Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

"Standard diagnostic manual"

I have a problem with the following in the lead section:

The diagnosis of Asperger's has been proposed to be eliminated from the standard diagnostic manual, to be replaced...

Yesterday I changed it to refer specifically to the DSM, because the proposed changes concern only the DSM. The DSM is an American manual. The international standard is the ICD-10 (which described Asperger's a year before the American DSM did), and as far as I'm aware, no one has seriously proposed eliminating Asperger's from the ICD-10. My change yesterday was undone, and I understand the need for economy in the lead section, but I'm not ok with referring to the American DSM as the "standard diagnostic manual" in an encyclopedic article with international readership. I think we need to be specific about either what is being changed (DSM criteria) or who is changing it (the American Psychiatric Association), or else drop it altogether. If the DSM-V finally does drop the specific diagnosis (the changes are open to public comment until sometime in April, 2010), it will still exist as a diagnosis elsewhere, and as a defined phenomenon everywhere.

I think we need to do something about this. Any suggestions? Dcs002 (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The simplest fix I can see is to remove the offending phrase "standard diagnostic manual", which I did. The lead needn't go into such details as which organization is in charge, or what the name of the manual is, or what version number it's at. Eubulides (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. I took it one step further and specified the United States, because only the Americans (APA) are considering this change. The WHO has not proposed this change to the ICD-10, as far as I know. Dcs002 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The DSM is not limited to the U.S.; it's also used in many other countries (though it's true that European countries tend to prefer the ICD). The ICD section on mental and behavioral disorders closely tracks the DSM, and if Asperger's is eliminated from the DSM, it's also quite plausible that it'll be eliminated from the ICD as well. I don't think that this sort of detail needs to be in the lead; basically, all the need leads to say is that it's been proposed to replace AS as a separate diagnosis with ASD-with-severities. Anyway, the "U.S." part isn't right, so I reverted that change. Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've still got a problem with this. This article is about Asperger's syndrome, not the DSM. I know the DSM is used outside the US, but its content is determined by the American Psychiatric Association. The ICD represents an international, cross-cultural consensus.

The WHO has not proposed any changes yet for the ICD-11, and it was the APA that followed suit when the WHO defined AS in the ICD. I've seen no evidence that the WHO is inclined to follow the APA in eliminating the diagnosis or subsuming it under autism with severity scores.

Putting this in the lead section suggests that it's universally meaningful, but it's only the DSM that's proposed to be changed. I think the proposed changes should be dealt with in this article, but not in the lead. The lead section should be about Asperger's, not the DSM or the APA. Dcs002 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the APA is not purely a U.S. organization: it's well-established in Canada and has other international members. More important, the DSM-V and ICD-11 efforts are not independent: there will be an attempt to keep them in sync, at least to some extent. Hmm, let me find a source for that: OK, a quick Google search finds this one: Dulcan MK. Classification of psychiatric disorders. In: Dulcan MK, editor. Dulcan's Textbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2010. ISBN 978-1-58562-323-5. "An additional goal is to unify the ICD-11 system for psychiatric disorders and DSM-V." p. 61–8. Snippets from Google Scholar suggest that Pasco 2010 (doi:10.2217/phe.09.64) would be a better source on the topic, but alas I don't have easy access to that.

Of course whether ICD-11 or DSM-V will retain Asperger's is an open question, but there's no doubt that the proposal to remove it is significant worldwide, not just in the U.S. Removing Asperger's from the DSM will underscore the doubts that many reliable sources have had over the validity of Asperger's per se. Surely this is important enough for a brief mention in the lead. Yes, the DSM itself is not the story; but the validity of Asperger's is. Eubulides (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have entirely misunderstood what the changes in DSM V are proposed to say. It's not saying whether Asperger's is or is not a "valid" diagnosis. It merely proposes to merge Aspergers, Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Autism into a single category “Autism Spectrum Disorders” and to come up with a set of more nuanced terms for the steps along the spectrum. It might (although we don't know yet) say that some people with the worst forms of Aspergers are really "Moderately severe ASD" - and the least affected "Subclinical AS Symptoms" - but those have always been kinda fuzzy areas anyway. They aren't remotely considering saying: "All you ex-aspies are perfectly OK after all". You should read the DSM V website. The simplest statement of that is here: [1] "299.80 Asperger's Disorder: The work group is proposing that this disorder be subsumed into an existing disorder: Autistic Disorder (Autism Spectrum Disorder)." - "subsumed" doesn't mean "deleted". They are making no statement whatever about the "validity" of Aspergers - that would be a crazy decision. Most likely nothing much would change except that the formal terminology for "Aspergers" would become something like "High Functioning Autism". That's like calling the common cold a "Rhinovirus infection" - it becomes the formal terminology - but won't change the colloquial term. That's about the level of what's being proposed here. SteveBaker (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As an Aspie, I'm not really concerned about colloquial use. Colloquial use won't determine whether people like me are eligible for needed services. But as a scientist, I've seen the public reaction to conflicting reports before. "First they say it's good for you, then they say it's bad for you, and now it's supposed to be good for you again." No matter how the headlines are written, there will be a lot of people who will say "first they say all these kids have Aspergers, now they say Asperger's doesn't even exist. Why should we believe them? They're just trying to make money by telling us all our kids have some kind of disease when those kids are just being lazy." People think like that. Dcs002 (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is not merely to rename Asperger's to XYZ disorder. It's to remove the Asperger's diagnosis entirely, on the grounds that Asperger's boundaries are vague and are not useful. There is already something called "High Functioning Autism" (not part of DSM or ICD, but it's a term commonly used), and the proposal, essentially, is to sort-of-merge HFA with AS, so that both notions disappear, and diagnoses merely say "ASD" and then give severity estimates. This controversy over whether AS is distinct from HFA has been with us for a long time, and is already discussed in the article and summarized in the lead, so it's no surprise that AS is proposed for deletion. Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the lead doesn't have the space to explain this point properly - especially given all of the other things that we are required to say there. Fiddling with the wording isn't going to fix that. To make this point without leaving a false impression, we have to explain the importance of DSM versus ICD and the fact that the DSM doesn't currently (and may in fact, never) say this and that this may change in 2013. To quote WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." - but this "notable controversy" isn't easily summarized - and I really, really don't think it qualifies as one of the "most important points" about Aspergers. If we absolutely have to say something (and I don't think we do) - then perhaps the most appropriate phrasing would be to say something simple like: "That AS is a considered separately from Autism is controversial" - and let our users read further if they care about this point. Better that than let them assume they've learned the facts on this nuanced matter from reading the lead alone. SteveBaker (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead already says that: for quite some time it's said "many questions remain about aspects of the disorder. For example, there is doubt about whether it is distinct from high-functioning autism (HFA)". One of Asperger's most important features is that it's dubious that it should exist at all. I'm afraid that the DSM-V business is one of those areas where, if the article doesn't mention anywhere in the lead that Asperger's might be going away, we're going to see editors add material to the lead pretty much constantly from now through 2013, so it may well be better to put something brief in the lead than to omit all mention of this entirely. (I'm not saying the text now is perfect; I'd rather see something shorter.) Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read what the DSM V proposal actually says. See my previous reply. SteveBaker (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied to the earlier comment. Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not real happy about this, but I found a very good source for your (Eubulides) point that the DSM and the ICD are not developed independently -- the intro to the DSM-IV-TR, which says:

Those preparing ICD-10 and DSM-IV have worked closely to coordinate their efforts, resulting in much mutual influence. ICD-10 consists of an official coding system and other related clinical and research documents and instruments. The codes and terms provided in DSM-IV are fully compatible with both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10... The many consultations between the developers of DSM-IV and ICD-10 (which were facilitated by NIMH, NIDA, and NIAAA) were enormously useful in increasing the congruence and reducing meaningless differences in wording between the two systems.

I have to agree with everything you've posted, Eubulides, though I wish things were different. At age 43, life finally makes sense knowing I have AS. This talk of re-definition feels awfully threatening to me. But you're right. After reading that passage from the DSM-IV-TR, I'm convinced the ICD-11 will probably follow suit with whatever the APA does in the DSM-V, and there should be some kind of mention of this issue in the lead. Thanks for your thoughtful work on this article. Dcs002 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not just children

Yesterday I reworded two sentences in different sections that referred to aspies and auties as children (e.g., "this group of children"). Since ASDs are lifelong, I think it's reasonable to assume that most of us on the spectrum are adults, whether diagnosed or not. (I am diagnosed with AS, and I am 43.)

I understand the tendency to refer to ASD children because research, public awareness campaigns, public services, public sympathy, and books about ASDs are mostly concerned with children on the spectrum and their parents, teachers, or caregivers. We adults on the spectrum get overshadowed by efforts to help children and their families all the time. Let's please be careful not to do that here. Of course, when describing information concerning children only, we should be clear about it. But when referring to people on the spectrum, let's not unnecessarily refer to them (us) as children. Dcs002 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted one of those changes because the cited source talked only about children. The other change was fine. We need to be careful to say no more than what the sources say. Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with your revert -- it makes sense to me. I much prefer your wording to what was there before! Dcs002 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

references with alphabet in front of them

For what reason is the alphabet in front of a number of the references? The only thing I can see is that these are excessively and repetitively cited and it has something to do with that. Needs to be cleaned up. There is absolutely no value in such excess. --Fremte (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Each letter points to a different place the citation is used, so that one can easily see where a source is cited. This is a common feature of footnotes in Wikipedia; see, for example Help:Footnotes #What it looks like. Eubulides (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ugly - but sadly, it's what is required in a high quality article. Each statement that is likely to be contested must have a reference. There is no requirement to find a different source for each fact (that would be silly!) - so in a long and highly contestable article, you get these consequences. It's unfortunate - but there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Beats the hell out of Ibid Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Page loading efficiency and style

This page takes a long time to load, and part of this is due to the use of the standard Wikipedia citation templates such as {{cite journal}}. Recently developed faster & smaller Vancouver system templates such as {{vcite journal}} would make the page much faster to generate (about twice as fast in my test) as well as significantly smaller in terms of the HTML generated (about 30% smaller in my test). Let's use them here; they're already in use in Autism, Heritability of autism, Epidemiology of autism, etc., and have resulted in major savings both for time and for the size of the generated HTML. Eubulides (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Article fails to address the following

• What are the parts of Asperger syndrome?
• What things are not compared to Asperger syndrome?
• What things are not connected to Asperger syndrome?
• What things do not affect Asperger syndrome?
• What forms are not of Asperger syndrome?
• What things do not qualify to substitute Asperger syndrome?
• What things do not require Asperger syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points, all. --Nerd42 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand any of the above points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding points 2, 3 and 4, I've never heard of cheese and bacon sandwiches ever being compared or linked to Asperger syndrome in any way. However, I don't have a source for that, it's just a personal observation. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I at least think I understand most. A lot is in the article but embedded in deeper areas as they should be. This is Wikipedia and not a Q&A... I guess one could spinoff an article on "public misunderstanding of AS" since it's been coming up more as of late in the media and those are all oft-confused bits, but is likely still a stretch. "Not connected" might be indirect possible medical complications caused from having AS but not a part of it proper? Depression and bi-polar disorder would be my guess on the editor's questions. "Do not qualify" would I think relate to social problems. "Do not affect" is already covered on the most assumed answer of medication as there is no chemical treatment. ...I'm at a loss about "do not require", though. Are there things one does not qualify for if they have, or special prizes in some kind of lottery? I'd feel bad if I've been missing out. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, these are not excellent points at all. Neither are they logical questions. For example, let me answer each of them:

• What are the parts of Asperger syndrome?

• • A.S. is not made up of "parts." It is a condition described by a number of possible symptoms, nearly all of which are addressed in the article. Read it.

• What things are not compared to Asperger syndrome?

• • Rocks. Trees. The Moon. Cancer. Shall I go on? The question is ridiculous.

• What things are not connected to Asperger syndrome?

• • See above.

• What things do not affect Asperger syndrome?

• • See above.

• What forms are not of Asperger syndrome?

• • See above.

• What things do not qualify to substitute Asperger syndrome?

• • This question doesn't even make sense.

• What things do not require Asperger syndrome?

• • And neither does this one.

One cannot have an intelligent discussion about any subject by discussing what the subject is not. This entire series of questions, in my opinion, is nothing more than a trolling attack designed to illicit non productive argument rather than intelligent debate.

I think this entire section should be stricken from the discussion page. And that's all I have to say about this. --SentientParadox (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. TROLL!!! This is one way people use to get off on thinking they're smarter than others. "How many people will take my questions seriously? The silly fools!" Dcs002 (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, you know, maybe English isn't his first language, as a quick glance at his contributions seem heavily India oriented and his contributions do share similar mistakes. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For more established medical conditions, all of the above questions are easily answered. The point made here is that AS is being very poorly defined. I fear SentientParadox and some others, not familiar with these medical concepts are reacting emotionally and not contributing. In any discussion, you must first delimit a subject to truly understand it. At its base level, this often DOES amount to something as simple as "Well, yes, AS isn't the moon." and goes from there. To summarize, can we all confidently say AS isn't along the spectrum of Autistic disorders? Can we say professionally diagnosed AS is different from self-diagnosed AS? I am not making any claims as to the possible answer--please don't attack me for that here. I am saying merely that, after reading this article, I should be able to fully answer the above questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.187.149 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• "can we all confidently say AS isn't along the spectrum of Autistic disorders" No, and this is clearly stated in the article, which begins "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder". This is well-sourced.
• "Can we say professionally diagnosed AS is different from self-diagnosed AS?" I'm not sure what is meant by "different" here, but the article also discusses this topic: it says "There is a contrast between the attitude of adults with self-identified AS, who typically do not want to be cured and are proud of their identity, and parents of children with AS, who typically seek assistance and a cure for their children." It also says "In 2006, it was reported to be the fastest-growing psychiatric diagnosis in Silicon Valley children; also, there is a predilection for adults to self-diagnose it." These statements are both well-sourced.

I suggest that commenters who are unhappy with the article propose specific wording changes, based on reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet Aspergers Syndrome

Apparently internet can cause people to act as though they have aspergers. Is this related to this article? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

an email from Jason Calicanis is hardly a reliable source. He was being facetious anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is some truth to is - one of the symptoms of Aspergers is an inability to recognize the emotions and body language of other people. On the internet, people who are not lacking that ability find themselves trying to decide the mood of the person they are typing at without any of the usual clues of voice intonation and timing, eye contact and body language - that puts them on a level playing field with Asperger victims - at least in that regard. Of course they lack the benefits of Aspergers and they lack some of the other symptoms. But it certainly makes a very noticable difference. SteveBaker (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any scientific evidence that the Internet causes symptoms of AS or of autism. There was a study ballyhood a few years ago claiming that television watching caused autism. By the time the authors of the study got it published in a peer-reviewed journal, they had changed their hypothesis to one that said that rainfall is associated with autism. The study hasn't been independently confirmed. Eubulides (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No - I'm not saying that the Internet causes people to develop AS - that would be stupid. What I'm saying is that when normal people are forced to communicate using only text, they are operating under the same kinds of limitations that AS sufferers face all of the time - and do indeed seem to exhibit some similar symptoms. Of course once they stop using the net - they return to "normal". SteveBaker (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"intense" interests?

On the picture at the top of the page, it says that "People with Asperger's tend to have intense interests." Is "intense" really the right word, here? When I think "intense," I think "intense heat," or an intense climax to a movie. How does that word fit, appropriately, in that sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor1988 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect that it's meant in the same sense as the official definition of Asperger's, which talks about "preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus". Eubulides (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why not use "abnormal"? That seems to be the clear implication being presented by that quote. As it reads now, it just feels like a forceful glossing over of any potential negative connotation. Significant portions of the article possess that tone, in fact - it sometimes reads more like a love letter to this disorder than a scholarly treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nucas (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is just a soundbite sentence below the photo of a boy who is intensely interested in something. There's no need to capture all the aspects of the DSM-IV here, or to focus on whether to include one adjective or the other. The rest of the article makes it clear that the changes in pattern/degree of "interest" are essentially negative ones. Colin°^Talk 17:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Standardize name in this article?

