So heres another question: remember my previous thread about something similar?

Um, Asperger's exists.

I would not mind.

 

Notice: I answered this in terms of a friendship, not dating, but I suppose some parts might link in.

1. I would wonder why they are telling me why they first meeting me when they don't know me before - and I would probably ask them that so I'm not still wondering.


2. I would treat them the same as a person without a disability. By this, if you're somebody I want to talk with and hang out with - then I will. However, if - even if as a result of your disability - you're not someone I want to talk with and hang out with, then I won't. I know people call this ''intolerant of a person with a disability'' - but how can people with disabilities want to be treated the same as everyone else, but then use it to try and force me to stay friends with them when I wouldn't in the same reasons if they didn't have a disability [?]. My answer: It's not intolerance, it's equality.


2a. Bottom line, if you talk about the same thing all the time* that I'm not interested in, and/or [even if I'm interested in it] then refuse to listen to what I'm wanting to talk about after and then when I get you're attention - you don't simply say ''sorry'' but have to include ''whoops, aspergers'' then I probably will stop talking to you. Even if it is a result of you having aspergers, if you've already told me, I know. You don't need to tell me again just to try and get me to not ask for your attention again - as if you're condition gets you out of listening to me. *I have read this is a specific part of AS, but the rest of the message can apply to anything.


3. This isn't for autism, I don't think, but I'll say it here. If you tell me and I read your condition's definition involves being abusive or manipulative - then I won't continue to hang around you. Even if you appear nice, you might be being manipulative, and I don't want to potentially put myself in that situation.


My point is not all people with Asperger's are the same. We're ALL individuals, so I will be friends with individuals I am friends with and not be friends with individuals I'm not friends with. Asperger's, or any other characteristics, whilst do affect a person's personality, that one thing does not define it - all the small characteristics form to make a character, a person with a personality - and if I like your personality and become friends with you, then I hope it will last. [I don't really like meeting new people, so if we meet in a bar and naturally get talking, then it probably means we're going to get along.]

Sorry for the long message.

 

Source? >__>

 

On one of the episodes of ''Born Naughty?'' on the Channel 4 Iplayer it said that if you go to one clinic, you may get the diagnosis. But if you go to another clinic, with the exact same traits, you may not get the diagnosis. I'm not sure if this equals not existing, but it does equal to being subjective diagnosing - which could mean people simply with the traits don't actually have the condition. It could also mean parents telling their children to act in a certain way so they get the diagnosis. I think if people got the help they needed without having the diagnosis, then diagnosis's might go down - because doctors want to give the diagnosis so the person gets help for what they do have, even if they don't actually have it but feel the diagnosis would ''benefit them''. A diagnosis should be because they have it - not simply for it's ''benefits'' - but the ''benefits'' should be given if it is needed [Since people like comparing the physical to the mental - you wouldn't diagnosis someone with cancer just because having the diagnosis would benefit them even if they didn't have it - but you would help them with what they do need, such as help for anxiety]

As a note: A conciser wanted to get me diagnosed because I had one of the traits [just one], and thought I could get the help with the diagnosis. And all I'm thinking is - you're a Councillor, you can help me understand others - that's why I'm here, I don't need the label. [I don't think I have any other of the traits other than not understanding what other people mean all the time, so I don't actually think I have it, but she did, but I do know I need a bit more help understanding others and for some reason she wouldn't give me that without agreeing to the diagnosis].

 

Not ''A conciser'' I meant "A Councillor" - sorry for any confusion.

 

Wouldn't bother me at all tbh.

 

Well, if someone would give a diagnosis based on just one trait they don't know what the hell they're doing and should go back to school, I think, lol. Unless, that is, that one symptom was quite severe.
Here's about ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder): https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/diagnosis/dsm-5-diagnostic-criteria
Note that e.g. Asperger's was included in the umbrella of ASD in the DSM-V, although it is still given as a separate, and very legitimate, diagnosis.

 

I'm diagnosed high functioning. It would not bother me initially but could complicate a relationship.

 

Councillers tend not to know what they're doing anyway, I mean, I've never heard anyone whose actually had a decent one.

