Talk:Asperger syndrome

(Moved merge suggestion to bottom of page - please add new discussions at the BOTTOM in future - thanks!)SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 2 February 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)