I found this article slightly frustrating in the way it described high-functioning autism. The term is normally not used to describe higher than average IQ in t

I found this article slightly frustrating in the way it described high-functioning autism. The term is normally not used to describe higher than average IQ in the general population but higher than the average amongst people with autism. If that is made explicit then the usefulness of the term seems more obvious. What the article also didn't consider a widely used definition of the term high-functioning autism. It is often defined in terms of capacity to live autonomously at a level close to someone without autism with minimal support. If we think of the condition in these terms I believe it's usefulness as a diagnosis becomes far more apparent. It would also allow for explicit recognition that the way people experience autism can significantly change when they are given support that nurtures independence and effective strategies to live. I personally think that the people coming up with diagnostic frameworks could learn a lot from the The Capability Approach to well-being that has gained some prominence in recent philosophical discussions of the topic. Reading articles on diagnostics that do not seem to take into account the existence of such positions is frustrating because they seem to be missing an obvious way of being more effective in helping people as well as more descriptive. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/