Internet Therapy Reading

AHR

No, this is not about the wangst thread. Do not make it about the wangst thread. The wangst thread consists of people who WANT help, WANT advice.

What bugs me is when people analyze others through internet interaction, and superficially gives some sort of...conclusion.

Like if someone really likes X show, and only posts in those threads, and someone decides thus, they must be some aspergery autistic person.

It just strikes me as...bizarre. I didn't think things like this actually happened, until it happened to me, and now it bugs me.

MillerCross

No, this is not about the wangst thread. Do not make it about the wangst thread. The wangst thread consists of people who WANT help, WANT advice.

Wangst thread hijack!

RedEyedAbyss

'Like if someone really likes X show, and only posts in those threads, and someone decides thus, they must be some aspergery autistic person."

I honestly find it rather offensive that people constantly try to pin the "autism" label on anyone showing the slightest leaning towards the stereotype.

MadassAlex

My mother seems convinced I'm an aspie; I'm convinced that she wants an easy answer to my flaws and challenges. It's possible, perhaps, but I can think of simpler answers.

AHR

Abyss: I don't find it too offensive, just  grating...

You know I was just using an example, right? >_<

RedEyedAbyss

I wasn't talking about you. That merely reminded me of all those "diagnoses" of historical people to try to make them seem just like us (I don't know; there's something condescending about the notion of Inspirationally Disadvantaged). I might just be interpreting that the wrong way, but there's no excuse for doing the same to fictional characters.

AHR

Oh. Ok. Interestingly, my teacher just said today that Louis the 16th was prolly an aspie. But considering his track record, I'm inclined to agree.

MillerCross

My mother seems convinced I'm an aspie; I'm convinced that she wants an easy answer to my flaws and challenges. It's possible, perhaps, but I can think of simpler answers. 

indeed.

also, i'm supposed to have "mild asperger"

shit don't make sense, lemme tell ya.

AHR

My Middle School principal though I had aspergers, because I apparently spoke without a filter.

Good times.

And for the record, I do speak with a filter, I just speak a lot.

IanExMachina

Being diagnosed as anything by a non professional doesn't mean anything, as they don't have the required knowledge/experience/qualifications.

^Filter?

AHR

Filter. Basically, if you don't have one, you speak whatever comes to mind.

InsanityAddict

Had the same thing, got placed in the nebulous PDD-NOS group, which is even more useless. (in b4 autismal spectrum rollcall).

Anyhow, armchair psychology widely verges from labelling with disorders to actually analyzing a person's written behaviour plus anecdotes and trying to pin underlying motives for actions. The latter's effectiveness is greatly cut down because people always extrapolate circumstantial behaviour to the rest of the person, but it's not bad in itself. Even if your shot in the dark is completely wrong, it forces a person to examine their own behaviour for an alternate explanation.

AnneBeeche

Being diagnosed as anything by a non professional doesn't mean anything,
as they don't have the required knowledge/experience/qualifications.

This, not to mention even professionals are not infallible, and diagnostic methods are also not infallible, so it's good to get an opinion from a variety of people, through a variety of methods.

Let's look at the DSM for Asperger Syndrome:

[The following is from Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV]

(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested
by at least two of the following:

(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal
behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression,
body posture, and gestures to regulate social
interaction


(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to
developmental level How is this criterion measured?


(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment,
interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by
a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects
of interest to other people)


(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity This is quite vague. How do you measure that?

(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped ? So we're judging people by labeling their behavior as stereotypical now? Sounds very "I know it when I see it", which is not good enough for a scientific analysis patterns of
behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at
least one of the following:

(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more
stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that
is abnormal either in intensity or focus What is an example of a "stereotyped" pattern of interest, and how is intensity or focus measured? Furthermore, at what point does an intensity or focus become "abnormal"?


(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific,
nonfunctional routines or rituals


(C) stereotyped They sure use this word a lot and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g.
hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex
whole-body movements)


(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects This could use a little clarification. Persistent preoccupation with parts of objects how and why? What kinds of interest? What kinds of preoccupation?

(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant
impairments in social, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning. This feels like it should be the most important phrase in the book, but I have a feeling that some psychologists miss it and only judge the presence of apparent symptoms, and not how they affect the person's life.



(IV) There is no clinically significant general delay in
language (E.G. single words used by age 2 years,
communicative phrases used by age 3 years) This is a good criterion because it is supported by specific data to look for.



(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive
development or in the development of age-appropriate self
help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social
interaction) and curiosity about the environment in
childhood. Another good criterion.



(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive
Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia."

I am also not a happy camper of the indiscriminate observation of behaviors without considering their origins. Just because a child exhibits a behavior does not mean that that behavior is intrinsic--it could also be a sign of a more extrinsic problem such as a limited upbringing or a poor family life.

Many of these symptoms also seem to label a child's natural curiosity with the world around her as inherently abnormal. How do you tell the difference, by the DSM, between a curious child and an impaired one?

IanExMachina

Well the psychologist wouldn't (shouldn't too) just be using the DSM on its own, they'd have background information etc etc.

AnneBeeche

I should hope so.

But the incredibly high number of people being diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome and/or Autism suggests to me that standards are not being met and people are being falsely diagnosed. I see no reason to believe that an "epidemic" of Asperger Syndrome actually exists, and instead all I can see is an epidemic of diagnosis alone.

ClockworkUniverse

I'm quite skeptical of the DSM as-written. I've read that if you go by it alone, you'll find that one in two people is in need of psychotherapy.

IanExMachina

^^

It is probably a mix between more able to diagnose and more willing.

^

Most likely, hence why it shouldn't be the only tool in your repertoire if you work in such fields.

AHR

Yeah, agreeing with Ian. There is less of a stigma to these things. I am vaguely reminded of the George Lopez show with dyslexia. --nods to self--

captainbrass

Although I'm not a doctor, I am a lawyer, and I suspect that diagnosing by the book for them is probably as bad an idea as advising a client based purely on a legal textbook would be for us, even though legal rules are a lot more rigid than clinical guidelines. Circumstances alter cases, in both professions, and ultimately you have to use your judgement.

That's why lawyers don't tell you you will win your case, only that you have a reasonable chance of success, and doctors won't tell you the treatment will work - just that it has a high percentage chance of working.