Report of the DSM-V Neurodevelopmental Disorders Work Group

Page 9 of 11 [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

quietgirl
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 39
Location: United States

24 Dec 2012, 1:44 am

fidelis wrote:
It doesn't make much sense to me either. That's why I put it in quotes. It's not the best way to explain it. If I have to explain this is how: the part of my brain that filters my behavior is unconscious. By observing other people and learning to control my emotions I can sort of replicate any behavior that I experience consciously at an unconscious level. When I say control my emotions I don't mean the behaviors spawned from the emotions, I mean the actual emotions. I've been trying to teach my friend Zac, who also has ASD, how to do this trick, but the English language isn't designed for this type of communication.


Thank you for putting this into words. I know exactly what you mean and never could quite express it.



Yuugiri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,049
Location: Washington

18 Feb 2013, 5:55 pm

Sparkstorm wrote:
Also, as autistic rights activist, I really don't like the term "co-morbidity" that instantly implies that something is wrong, when most of the time it is a simple case of something being different.

All co-morbidity means is that you have a physical/mental disorder in conjunction with another physical/mental disorder (respectively). It's a medical term, and implies nothing except for what people without qualifications project onto it.


_________________
Averages
AS: 138.8
NT : 54.6


managertina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 649

25 Feb 2013, 12:05 am

Yes, I don't like it either. I know what it means scientifically, but still do not care for it. Instead, I thing co-occurring makes much more sense even if it does not roll off the tongue as easily.

Anyway, when is the exact release date for dsm5? I wanted to hear more about the updates on it, but don't know where to look.

They can't take away a diagnosis given under dsmiv, can they? I don't know if I would qualify for ASD then. Maybe that social communication disorder that Temple Grandin spoke about.



SpeakerToAnimals
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

01 Mar 2013, 11:26 am

I don't think anything which includes the word 'morbid' is neutral. 'Co-existent' or 'correlated' but not morbid. It means deseased.



animalcrackers
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,207
Location: Somewhere

25 Apr 2013, 3:03 pm

Aud wrote:
I am [...] very aware that were someone to know I was "Autism Spectrum" before meeting me, they might have certain expectations or assumptions. Those expectations would NOT be met; and people react very negatively to the unexpected introduction of an Aspergian when they were expecting what their concept of an "Autistic" is... we do NOT present the same way, ot that I have ever witnessed. For this reason I fail to see, when humans in general are so seemingly incapable of distgushing shades of likeness when they are blinded by a blizzard of difference, what calling two behavioral modalities that are present at utterly opposite of one another as merely a continuance of one another does to assist in resolving on going issues of marginalization of ALL non neurotypicals by the hegemonic culture which tacitly defines "normalcy."


If you take everybody diagnosed with Asperger's and compare them to each other, you'll probably find what look like "polar opposites" of ability all over the place. The same thing would happen with those diagnosed with Autistic Disorder -- although maybe to a greater extent.

Aud wrote:
Possibly they need to meet a few Aspies, and gain an up close and personal understanding of the fact that some Autistics certainly DO speak


It's not just people diagnosed with Asperger's who can speak -- not everyone with Autistic Disorder is incapable of speech; I have trouble with communicating through speech in many situations, but that doesn't mean I can't speak at all. The dividing line between Asperger's and Autistic Disorder is not as clear as many people think it is.

Personally, I think that lumping all the diagnoses together could be a good thing -- because the fact of the matter is that people with autism (any kind of autism) are all different from one another in numerous ways. A model of the differences in symptoms and functioning among people with ASD diagnoses, if put into a geometrical/visual-spatial form in my mind, looks more like a koosh ball than a thermometer/ladder/ruler -- it's more complicated than a single, two-directional spectrum....I think that lumping all the current diagnoses together might force people to look at more of the dimensions of ASD and look more at individual needs/differences than at how closely someone fits a narrow stereotype.

