6 ms·

Actually, what happened is that it ended up bundled into high functioning autism in the DSM. That only means that the term "Asperger's" was deprecated in the co

Actually, what happened is that it ended up bundled into high functioning autism in the DSM. That only means that the term "Asperger's" was deprecated in the context of the DSM.

lutusp 13y ago
> Actually, what happened is that it ended up bundled into high functioning autism in the DSM. Yes, that's the psychological version of politics. Did you really think psychologists would come out and say, "We made a mistake and there's no such thing as Asperger's"? That would be like the Catholic church saying Galileo was right. What they did say was, "It's not an evidence-based term." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pag... That's good enough for me or any other scientist -- it's not real. The proof that there's no such thing as Asperger's (as a mental illness) has two parts. One, anyone could get the diagnosis through the simple expedient of visiting a psychologist and saying, "I think I have Asperger's". Two, the number of wildly successful people who were said to have Asperger's, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates, which means if Asperger's is real, then wealth and fame are reliable diagnostic indicators for the condition. That would give "mental illness" a whole new meaning.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  > Two, the number of wildly successful people who were said to have Asperger's, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates, which means if Asperger's is real, then wealth and fame are reliable diagnostic indicators for the condition. That would give "mental illness" a whole new meaning. If three successful people are said by some to have showed signs of Asperger's, how many non-Asperger's successful people are needed to make "wild success" an unreliable indicator? I'll lead off with Oprah, Dale Carnegie, and Bill Clinton.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Sorry, that makes no sense. Mentally ill people aren't expected to become famous billionaires -- it's just not part of the social expectation. The fact that there are similarly successful people without a mental illness diagnosis only adds to the perception that the diagnosis has no meaning.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      From the old standby, wikipedia: > In 1947, after his near-fatal aircraft crash in 1946, [Howard] Hughes told his aides that he wanted to screen some movies at a film studio near his home. Hughes stayed in the studio's darkened screening room for more than four months, never leaving. He subsisted exclusively on chocolate bars, chicken, and milk, and relieved himself in the empty bottles and containers. He was surrounded by dozens of Kleenex boxes, which he continuously stacked and re-arranged. He wrote detailed memos to his aides on yellow legal pads giving them explicit instructions not to look at him, or speak to him unless spoken to. Throughout this period, Hughes sat fixated in his chair, often naked, continually watching movies. When he finally emerged in the spring of 1948, his hygiene was terrible, as he had not bathed or cut his hair and nails for weeks
      - lutusp 13y ago
        Yes, but obviously unrelated to Asperger's or any similar behavior.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Mentally ill people aren't expected to become famous billionaires -- it's just not part of the social expectation. Mental illness basically means durable patterns of behavior well outside of those expected of the majority of the population that causes adverse impacts in some areas of life. Honestly, I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't particular forms of it that were disproportionately common at the high as well as low end of the social heirarchy, though the adverse impact at the high end probably would be in areas that don't relate to social status.