While there's no consensus on whether to use "Asperger syndrome", "Asperger's disorder", "Asperger's", etc., could we come to consensus on one name to use in this article? GoingBatty (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What a crappy article!

Why is such a crappy article locked? Besides all the aforementioned issues (and there are many), the final sentence is poorly written, and extraneous at best (if not simply false). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.135.42 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's locked because people like you want to undermine facts. The last sentence is sourced as is the entire article. So you have a choice. Provide sources here that contradict the existing sources (and they have to be reliable and neutral) so that it can be discussed for consensus. Or go look at something else. GetDumb 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Yeah, this edit indicates User:Epididymus10's contributions are not serious. His inclusion of the "clinical features" section is little more than disguised vandalism. First of all I don't think there's any merit to including the description of a single individual's particular version of AS, second I doubt this actually verifies the text, and third it's pretty obvious that it's little more than a personal jab at someone. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldnt be so quick to convict him ... it looks like to me that he was editing in good faith, though of course that doesnt mean I think the edits were helpful. —Soap— 12:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the diff where s/he replaced "Asperger" with "Assburger"? Checking his contribution history seems to show a pattern of extremely dubious edits with poor sourcing - looks like "subtle" vandalism and that's all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I hadnt looked at any of his edits from today. Thanks for pointing that out, youre obviously right. —Soap— 13:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicions about the reference are correct, I just read the cited source, there is nothing remotely resembling what was added to the article in the source. Pretty much vandalism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Epididymus10 (talk · contribs) is editing again, the same edits. They were vandalism before, they're still vandalism, and they're not getting any better. Is there an admin around who is willing to block? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of empathy or too much empathy?

I've seen a couple of times people talking about how aspies actually have an exaggerated sense of empathy, so much that it is overwhelming, and the result of the overwhelmingness is what people perceive to be lack of empathy. --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd need some sources to back that up if you want it added. GetDumb 12:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I read a study on that within the past 12 months but I read so much that I cannot find that source for you. It showed that group therapy usually helps aspies to emphasize at normal amounts (this is congruent with other studies). Personally, from my experiences and asking those I know with the condition, it is usually all or nothing. By this I mean no empathy or extreme empathy. There is something with the way the brain processes empathy that is like a light switch. An aspie can either be completely oblivious or completely overwhelmed. This does not mean that it is different between aspies but rather all aspies have that switch. -- Azemocram (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the above. That's been more or less my experience with aspies, and I've met many people from all over the spectrum. Of course, that's because I myself have PDD-NOS (my case is mercifully mild, most of us aren't so lucky), so my perceptions can be about as good as a blind man's concept of color. In my case regarding empathy, I fall firmly into the complete lack thereof category, which I actually take a bit of pride in; I can focus much better under stress. Also, I know the study you're referring to, but I haven't been able to find it yet. Now you're going to drive me crazy... oh well, I like reading, so I'll enjoy my search. I'll see if I can pull it up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see that article, too. Anthony (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a study or idea; I'd suggest presenting it for review before doing anything major to the main page with it, but it's certainly worth looking at the study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I would. Be bold doesn't mean be rash. Still no luck... The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS regarding due weight and secondary reviews in medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is something behind this, it's certainly not true of all aspies - I have the syndrome big-time and one of my biggest problems is an almost complete lack of empathy. It's a rather severe handicap actually. SteveBaker (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read a study by Lorna Wing, which talks about "the triad of impairments", which classifies most autistics into one of three groups: the aloof, the passive, and the odd. The odd, oddly enough, are the ones who have the excessive empathy, such that they cannot survive in the real world without assistance. The aloof are the stereotypical stone-cold personalities. I'd link, but the best site I've found is apparently on the blacklist, so google for "triad of impairments" for more info. —Soap— 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a reference to the study in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Empathy#Autism_spectrum_disorders, I don't have access to the book cited which seems to be either by Phoebe Caldwell or Taylor 1997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.190.71 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are reliable enough sources out there, and that once they are found, and can be properly cited, this point should be added. However, though I am in support of adding this point, I'm not seeing any truly reliable sources here. Even the above cited wikipedia article's source is dubious. It's not a direct source, just a web site by someone claiming to have Asperger's with a list of his own sources at the bottom. That alone calls that article's source into question. Until someone can point us to either a book, or a site with posts from an actual professional or study, the point should not be made. I stand by my belief that it is most likely correct though AS, being a spectrum, is NOT always the case. I do think some of us are too empathetic, while others have no empathy at all, and the rest fall somewhere between the two, sometimes feeling it, and sometimes not, depending on the situation and the "other" person in the picture. --SentientParadox (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The notion that Aspies/Auties are hyper-empathic is in the hypothesis stage, out of personal interest you can google 'Kamila Henry Markram empathy'. You're absolutely wasting your time trying to introduce any material on this page which points to non-pathological/positive aspects of Asperger's. Material of this sort from Oxford's Autism Centre (from which the Asperger's term originates) has been rejected in the past. Certain editors assert ownership over this page, and engage in extra-editorial disputes with the content (rather than source-quality) of such material.

Wikipedia is good for capturing huge amounts of facts. It's not so good at balancing controversy. By all means find this information out of personal interest. If and when anybody finds objective evidence of enhanced empathy, rest assured you won't read about it here.

Just trying to save you some frustration. CeilingCrash (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Earlier last year I made references to the Intense World concept in the article, but it was immediately reverted. I later posted on the talk page (now in Archive 20) references to the studies that support the idea. I haven't bothered to try editing the article since then due to the negative response I received on the Talk page shortly after the first editing. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that we merge this page into Autism, as the DSM-V is expected to eliminate aspergers as a diagnosis. I feel we should follow scientific consensus and thus should merge these 2 articles. Immunize (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Please read the archives, we've already had this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this. I feel it is time to revisit the possibility that this would be the best course of action. Immunize (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for not doing before are still valid: the article and term will remain notable even if the condition is eliminated, and the DSM-V will not be in force for a long time. Which part of the older arguments do you think have changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as one in the business, DSM V has not been officially adopted yet...and there is alot of squabbling going on...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good lord no; the DSM isn't out yet for one, and it's not the only diagnostic manual in the world. Until the majority of the scholarly world treats the two as indistinguishable, they should remain separate. The diagnosis, behaviours, functioning and interventions are all different, and they're treated differently. The scientific consensus is not that AS and autism are the same thing. We're still decades from being able to tell how similar or different they truly are. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The DSM V is not out yet. Even when it comes out the distinction is likely to stand. The idea that what may happen in the future is today's scientific consensus is not only a case of WP:CRYSTAL but it is just plain silly. We have had this discussion, the continuation of it at this point is quite pointless. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest ending this conversation unless someone is willing to make a -formal- move proposal. Otherwise this is just pointless rehashing of a debate that we already had in a situation where nothing has significantly changed. Also, what everyone else said in terms of exactly why this shouldn't be moved. Doniago (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No merge, per SandyGeorgia; even assuming a future elimination of the diagnosis, that would not retroactively eliminate this as a topic. JNW (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

YOu have got to be kidding me; according to your logic, we should merge all forms of cancer with the 'cancer' page... Seeing as I have it, it is a definite keep. TN05 —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

Not this discussion again. *rolleyes* This has already been hashed over more than once. Ain't gonna happen. Please drop it. --SentientParadox (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To make a page move or merge, you need a consensus. That means that nearly everyone has to agree with you. If you check back to the previous discussion, you'll see that there was nothing remotely close to consensus to make this change...and that means that we don't do it - period. That's how Wikipedia works. Unless something materially changes (eg when DSM-V is published), there is really no point in making the discussion happen all over again...the result isn't going to change just because you keep asking the question. SteveBaker (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly no consensus, so I have withdrawn the proposal. Immunize (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Famous people with Asperger

In my opinion a section for this would be very valuable to the article. It's been long overdue.Thismightbezach (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You have probably missed this: List of people on the autism spectrum which is not only what it says but it also has a section devoted to people with Asperger Syndrome. Soarhead77 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Category going to be omitted from the DSM

Perhaps this article should mention how this concept is going to be merged with autism in the 2012 edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association and no longer be a separate entry. This was mentioned on the Radio Four programme "All in the Mind" on June 8 2010. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already here; see the second paragraph of Asperger syndrome#Classification. —Soap— 23:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

math/maths

I'm not going to revert it again for fear of running afoul of WP:3RR, but WP:ENGVAR says:

The exceptions [to the rule about sticking to one dialect within an article] are as follows: * quotations (retain the original variety of the quotation even if it differs from that of the article...

Simon Baron-Cohen's paper says "maths". The article has a line quotation from the paper, enclosed in quotation marks. Therefore, WE MUST quote it as "maths", according to WP:ENGVAR, EVEN IF the prevailing dialect of the article is US English. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Since it's a direct quotation, we do need to follow what was originally used in the source. Richwales (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before; if anyone has time to search the talk archives, I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean this epic. [2] Anthony (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not about whether to write "math" or "maths", though: that's about whether we should be talking about maths itself. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In it, Eubulides contracts "mathematics" to "math" in a paraphrase. But here, in a direct quote, it makes sense to me to keep the original word. Anthony (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be made clear that aspergers people DO have advantages as well as disadvantages.

From what I gather, alot of negative things on this article are being said about aspergers. Yes, the good bits may be sneaked in but the negative side seems to be droned on about more. I have aspergers and I acknowledge the bad bits but there are significant advantages to aspergers as well such as superior IQ and intelligence, strong ability and specialty in one or two subjects, logical reasoning and methodicality. The negative things that are being said about people with aspergers (crap about them lacking empathy or social skills or repetitive intrests) really does NOT do them any justice at all. It's a fact that famous people with aspergers are quite successful with their job, bill gates for example, aspie- successful and rich businessman, founder of microsoft. Also there's that film director who's good and has aspie. The reason why I make edits what you neurotypical vermin THINK is unconstructive is to type in what asperger people are capable of. We have to deal with oppression from alot of neurotypicals and that is NOT RIGHT!!!! Okay! Anyone (likely a neurotypical sub-human scumbag) disagrees with me, write it down please.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.140.42 (talk • contribs) 17:04, July 9, 2010

You seem very passionate about this, you should register an account and read up on some of the editing rules around here like WP:SOAP WP:MEDRS and WP:CIVIL in particular. You need references for what you are saying. (For example, you would need a reference for these supposed positives you have listed, and the idea that Bill Gates has Asperger's). What is here may be 'crap' in your opinion, but, it is also in the literature. Calling me, or anyone else, a scumbag is hardly necessary. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a medical study from a reliable source that shows Asperger's people are more likely to have higher intelligence than neurotypicals we will add it to the article. However, the definition of Asperger's syndrome is very flexible, and even if one study defines it as being symptomized by high intelligence, another equally reliable study may exist that shows the opposite. At least as recently as the mid 90's, many doctors were considering IQ=70 as the cutoff point between low-functioning autism (LFA) and HFA/Asperger's, and only then subdividing HFA vs Asperger's proper based on other characteristics such as motor skills and language ability. This strategy seems to have fallen out of fashion nowadays however. —Soap— 10:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

New brain scan to diagnose autism, Asperger syndrome.

I'm not a specialist, but I believe that the following news on the BBC and its sources are worth considering by the main editors of this article and those articles related to autism. The news specifically brings one case of Asperger syndrome confirmed by MRI scanning:

New brain scan to diagnose autism on the BBC

Pmronchi (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sample size of only 20 and 20 matched controls, and "But some experts say further research will be needed before the new technique can be widely used." See WP:RECENTISM and WP:MEDRS-- until this is proven on larger samples and mentioned in a secondary review, it shouldn't be added to an encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent attempted edits by IP

[3] [4] These 2 recent edits by an IP were reverted. The new content sought to moderate the article's claim that there is a "lack of demonstrated empathy" in Asperger's. I'd like to check the cited article but can't access it. Would someone with access be able to look and see what its wording is, with regard to empathy in Asperger's?

Baskin JH, Sperber M, Price BH (2006). "Asperger syndrome revisited". Rev Neurol Dis 3 (1): 1–7. PMID 16596080.

Anthony (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Films

Recent film about a man with Asperger's http://en.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io) and it has an article about Aspergers that's written in easier language: http://simple.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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)

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)

• What images do you think would be relevant to the topic and enhance the article?
• What factual errors does the article contain? Please supply reliable sources for any statements made that contradict the article text.
• FAR is not concerned with editor behaviour. There are other forums where that can be discussed if necessary, though bear in mind that your own behaviour would be scrutinised there too.

The point about Wikipedia is we trust nobody to be an "expert" on the topic and rely completely on what our best sources say. Colin°^Talk 20:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

FAR is not dispute resolution, and you haven't established anything in the article that doesn't meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well put both Colin and SG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

DOI not found

The DOI for "McPartland" named reference is not found. See [5]. This reference is overly relied on in the article, being used 41 separate times. Is MacPartland that much of an expert to be relied on to such a degree? Loopy48 (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix the DOI. That's the identifier used by PubMed and on the publisher's own website. You can submit a broken-DOI report and see what happens. As for McPartland, look here. I'd say he knows a thing or two. Are there any specific facts you think we have got wrong, sourced to this paper, that are contradicted by another scholarly source? Colin°^Talk 20:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

He may know a thing or two. But not to the exclusion of other experts, as to warrent 41 separate references in a general article reflecting the general state of knowledge on the topic in 2010. Is there any evidence that in the field he is considered more of an "expert" than others publishing on the subject? And the reverence given is going on five years old in a field than has much active recent research. Loopy48 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of a literature review is to "reflect the general state of knowledge", rather than one experts own opinions. I grant you that 2006 is on the threshold and we could do with a more recent review. But really, it would help if you could indicate significant issues with the article text rather than just casting doubt. Colin°^Talk 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In "real life" a literature review would never be so unbalanced as to rely on a sole publication 41 times, but would reflect the current state of knowledge in a balanced way. Not only is the 2006 article on the threshold, but it is grossly overrepresented. That author's point of view is elevated above all others. Is there a reason to consider him as more of an authority than some others? Loopy48 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The McPartland is the literature review I am referring to, which generally is expected to cite a good sample of the primary literature. Wikipedia generally cites the secondary literature and we rely on such literature review to "reflect the general state of knowledge". The review we're citing shouldn't be one "author's point of view". While over-reliance on one source can raise suspicions, those suspicions should be followed through with actual issues. I repeat, it would help if you could indicate significant issues with the article text. Colin°^Talk 22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But I thought a well written article on a medical/scientific subject on Wikipedia would function essentially as a review article. Perhaps I am expecting too much. However, by citing the McPartland article so excessively, since the McPartland article is a true review article, the Wikipedia article is actually citing references to older articles (prior to 2006), so Wikipedia is using older research to boaster its claims. I guess the writers cannot be blamed for using one review article to get the information, then finding other articles to support it. For some reason, I thought a Wikipedia medical article would proceed more professionally. But I understand this is a site staffed by nonprofessional volunteers. So I guess you are saying that is the best that can be expected. Loopy48 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well then how about you find us some more recent reviews that fit the criteria and support the text? Or oppose it and change matters (and make sure the sources are reliable and verifiable). Aspie Lover (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you only edit Asperger articles? Anyway, this article is double-teamed and any additions are reverted so I won't waste my time editing the article. Thanks for the offer though. Loopy48 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD would be of use to you I think. Aspie Lover (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The better an article is - the higher the probability that when someone changes it, they will make it worse. In a terrible article, almost any change makes it better. In a hypothetically perfect article, any change would make it worse. It is therefore not uncommon for featured articles to be resistant to change. I'm not claiming that the article was never 100% perfect, so there are obviously a few changes that might make it a little better. Obviously, when there is important new information out there (coming from solidly reported research), the article needs to be changed to keep it from becoming outdated. But continual "churn" on wording almost always makes a good article worse - so it's resisted by many editors. Most of the recent spate of reversions have indeed been things that do nothing to add new information gleaned from new work and reliable sources. They have been things like expunging the word "disorder" in the face of the most respected psych reference in the world (DSM IV). You just have to realize that it's tough to improve an article that's already better than 99.95% of all Wikipedia articles and has gone through the insanely intense editorial scrutiny necessary to pass the 'featured article' bar. Unless your change is of real depth and substance, you should think twice about doing it. SteveBaker (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We cannot really be a review article, as that would involve synthesizing stuff, primary sources. We summarize secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed request

MikeNicho231 (talk · contribs) added a "fact" tag to the article for the following sentence:

"Individuals with AS appear to have normal life expectancy, but have an increased prevalence of comorbid psychiatric conditions, such as major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder that may significantly affect prognosis."

