Just to clarify what you mean by "on the spectrum", do you mean the mental illness one? It's a new expression for me and searching only came up with things related to autism, etc.
http://www.autismspeaks.org/dsm-5/faq#asperger
The above means people can use the word "Asperger's" if they want, but it has been denied any clinical meaning. The reason is that it didn't have a clearly defined clinical meaning to begin with.
Diagnosing mental illness is a very inexact science since multiple etiologies can create very similar symptoms. And a single etiology or difference can create many divergent ones [edit for clarity: symptoms].
It wasn't cast out because everyone was suffering from it. It was simply put into the lump categorization of Autism Spectrum Disorder: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%2...
From the document:
"Researchers found that these separate diagnoses were not consistently applied across different clinics and treatment centers. Anyone diagnosed with one of the four pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) from DSM-IV should still meet the criteria for ASD in DSM-5 or another, more accurate DSM-5 diagnosis."
Yes, true, and that means it is not science. Science requires evidence on which similarly equipped observers can agree, and falsifiability. Psychological diagnoses don't have either of these properties.
> It wasn't cast out because everyone was suffering from it.
It was cast out because of an epidemic of overdiagnosis (as it was put by the editor of DSM-IV), one that forced psychologists to realize they had made a mistake including it in the previous DSM. So, taking the high road, they voted it out of the present DSM.
But I ask that you notice something -- mental illnesses aren't identified by microscopes and lab assays, they move into and out of existence by way of votes. That by itself should give people pause about the scientific nature of the process.
Psychologists are reluctant to give up on a diagnosis like Asperger's, and such a reversal has only happened once before. Can you guess which behavior, now regarded as a civil right, defended by a number of federal laws, was branded a treatable mental illness until the 1970s?
Not to say that autism doesn't exist, just saying that, IMO, far too many 'normal' kids are being labeled as autistic.
First it was ADD - adolescent boys who were fidgety and distractible now had an illness, previously this was considered normal for young boys - then we decided that people who are not as social, perhaps shy - were now ill as well, whereas before again, this was considered within the definition of normal human behavior.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/health/idea-of-new-attenti...
Quote: "With more than six million American children having received a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, concern has been rising that the condition is being significantly misdiagnosed and overtreated with prescription medications."
"Yet now some powerful figures in mental health are claiming to have identified a new disorder that could vastly expand the ranks of young people treated for attention problems. Called sluggish cognitive tempo, the condition is said to be characterized by lethargy, daydreaming and slow mental processing. By some researchers’ estimates, it is present in perhaps two million children."
The article goes on to say that drug companies are partly behind the push for this new diagnosis. Surprise, surprise. :)
Not exactly. The problem is that anything outside that narrow definition is seen as "illness".
If you instead see it as a different, but equally valid, way of perceiving the world then the fact that so many people seem to have ASD, ADD or other "D"s makes much more sense.
This is not a matter of politically correct terms - I'm talking about a genuine difference in attitude. ASD is a very broad spectrum. Some people on it really do have an "illness" in the sense that they cannot function independently. Others are just a bit "different" and you may never even know they're not normal unless you happen to see them at their worst. Is it still worth diagnosing those? Generally, yes, because it allows them to get the help they need when they need it or, at least, understand themselves better, so they can help themselves.
Right: Since it was nearly only the boys and normal girls are not like that, it must be an 'illness'! Whenever boys and girls are not the same, there must be an illness because, as we know now from the feminists, boys and girls are the same, exactly the same, with no differences at all except illnesses!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum
For a time about ten years ago, it seemed as though everyone would be placed on the Autism spectrum, but psychologists realized what that would mean (i.e. if everyone is mentally ill, then no one is), so they threw out Asperger's, said it wasn't a real mental illness after all, thus postponing the day or reckoning. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Say what you want about Asperger's, but my son has autism and I can assure you it's a real mental health disorder, however many kids might somehow get diagnosed with it.
Yes, but you're mixing different things. Autism is a category that includes a "Rain Man" level of functioning, but Asperger's was a diagnosis du jour that picked out brighter-than-normal kids, plus a raft of historical figures including Albert Einstein, in a way that made it seem like an attractive diagnosis, such that now, we have people objecting, saying, "No! I'm an Aspie and I don't care what you psychologists say!"
Such a thing has never happened before -- there has never been a reverse stigma to a mental illness diagnosis. When psychologists saw people lining up to get this cool new diagnosis, they knew they had gone too far, so they started a process to remove Asperger's from the diagnostic manuals before their credibility was further eroded.
Remember when you read about Asperger's that psychologists, who have every reason to hold onto established diagnoses, couldn't wait to get rid of Asperger's and the embarrassment it caused them.
There is a sort of "aspie boom" and now everyone is a aspie, and claiming (rightfully or not) to be one makes people think you are a narcissistic or egoistical liar instead.
What I do is just try to fix my social problems as I can, and say sorry when I do something bad (that happily, is becoming more and more uncommon after I learned that Asperger's existed, plainly because it helped me become self aware of what exactly I was doing wrong that piss off other people).
Also recently I started to think that maybe almost everyone of the MBTI type INTP (and some INTJ) are aspies (not that they have a disorder, but in their sense that their normal behavior gets labelled as a disorder symptom), but that idea is too new on my head for now, I did not dwelled too much on it.
I am in the camp that being aspie is a different way of being, not a disorder.
No, not possible. That would be as likely as schizophrenia being labeled a fad diagnosis, or seriously questioned as to its reality. The reason that cannot happen is there are a handful of real physical ailments, ailments rooted in genetics and body chemistry, not just mental illness. I'm saying that "real" mental illnesses are actually behavioral symptoms of physical ailments. If you cure the physical disease, the mental symptoms will go also.
Schizophrenia, bipolar syndrome, autism and a handful of other conditions aren't fads, they're physical diseases with behavioral symptoms. On the other hand, purely mental illnesses whose diagnosis relies entirely on the opinion of a clinical psychologist and that have no associated physical properties or diagnostic indicators, like Asperger's, that's a different story -- that's an obvious area for abuse by mental health practitioners.
Eventually there will be a day of reckoning in which conditions like autism, schizophrenia and bipolar syndrome will be scientifically understood, and when that happens, psychiatry and psychology will take an entirely new form.
This is why President Obama recently announced a brain initiative rather than a mind initiative -- people are becoming distrustful of claims about mind diseases.
I think I actually would argue that it should be possible for a neural net in an otherwise physically-fine human brain to form various psychoses but I can definitely seek how a brain injury or deformation would be considered something different.
It's just meaningless speculation, in my view. People have widely different personalities, and also the tendency to categorize other people as having some pathology.