      - 13y ago
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > Two, the number of wildly successful people who were said to have Asperger's, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates, which means if Asperger's is real, then wealth and fame are reliable diagnostic indicators for the condition. That would give "mental illness" a whole new meaning. Why could "wealth and fame" not be a diagnostic indicator for not being "normal"? I think that's the point the people who argued that "hacker mindset" and Asperger's are more-less the same thing were really trying to make. Do we have a label for "uncommon mental traits that have positive impact on cognition"? As a society we do seem to automatically treat everything that is not average to be a bad thing.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Why could "wealth and fame" not be a diagnostic indicator for not being "normal"? Fair enough, but I find that a bit of a stretch for a mental illness diagnosis. > As a society we do seem to automatically treat everything that is not average to be a bad thing. Yes, and that's one of the commonly heard criticisms of the field of psychology -- over time it seems to be narrowing the definition of normal in a self-serving way. On that topic, when tested, clinically depressed people turn out to have a more accurate perception of reality than their more "normal" peers. That means we're treating people with accurate perceptions, trying to turn them into people who are less rational but more happy. :)
- tptacek 13y ago
  Apropos nothing, but the Catholic Church not only acknowledges Galileo but also apologized for its treatment of him (which is a bit weird, given that it involved people in 1992 apologizing for the actions of people in 1610; let he who is without a culpable relative in the last four hundred years cast the first stone). In 12 years of Catholic school I never once heard a priest, nun, deacon, or teacher aver to any deficiency in Galileo's work. He was presented to students as a hero of science, as one would expect.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > ... the Catholic Church not only acknowledges Galileo but also apologized for its treatment of him ... Yes, hundreds of years later, in carefully crafted language meant to excuse the Church's behavior as understandable under the circumstances. It's not quite the same thing as acknowledging an error of judgment on the part of a living Pope. > In 12 years of Catholic school I never once heard a priest, nun, deacon, or teacher aver to any deficiency in Galileo's work. He was presented to students as a hero of science, as one would expect. Yes, and 350 years from now, someone within the Church who today advocates free access to birth control will be hailed as ahead of his or her time, but as with Galileo, the praise and forgiveness will come far too late. I want to emphasize that I think the Catholic church is a fascinating entity with very many well-intentioned followers, but the thinly veiled intolerance for ideas outside the canon is a constant irritation.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm not remotely interested in litigating most of this. Anyone who tries to rationalize the legitimacy of the United States is in a similarly tricky rhetorical position vis a vis slavery and genocide, and within a much shorter historical timespan. If you cast your net several centuries back, it would be hard to find any group of people who don't have something truly appalling to excuse themselves for. The important point is: I was repeatedly taught about Galileo in Catholic grade school and Jesuit high school, and those lessons were invariably centered on the genius of Galileo. There are militantly anti-science flavors of Christianity, but urban Catholicism isn't one of them. Guess who taught the first lesson I can remember about evolution? A nun. Your comment created the perception that Galileo is a divisive issue amongst Catholics, or the Catholic church. He is not. Galileo is recognized as a hero of science by the Catholic church, which I assure you has long (as in, for hundreds of years) since embraced heliocentrism. Later, full disclosure: I polled Catholic school students in my office and found one person who had a Christian Brother teacher who believed Galileo to be a heretic. Shows to go you, you can find nutballs anywhere you look for them.
- talideon 13y ago
  Ok. It appears I wasn't clear enough in what I wrote. Psychologists, unlike laypeople, don't treat the DSM as some kind of bible. It's a collection of rules of thumb used for helping diagnose various mental disorders. The fact that DSM 5 did away with a specific disorder is nothing like your example and says nothing whatsoever about whether a particular disorder exists or not. All they did was the equivalent of saying, "OK, we've got these grades from A1 to A5, and this other grade NG; maybe we should just call it A6 so it fits into the same general scale". When they say "it's not an evidence based term", they simply mean it's not worth distinguishing from the spectrum as a whole. Let me quote from the very article you quoted: > If these experts have their way, _Asperger's syndrome and another mild form of autism_, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (P.D.D.-N.O.S. for short), _will be folded into a single broad diagnosis_, autism spectrum disorder - a category that encompasses autism's entire range, or spectrum, from high-functioning to profoundly disabling. (Emphasis mine) Now, I'm not arguing whether it's a real thing or not. I leave that to people more knowledgeable in the field than I am. I'm arguing simply that your characterization of the term is incorrect and also doesn't agree with how psychologists view the term. > The proof that there's no such thing as Asperger's (as a mental illness) has two parts. One, anyone could get the diagnosis through the simple expedient of visiting a psychologist and saying, "I think I have Asperger's". I'm not sure how that "proves" anything? You've made a statement that something happens, but haven't actually provided any proof of anything. > Two, the number of wildly successful people who were said to have Asperger's, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates, which means if Asperger's is real, then wealth and fame are reliable diagnostic indicators for the condition. You appear not to understand the difference between correlation and causation, nor do you have a good grasp of probability distributions.