This sentence, like the subsequent one, is sourced to the McPartland 2006 paper. This paper says

"The most common disorders co-occurring with AS are depression and anxiety. Research estimates of comorbid anxiety or depression in individuals with AS are 65%, and some researchers have suggested that these elevated rates...Several other comorbid conditions have been reported. Hyperactivity and inattention are common among children with AS,...[more listed]".

So the paper supports the article text. I assume the "have normal life expectancy" portion is not being contested. A quick read of the paper doesn't highlight any discussion of lifespan (shortened or normal). I suggest the "fact" tag be removed. Colin°^Talk 00:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. With respect, I think Mike is being pedantic over this one. Aspie Lover (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that adding another MacPartland paper reference will make at least 42 references to a review article that is on the "threshold" of being out of date. This paper needs a wider range of references that are more up to date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopy48 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This wouldn't be "adding another MacPartland paper reference". The text was already sourced to the citation given. Colin°^Talk 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no concept in Wikipedia of a paper being "too old" to be a useful reference. We have plenty of articles with references that are thousands of years old. Some things in the world were true when they were written and remain true. We shouldn't regard MacPartland as "out of date" until/unless things that it says are proven to be false by more recent papers. That process can be done on a case-by-case basis. In short - if you think something that we've said in the article is incorrect - despite having a reference - then it is incumbent on you to back that up with a more modern/more respectable reference. Specifically, it is not sufficient to say "well, that reference is kinda old - we can ignore it".

Generally, we prefer a broad base of different reference sources - but if there is one seminal work that covers all the bases - then there is no reason to dismiss it just because we've used it in a lot of places. Once again, if you find a better reference for the same fact (and "better" might just mean "different" in this case), then by all means add it. Even then, there is no need to replace the much-used reference - it's perfectly OK to add a second, third or fourth reference backing up the same fact (especially if it's a widely misunderstood or little-known fact).

Importantly - even if the only reference for a fact is (a) old and (b) over-used - that is emphatically NOT a reason to leave a key fact out of our article. It's only a reason to look for a "better" (more modern, less frequently used) reference. SteveBaker (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a concept of "too old" for medical articles in MEDRS. Recentness of the "evidence" is definitely important. A review article published in 2006 excludes recent information in a field that is under active investigation. Try putting references that are thousands of years old into this article on the current state of our knowledge of Aspergers. Loopy48 (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's look at what WP:MEDRS actually says:

"Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These guidelines are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published.

• Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.
• Within this range, things can be tricky. Although the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism.
• Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews don't mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited in reviews can be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. For example, Genetics might mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.

Firstly, "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so" means that a 2006 review is perfectly cromulant. But what this guideline basically says is that if there is a more recent review article - then we should use it (well, Duh!). I agree with that - and that's why I say that if you can find a more recent reference, we should should absolutely use it. But if you can't - then that implies that this field falls under the "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published" guideline - or perhaps we haven't reached the end of "one full review cycle" yet. If the review cycle for Aspergers' is around 5 years - then it's quite likely that a new, comprehensive review will be published - and when it is, we'll have a bunch of writing to do here (or at the very least, we'll be updating a bunch of <ref> tags). However, nothing in MEDRS says that you have to throw away information from the article solely because the most recent review article to back it up is five years old. SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the concerns about the number of citations to the best review available in 2006; if there is a more current secondary review, please point it out and it can be included. See WP:MEDRS; there is no reason for concern about the use of the consensus-supported best review available at the time unless there is a newer review that has not been used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"consensus-supported best review available at the time" means, I gather, 2007 when the article regained FA? It's now (practically) 2011 and the field of Asperger is very active. Loopy48 (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Loopy, if this concerns you so, I suggest you go find a newer and better review. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Loopy48, you've made your point. Now, please, is there anything wrong with the article text? Colin°^Talk 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked: [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I have made a request for mediation, see here. MikeNicho231 (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE applies here. Edit warring, threatening FAR and making veiled threats about the risk of your brother hitting us with a libel lawsuit are simply not going to get the changes you want into the article. You clearly don't have consensus and as we've all patiently pointed out in multiple threads - you don't have Wikipedia guidelines on your side. This is not the way to get what you want. SteveBaker (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT also applies it seems to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto to two posts above; mediation is uncalled for as MikeNicho31 has presented no reliable sources to substantiate his issues with the article, has edit warred, and doesn't seem to understand Wiki policies. See WP:MEDRS, WP:TEND and WP:DISRUPT, as well as WP:OWN#Featured articles; at the current rate, MikeNicho231 is likely to end up blocked, banned from the article, or the subject of an WP:RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(Mike deleted this entire thread - I rolled back that deletion - it is NOT OK to delete other people's comments on a discussion page) SteveBaker (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To spell it out: The 'behavioral guideline' at Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Signs_of_disruptive_editing lists five signs of disruptive editing - and on my count, Mike has hit four of them square on. It says that a "disruptive editor"...

• ...continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.

Check the edit history and warnings on his talk page for evidence of edit-warring - this has been going on for close to three weeks now.

• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

The anecdotal evidence of his brother is the only "evidence" Mike brings to the table for these changes to the article.

• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{fact}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.

See previous section of this talk page where Mike did this exact thing without first checking whether the reference provided covered the fact as stated. {{fact}} tags are not for things you disagree with - or for sowing fear,uncertainty and doubt into the minds of our readership - they are for clear-cut cases where a contentious statement doesn't have a reference - or for when the reference doesn't cover the fact as stated.

• Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Again, just read earlier discussions on this talk page for multiple examples of that.

• Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

Perhaps not yet since he's actively seeking mediation.

(Update - now Mike has withdrawn his RfM - so perhaps he scores a perfect 5?)

So, four out of five.

At the heart of the problem, Mike states that this article is libellous of his brother and that it's incorrect because it doesn't precisely match the symptoms of that one particular person. I have explained at some length how it could easily be that with a spectrum condition, one person may not meet all of the symptomatic criteria. We've also explained with him that that one person's anecdotal evidence isn't worth a thing in the face of Wikipedias' guidelines on verifiability. He's obviously aware of WP:NLT and carefully manages to imply the threat of a libel suit without actually making it concrete enough to get himself in trouble.

IMHO, Mike needs to back off - find another article to interest himself with - he's never going to be satisfied with what happens here and his increasingly strident efforts to "fix" that will undoubtedly result in problems for him if he continues to look for new 'tactics' and ways to escalate his protest. Meanwhile, Wikipedia suffers - and we have low tolerance for that kind of thing here.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will stay away from this article. This is the last thing I will write on this talk page for a while. Merry christmas to you all. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:15, 22 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)

Merge suggestion

(I moved this comment from the top of the page down to here. Please add new topics of conversation to the BOTTOM of the page - thanks!) SteveBaker (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The page needs to be merged with the Autism page, many new fact are true, all in the autsm spectrum, lots of disorders, some have some, non have all. Asperger is tjust one of those disorders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.245.115 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I know where you're coming from (DSM V will likely merge the terms "Autism" and "Asperger" into a single spectrum condition). We've talked a lot about what that means for this article. The problem with that is that Wikipedias' "ideal" article length is around 30kbytes. Our WP:LENGTH guideline says this about long articles:

• > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
• > 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
• > 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
• < 40 KB Length alone does not justify division

The Autism article is already well over 90kbytes and this article is over 60kbytes. Each individual article is at the point where the guideline says we should "probably divide" it. Under your proposal, the resulting would be roughly 150kbytes - five times larger than the guidelines suggest and well into the "Almost certainly should be divided" stage. Hence, about 10 nanoseconds after merging, there would be strong justification to split it up. Where do you think the split would logically be?

Well, let's just pretend that we went to all the grief of merging it - and then pretend that we split it up again...it'll save us all a lot of time!

In a sense, we have already done that. The "parent" article is "Autism spectrum" - which would be over 250KB long if it held all of the information that Wikipedia has on the condition. Hence, it splits the spectrum into five steps (corresponding to the way the medical profession splits the spectrum) and five component articles...of which this is one.

If there should be any debate about this at all - it should be that this article just hit the >60KB mark and "Probably should be divided"...and the Autism article at 91.5KB is pushing the "almost certainly should be divided" line.

But merging all five of the daughter articles just because DSM V does is just silly.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

For reference, this has been discussed and rejected previously. It may be worth reviewing the arguments raised there, especially as I doubt there's been any substantive changes since that time. Doniago (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What they've said. Merge is the wrong direction for all of these articles; proper (more!) divisions and elaborations is a better plan. htom (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Beyond that, I don't see the point in doing a major re-org until we see what DSM V actually says when it's published. It's a really crucial reliable-source for us and we'll certainly need a serious re-think when it eventually appears. To do a re-org now and then have to re-do it again later seems like a bad idea. Both this article and Autism are FA's - they aren't terrible articles "as-is". There is no urgency to change a thing right now. SteveBaker (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

G-Free Diet

There has been speculation that children with Asperger's syndrome have shown great improvement with switching to a strictly Gluten-Free diet. Studies are still being done in support of this diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.215.8 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Real, credible, medical studies are never done "in support of" something. Studies are done to test a hypothesis and (hopefully) carried out with a healthy dose of skepticism. So the fact that there are studies underway proves nothing whatever about the efficacy of this diet. Until such time as results (and plenty of them) are available, published, duplicated and confirmed - we're on pretty shakey ground. The evidence is strong that we're talking about a snafu in the early development of the brain - and it doesn't seem at all likely that a simple dietary change will make an ounce of difference to the prognosis for sufferers. Perhaps, if these studies are large-scale and being carried out by highly reputable organizations, the fact of the studies is sufficiently notable to be worth writing about...but an awful lot of these kinds of thing are just junk. Do you have references for the studies that are underway? SteveBaker (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is covered at Gluten-free, casein-free diet. The larger, better controlled studies tend to refute the anecdotal observations. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New reviews

Considering the complaints about old sources, I searched PubMed for newer reviews (although it escapes me why experts would be writing reviews on Asperger's when it is to be written out of DSMV). The following review is the only newer one I found with free full text available:

• Roy M, Dillo W, Emrich HM, Ohlmeier MD (2009). "Asperger's syndrome in adulthood". Dtsch Arztebl Int. 106 (5): 59–64. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2009.0059. PMC 2695286. PMID 19562011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This looks like a good review (Volkmar), but free full text is not available:

• Woodbury-Smith MR, Volkmar FR (2009). "Asperger syndrome". Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 18 (1): 2–11. doi:10.1007/s00787-008-0701-0. PMID 18563474. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

There were other reviews but 1) many of them were very specific, or 2) not in English, or 3) had not even an abstract, much less free full text. It appears to me that the article is mostly up to date, although some info from Roy et al might be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be in the article that it is written out of DSM V and the reasons why? (Please excuse me if I missed the mention in the article.) Loopy48 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You did (miss the mention in the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I can e-mail you a pdf of Volkmar I think, to see if there is anything new.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (I probably won't get through it until after Christmas.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Going through some of it, I've just discovered that we have already used this review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, it was published on-line in June 2008 anyway. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

suggested citation

Paula-Perez, I; Alexitimia y sindrome de Asperger, Rev Neurol. 2010 Mar 3;50 Suppl 3:S85-90

This Spanish paper confirms findings of high livel of Alexithymia in AS. 124.185.90.211 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dispute the paper, but there is a language barrier. If the page you've suggested was in English, or you can get somebody to translate the news story into English, which could then be used as a citation? ConconJondor (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's in English; just click the "PUBMED" link. We'd need someone who actually subscribes to PubMed to read it, though. —Soap— 22:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't subscribe, but I can read it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20200852?dopt=Abstract ConconJondor (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.sengifted.org/articles_counseling/Amend_MisdiagnosisOfAspergersDisorder.shtml from Edward R. Amend, Psy.D. of Amend Psychological Services

So what are your opinions on this? Is it a poor source? I for one think that those who deal with patients suffering from Autism and AS and have a Ph.D are the best sources since they actually know about the conditions. And, FYI, that is common knowledge for everyone who knows about Asperger Syndrome especially in the 1990s when there was no strict standardized testing. At that time, they just assumed that patients suffering from this condition were mentally challenged.

I have to say i disagree with your citation, my option is that suffers of Autism and AS have the best sources for this article Marker10 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just a letter, and quite an old one (8 years old). It seems to be just an opinion rather than something based on a study. Colin°^Talk 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

what researchers?

"Some researchers and people with Asperger's have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that it is a difference, rather than a disability that must be treated or cured.[9]"

who are some researchers? the link is to a person commenting on a persons blog, not to research.

i propose to remove the first three words of this sentence unless a neutral researcher is referenced. 24.105.206.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

I've added a source to the Baron-Cohen paper where he discusses the difference/disability question. Is that sufficient or would you insist on citing several authors? Perhaps other papers can be found too, but unless it appears Baron-Cohen is standing alone on this aspect, then I'm content to leave the "some" in. Colin°^Talk 08:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • according to the summary of the paper,

"This paper presents the results of a content, frame and discourse analysis of Internet sites concerned with Asperger's syndrome (AS). It investigated blogs written by people who have been diagnosed with AS, as well as organizations devoted to the support of people with AS and their families."

i dont believe this constitutes any type of research with a significant impact. i would hate to pander to those with AS who believe themselves to be a better type of normal. frankly it is disturbing. would we allow a person with bi-polar disorder to consider themselves to be better? by no doubt people with AS are people, but to pander to them and say they do not need help, is a disgrace. it is a persons choice to treated, but they could set back progress of those attempting to make the world a better place for those with aspergers/autism. 24.105.206.223 (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't agree or disagree with these peoples' opinions. It merely states that they hold them. You might feel they are wrong to hold those opinions and that those opinions are harmful (Baron-Cohen's paper -- not the one you are citing -- says as much itself... that to say it is not a disability may lead to those with AS being denied the additional help they need) but I don't think there's anything wrong with us reporting them as we do. Colin°^Talk 13:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The situation is more nuanced than User:24.105.206.223 puts it:

• Firstly (and I have AS) most of us recognize that there are definite downsides AND upsides to this syndrome. In some regards I am better than "normal" - in others, much, much worse. That's why "difference" is sometimes considered a better description than "disability". When I go to a party - it's a huge disability, I tend to talk too much - to bore people with prolonged discussions of my pet subjects - to fail to notice their body language...all the while, I'm feeling about as uncomfortable an out of place as it's possible to be. It would be tough to honestly describe it in any other way than "a disability". On the other hand, my ability to single-mindedly focus with laser-like attention to a tiny subject for extended periods (hours...years) with an intense desire to understand every single aspect of it without getting bored or distracted - is a definite benefit (it explains why a weird guy like me with no social skills and intense discomfort with being with other people can none-the-less earn $150k a year as a computer geek). In that narrowly specific way - I believe that I really am "better than normal" (certainly "different"). If that comes across as arrogant - then perhaps it is. One of the most clear "disability" sides of this condition is that Aspies have a hard time guessing what other people are thinking or feeling - so I can't possibly imagine what you'll think.