I could be totally wrong about this, but...I think that even if lumping all the diagnoses together doesn't compel non-autistic people to consider individual differences when meeting or thinking about people with ASDs, I don't think it will make the situation any worse than it already is in terms of people just imagining stereotypes instead of getting to know the person with Asperger's/Autistic Disorder/PDD/ASD...because as it is, there's huge variation between people with the same diagnosis and most people use stereotypes and preconceived notions about autism/asperger's as the basis for their expectations of someone on the spectrum, instead of getting to know that someone as an individual. Stereotypes don't really account for any range in behavior/presentation or functioning at all -- they're a way of looking at people and saying, "because you can be described as A, you must be/have exactly W,x,Y, and z because all people with A are/have exactly W,x,Y and z".... if you're missing x, if your 'z' is drawn backwards, or if your 'W' is actually a lowercase 'w' then you automatically don't match the stereotype and people get confused/upset/angry/argumentative/dismissive or just completely refuse to believe that you don't have 'x', or that instead of a 'W you actually have a 'w'.


_________________
"Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving." -- Terry Pratchett, A Hat Full of Sky

Love transcends all.


bryanmaloney
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 99

30 Apr 2013, 9:35 am

Yuugiri wrote:
Sparkstorm wrote:
Also, as autistic rights activist, I really don't like the term "co-morbidity" that instantly implies that something is wrong, when most of the time it is a simple case of something being different.

All co-morbidity means is that you have a physical/mental disorder in conjunction with another physical/mental disorder (respectively). It's a medical term, and implies nothing except for what people without qualifications project onto it.


Then why doesn't the DSM talk about "co-morbidity" of cancer with schizophrenia or of cirrhosis of the liver with bipolar disorder?

Language as used is never actually neutral, it always comes with presumptions and assumptions.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

30 Apr 2013, 6:59 pm

bryanmaloney wrote:
Yuugiri wrote:
Sparkstorm wrote:
Also, as autistic rights activist, I really don't like the term "co-morbidity" that instantly implies that something is wrong, when most of the time it is a simple case of something being different.

All co-morbidity means is that you have a physical/mental disorder in conjunction with another physical/mental disorder (respectively). It's a medical term, and implies nothing except for what people without qualifications project onto it.


Then why doesn't the DSM talk about "co-morbidity" of cancer with schizophrenia or of cirrhosis of the liver with bipolar disorder?

Language as used is never actually neutral, it always comes with presumptions and assumptions.


Co-morbidity refers to conditions that are correlated or even implicated in causation. No one has cancer with a schizophrenia comorbid because the two are not implicated together. Also, I do not recall that the DSM focuses on physical ailments.



Meistersinger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,700
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township PA

03 May 2013, 5:25 pm

I received this link in an email from the GRASP general email list. It looks like NIMH is having second thoughts about the DSM 5 in general.

http://mindhacks.com...m_source=feedly



AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Near the Delaware River

03 May 2013, 6:34 pm

Seems a little more than just "second thoughts".

http://www.science20.com/science_20/blo ... sm5-111138

I read the statements, it was pretty rough on the DSM in general. Coming two weeks prior to DSM-5, the timing could be questioned.


_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)


Meistersinger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,700
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township PA

12 May 2013, 9:29 pm

Which is why I think the DSM is 98% bull feces! Another board I sometimes visit on getting off psychotropic drugs safely under medical supervision, has a real strong bias against the APA medicalizing problems of everyday life. The APA is so beholden to BIG PHARMA, with all the corruption running rampant between those organizations, let alone the FDA and NIMH. The APA has a idea of normal that nt's, let alone those of us on the spectrum, have no idea what the fsck they want.



lenticular
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 3

01 Oct 2013, 12:46 am

MathGirl wrote:
MathGirl cited an article called, A-Powerful-Identity-a-Vanishing-Diagnosis.


Informative quote from source cited above. Tells interested parties how they may influence the DSM categorizations.