Actually, what happened is that it ended up bundled into high functioning autism in the DSM. That only means that the term "Asperger's" was deprecated in the context of the DSM.

lutusp 13y ago

> Actually, what happened is that it ended up bundled into high functioning autism in the DSM. Yes, that's the psychological version of politics. Did you really think psychologists would come out and say, "We made a mistake and there's no such thing as Asperger's"? That would be like the Catholic church saying Galileo was right. What they did say was, "It's not an evidence-based term." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pag... That's good enough for me or any other scientist -- it's not real. The proof that there's no such thing as Asperger's (as a mental illness) has two parts. One, anyone could get the diagnosis through the simple expedient of visiting a psychologist and saying, "I think I have Asperger's". Two, the number of wildly successful people who were said to have Asperger's, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates, which means if Asperger's is real, then wealth and fame are reliable diagnostic indicators for the condition. That would give "mental illness" a whole new meaning.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
> Two, the number of wildly successful people who were said to have Asperger's, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates, which means if Asperger's is real, then wealth and fame are reliable diagnostic indicators for the condition. That would give "mental illness" a whole new meaning. If three successful people are said by some to have showed signs of Asperger's, how many non-Asperger's successful people are needed to make "wild success" an unreliable indicator? I'll lead off with Oprah, Dale Carnegie, and Bill Clinton.
- lutusp 13y ago
  Sorry, that makes no sense. Mentally ill people aren't expected to become famous billionaires -- it's just not part of the social expectation. The fact that there are similarly successful people without a mental illness diagnosis only adds to the perception that the diagnosis has no meaning.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    From the old standby, wikipedia: > In 1947, after his near-fatal aircraft crash in 1946, [Howard] Hughes told his aides that he wanted to screen some movies at a film studio near his home. Hughes stayed in the studio's darkened screening room for more than four months, never leaving. He subsisted exclusively on chocolate bars, chicken, and milk, and relieved himself in the empty bottles and containers. He was surrounded by dozens of Kleenex boxes, which he continuously stacked and re-arranged. He wrote detailed memos to his aides on yellow legal pads giving them explicit instructions not to look at him, or speak to him unless spoken to. Throughout this period, Hughes sat fixated in his chair, often naked, continually watching movies. When he finally emerged in the spring of 1948, his hygiene was terrible, as he had not bathed or cut his hair and nails for weeks
    - lutusp 13y ago
      Yes, but obviously unrelated to Asperger's or any similar behavior.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Mentally ill people aren't expected to become famous billionaires -- it's just not part of the social expectation. Mental illness basically means durable patterns of behavior well outside of those expected of the majority of the population that causes adverse impacts in some areas of life. Honestly, I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't particular forms of it that were disproportionately common at the high as well as low end of the social heirarchy, though the adverse impact at the high end probably would be in areas that don't relate to social status.