• Secondly, this is a spectrum condition. There are people who are borderline autistic - who are quite unable to function in life. You'd have to call them unambiguously "disabled". Then, in the middle somewhere there are people like me who have a mixture of up-sides and down-sides..."different" is certainly applicable...and there are people who have the condition so mildly that it's hard to tell that they are in anyway not "normal". Some of those people are annoying.

Some people would benefit from medical treatment - some would not - and others (like myself) would steadfastly refuse to be treated because the risk of losing the benefits by far outweigh the benefits of erasing the disabilities. We are, in the end, still people - and we get to make choices.

But in the end, as Colin says - none of this matters. The article is using only information from reliable sources. It doesn't matter how you feel about us Aspies - and it doesn't matter why my interpretations are "from the inside". What matters is only what is written in widely read books and in scientific/medical journals. So - find us new reliable sources that dispute what the current reliable sources say and we can adjust what our article says to match. If you can't do that - then your opinions don't matter a damn (and neither do mine).

SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2011 (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 [8]. 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)

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)

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)

Yet, it just was, replaced with a picture of Hans Asperger. I am happy to have a picture of Asperger there, but it was decided about a year ago that that pic ought not to be here (if memory serves). There is no consensus that I can see to add this pic and delete the old one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a picture of Hans Asperger, but as usual, the "policeman" SandyGeorgia was quick to revert me for the onehundredandsomething-th time. The picture of Asperger is much more relevant to a reader than a picture of a child playing - appearantly Sandy doesn't think so. (What ever I write - Sandy doesn't like it, so he quickly reverts citing "no consensus") yes, it was a non-free image, but WP:NFCC circumvents WP:WIAFA. MikeNicho231 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. This picture, the one you posted, was removed a long time ago due to it violating copyright. (By the way, I think it is a fine picture, and if there is a free one of Dr. Asperger that would be wonderful). There is absolutely no consensus to remove the current picture. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture is of a molecular structure and really doesn't show anything about Aspergers. However, it does have an identifiable child in it and a Personality rights warning on it. Commons: Photographs of identifiable people. Can an adult (the person who uploaded the image) give away the rights of a child? How long ago was the picture taken? What was the relationship between the adult and the child? Is the child still a minor or has he become of age? If he has become an adult, does he have any say in what the photo is used for? Does he have any rights? How do you know that the child in the picture has Asperger syndrome? Loopy48 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a picture of Hans Asperger would be more appropriate, for the page, because we could have a picture of a child looking at a molecular structure and it really isn't that different to a scientist looking at a molecular structure. Neither are certain to have AS. Although, as Lessthanideal said, if there was an abundance of structures then it would be suitable (at least in my view, and I have AS). ConconJondor (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Voting over keeping the photo of the boy

We should vote over whether we should keep the picture of the child or remove it. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep

Remove

wikipedia does not run on votes, it runs on consensus. Please see WP:DEMOCRACY Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Achieving consensus in any other way that voting is not possible in this case. We have tried for more than three weeks. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Which would mean there is no consensus to change a FA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My two cents. It would appear to me that Mike has something of a very personal interest here. That would be okay except that he appears to be reliant on personal experience. That doesn't work on Wikipedia. WP has rules and while a vote may be a way to achieve consensus, discussion also works. Mike doesn't understand that when everyone disagrees with him - that's a consensus to (in this case) keep the status quo. For myself, the photo works in that the structure the boy is looking at could be described as a molecule structure. The age of the boy combined with that puts over high intelligence. It's not so obvious that the boy is staring instead of looking. For that reason I think it's a great photo. Although I agree that if we can find a free image of Hans Asperger that would be better still. As it stands though, there is no consensus to remove the current image, so it stays. Aspie Lover (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The photo is pretty irrelevant. It makes a nice splash of color in an otherwise wordy article - it doesn't convey a whole lot - but it's hardly objectionable. My opinion is that we should keep it as we continue to look for something better. So I certainly object to removing the picture until/unless someone finds something that we can agree is a substantial improvement. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Steve, but, rest assured this is not a vote, but a discussion (at least for me). Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that it is using a photo of a real life child and makes the assumption that he has been diagnosed as having Asperger's and that his looking at the molecular structure reflects the disorder. There is no evidence the assumptions are true. The assumptions are "read" into the photo by those who wrote the article. Does that specific child have a diagnosis of Aspergers? Loopy48 (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There aren't enough structures to make one say that the child has the syndrome. Students study molecular structure in a way similar to the manner depicted in the photo, and the majority of students don't have AS. ConconJondor (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting over the photo

Just a note: while this discussion is active, please do not revert any of the article's content that is subject to the discussion (ie the photo and its caption). Reverting during an ongoing discussion is, and will be considered, disruptive edit-warring, regardless of WP:3RR. The status quo in this article is the current picture and its caption. Ordinarily, there needs to be a consensus to change the status quo (see also WP:BRD). So the proper course of action is to allow the above discussion to take its course while retaining the photo unless and until a consensus to remove it is reached. Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo suggestion

An idea to solve the problem of an appropriate phot for this article: someone who has been publicly diagnosed as having Asperger's syndrome.

Looking at the list of people on the autism spectrum, I see a possible good candidate for this in Gary Numan. He is someone who has verified this publicly, who has made positive artistic accomplishments without denying the debilitating effects it has had on him, (thus removing any harshly negative stigma that could arguably create WP:POV problems), who is an adult, and who already has accepted photographs on his article that can be ported over (the main article photo seems a good choice). It seems like it satisfies all objections, but I just have my own eyes. Would like feedback on this. Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see three problems (perhaps they can be overcome):

1. He hasn't made a lasting impression upon the perception of the condition (see WP:MEDMOS).
2. I've never heard of him-- have others? Not particularly well known ... what do others think?
3. This statement from the source quoted in his article is not particularly convincing: "In 2001 the electronic pop pioneer Gary Numan claimed that his difficulty in social situations had led him to believe he had AS."

Contrast that to Tim Howard, an internationally recognized figure in soccer who has Tourette syndrome and has made numerous contributions to public perception of the condition and is a spokesperson for the Tourette Syndrome Association, or another similar, Jim Eisenreich, who has also dedicated himself to improving perception of TS and is another well known sports figure, who had to leave baseball temporarily due to TS, or Samuel Johnson, the subject of Boswell's

Life of Johnson. All of these are internationally recognized figures who made a lasting impression upon the perception of TS, and whose diagnoses are not in question. Other suitable examples are Michael J. Fox or Ronald Reagan with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's ... is Numan's contribution to understanding of AS similar to any of these? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Any notable person or picture of a person in this article should be notable for having Asperger syndrome. The current picture has the advantage of being "somebody [unknown] with Asperger syndrome" as far as the reader is concerned, which is what is wanted from a stock photo. Lets the reader concentrate on the point rather than the person. An print encyclopaedia or magazine would take the same approach: either illustrate with someone really famous for being associated with the topic, or with someone anonymous. Em, I've heard of Numan, but I'm showing my age, and nationality. Colin°^Talk 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is that Google doesn't turn up much in the way of a credible diagnosis, and one site suggests it was a self-diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, "fulfil[s] some of the diagnostic criteria". Yes, him and about half the male population. Colin°^Talk 22:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's not limit it to actual Aspies. I think I already made the point about finding a free image of Hans Aspergers, but what about people who are well known in the field? I'm thinking of people like Dr Tony Attwood, Prof Simon Baron-Cohen or maybe Lorna Wing. Just as an example. Aspie Lover (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

While I liked the one we had ages ago, of Asperger with a couple of the kids he worked with, it was not a free to use pic, sadly. The problem with picking a current day person is, who do you pick? On Gary Numan, yeah I too have heard of him, but how many of our readers have? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, notable researchers would be appropriate photos too. I believe Eubulides went to considerable trouble to try to find a free picture of Asperger but ultimately failed (can't find where this is archived). A photo of Lorna Wing would be appropriate in the History section, IMO, for her having introduced the term. Colin°^Talk 09:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well in reation to the first comment - remember that Asperger's syndrome is sometimes referred to as "high level functioning autism", so one would expect that people with Asperger's syndrome would function differently to other autistics, and would be more likely to obtain degrees. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Autism Quotient and Emotional Quotient

I think it would be good if this article were to mention two questionnaires devised by Simon Baron-Cohen, the AQ (Autism Quotient) and the EQ (Emotional Quotient), as initial stages in diagnosis may involve asking people to complete these questionnaires. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

DSM Five

As of today (March 29 2011), I have been informed by a very reliable source that although the current plan is to merge Asperger's syndrome with autism in DSM V, resulting in its deletion from DSM V, there is considerable debate over whether this is the appropriate course of action. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - we've long known that the actual term "Asperger syndrome" would likely be removed from DSM V. The question is whether they decided to chop off everything below outright Autism on the spectrum and say "that's normal so it doesn't belong here" or whether they rolled up the some or all of the Asperger spectrum of symptoms into Autism or perhaps talk about mild and severe Autism. I'm not sure I like it either way - but those are quite different outcomes with potentially nasty consequences both for those currently considered to have Autism and for those who have Aspergers. SteveBaker (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheldon from Big Bang Theory

Is there some way we can add a mention of the character Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory? This would go some way to make clear that aspies are not "disabled", just different. It would also give readers who are unfamiliar with Asperger's an appreciation of what the syndrome consists. (Sheldon has perfect Asperger's.) 198.103.162.158 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd need a source.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is notable enough to justify a mention, but if anything goes into the article it should also be pointed out that Sheldon is a fictional character, and while the portrayal may have some realistic aspects, there is no real person who shows exactly the same set of behaviors. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "perfect Aspergers" - it's a spectrum condition that goes all the way from almost no noticeable symptoms whatever to the tremendously sad, borderline Autistic cases at the other end. These are people who could in no way hold down a job of any description, let alone function in ways described for this character in our article. I haven't seen this show (and BTW: oh just great - "let's make fun of the aspie because he's different"...mmmm'k tha-anks!) - but even at best it can't possibly show more than one point on the curve. I'm really not sure that we should be using a fictional character as being representative of the condition anyway - especially when (as a reference in Sheldon Cooper points out) the authors have specifically denied that they are writing him as an aspie. Picking out a stereotypical point on the curve, emphasizing it like this and then holding it up to ridicule is precisely what our article shouldn't be doing. Without a reference to some medically qualified person saying conclusively that is guy is an example of someone with Aspergers', I have to dig my heels in and point out that it is not OK to assume that no matter what superficial evidence there seems to be. Meanwhile, I'm going to go away and pretend that I'm deeply offended...except that I'm an aspie and I'm not 100% sure I could pull that emotion off convincingly! SteveBaker (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The moral here, I must suggest, is not to criticize a TV program that you haven't seen. The Sheldon character is neither made fun of nor ridiculed; he is liked both within story, and by the audience. I have Asperger's, and I am not at all offended by the program or the portrayal of the Sheldon character. On the contrary, I view the character as positive, and a gain for aspies. (That is why I am keen for the character to be mentioned in the article.) 198.103.162.158 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That being said, when the authors have explicitly denied that they are writing the character as an Aspie, as Steve notes, there seems to be little grounds for including him in this article unless there's a preponderance of sourcing claiming otherwise. Doniago (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous IP, it's irrelevant whether you have it or not, it carries no weight, especially since we have no proof one way or another. However, there is no evidence that the character either has or is supposed to have AS, and if he did, it belongs in the TV show entries.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Rainman mentioned in the autism article? I Josiah Bartlett from the West Wing mentioned in the MS article? Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