If there is an official diagnosis, then why in some places does one get the diagnosis and then with the same traits at another places they do not. Also, I'm not sure about why the ''socially acceptable thinking/actions'' is on there as that can be subjective with different peer groups and culture.

Is there actually something in the brain that ''autism'' is [with a link to brain scans and/or study] or is it just people deciding people who do these things are ''not normal'' - in terms of the actions. So what if somebody likes routine [it's not a bad thing to keep, and breaking it means there's no longer a routine], has no interest in friends [just because others make them doesn't mean other people have to], has rigid focus [shows dedication to just one thing], is socially unacceptable [to me that just sounds like they're trying to get away with doing something socially hurtful to another]. People are all different, and trying to impose a label just for acting a certain way just because it's different to others just seems a bit rude to a person's differences.

 

Many counselors do know what they're doing. It does vary greatly though. Mine is very qualified - in fact, all counselor/therapists/psychologists/psychiatrists I've had have been qualified, except for one who was quite insensitive. Don't know what things are like in the States though. *shrug*

The "socially acceptable..." thing is actually very central in psychology. It's one of the main pillars, if not the most important pillar, when evaluating mental health. In fact, I recently saw a modern definition of mental illness as being something like "behaviors that differ significantly from the norms in a given society". And yes, I think that's pretty messed up. The thing is that measuring the individual mental health of social creatures like humans can't be done in the same way as measuring, I don't know, the rate at which the fish stock of a river is replenished after the river is cleaned up. Humans depend on their social surroundings, and thus it must be included in the theory. I do wish something better might come along though - as in a better mindset, I mean.
In some societies, certain traits or combinations of traits would not be seen as anything weird or not as an illness, while in others it would.
Now, why different counselors draw different conclusions - well, counselors aren't lexicons or computers, so there will be irregularities resulting from a lack of perfect information. There will also be differences in judgment by counselors stemming from their own more subjective perception as fostered by their personal backgrounds. Giving a diagnosis of a mental problem can't be seen the same way as a math problem.

I would guess there's something "in the brain that autism is" since it's such an overt and often even quite dramatic thing - it has to have a root somewhere, and as a human being, I cannot think of anywhere else than the brain. I don't have the energy for the three minutes on Wikipedia it would probably take to find an answer though, might do it later.
You do strike a point though, that we label so quickly in our society, and also that we value our norms so very highly. Everything needs be classified in our paradigm of empiricist fundamentalism. And everything that differs from cultural norms is seen as unhealthy and unwanted. However, I see too many who jump to the opposite ends of these two problematic areas: they may distrust a lot of science, and think climate change is a hoax, but they ardently believe in chemtrails and reptilians! And anything based off of norms in anyway is wrong; therefore, gender doesn't exist and all mental health diagnoses are a hoax! I think the best thing here is to find a middle ground where one can apply due critique in a realistic and productive way (I'm not saying you're not, btw, I'm just rambling by myself).

 

My little brother is autistic, so I know a fair amount about it from experience. If the autistic person was capable of handling a relationship, then no problem at all. I believe that we're all a bit "autistic" in some way or another. By the way the situation sounds this probably wouldn't be the case, but if we're talking about a more severely autistic person then I'd have to think a little differently as autism is a spectrum, and for some people a relationship could cause more harm than good for them (I'm not sure if my brother will ever have the capacity for a serious relationship).

 

Exactly.

And as someone with high a functioning ASD, I would have no qualms dating a person on the autism spectrum. I think I'd be more equipped to work with such an individual, than someone who has no experience or understanding of the condition.

 

There are a lot of people on this forum with Aspbergers. Anyways, I think the real question becomes, did you know before they mentioned the ASD. If they have to tell you for you to know, I think I would be more inclined to talk to them. Maybe that is because I know how hard it is to tell people you have Aspbergers, or which ever ASD you have. It exudes confidence, which is usually pretty sexy... Now if you know before they tell you, then I think it might be time to consider if they can handle a relationship. I am a sucker for confidence though so who knows. Put it this way. ASD is not a deal breaker, but just another aspect of the deal to consider.