    - 13y ago
TeMPOraL 13y ago
> Two, the number of wildly successful people who were said to have Asperger's, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates, which means if Asperger's is real, then wealth and fame are reliable diagnostic indicators for the condition. That would give "mental illness" a whole new meaning. Why could "wealth and fame" not be a diagnostic indicator for not being "normal"? I think that's the point the people who argued that "hacker mindset" and Asperger's are more-less the same thing were really trying to make. Do we have a label for "uncommon mental traits that have positive impact on cognition"? As a society we do seem to automatically treat everything that is not average to be a bad thing.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Why could "wealth and fame" not be a diagnostic indicator for not being "normal"? Fair enough, but I find that a bit of a stretch for a mental illness diagnosis. > As a society we do seem to automatically treat everything that is not average to be a bad thing. Yes, and that's one of the commonly heard criticisms of the field of psychology -- over time it seems to be narrowing the definition of normal in a self-serving way. On that topic, when tested, clinically depressed people turn out to have a more accurate perception of reality than their more "normal" peers. That means we're treating people with accurate perceptions, trying to turn them into people who are less rational but more happy. :)
tptacek 13y ago
Apropos nothing, but the Catholic Church not only acknowledges Galileo but also apologized for its treatment of him (which is a bit weird, given that it involved people in 1992 apologizing for the actions of people in 1610; let he who is without a culpable relative in the last four hundred years cast the first stone). In 12 years of Catholic school I never once heard a priest, nun, deacon, or teacher aver to any deficiency in Galileo's work. He was presented to students as a hero of science, as one would expect.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > ... the Catholic Church not only acknowledges Galileo but also apologized for its treatment of him ... Yes, hundreds of years later, in carefully crafted language meant to excuse the Church's behavior as understandable under the circumstances. It's not quite the same thing as acknowledging an error of judgment on the part of a living Pope. > In 12 years of Catholic school I never once heard a priest, nun, deacon, or teacher aver to any deficiency in Galileo's work. He was presented to students as a hero of science, as one would expect. Yes, and 350 years from now, someone within the Church who today advocates free access to birth control will be hailed as ahead of his or her time, but as with Galileo, the praise and forgiveness will come far too late. I want to emphasize that I think the Catholic church is a fascinating entity with very many well-intentioned followers, but the thinly veiled intolerance for ideas outside the canon is a constant irritation.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I'm not remotely interested in litigating most of this. Anyone who tries to rationalize the legitimacy of the United States is in a similarly tricky rhetorical position vis a vis slavery and genocide, and within a much shorter historical timespan. If you cast your net several centuries back, it would be hard to find any group of people who don't have something truly appalling to excuse themselves for. The important point is: I was repeatedly taught about Galileo in Catholic grade school and Jesuit high school, and those lessons were invariably centered on the genius of Galileo. There are militantly anti-science flavors of Christianity, but urban Catholicism isn't one of them. Guess who taught the first lesson I can remember about evolution? A nun. Your comment created the perception that Galileo is a divisive issue amongst Catholics, or the Catholic church. He is not. Galileo is recognized as a hero of science by the Catholic church, which I assure you has long (as in, for hundreds of years) since embraced heliocentrism. Later, full disclosure: I polled Catholic school students in my office and found one person who had a Christian Brother teacher who believed Galileo to be a heretic. Shows to go you, you can find nutballs anywhere you look for them.
talideon 13y ago
Ok. It appears I wasn't clear enough in what I wrote. Psychologists, unlike laypeople, don't treat the DSM as some kind of bible. It's a collection of rules of thumb used for helping diagnose various mental disorders. The fact that DSM 5 did away with a specific disorder is nothing like your example and says nothing whatsoever about whether a particular disorder exists or not. All they did was the equivalent of saying, "OK, we've got these grades from A1 to A5, and this other grade NG; maybe we should just call it A6 so it fits into the same general scale". When they say "it's not an evidence based term", they simply mean it's not worth distinguishing from the spectrum as a whole. Let me quote from the very article you quoted: > If these experts have their way, _Asperger's syndrome and another mild form of autism_, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (P.D.D.-N.O.S. for short), _will be folded into a single broad diagnosis_, autism spectrum disorder - a category that encompasses autism's entire range, or spectrum, from high-functioning to profoundly disabling. (Emphasis mine) Now, I'm not arguing whether it's a real thing or not. I leave that to people more knowledgeable in the field than I am. I'm arguing simply that your characterization of the term is incorrect and also doesn't agree with how psychologists view the term. > The proof that there's no such thing as Asperger's (as a mental illness) has two parts. One, anyone could get the diagnosis through the simple expedient of visiting a psychologist and saying, "I think I have Asperger's". I'm not sure how that "proves" anything? You've made a statement that something happens, but haven't actually provided any proof of anything. > Two, the number of wildly successful people who were said to have Asperger's, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates, which means if Asperger's is real, then wealth and fame are reliable diagnostic indicators for the condition. You appear not to understand the difference between correlation and causation, nor do you have a good grasp of probability distributions.