umm whats your point? I cant even tell if you are asking rhetorically. Try again. Or, better yet, dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.72.245 (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to be hostile. I was asking a simple question. Are those people mentioned in the requisite articles? I think that could give us some guidance. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is just the same with Rain Man - Raymond was never stated to have Aspergers' and the authors of the movie say he was based on Kim Peek who had FG syndrome - which is nothing to do with either Autism or Asperger Syndrome. So, again, we absolutely should NOT use that as an example. We could maybe consider Christopher from "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" - but even then, the question of whether he has Autism or Aspergers is left open by the author (and he did actually deny it at one point) and only really mentioned on the book cover as a part of the 'blurb'. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We have the article: List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum. We tend to keep mention of affected-people (real or otherwise) out of disease articles. Colin°^Talk 07:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - and a good job too! I didn't know about that list - it is SOOO bogus! It mentions both Rain Man and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time - both of which have been clearly stated as NOT being modelled after aspies by their authors! SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me make a "meta" point here: the function of a Wikipedia article is to inform the public. If there is a widespread misunderstanding among the public, the best approach is not to ignore it, but to correct it. If large numbers of people believe that a character such as Sheldon is a prototype of Asperger's (I don't actually know whether this is true, though), then it would be useful for the article to mention that belief and explain why it is baseless. One of the most valuable things Wikipedia can do is to correct misinformation. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that the purpose of WP is "rumor control" in this manner though. I don't think it would be appropriate to list examples of "people rumored to have AS who do not in fact have it" unless there's a whole lot of high profile third-party sourcing discussing the situation. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We can't give undue weight to every rumor, including ones about a fictional character. Whether Sheldon has AS or not would be impossible to prove one way or another. What if the screenwriters don't care? Or made an error? Leave that to the TBBT article. This is a medical article, not a dismiss unfounded medical cruft article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep - when we start listing all of the things that aren't true as well as all of the things that are - we're going to need much bigger disk drives! It's not possible to prove that Sheldon is or isn't anything - because it's all at the whim of the writers and they can change their mind anytime...there could be a new story on the very next episode in which it is revealed that he's really working for the Scilian Mafia and is hiding out merely pretending to be an aspie physicist. What we might (hypothetically) be able to say is that in the opinion of Dr John Q Everyman (who is an internationally acclaimed expert on the diagnosis of Aspergers'), Sheldon exhibits all of the symptoms that would result in an Aspergers' diagnosis - if he were a real person. However, if we don't have that - we can only report what the authors say - which is that they didn't write him that way. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really want to push this any further, but let me add a pointer to Sheldon Cooper#Asperger syndrome. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There had been similar discussions in this article a few years ago about including a fictitious character from a television show or movie (perhaps Rainman) to help give an illustration of Aspergers. However, the same valid arguments above were made against the idea, and the consensus was to not include fictional characters. Something that used to be in this article was a small list of famous people who were confirmed to have had Aspergers (Dan Aykroyd, Ken Jennings, etc.), but I don't know why it was removed. A small list of examples who are real people could be a useful contribution to this article. --Dulcimerist (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The serious issue with making a list of real people who have Aspergers is that this falls under WP:BLP guidelines - and we have to be super-specially careful. Particularly, we can't have people adding more names to the list - without rock solid references to medically qualified diagnoses. It's really not good enough to find some movie review or hollywood tabloid saying that this is true of someone famous. Without a solid, medically informed reference, we're in potential legal difficulties - and even when we do have such a source, there are issues of personal privacy to consider. Since such references are likely to be few and far between - I recommend that we keep these entries out of the list too. I believe a lesser standard can be considered for historical figures...in such cases, harm to the individuals' reputation is a much smaller concern. So if we feel it is important to present some examples of individuals with the syndrome in order that our readers can go "Oh! So that's what it's like." - then I recommend that we pick people who have been dead long enough that WP:BLP doesn't apply. It's not like we need a comprehensive list of every notable person who ever had the syndrome - we just need a few choice examples. Ideally we'd want them scattered across the spectrum of the disorder. That's going to be tricky though. People on the Autism end who find it tough to lead a normal life are unlikely to become famous enough to be notable - and people on the neurotypical end of the spectrum are almost impossible to diagnose accurately. However, better to find real people who have been dead for a while and use them as examples than to mess around in the dangerous territory of fictional and living people. SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Parkinson's Disease article mentions Michael J Fox, because he's notable, especially in that we kind of watched the disease progress and he is a spokesman for the disease. But listing every single person, and arguing over their notability, in an article is kind of moving off-target. This article shoudl 95%, if not more, focused on the disease, it's cause, treatment, prevention, etc. It should be the same in every medical article. The only reason to put a list of people who have any disease, whether it's this or the flu or whatever, is for people in bars to win bets. Seriously, that's the only reason to list names.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If all we talk about for Aspergers' is the cause (unknown), the treatment (none) and the prevention (unknown), it's going to be a really short article! But yes, I mostly agree. The goal here is not to become List of notable aspies. The only justification for naming anyone at all is to provide examples of well known people with the syndrome so that our readers can form a quick mental image of what people with Aspergers' are like. If we said "Bill Gates" - then that would produce a whole set of instant impressions in the minds of our readership - geeky, but smart, quirky - the stereotypical high functioning aspie. But if we said "Heather Kuzmich" - we'd produce an entirely different set of impressions! IMHO, both of those are out of the question because of WP:BLP concerns - but you see the problem of making a representative set. That's why the trick would have to be to pick a wide cross-section of historical figures - but without making an undue effort at a complete list. We could mention Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Jim Henson, Thomas Jefferson, Hans Christian Andersen, Babbage, Jane Austen...but now we'd be going over the top in suggesting that all aspies are destined to become respected historical figures...which really misses the whole section of people who just can't cope with life and could in no way handle that kind of fame. I've recently read biograpies of Einstein and Babbage - and they both had a really hard time with fitting in with the rest of society and exhibited the classic aspie symptoms perfectly - but I'm not sure that our average reader would see the downsides of those two people. There is no doubt that putting together a short (but representative) list and then avoiding subsequent bloat would be a challenging task. Still, we shouldn't give up on it just because it's hard. SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's difficult, I just think it's not useful. It's hard enough digging up good citations for the science and medicine. Why waste time on pop culture references, only important to those who don't care about medicine. This is a medical article not an source for answers to trivial pursuit (does anyone play that anymore?). And lastly, you have NO reliable source that says Einstein and Babbage had AS. NONE. I've always hated these pop culture lists in the medical articles, and I constantly remove anything but a very notable and highly provable few. You know like Ronald Reagan having Alzheimer's disease. Or Michael J. Fox. These work, because they will stand the test of time. If someone digs up the 2011 version of Wikipedia 1000 years from now, they will still known who Ronald Regan is (sad as that is). One hundred years from now, no one is going to know who Heather Kuzmich is. Hell, I don't even know, nor care to know, who she is. Call me when she wins the Nobel Prize in something. I understand you're goal here. I'm just not going along with it.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I'm absolutely NOT saying that "pop culture" references should be used...quite the opposite. Pick people who will be known in 100 years time - by all means. I also agree that finding an authoritative source to say that Einstein and Babbage had AS would be difficult. However, if we could find solid references to say that some suitable set of historical figures (of the kind that will be remembered in 100 years) exhibited the symptoms of AS then it might be useful to add them to the article. It's not just a matter of whether someone cares about medicine. If a less educated mother hears that her son has been diagnosed with AS, then providing a bunch of data about hormones and brain theories isn't much use to her. However, knowing that Einstein had AS would be of great value in teaching her that AS isn't some horrible form of lunacy or some kind of death sentence. Knowing that her son could be like Einstein, but not like Stephen Hawkins...like Jane Austen, but not like John Nash, like Mozart, but not Van Gogh...that's valuable information...it's what we're here to provide. Now, be careful: I'm not saying that amassing this information is easy - and maybe it's not even possible - but I do think it has value for a certain segment of our readership. It is a common mistake for Wikipedia articles to be aimed at the level of a reader who already knows the answer. Finding alternative ways to convey information is a part of our mission here. SteveBaker (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Be Different: Adventures of a Free-Range Aspergian by John Robison (book)

Someone might wish to start an article about the book discussed at this web page.

• Wrong Planet - Be Different: Adventures of a Free-Range Aspergian by John Robison

(This page is on my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the linked page - the book can currently only be pre-ordered. That suggests that it cannot possibly be considered notable! Well, not yet anyway. Give it a year - if anyone still remembers it - consider writing the article. SteveBaker (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will remember the title though. Love it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Aspergian (noun): An extreme form of Vegan who eats only Asparagus.

Free-Range Aspergian : An Aspergian who will not eat cage-reared Asparagus.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For notability, I found nine web pages from my Google News search.

• http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/04/20/john-elder-robin-a-nypicals-guide-to-dealing-with-aspergians/
• http://www.theday.com/article/20110420/NWS01/304209902/-1/NWS
• http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/life/article/836155--from-self-centred-loner-to-pleasant-eccentric
• http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/news-and-views/sarah-hampson/whats-it-like-to-live-with-aspergers-john-elder-robison-tells-all/article1984127/
• http://www.courant.com/features/books/hc-writestuff-0421-20110421,0,6201760.story
• http://blogs.psychcentral.com/therapy-soup/2011/04/aspergians-other-misfits-with-john-elder-robison-i/
• http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/06/181086/
• http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110412/ENTERTAINMENT/110419896?Title=Upcoming-book-events-
• http://www.uticaod.com/mid-yorkweekly/x1626571966/Grant-makes-family-events-possible

—Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It was published in March. You can download it on Kindle.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Self diagnosis

Seems to be very prevalent nowadays, damaging the legitimacy of diagnoses. I've read a few articles on it. If online articles were to be sourced is it something we could cover in the article? I mean, you can't fake Down Syndrome, but Asperger's has become very trendy nowadays, especially for kids who are going through those confused teenage years and are craving attention. 2.124.196.38 (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A real health care professional would not confuse Asperger's with Down's Syndrome. Hardly anyone would. Since Wikipedia is not here to help diagnose a disease, it probably wouldn't make sense to discuss a self misdiagnosis. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We do, very briefly, mention "there is a predilection for adults to self-diagnose it". However, the source used doesn't actually back-up that clause (it talks about the well-known issue of medical students self-diagnosing themselves with what they learned or saw that day, and is really a book review, on a lay book, rather than a scholarly article). I couldn't find anything with a quick PubMed source but Google Scholar provided this which seems quite appropriate (e.g. "Currently, there is much concern about the reliability of self-diagnosis of autism, Asperger’s syndrome and other related conditions.") PMID 20739589 might cover this but I don't have access to the text. I agree there is an issue with this syndrome (unlike something clear-cut like DS) that leads to both self-diagnosis, retrospective diagnosis and speculative diagnosis in others. Examples include celebrities who claim to have had AS as a child despite the condition only been recognised and named in the 1980s. The fact that there is an autism spectrum, makes it possible for people who are (or were) merely socially awkward to seek a syndrome label rather than admit to a failing in their personality (like the overweight person blaming their genes rather than their lack of self-control). But we need to build any text on reliable sources. Could you list the "few articles" you've read on this issue. If they are reliable sources, they may be helpful to use. Colin°^Talk 10:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-diagnosis is certainly an issue. Only one in a hundred people are actually diagnosed with the syndrome - but when you tell someone that you're aspie, the number who claim to be (self-diagnosed) AS or have friends or kids who are AS. You'd think one in five had the condition from just talking to people. In most cases, people who claim self-diagnosis are missing so many of the standard symptoms that they simply cannot be anywhere on the spectrum.

A larger problem is parents diagnosing their children. From what I've seen first hand within our local Aspergers' help group, parents readily latch onto this label for kids who VERY clearly don't have the syndrome...then they proceed to do all of the dietary weirdnesses and other ridiculous things that wouldn't work even if they actually were aspies. The effect of this on neurotypical kids can only be imagined. Worse still, they create "socialization play groups" - which (a) won't help and (b) will be hell incarnate for true aspie kids. Adult aspies in the group look on with increasing horror. Getting RS for this kind of thing is going to be tricky though.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still in strong disagreement that Wikipedia should assist in self-diagnosis. That is not our mission. That's one of the reasons I attack the alt med articles so harshly, is because non scientists and physicians think diluted water (my terminology) can cure cancer. However, mentioning that people attempt to self diagnosis that frequently (which is shocking) with reliable sources probably belongs in one of the sections from WP:MEDMOS like cultural issues (can't remember the exact name). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is saying we should be helping people diagnose themselves with AS. I think the original IP poster just wants to find a way to mention the fact that literally millions of people already have diagnosed themselves with AS, and may not actually have the condition. In other words, agreeing with you. Though the criteria for Asperger's are so much looser these days than they were 20 years ago that it's likely a lot of them actually do qualify. Also, note that the articles Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and Sociological and cultural aspects of autism exist and would probably be better places to put this info than this article, except as a link. —Soap— 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm still confused by the OP's post. Anyone who confuses Down's Syndrome and AS is well......really confused. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think he was using it as an example of a syndrome that can't be "faked" because it (usually) has visible physical symptoms, whereas AS doesn't, which makes it easier to "fake" and also to self-diagnose. Moreover the fact that AS can be used as an excuse for antisocial behavior makes it convenient for those who don't want to improve their behavior. And in my experience he's right ... there really are a lot of people out there claiming to have Asperger's that really don't. I wouldn't put all of the blame on the "fakers" though, as they're mostly young and impressionable, and may have been encouraged to claim AS by a school system that grants extra privileges to students with disabilities. —Soap— 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article Self-diagnosis, so it seems to be reasonable for the article Asperger syndrome to discuss self-diagnosis without recommending it.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think OM has got the wrong-end-of-the-stick here. I agree with Soap's comments. I'm rather surprised there isn't more scholarly discussion of the problems of self-diagnosis with AS -- perhaps I'm not looking in the right places and someone else can find more. You'd think the professionals would be moaning about it. That first Google Scholar link I gave was written by an aspie and, although published in a "journal", is more of a personal opinion than a study (it cites no sources nor does it perform any research). I'd prefer if we could find a source by a professional discussing the issue. My gut feeling is that it is a big enough issue to demand a sentence or two here, but WP:WEIGHT requires we look at what reliable sources are saying on this. The soft social aspects of any medical disorder tend to be neglected, however. Colin°^Talk 19:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is that i suspect only a small percentage of genuine Aspies have ever been diagnosed by the medical profession. General doctors (GPs) are often very poor at diagnosing mental health conditions and even if they are diagnosed with Aspergers what treatment are they ever likely to get ? Even mental health specialists quite often misdiagnose so what chance does a general doctor have ? Also what might prompt an Aspie in the first place to visit his GP in a situation where he might get an Asperger diagnosis? It isnt as if there is blanket screening.--Penbat (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I should have mentioned: You asked "what treatment are they ever likely to get?" - there are three very important answers to that:

1. There are no pills you can take to "cure" the condition - and all of the weird diets and such are just so much nonsense - none of them have been shown to have any statistically significant effect.
2. Just knowing, for sure, that this is why you are the way you are is very important to us Aspies. I belong to an Austin TX based group of aspies - and by far the most common thing you hear from people who have been diagnosed in later life is "Wow! That explains EVERYTHING.". Just knowing is a huge deal.
3. I was recommended to some private therapists who taught me how to recognize certain forms of body language and facial expressions - and how to maintain appropriate eye contact, how to use my own body language to say things. This is a form of "treatment" - although a better word might be "education" - and again, until you know why you are this way, you can't know that this kind of exercise will be so useful for you. Knowing just how many seconds to hold eye contact with people in different situations and with different relationships to you is insanely valuable! No eye contact makes you look mentally unstable, too short and you come over as evasive. Too long tends to creep people out. Get it right and you're that bit more able to fit seamlessly into society. So I try to remember to deliberately make eye contact at least once a minute - and to hold that contact for a few seconds at a time...depending on the social situation. I haven't been "cured" because I don't do that naturally - but I do have a coping strategy that most certainly helps. However, this is a conscious thing that I have to remember to do - and if I'm emotional or just plain busy, I either forget to do it - or can't be bothered to do it.

So, I'd say that there is treatment of sorts out there - and there is value in just knowing for sure. SteveBaker (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In my case, I was visiting my GP with whiplash after a car wreck - she noticed that I wasn't making eye contact, my blood pressure was off the chart and my heart was pounding. I'd explained that coming to her surgery to be examined made me super-nervous and that I don't like being touched. She just asked what I do for a living and a couple of other questions - and out of the blue asked whether I'd ever been tested for Asperger. I hadn't - so she sent me off for testing and the rest is history. I doubt that many GP's would spot that though. The problem is often with people who assert that they have (self-diagnosed) Aspergers - and never follow through by getting a proper diagnosis. SteveBaker (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a stroke of luck. That you weren't diagnosed until that late in life clearly shows the problem of under-diagnosis in real aspies. I was actually diagnosed at roughly the "right" time, because one too many issues with my classmates and less intelligent teachers led to a psychiatrist. (On an unrelated note, traditional therapy is really disturbing to me, as it requires regular quantification of emotions, eye contact, and careful modulation of tone.) From there, I got a visit to a neurologist, and one to a neuropsychologist. The sheer cost of all that would obviously dissuade those on the lower end of the pay scale from getting it done. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that health insurance covers tests of this sort, and even if it did, neuropsychologists are in such short supply that it would be inevitably difficult to find the time to get a child diagnosed. As a result, the majority of "aspies," (at least that I've met,) have turned out to be self-diagnosed or diagnosed by parents. Many of these lack the high IQ that is part of the diagnosis, and have no other reason behind the diagnosis then their social awkwardness. In fact, I've heard AS and autism discussed as being synonymous, because apparently many people with "AS" lack the ability to cross the street safely, or discuss a topic of interest to them at length. The tendency to repeat rituals like the former, or unintentionally bore people with the latter, are part of the diagnosis, which makes it fairly obvious that those who claim to be self-diagnosed aspies have no clue what the diagnosis means, or how offensive it is to see a serious social and neurological impediment treated like a tool for social gain (an irony which I'm sure you appreciate.) Teach267 (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please confine discussions of personal diagnoses and opinions to user talk pages; this page should focus on improvements to the article based on sources, but personal discussions are welcome on user talk pages. See WP:TALK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Two comments to improve this article

I suggest two ways to improve this article:

First of all, could the "See also" section be made clearer?

Secondly, it would be good if the article featured a list of famous people with Asperger's Syndrom. There are websites that have speculated on whether William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Henry David Thoreau, Anton Bruckner, Ludwig van Beethoven, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen, Carl Jung, Thomas Edison, Nikolai Tesla, Charles M. Schulz, Jim Henson and Michael Palin may all have had Asperger's syndrome. Of course, this may all be speculative - as a lot of these people lived before Asperger's syndrome was first diagnosed - but it would certainly add something of interest to this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is really no way to base such a list on reliable sources, and furthermore such lists end up being so random that they are completely useless -- even the few people for which there is a strong case, such as Isaac Asimov and Samuel Johnson, get lost in the crowd in lists of that sort. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a little more explicit about what's wrong with the "See also" section?