"All interested parties will have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed changes. The American Psychiatric Association is expected to post the working group’s final proposal on autism diagnostic criteria on the diagnostic manual’s Web site in January and invite comment from the public. Dr. Swedo and company are bracing for an earful."

The "bracing for an earful" comment makes me suspect input will not be valued highly.



gonewild
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 177

21 Oct 2013, 9:53 am

As a physical scientist (geology) I find current attempts at defining by diagnosis various disorders under the umbrella of Autism quite unscientific. Questions need to be asked: on what physical basis are diagnosis made? Anyone with a birth defect, abnormal brain development, damage from toxins or chemicals during pregnancy, premature birth or abuse ought to be treated for those conditions and not be lumped in with people who represent a personality type that occurs naturally in humans that is, individuals who process the environment differently that what is considered to be normal, when normal is defined by the prejudices of the social majority. Where is the scientific justification for claiming that one group of behaviors defines Homo sapiens and that any person who deviates from this narrow prescription is defective? This prejudice against those who are 'disobedient' is a religious notion; not science. In fact there is a long history of religions persecuting the very people who fit the modern diagnosis of so-called Aspergers disorder - people who in fact have created civilization through science, engineering, technology and the arts.



graywyvern
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 655
Location: texas

21 Oct 2013, 10:10 am

...has been said:

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/book-of-lamentations/


_________________
"I have always found that Angels have the vanity
to speak of themselves as the only wise; this they
do with a confident insolence sprouting from systematic
reasoning." --William Blake


bryanmaloney
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 99

26 Dec 2013, 5:19 pm

gonewild wrote:
As a physical scientist (geology) I find current attempts at defining by diagnosis various disorders under the umbrella of Autism quite unscientific. Questions need to be asked: on what physical basis are diagnosis made? Anyone with a birth defect, abnormal brain development, damage from toxins or chemicals during pregnancy, premature birth or abuse ought to be treated for those conditions and not be lumped in with people who represent a personality type that occurs naturally in humans that is, individuals who process the environment differently that what is considered to be normal, when normal is defined by the prejudices of the social majority. Where is the scientific justification for claiming that one group of behaviors defines Homo sapiens and that any person who deviates from this narrow prescription is defective? This prejudice against those who are 'disobedient' is a religious notion; not science. In fact there is a long history of religions persecuting the very people who fit the modern diagnosis of so-called Aspergers disorder - people who in fact have created civilization through science, engineering, technology and the arts.


Aw, heck! As a neuroscientist (molecular psychiatry), I find current attempts at classification as expressed in the DSM or similar books to be quite unscientific. The DSM began as a purely clinical effort to attempt to bring a little bit of order to a field with no consistency of diagnosis. Until the DSM came out, it was complete chaos in the USA. However, the DSM was issued for and by clinicians, with little reference to biology. It has been updated, but there is still little reference to biology.

The dirty secret is that this is not always due to politicking on the part of clinicians. Truth be told, except for a few disorders (mostly on the schizoid axis) we know next to dink about associated biology. Thus, we have "autism" still used to describe a whole host of conditions that may turn out to be biologically distinct. Likewise, there is the matter that this is a clinical matter, not a pathology manual. Thus, from the point of view of an emergency room physician, it's not immediately important whether or not a broken arm was caused by falling off a chair, running into a wall, an abusive spouse, or other cause, except as that influences symptoms associated with said broken arm. Those are pathology issues, not immediate diagnosis treatment issues.

It's a complicated thing, and the DSM model should eventually be replaced, but neuroscience as such didn't exist until very recently. Holding to the standard of physics is flat-out goofy.



OJani
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,505
Location: Hungary

27 Dec 2013, 9:25 am

graywyvern wrote:

Thanks, I like it!



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,229
Location: Long Island, New York

29 Jan 2014, 3:55 am

http://www.businessinsider.com/fewer-au ... ria-2014-1


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman