13:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have cited Simon Baron-Cohen as my source. Baron-Cohen is a professor. Why do you remove my text when it is adequately sourced? MikeNicho231 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear what paper you mean as the DOI is broken and the PMID is not for a paper by Baron-Cohen. However, PMID 9363580 matches the rest of the citation. Nowhere in the abstract or paper does SBC say "Many individuals with Asperger's are high-functioning individuals" That paper looked at a group comprising 4 individuals with "High-functioning autism" and 12 with Asperger's. He actually comments that such individuals were "relatively rare" for having "normal intelligence" (I suspect that comment was actually more directed towards the HFA than the AS individuals but the paragraph is horribly messy).

There are several problems with the text other than that it is unsourced. As noted above, the term "high-functioning" has no formal definition and so probably not useful in the lead of an article for the general reader. The reader may come away with the idea that the term means that they are "above-average gifted", as you put it on this talk page. By definition, people with AS will not have mental retardation. So one can argue the statement is no more helpful than "many people who are not short are tall". Colin°^Talk 13:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe high-functioning autism traditionally indicates that a subject is 1) able to speak; 2) above 70 in IQ; and 3) Not better described by some other syndrome. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12708575. The IQ=70 line has also traditionally been used for Asperger syndrome, although popular culture has attributed a stereotype of Asperger's patients normally having IQ's above 100 that was not intended by the original researchers. While there are definitely lots of Asperger's people with very high IQ's just as there are neurotypicals with such, it is not widely characteristic of Asperger's as a whole. —Soap— 13:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Further, this whole matter was extensively discussed many times (in talk archives) vs. reliable sources and MikeNichols interpretation is simply wrong. We've had this conversation too many times to repeat, and I suggest he review the years of talk page archives and read the reliable sources mentioned in these discussions before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's like the old joke about the way to frighten a politician into spending more money on education. You get them in front of a microphone and ask: "Do you realize that half of all Americans have below average IQ?!". SteveBaker (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you, Colin, to take a look at WP:OWN. It is not only your version that is correct, others might have an opinion as well. MikeNicho231 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write any of this, so can hardly OWN it. Please don't add text that isn't sourced. I'll leave it to someone else to undo your latest clumsy edit that now has the lead sentence repeating the word "syndrome" and replaces the established "autism spectrum disorder" with a neologism that seems designed to avoid the word "disorder". Please read WP:COI. Colin°^Talk 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And I would again advise MikeNicho231 to look at WP:OWN#Featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome is a syndrome, no matter what way you put it. An item of food, e.g, is an item of food, nothing else. MikeNicho231 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

But it is classified as an "autism spectrum disorder", whether you like that term or not. Colin°^Talk 21:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've undone Mike's edit as "disorder" seems to be the generally accepted term. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Aspergers' is described as a "disorder" in DSM-IV - which is the ultimate gold-standard reference work for this kind of thing. There is absolutely no stronger reference than that. Here at Wikipedia we resolve these kinds of disputes by seeking solid references. Hence, in formal language, it's a "disorder"...period. SteveBaker (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Regarding the picture (mentioned at the start of the discussion) - I don't think it adds anything to the article in terms of understanding AS, and I see Mike's point about it - if it's the first thing someone looks at, and they have some vague idea about AS, it's going to reinforce the negative stereotypes, if it does anything at all. I don't think the caption is particularly accurate either, he doesn't look that interested in the model. And even he he was, so what? If he has a whole room covered in molecular models, that would be a better illustration. So it doesn't show what the caption says, and if it did, that wouldn't help the article, in my opinion. (I'm not disputing that it is in fact a boy with AS who is very interested in the model - but that doesn't come across in the picture.) Lessthanideal (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a very good argument for the photo to be removed. WP:BLP, for a start. We have no reliable information that the child pictured actually has Asperger Syndrome, so it does not seem appropriate to display their picture in a way that implies that they do. Apart from that, yes I agree that the picture purports to demonstrate something about people with ASD that, whether or not it is grounded in truth, is not actually demonstrated by the picture.

There's a parallel problem, by the way, with the Autism article. --FormerIP (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As said by SandyGeorgia above, the Asperger's photo was uploaded by the boy's father, and it says in the upload log of the Autism photo that it was added by his mother. Parents seem to be a common source of infant/child photos online (infants uploading photos of themselves is somewhat rarer, as they generally would have to be photos from before the era of digital cameras). I think it's generally assumed that it's not possible to identify an adult based on a photo of them from when they were a baby, so it is not a BLP violation even if the photo is somewhat embarrassing, as these autism photos arguably are (though, who among us hasn't got baby photos they're embarrassed to see?) That said, if it was me up there, I'd want the photo deleted. —Soap— 12:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The upload log isn't really an RS for our purposes, though. I'm not sure what you mean about identifying adults from photos of them as a baby. a) you can easily do that if you have access to another photo of them as a baby (not a non-issue, if they can be identified only by one person in the world, that still produces a BLP concern); b) there is no baby in the picture in any case - the kid is now presumably a couple of years older, that's all.

Although BLP is relevant, I think the more important general issue is that of what the picture demonstrates compared to what it purports to demonstrate. --FormerIP (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If we achieve consensus to remove the picture, what is a proper replacement? A neuroimage? There is no reliable research on any visible differences in the brain of individuals with ASD, as every person's body is different. What is a proper replacement? Having no picture at all? MikeNicho231 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I quite like the picture. I wonder why the concerns about the pic were not brought up when this became a FA. Or, was the pic not here then? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I clicked back 2 years using User:DerHexer/revisionjumper, and there was no picture then, and it was already an FA. The actual FA promotion seems to have been six years ago, though, so a lot of other things also weren't there. (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Asperger's_syndrome.) —Soap— 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See the article history in the banners above. The article fell below FAC but was restored and kept 24 September 2007. It had the photo then (see this version). I see no good reason to remove the photo, especially as no better alternative has been proposed. If there are BLP concerns, the correct approach is to have the photo deleted, but I'm satisfied this is not an issue. Colin°^Talk 14:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No reason to remove the picture that I know of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not intended as a legal threat, but my brother, Liam Jackson, has been conferring with the British National Autistic Society. If he at a later time contacts Wikipedia, I have nothing to do with anything he would say. MikeNicho231 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Diagnosing and explaining asperger with fMRI

There is some new research going on, suggesting there's an communicative complication between the two hemispheres. http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/display/article/113619/1757940 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.74.141 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That research is into Autism - not Aspergers. While they are on the same "spectrum" - it doesn't follow that this has anything to do with Aspergers...perhaps (for example) - people who have whatever other thing it is that causes Aspergers will become fully Autistic if they ALSO have a communicative complication. Or perhaps this communicative issue is the brain's natural reaction to the severe symptoms of Autism - and it may never show up in Aspergers because it's so much less severe. Until this study says something about Aspergers' specifically - I don't think it's relevant here...although on the Autism page, it's certainly worthy of a mention. SteveBaker (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

FAR?

I am thinking about making an FAR for this article. There is a lack of properly-sourced images that are relevant to the topic, the article contains several factual errors, editors assume OWN, edits are hastily reverted without consensus by some users who claim they are "experts" on the topic. What do people think? MikeNicho231 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)