What makes this especially difficult is that a true diagnosis of Aspergers' is something that's really only been agreed for a couple of decades. Anyone who died before then cannot have been properly assessed, and hence lies in the realms of speculation - which is not encyclopeadic. Discussing most of the people who are still alive would fall into the WP:BLP trap - and unless there is solid evidence that they both have the syndrome and are happy to admit it, then they too are probably inadmissible. SteveBaker (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the empty See also section. I guess maybe the confusion was that some people thought that the references were part of the See also section, or maybe the off-center Portal link. Perhaps the See also section can be brought back, though I would recommend if we do so that it should be things that are both relevant and not already linked in the article, so that would limit it down to just a few links. But that's not a bad thing. —Soap— 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have now discovered that Wikipedia already has a List of people on the autism spectrum, which begins with a list of people with Asperger syndrome, such as as Dan Aykroyd. I guess that we could have a "See also" section and put that list there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because there's another article on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's reliable or useful. You can't assume it is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A man who has been formally diagnosed is Gary McKinnon, as mentioned on Radio Four news in May 2011. The news report said something about fears he could commit suicide if tried because of his Asperger's syndrome - a rather strange report, as depression is not Asperger's syndrome. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps his lawyers put that theory before the court - that doesn't make it a fact. It's also possible that aspects of the trial would indeed cause someone with Asperger's to become suicidally depressed...the large number of people, the lack of solitude, smells, sounds, lights...who knows? However, I don't see anything here that's solid enough to add to the article. SteveBaker (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why Dan Aykroyd is considered likely to have AS? I mean, I've seen his more famous movies, but his presence as an actor talented at playing the socially awkward alone shouldn't cement any theoretical diagnosis. A much stronger case could be made for either Issac Asimov, especially if you've read the introductions to his books or his collections of jokes and anecdotes. Albert Einstein could also be noted for his behavior, his obvious intelligence, and his attention to routine. (A popular myth/story about him is that he always shaved with water. When told by a friend to try shaving cream, he did, said it was marvelous, then returned to water.) Teach267 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Dan Akroyd does not have AS. Please see WP:MEDMOS on notable individuals, WP:MEDRS on sources required on Wikipedia, WP:WIAFA on sources required for an FA, WP:LAYOUT for See also guidelines, and WP:TALK for talk page guidelines. Talk pages should focus on improvements to the article based on sources, not anecdote or opinion. Speculation about retrospective AS diagnoses does not belong in this article, and is already covered elsewhere-- none of them rise to the level of, for example, Samuel Johnson with TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

End this "Lack of empathy" BS

Just because some low functioning Aspies do not understand how to behave in a situation in which they are expected to do so by society, they are not lacking empathy. A psychopath lacks empathy, An aspie does not, neither is it a diagnostic criteria for Asperger - OR Autism.

I have empathy, and so do alot of others with the diagnosis, if a person is lacking in empathy then that person is probably better diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder (Check the WHO criteria!). End this bullshit trying to attribute psychopathic traits to Aspies and Auties, it is extremely insulting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.160.88 (talk • contribs)

We go by the sources, please read WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The mistake is your own. You are employing terms in a non-technical manner. Work on theory of mind and psychopaths commonly distinguishes between 'empathising' (aka 'co-cognition', 'theory of mind') to denote the ability to perceive/accurately simulate/project the cognitive states of others and 'sympathising' ('fellow feeling') the ability to respond to the emotional states of others. As you point out (the majority of) people with asperger's are unimpaired as regards the latter despite being deficient as regards the former and visa versa for psychopaths. But the word 'empathy' as used in this article /is/ the correct usage of the term. Your problem is that the colloquial uses of 'sympathy' and 'empathy' are largely synonymous but this does not reflect either the way in which people who study psychopathy or theory of mind use the term nor should it be reflected in the article. Two caveats; 1) You do make a case, I suppose, for using terms which don't have equivalents in folk psychology which is what a lot of researchers do (hence the 'aka's above) however the empathy/sympathy distinction was well enough defined back in the 1700s by Hume; it's just unfortunate that between then and now colloquial English has conflated the two. 2) Given the emotional deficits of psychopaths leads to some related theory of mind deficits regarding the ascription of emotional states to others this leads some (e.g. Baron-Cohen in his new 'circle of empathy' stuff) to treat that as being part a multi-faceted theory of mind mechanism. I'm personally scepticial of this but a) Baron-Cohen isn't 'confused'; he doesn't think aspies are psychopaths and b) the debate probably comes down to recherche issues to do with definitions of modularity, much more specific than the objection you're making. Crack the spine of any book on theory of mind or psychopathy (I recommed Nichols & Stich's Mindreading and RJR Blair's 'The Psychopath') and you'll see your objection is ill placed. You're right, but your use of the term 'empathy' actually tracks what tends to be called 'sympathy'. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia which is intended to be read by the general public. You simply cannot assume that some super-technical meaning of the word "empathy" will be understood by our general readership. Indeed, if you look up "empathy" in Wiktionary - it gives two meanings, one of which relates to the perception of emotion in others and the other which relates to the understanding of such emotion:

1. the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person
2. capacity to understand another person's point of view or the result of such understanding

It is therefore absolutely necessary to spell out in more detail what is meant by this and you cannot simply dismiss the problem that User:Dbrodbeck states as misuse of the English language. SteveBaker (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What did I do? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - as 90.233 states. SteveBaker (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Woah...go gently here.

What it hypothesized to be the case is that somewhere along the Autism spectrum...the ability to recognize the mental states of other people is impaired. It does not eliminate the ability to feel emotion - quite the opposite, we tend to be - if anything - a little more emotional than the norm.

Some sources suggest that a structure of Mirror neurons is missing, abnormally small or somehow malfunctioning in Autistics and in people who are truly Asperger.

For me, who was diagnosed late in life, the best analogy is with the cast of StarTrek. Imagine Data - an android who has no emotion whatever, Captain Picard and Dianna Troy (who is a half-betazoid empath). I'm not Data...I definitely feel emotion - and when I know someone else has some emotion, I react correctly to that. But it's like everyone else on the planet but me is Diana Troy. Diana looks at someone and can tell that they are bored or excited or annoyed or...whatever. I can't easily do that. Unless it's written in 50 point type with <blink> tags around it - I won't spot it.

Once I was diagnosed and the astounding fact that I live on a planet of virtual telepaths became evident, I turned my aspie laser-like focus onto learning how it is that everyone but me is half betazoid. It's subtle stuff - firstly, there are things like body posture and very subtle facial expressions that we aspies can see - but only if we take special, conscious effort to do it. Since some of us dislike making eye contact - that's difficult - and it does require some effort. Secondly though, we don't have those mirror neurons - which for everyone else means that they have a continual (albeit somewhat simplified) mental model of the other person's mind running as a little sub-proceess inside their own. So when a neurotypical says something - it is being run against what their mental model of the other person says that they will feel about that. They don't always get it right - but it's pretty darned good.

So as an aspie - if I'm not watching their faces and body posture carefully - and making a real conscious effort to consider their point of view - I'll say inappropriate things, I'll keep talking about things that they long ago lost interest in, I'll fail to notice when something is intended ironically.

But Asperger's is a spectrum disorder. It's possible for someone to be so just fractionally on the scale that this impairment is hard to detect. It's possible to be so close to autistic that you almost fail to notice that other people are actually thinking, reasoning creatures at all.

Most of us are just terrible at parties.

Beware also that it's quite fashionable for people to claim to be aspies when they just want to excuse bad manners or whatever.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

John Robison (above) calls neurotypicals "nypicals".Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dianna Troy and Wesley Crusher should have been thrown off the show. Meh. I'm like Pavlov's dog, you mention ST:TNG, I've got to say something. There is some dumbass editor who accuses all skeptics on Wikipedia of having Asperger's, which made me lack empathy towards him. Anyways, good job in using ST:TNG as an illustrative point. Still don't like Troy though. Or Wesley. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he means scientists. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Of course, most skeptics are scientists.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is some confusion between affective empathy (being sad because other person is sad) and cognitive empathy (understanding that the other person is sad). The "empathy" that people with AS supposedly lack is the cognitive empathy--79.169.165.150 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said! That's it exactly. The problem so often is that people so often don't see their emotions being reflected by their aspie partners and assume that they don't have that empathy. Those that stop and tell their partners how they feel, quickly learn that most aspies are more than able to respond appropriately. This explains (I think) why sources are confused on the subject. It suggest we make this distinction explicit in our article. SteveBaker (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be mixed up again. As I understand it, people with Asperger's frequently have and use cognitive empathy, which is learned from careful, studied observation, as was said earlier. It's affective, intuitive (Tony Attwood says), empathy which is impaired. They have difficulty identifying with (affective), not necessarily identifying (cognitive), neurotypical's emotions. But either way, it's because so many of the semantic elements of the communication, both spoken verbal and non-verbal are fleeting and subtle, therefore overlooked. Printed and recorded communication is much, much, easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.187.32 (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, with training and close observation for an Aspie to pick up on some of the cues to the emotion of others. But it's hard work, and when emotions are highly charged anyway, it's easy to forget to check.

Printed/recorded communication isn't easier - but it puts neurotypical and aspie on a level playing field. In email, everyone is an aspie - but we've had more practice at it! SteveBaker (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There's another theory in circulation, too. People are also saying that, due to depressing overload in global data, people in general find affective empathy difficult. I mean, if you're worried about the people of Rwanda being wiped out in a kind of attempted genocide unseen since WWII, it may be hard to care that your friend failed a test. Since this overload has more or less corresponded with the mis- and over-diagnosis of aspies, it could seem that this general trend only applies to us. Furthermore, if it's marginally harder for people with AS to conceal or control their emotions, it may be harder for us to pretend to care in these situations than it is for normal people. To be perfectly honest, this theory is based primarily on observation and a rather poorly written article on the subject, claiming that children today simply care less, a sentiment which certainly is BS. Teach267 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

But that's a part of the whole misconception. Aspies most certainly do not "care less" - they are simply unable to read the emotions of others. Once you tell an aspie how you're feeling (or how some other person is feeling), they are perfectly able to care. It is a matter of detection, not the consequences of that detection that is lacking. That is the message we need to get across here - however, finding RS that say that in those clear and simple terms is difficult. SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of personal opinion and anecdote is taking over this talk page-- please see WP:TALK. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article based on WP:MEDRS. Personal discussions, anecdote and speculation may occur on individual's user talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to establish the NPOV position without some discussion along these lines. The guidelines in WP:TALK are rather general and hardly critical to the well-being of the encyclopedia. All that's being affected here is a little disk space. I think we can be a little less uptight about that rule here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you on general terms, here specifically anecdote and a failure to discuss reliable medical sources has taken over every section on the page, hence the notice of how talk pages should be used appropriately, and what kind of sourcing is required for Wikipedia. Most of the discussions taking over this page have zero to do with what reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Im a bit confused about this whole thing. from what I can tell (Warning: Personal Unverifiable Anecdote Because Its Really Hard To Find Correctly Worded Stuff) the confusion centers around either how emotions are detected, whether they're experienced at all, and the response to them. Having potentially incorrect information alongside correct information is not too big a problem from my point of view, since it can be tidied up after a format for presenting the various claimed/supported maladies is established.

I am not able to find much of use on google, or anything like that. I just want to get this information cleaned up and codified into a standard format that doesnt require scouring the talk page. As it is, all sources really feel..incomplete and kinda rammed together. While i get that thats gonna happen on wikipedia, a simple listing of medically verifiable conditions in regard to social interactions (but not necessarily interpersonal relationships. Thats rightly covered on another page. In this case, I mean general social interaction, not friend/family interaction.) For the very specific stuff, a warning on the page about unclear research areas and emerging theories would cover most of the issue brought up above. If I'm wrong or i missed something on this page or another page, please feel free to ignore this. At this point the article is incredibly confusing. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Suspect Assertion

I am referring to this:

According to the Adult Asperger Assessment (AAA) diagnostic test, a lack of interest in fiction (written or drama) and the positive preference towards non-fiction is common among adults with the disorder, which might explain the lack of understanding regarding verbal symbolisms and nonliteral language. [33][34].

The wording of the bolded text sounds unencyclopedic and like the editor's assertion. I don't know how the citations could possibly assert that causal relationship, and if anything, it seems to be stated backwards. I will leave it to a better man than me to edit. Nathandelaselva (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I know the test they are talking about. You answer about 150 yes/maybe/no questions and it produces a chart that tracks various attributes and adds a list of explanations for your specific results. You can only read the conclusions for attributes you actually showed in testing.

That would make this an utterly unacceptable source for Wikipedia because most of our readers will be unable to produce that result if they visit that page. But perhaps the site says this as a result of more information about the individual than just the choice of fiction/non-fiction. We don't know. So, yeah - I agree that this should go. I'm also very wary of these generalizations. I have Aspergers - I love fiction - I have trouble with non-literal language. QED.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Children with AS appear to have particular weaknesses in areas of nonliteral language that include humor, irony, and teasing. Although individuals with AS usually understand the cognitive basis of humor, they seem to lack understanding of the intent of humor to share enjoyment with others.

I am I child with AS, and this does not apply to all children with AS. I fully understand irony, for example.--142.68.47.252 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me again point out that we are still all individuals. Even in neurotypical children and adults, there is a huge range of sense of humor. We aspies are no different. But I think the problem I, personally, have here is that some forms of humor are (at face value) indistinguishable from non-humor without the validation of emotion on the part of the speaker. If they put on an angry face and say "You did 'such a good job on your work, I should give you a promotion" - then the angry face tells you that this is probably sarcasm or irony or something. The emotion expressed explicitly in the words doesn't match the facial expression - so neurotypicals can recognize the discontinuity and spot the sarcasm. An aspie might not notice the facial expression of the anger emotion - and using only the verbal information, assume that they really are being congratulated.

I find that when I'm in a social context where jokes are being hurled around and everyone is having obvious fun - then it's easy for me to spot, enjoy and respond to humor and I seem perfectly normal. There is enough context to tell me that almost everything is a joke without emotion-blindness getting in the way. The problem most often comes about when a joke is interjected into a serious conversation and is subtle enough to plausibly be an actual part of the conversation. Then I may miss the joke, an perhaps be seriously offended or something like that.

The best way to avoid this is to tell your closest friends about your AS and educate them into what it means. That way they can compensate by maybe nudging you in the ribs and saying "Hey! Smile Steve! It's a joke!".

There is a lot to be learned about coping strategies! For what it's worth, I'm extremely jealous of you. You've learned probably the most important thing you'll ever learn - how your own mind works - and you've learned it early enough to figure out how to cope with it. You'll have a much happier life as a result. I spent close to 50 years of my life screwing up before I learned what it was that set me apart!

Celebrate your AS! We aspies are a proud lot - we love the upsides and help each other to cope with the downsides - and for the most part, live happy and fulfilled lives with people we love and who love us. I don't personally know a single adult aspie who would want to be cured. SteveBaker (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As cliched as that sounds, I agree. I'm also a child diagnosed with AS (with full procedure, of course,) and even though I was diagnosed at the age of 10, my ability to handle my peers and teachers up until that point was made more dismal only by the observation that I was the only one who realized I wasn't picking up on social problems.

But, to return to the original topic, I thought that statement sounded backwards and generalized as well. My favorite authors are Issac Asimov and Edgar Allen Poe, both of whom had a phenomenal grasp of humor and irony, which they used liberally in their works. In fact, The Tell-Tale Heart remains to this day the textbook example of narrative irony. Furthermore, I find tone much easier to distinguish on paper than in real life, though, once again, large situations with plenty of context are helpful. On paper, there's time to tie the statement into the established mood, and literature has the added advantage of including explanations of what the characters are thinking and feeling. That, coupled with the absence of any details which might detract from the author's point, makes fiction one of my greatest pleasures. Even assuming we're exceptions and that is a rule, that statement is still mixing up cause and effect. I'm going to try to remove it now. Teach267 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this article is semi-protected. If I may ask for permission to edit out this statement from the nearest administrator...Teach267 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, we don't base Wikipedia article text on anecdote; changes or corrections proposed should reflect what the sources say, not personal opinion. Has anyone accessed the source? Please confine talk page discussion to review of sources rather than anecdote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More on the Asperger syndrome and eating disorders connection

I have now been informed, by a clinical psychologist as of today (June 15 2011), that Janet Treasure is the psychologist who links Asperger syndrome to eating disorders. In fact, a quick Google search, typing in "Janet Treasure" and "Asperger syndrome" will uncover quite a few websites on this theme. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember, websites aren't supported by WP:MEDRS, except under a narrow set of circumstances, like describing a drug, or establishing notability of an individual. But if you're discussing a clinical link, then it needs to be published. If there's a paper on it, please provide it, and we all can determine if we should include it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but her name was already in the Times story linked above, so this doesn't really tell us anything new. —Soap— 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the above comments. I saw this website:

http://www.metaphoricalplatypus.com/ArticlePagesAutism/Aspergers%20Anorexia.html

and was relieved to see that it did cite sources. However, I was somewhat less happy to see that when I scrolled down to the list of refernces, the only publication by her was in the Times Online - hardly an academic source. I hope that some who is familiar with Treasure's work and can actually cite work she has had published in refereed, high citation academic journals in psychology can tidy things a little here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

When you are looking for scholarly sources, searching on Google Scholar is usually more productive than an ordinary Google search. She has many reputable publications on anorexia, and a number on its relations to autism, such as PMID 17937420 -- though probably the only one that is at MEDRS-level is PMID 18447964. Looie496 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation style - page numbers.

In a recent edit, Citation bot replaced page numbering in citations from this style (for pages 132 to 136, inclusive):

  pp 132-6

To this (IMHO, clearer) style:

  pp 132-136

Citation bot missed one example - and I fixed that.

But then, User:SandyGeorgia reverted both my change and Citation bot's, claiming that "whoever is running a bot to change citation style without consensus had best read WP:CITE and stop doing that". I don't know who unleashed Citationbot (it wasn't me) - but I've just read the citation style doc and I agree 100% with Citation bots' changes. There is no specific guideline - but in Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_edits_for_different_methods we see two examples of multi-page citations:

  pages = 151–170     (not 151-70)
  pages = 1311–1316   (not 1311-16)

...which is what Citation bot fixed up. So I have re-reverted to this style. SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have asked once, and will politely ask once again-- do not alter citation style against consensus, per WP:CITE. Medical articles do NOT use (in fact, many of us abhor) the author citation style the bot introduced. We use the Diberri format, which has a specific author style and a specific page numbering convention, which was traditionally supported by MOS-- whether MOS has changed is not relevant when an entire series of articles has an established citation style (and I don't intend to waste my time trolling through MOS since it changes frequently). Changing citation style without consensus should NOT be done, nor should edit warring over citation style, and no one should be using a bot to do it. If you want to change page numbers, gain consensus, and do it manually. Whether you did it or the bot did it, these are the cumulative changes in citation style, and neither the page numbering change nor the author2 field are acceptable for the citation style of this article. Please revert yourself and avoid edit warring in the future-- gain consensus here if you would like to change citation style. WP:WIAFA requires citation consistency, and when bots and editors change the style to introduce inconsistent author fields-- as you have done by adding author2 and author3-- Featured articles are out of compliance with the criteria. On a final note, I fail to understand any editor who thinks reverting an existing citation style on a Featured article, against WP:CITE is not disruptive, or to understand why any editor would do something like that when discussing and gaining consensus is such a trivial matter, while reverting is so disruptive and time consuming for everyone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about whatever politics and styles lie behind this - or that there is some special rule for medical articles. What I do know is as follows:

• MOS does show (in multiple places) the more explicit page numbering convention that Citation bot used.
• I can see no place in MOS that mentions the more abbreviated form that our article used prior to Citation bot.
• I see no special exception in MOS for medical article citations.
• In my personal opinion, the more explicit numbering is clearer for the average reader.

So, given those things, the change to page numbering done by Citation bot looks pretty logical - and it fits with MOS - which is a well-established Wikipedia guideline.

Now, if I'm wrong and MOS does indeed support the abbreviated numbering style - or does indeed have exemptions built into it for medical article citations - then I'll be only too happy to put the article back the way it was before. However, I've read through all of the sections that seem relevant - and you will have to point out whatever it was that you feel that I missed. But right now, all I have before me is an MOS that indicates that Citation bot is correct and you are wrong...so I feel 100% justified in sticking to what the MOS CITE section tells us to do.

We don't generally have to seek consensus for following established guidelines..but if others would care to weigh into the debate on either side, I'd be happy to debate it. Calling this "disruptive" is really a bit much.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are missing multiple items. 1) Read WP:CITE-- do not change existing citation style without consensus. 2) Read WP:OWN#Featured articles-- FAs must have consistent citations, and if an editor or a bot is making them inconsistent, FA status is jeapordized. That's why you should discuss changes, particularly when you're violating a guideline. 3) It doesn't appear that you've been involved much with MOS. That MOS at one time specifically prescribed page number ranges as was done in this article when it was featured, and no longer does, is an artefact (most likely) of the usual MOS wars-- not even worth following. That MOS is now SILENT on the page ranges is NOT a valid reason to change citation style here.

But most importantly, I seriously wonder why any editor takes other editors' time to edit war over estalished citation style in a Featured article that complies with WIAFA and MOS-- you have introduced inconsistent citations to an FA, and it would be considerate of you to stop doing that unless you have gained consensus. Please revert the faulty citations-- changing style without consensus *is* disruptive, particularly when it puts an FA out of compliance with WIAFA, and it's also a glorious pain in the ass and waste of time. We now have inconsistent author fields and unnecessary digits in page ranges that weren't here when the article was featured, that agreed with MOS when the article was featured, and that can be transported to other articles in the suite that use the same (Diberri) citation style. Really, what motivates editors to do things like this, which are nothing but a waste of other editors' time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy. The MOS is silent on citation formatting; it only specifies what should be included, not how. The MOS makes it clear that there are many citations styles and that editors should not arbitrarily change them. You are welcome to hold and express the view that fully repeating all the page number digits in a page range is clearer, or that we should list all authors in separate template parameters rather than using an et al abbreviated list. You can suggest the article is changed and try to gain consensus for that change if you wish. But until that consensus is achieved, you can't change it, let alone edit war over it. See WP:CITEVAR.

Wrt to this article, there are good reasons for keeping the current format. Firstly, as Sandy points out, the citation templates in most medical articles are generated using Diberri's tool. This uses the abbreviated page range format and the abbreviated author list format. Changing to an alternative format will mean that any new source added to this article needs to be manually fixed. Manually adding all the authors to separate parameter fields is not a task a human wants to do (e.g., PMID 10638459). The abbreviated page range format is particularly useful for journals where the page count is in the thousands and the abbreviated author list for today's team-produced papers. Both styles are consistent with the Vancouver style used by some medical journals. Colin°^Talk 08:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have raised a bug against the tool. Colin°^Talk 08:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Colin and Sandy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I defer to the more knowledgeable - feel free to put the citation style back how it was pre-Citationbot - but it seems ridiculous that the only guidance about page range formats in the MOS seems like a much clearer style and that I should get such attacks as describing my change as "disruptive" when all I did was keep the article looking like the couple of examples that MOS provides. I'm the innocent here! MOS examples show 'X' - I see CitationBot change our article to 'X' - I see an editor revert, claiming that 'X' is wrong - but providing ZERO actual evidence of that, and not explaining that reversion on the talk page. So I restore the article to 'X' because that's what MOS seems to be telling us to do, and carefully explain why on the talk page...and suddenly I'm the bad guy who is being disruptive! SteveBaker (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it was the re-revert after being referred to WP:CITE that was the problem. But never mind - all sorted now. Have you tried Diberri by the way? It's a really useful tool for citing anything that has a PMID. Just put in the PMID number and it does the rest for you. The link I had to it no longer works so could someone post a fresh link here for me and SteveBaker? Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, SteveBaker-- I'm glad this is sorted now, and as Fainites says, the frustration was because you again reverted after the issue was pointed out rather than discussing. MOS is and has always been a diseaster-- it is frequented by style warriors and changes often-- wait ten minutes and the page number range thingie will be back to the way it was before, which is another reason we don't change citations without consensus. Keeping up with MOS whims would make us all nuts! (Is Diberri working again?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Diberri's tool can be found here. I've updated MEDMOS. Colin°^Talk 14:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Animals and Autism

Not sure if this can be used in any existing citations, but Are Animals Autistic Savants (2008) may be useful (includes a response from Temple Grandin. It's a comparison of the way animals think and ASD humans think (compare to the assertion by Grandin). There is also a summarized article on Science Daily titled Do Animals Think Like Savants (2008). — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Shouldn't it be covered in the article at least somewhat that many people don't believe it even really exists? Josh (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We would need some reliable sources that claim that AS doesn't exist - or at the very least, a reliable source that says that the existence of AS is disbelieved by a significant fraction of the population. Having said that, lots of people believe that the earth is flat[9] - but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is going to mention it in Earth#Shape - because it's just not relevant. So this comes down to notability, significance and reliable sources - as does nearly every other discussion here. SteveBaker (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nature journal

Doing a search on the website of the journal Nature turns up a few articles on Asperger's syndrome which might interest people (including this one: Jeff Hecht - The Neanderthal correlation, 22 May 2008).     ←   ZScarpia   12:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a page called Neanderthal theory of autism which is now deleted. It talked about things like this. It was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum for not being notable (which says nothing about whether it is true.) That's about all I know. I don't think that there is a good reason to mention the theory on this page but perhaps Causes of autism could mention it under the genetic section.—Soap— 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's all too relevant here - and the actual formal article that this journal entry is (presumably) based upon is a key paper for this Wikipedia page. Finding a link like this for aspergers is a key finding. After all, aside from the Neanderthal connection (which my wife must NEVER find out about - or I'll never be called anything else!) - this formally links "advanced mathematics skills, information processing, logic, analytical intelligence, concentration skills, obsession–compulsion and Asperger's syndrome". The relationship between those other genetic traits and aspies is a new thing. Yeah - we have to write about this. Does anyone know where the full article resides? Has it even been published yet? SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To the modern eye, Neanderthals may not be quite as aesthetically pleasing, but they did have bigger brains than modern humans (useful ammunition if your wife finds out about the purported Neanderthal connection, though the fact is denied by anti-Neanderthal chauvinists).     ←   ZScarpia   13:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If I'm accessing that article correctly, all I see is speculative conversation between individuals ... not the sort of article we should be using ... a proper medical review would be more appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure - that actual piece won't do as a solid reference of fact - but I presume that if someone did all of that study - and came to such an important conclusion - then there must be an actual peer-reviewed article somewhere. SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, do I have to point out that the Futures columns in Nature are science fiction? This is one of the problems with Google: something that is obvious when you see it in context may look quite different when you come across it as a result of a search. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Doh! SteveBaker (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! I did think the story, particularly the ending, was a bit strange, but fooled myself into giving it credence by knowing that genetic research has been done on determining whether modern humans have any Neanderthal ancestry (see: Scientific American - Michael Shermer - Our Neandertal Brethren: Why They Were Not a Separate Species, 11 August 2010: Genome sequencing has revealed our common humanity.)     ←   ZScarpia   13:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. When the Futures piece was published, in 2008, the Neanderthal genome had not yet been sequenced, so it was less likely to cause confusion. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't used these talk page things yet and all this formatting is scaring me right now. Here are some peer reviewed sources that imply a link between the genes garnered via neanderthal admixture and the genes that code for ASDs:

• Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern humans (2010, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology)

"The development of cognitive abilities during individual growth is linked to the maturation of the underlying neural circuitry: in humans, major internal brain reorganization has been documented until adolescence, and even subtle alterations of pre- and perinatal brain development have been linked to changes of the neural wiring pattern that affect behavior and cognition [9]. The uniquely modern human pattern of early brain development is particularly interesting in the light of the recent breakthroughs in the Neanderthal genome project [10], which identified genes relevant to cognition that are derived in living humans. We speculate that a shift away from the ancestral pattern of brain development occurring in early Homo sapiens underlies brain reorganization and that the associated cognitive differences made this growth pattern a target for positive selection in modern humans."

• A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome

"Mutations in CADPS2 have been implicated in autism (67), as have mutations in AUTS2 (68)."

"Our results also point to a number of genomic regions and genes as candidates for positive selection early in modern human history, for example, those involved in cognitive abilities and cranial morphology. We expect that further analyses of the Neandertal genome as well as the genomes of other archaic hominins will generate additional hypotheses and provide further insights into the origins and early history of present-day humans."

• Autism, the Integrations of ‘Difference’ and the Origins of Modern Human Behaviour (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research)

-- Slartibartfastibast (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the formatting Slartibart....you did pretty well. As for the articles, it still appears that these are all speculative, and not based on a formal hypothesis and experimental testing. I think they make fine discussion here (and they are very interesting), but they fail as reliable sources for medical articles. We wouldn't include this speculation in the article because it's a bit of predicting the future. But in a year or 10, there could be confirmation of this hypothesis, and it could be included. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orange-- those reports are all very speculative, and don't rise to the level of sourcing expected in a featured article that should be an overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology just published a paper that supports the hypothesis that the confirmed neanderthal admixture event(s) provided cognitive variations that were subsequently selected for, sometimes causing a locus of deleterious recombinations in the genomes of children with parents who selected one another for those characteristics: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf

• "People on the autism spectrum are conceptualized here as ecologically competent individuals that could have been adept at learning and implementing hunting and gathering skills in the ancestral environment."
• "Many of the behavioral and cognitive tendencies that autistic individuals exhibit are viewed here as adaptations that would have complemented a solitary lifestyle. For example, the obsessive, repetitive and systemizing tendencies in autism, which can be mistakenly applied toward activities such as block stacking today, may have been focused by hunger and thirst toward successful food procurement in the ancestral past. Both solitary mammals and autistic individuals are low on measures of gregariousness, socialization, direct gazing, eye contact, facial expression, facial recognition, emotional engagement, affiliative need and other social behaviors. The evolution of the neurological tendencies in solitary species that predispose them toward being introverted and reclusive may hold important clues for the evolution of the autism spectrum and the natural selection of autism genes."
• "This article emphasizes that individuals on the autism spectrum may have only been partially solitary, that natural selection may have only favored subclinical autistic traits and that the most severe cases of autism may be due to assortative mating. "
• "Unfortunately, the genetics, molecular biology and neuroscience of autism are still, relative to many other neurological disorders, shrouded with uncertainty due to their highly complex nature (O’Roak and State, 2008)."
• "A portion of this complexity and uncertainty arises from the relatively large number of distinct susceptibility genes that have been identified, many of which can be completely absent even in pronounced autism (Freitag, 2007). This genetic heterogeneity may be responsible for the clinical heterogeneity..."
• "The autism continuum could represent a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus. Perhaps some of the genes for autism evolved not in our direct ancestral line but in a solitary subspecies which later merged genetically with our line of descent through gene flow."
• "1. isolated pockets of humans can remain reproductively insulated for long enough to evolve discrepant ecological strategies; 2. such populations can quickly (less than 40,000 years in the South American and Asian pygmies; Cavalli-Sforza, 1986) develop features that vary markedly from the norm; 3. these traits can involve multiple genes at different loci; and 4. interbreeding can result in either continuous or polymorphic variation in subsequent generations. It is interesting to note that, as these indigenous people become assimilated into other gene pools, the genes for short stature will persist and may affect phenotypic variability in sporadic and unpredictable ways for a long time to come."
• "Like other polygenic, continuous traits, the mutations responsible for autism could have been maintained by “environmental heterogeneity,” a form of balancing selection. In other words, the genes responsible for autism may have remained in our gene pool because as social-environmental conditions fluctuated in the past, discrepant genetic polymorphisms, or “multiple alternate alleles,” were favored."

Most of the peer-reviewed evidence is cited on this wrongplanet thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3696657.html#3696657 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't this appeared in the article's content? Is there a good reason that just isn't being mentioned here, or is it because people will find it offensive? I don't think wikipedia has citation standards that go beyond a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast (talk • contribs)

Yes, it does---see WP:MEDRS. The basic issue is that on controversial medical topics, it is possible to find sources to support virtually anything a writer wants to say; so we try to impose a bit of order by sticking as far as possible to review articles published in highly reputable journals---reviews whose authors are expert enough to weigh conflicting sources of evidence appropriately. Let me also point out that this is a Featured Article, and also is one of the most heavily viewed articles on Wikipedia (averaging about 15,000 views per day), so it is worth making a particular effort to keep the content valid. Looie496 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable. What about the "Causes of Autism" and "Heritability of Autism" pages? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology not highly reputable? Totorotroll (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I copied the genes from page 111 of the supplemental pdf for the neanderthal draft sequence to a gene list on autworks: http://tools.autworks.hms.harvard.edu/gene_sets/123

You can view and manipulate its disease network here: http://tools.autworks.hms.harvard.edu/networks?gene_set=123

This is a network of relationships between neanderthal genes and 699 genes linked to autism (blue = neanderthal, orange = autism-linked):

Mirror: http://i.imgur.com/N5ObG.png

It shows 173 genes with 358 interactions (using the lenient settings in the screenshot)

• The cluster in the bottom left is of genes that code for olfactory receptors. Neanderthals seem to have had smell-related genes that were important.

This is the reverse (blue = autism-linked, orange = neanderthal): Mirror: http://i.imgur.com/kBXYM.png

It shows 264 genes with 624 interactions (using the lenient settings in the screenshot)

• PITX3 "is involved in lens formation during eye development."
• SRD5A2 "catalyzes the conversion of the male sex hormone testosterone into the more potent androgen, dihydrotestosterone."
• CADPS2 is already implicated in autism.
• GABRA2 "is the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the mammalian brain"
• BDNF "acts on certain neurons of the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system, helping to support the survival of existing neurons, and encourage the growth and differentiation of new neurons and synapses."
• ROBO1 "was implicated in communication disorder based on a Finnish pedigree with severe dyslexia. Analyses revealed a translocation had occurred disrupting ROBO1. Study of the phonological memory component of the language acquisition system suggests that ROBO1 polymorphisms are associated with functioning in this system."
• MY01D codes for the tails of spermatozoa.
• STK3 "presumably allows cells to resist unfavorable environmental conditions."
• SND1 "plays an important role in miRNA function"
• OTX1 "may play a role in brain and sensory organ development" is a "dyslexia susceptibility locus candidate gene" and "is important in neuronal cell development and differentiation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

With some different settings:

Mirror: http://i.imgur.com/GhbQ7.png

• EHBP1 Has a role in insulin regulation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15247266
• The HOXD family seems to have something to do with limb development.
• FOXP1 "expression patterns in human fetal brain are strikingly similar to those in the songbird, including localization to subcortical structures that function in sensorimotor integration and the control of skilled, coordinated movement"
• AUTS2 is directly implicated in autism.

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty much the epitome of original research. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to claim credit for this, but the hypothesis actually came from a publication in a peer reviewed journal: "The autism continuum could represent a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus. Perhaps some of the genes for autism evolved not in our direct ancestral line but in a solitary subspecies which later merged genetically with our line of descent through gene flow." -Journal of Evolutionary Psychology http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf Slartibartfastibast (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes and he cites none of the genetic material that you cite making it as Looie496 said - the epitome of OR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if this question should sound jejune, but what traits, aside from solitary and repetitive behaiviors, are used to prove this connection? I may not have properly understood the genetic groups you listed and explained above. On a related note, I've heard that people with AS have been known to lack coordination. Is that true, and if it is, how does it fit into this theory? Teach267 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that mild clumsiness is a moderately common Asperger trait. Certainly I have it - and it's listed in [10], which describes "clumsy and uncoordinated motor movements" as a characterization of AS.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also communication problems: lack of attentiveness to social cues and body language, peculiar voice modalities. I think the "lack of humor" part sometimes alleged to be part of the spectrum is better understood as a communicative problem.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense, and I agree that "lack of humor" may well be a communication-based observation. But my other poorly insinuated question was whether the clumsiness described as part of the disorder can be explained in the 2nd species theory. Wouldn't a solitary lifestyle make it more important that aspies be coordinated, not less? Teach267 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which is one of the reasons that the hypothesis is ridiculous. The other part is that there is no evidence that a lack of social skills would be an evolutionary advantage over more social peoples. There is no reason to believe that social people would be unable to survive (and outcompete aspies) even in an environment that favored solitary foraging - social people can also work alone. The journal Evolutionary Psychology unfortunately has made it a virtue to publish outlandish unsupported hypotheses. The work should not be considered for inclusion untill it gets further commentary in other sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not entirely reasonable, there are several ways in which lack of social skills might happen. For example, it might be that whatever genes code for good social skills have some downside. The evidence for this is explained in Loneliness#Effects which says: "Chronic loneliness is a serious, life-threatening condition...increased risk of cancer...increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.". It could easily be that a branch of humanity found solitude to be a necessity (eg because living in poor nutrient conditions of the snowy north required a lower density of human predators). That population might well be better able to survive the necessarily lonely conditions without that social skills gene - or perhaps even with a special "loner" gene that would suppress the desire to be sociable. It's entirely reasonable to believe that a society of humans or pre-humans might evolve to prefer solitude - and that this gene could survive into modern aspies.

The theory isn't ridiculous - but that doesn't make it true either!

SteveBaker (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of scenarios are possible. Science works by showing that some of them are probable. The EP article fails miserably on that account. Generally it is agreed that harsh environments require more, not less, cooperation than rich ones. I don't agree with your analysis of how a loner gene might have evolved and survived, neither do most evolutionary anthropologists. (think of the contradiction implied in "a society of loners")·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of other large mammals that operate as 'loners' in harsh conditions. Polar bears, for example operate singly except in very rare situations and when mating. Brown bears, on the other hand, gather in large numbers at major food sources and form social hierarchies. Two very similar species, one with 'lonerism' and the other with 'sociability' built-in (presumably at the genetic level) with the 'cooperative' species living in the easier environment and the loners out on the pack ice where nutrients are in short supply. I'm not saying that "for sure" the reason for AS sufferers tending to be loners is something genetic - but merely that it's not impossible for there to be a genetic basis for 'lonerism' that would not necessarily be rapidly eliminated from the gene pool. I'm not asserting that this is what happened - merely that you can't say it's impossible, or even improbable. Hence it would not be correct to describe this hypothesis as "ridiculous". More study is needed in order to decide whether it's true or false - but it's definitely not impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence

Parts of the article suggest that people with Asperger's syndrome using have normal intelligence while other's suggest that they often have high intelligence, which is confusing. Something should definitely be put into the article regarding intelligence, both in actuality and in perception. I myself am an aspie with extraordinarly high intelligence, and I'm especially gifted in Mathematics, so it surprised when in the article in said that people with Asperger's syndrome often score less in Mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.146.65 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also what it said about humor is blatantly inaccurate, I appreciate humor just as much as everyone else if not more. Its more that people with Asperger's may not get a joke due to a lack of social empathy or literal thinking, or not find the joke funny because it does not fit their tastes. This article made me doubt actually having Asperger's symdrome for years, until I talked with other people with Aspergers syndrome online and found myself to be like them, and I read other descriptions of Aspergers, such as the one on tv tropes, which seem to fit me a lot better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.146.65 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The goal is for the article to be as accurate as possible, but when we come to questions about which people disagree, the only viable approach is to be guided by what the published sources say. So at a practical level the question is whether the statements you disagree with cite sources (if not, they should be tagged or removed), and if they do cite sources, whether those are the best available sources and whether they support the statements in the article. If we try to use our own personal observations, it is likely that nothing will ever get resolved. Looie496 (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Where does the article say people with AS "often have high intelligence"? Colin°^Talk 08:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(And where does it say that they are poor at mathematics?) What it actually says is: "Although most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability and test slightly worse in mathematics than in general intelligence, some are gifted in mathematics". Which seems to fit what User:186.222.146.65 claims to experience.

That said, Aspergers is a spectrum condition - not everyone has the same set of symptoms and not everyone has all of the symptoms (I don't dislike being touched, for example - even though that is a common aspie symptom). Also, aspies range from near-normality to full-on Autism - so even those who do exhibit a particular symptom, may do so at such a low level as to be almost imperceptible. So talking about what you (personally - as an individual) experience of the syndrome is not all that useful in terms of what we can put into the article.

In the end, if reliable sources say that aspies tend to be poor at mathematics - then that is what we must write, even if individual aspies show up who are good at math. Personally (as an aspie with high IQ who doesn't suck at math), I also find it surprising that this statement is made - but it is indeed what the reliable sources say. Higher than average intelligence is certainly a common trait - but again, it's not universal. The trouble with intelligence is that it's assessed by administering an IQ test - and some aspies do poorly at them because they are bad at taking tests (eg because they might have comorbid ADHD) - not because they are stupid. Hence any statement about intelligence or math skills is going to be of a more vague, statistical nature rather than stated as a hard fact. SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How extraordinarily slippery is your argument SteveBaker ("In the end, if reliable sources say that aspies tend to be poor at mathematics - then that is what we must write,..."). It had been stated above that there is a wide variance in attributes of intelligence (by some metric) for people with AS. If this is the case, then the average performance is not even a sensible value and has a variant tendency to misrepresent the sample. The argument you used (and quoted) is a fallacy called Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority), yet even the authors must yield to logical reason and would need to address what appears to be a clear misuse of statistics. For example and just for argument sake, If the performance distribution were uniform (which we know it probably isn't), we might see the same stupid remark about the average; however, the average case would be an absolute misrepresentation of all other performance values in the sample because all cases of intelligent attributes would be equally probable. You can see, I have taken the average performance to an ad absurdium to prove my point. Finally, and I am speaking from a cynicism developed over many years, it seems to me that "intellectual disability" as a categorisation for the high performing AS cases is just some ridiculous political response by NTs (particularly the "do good" NTs who aim to create "inequity" under the pretext of "equity" ) to cover their fear of intelligent AS people. Why? Simply because the NT population is larger and they presume by a popularity fallacy (Argumentum ad Populum) some mystical right to claim the award for least most learning disabled. And by what mode? By subverting emotional intuition as some chimera for a learning ability rather than what we observe as clearly for them (NTs) a learning distraction. Obviously, there needs to be a distinction for high-performing AS people that does not lump them with a so called "learning disability", which they clearly do not have!!! Runestone1 (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

24.35.245.194 (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for editors to debate their opinions and their experiences regarding Asperger syndrome. The argument you call a fallacy is in fact enshrined in WP:V -- the article's opinions, facts, and the weight we give to aspects of a topic must come from and have the same degree of coverage as our reliable sources. We utterly rely on the experts for article content, never on our own experience or opinions (whether we claim to be experts ourselves, have personal experience or are just lay editors interested in the topic). Colin°^Talk 18:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually arguing the mathematics by showing the diminished representational power of a mean value under widely variate data. In this context, the precise truth of a theorem can be tested by anyone with sufficient mathematical ability. This word "enshrined" is problematic in a scientific context; therefore, one should note that your comment is not a scientific one, but a religious one. I rely on the experts as well, particularly when they can show reason, the one who can't are questionable at best. There is a philosophic dimension, but I suspect this was the offending part. Nonetheless, we could socially construct a syndrome (let's call it "intuition syndrom") and classify NT people in a similar way to AS people have been classified for their syndrom. But, I digress and won't mention it again. Please address only my mathematical argument or at least show in the article a probability distribution or density plot around this question of intelligence so that readers are better informed (maybe it's multimodal and that would be interesting to readers who see the mean as a misrepresentation ). Runestone1 (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, conditional density plots given intelligence ranges would also be very informative, given the query was about IQ performances for high-performing AS people. According to Collin's "shrine" of knowledge and unbiased coverage, there would be no valid scientific reason to omit such important statistical plots. Runestone1 (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Could you show us a density plot that you believe would be more informative? —Soap— 03:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the entire statement about mathematical IQ in the Prognosis section hinges on a single source (Chiang HM, Lin YH (2007). "Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism". Autism 11 (6): 547–56), which is only a literature review (probably a Masters or PhD thesis literature review) and not an exhaustive statistical evaluation of mathematical ability in people with ASD, AS, HFA, etc.. The authors, Chiang & Lin, admit on page 548, "Many of the studies included children with mental retardation", which clearly indicates a statistical bias in their review sources. This review only shows the means and variances of studies, which immediately implies the Frequentist assumption of Normal distributions; however, the sample distributions may not have even been Normal and this assumption might skew the results. Chiang and Lin also state "The reported maximum scores on mathematical achievement tests ranged from 115 to 135 (see Table 2). These scores indicate that some individuals with AS/HFA have high average to very superior mathematical ability. In particular, the maximum score of 135, as measured by WIAT, indicates that some participants’ mathematics scores are above the 99th percentiles on the norm. This information suggests that some individuals with AS/HFA are mathematically gifted", which suggests, in collaboration with the lower results, a distribution that covers much of the same area as a distribution of intelligence for normal people (if we assume Normal); that is, the overlap is very significant. In this respect the results are inconclusive, particularly given the biases, and that is what the Wiki authors here should say. Chiang and Lin state in their conclusion, "Although this article may advance our understanding of the mathematical ability of people with AS/HFA, several issues should be acknowledged", and then proceed to state all that is wrong with their results, which the Wiki authors here have conveniently overlooked.

What I am saying is that if this Wiki should say anything more about IQ for AS people than to say that the statistics from their source are inconclusive, then they really need to find some exhaustive statistical results. Moreover, if they can find such sources then density plots that characterise IQ in the difference cases, ranges, etc. would be useful for readers. Runestone1 (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC) (p.s. A piece of gold paint just fell off someone's shrine).

This seems to make sense to me, a non-expert. Do you have the time or energy to search for something with more reliable detail, Runestone1? It's an important issue but not high on my list of priorities. Forgive me if you already know this but (1) mastery of WP:MEDRS and WP:SYN is essential if you want to avoid wasting a great deal of your and other people's time, and (2) the easiest places to look for sources is PubMed followed by Google Scholar and Google Books (for graduate-level textbooks) . --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, this isn't a matter of mathematics or statistics - Wikipedia works from reliable sources - and does not allow original research or synthesis of ideas from multiple sources. Yes, I know this can be frustrating - but this is how Wikipedia works and we aren't going to be able to change that here. As I said before, if we can find reliable sources that present graphs of intelligence quotient scores for aspies and non-aspies, then that would be a great thing to add to the article. As for the Chiang HM, Lin YH (2007) source being "only a literature review" - that is precisely what WP:RS (and especially WP:MEDRS) requires us to seek. WP:MEDRS says: "A secondary source...include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals," and "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." - so Chiang/Lin seems like a reasonable RS to pick. But certainly, if you can find other sources - whether they confirm or deny what Chiang/Lin says - then we're very open to including their disparate findings into the article. What we can't accept are deductions made from a synthesis of those sources. SteveBaker (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)