::It might be fair to mention it, if backed up clearly by statistics. However it should then also be explained, otherwise it might invite discrimination. It might be good to clarify the kind of crimes committed more, and the reasons behind it. As such it would actually be informative. Merely mentioning a suspicion would do more harm then good, and barely holds any informative value. --[[Special:Contributions/217.122.225.60|217.122.225.60]] ([[User talk:217.122.225.60|talk]]) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::It might be fair to mention it, if backed up clearly by statistics. However it should then also be explained, otherwise it might invite discrimination. It might be good to clarify the kind of crimes committed more, and the reasons behind it. As such it would actually be informative. Merely mentioning a suspicion would do more harm then good, and barely holds any informative value. --[[Special:Contributions/217.122.225.60|217.122.225.60]] ([[User talk:217.122.225.60|talk]]) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::It also must be mentioned that their anxiety in social situations might render people with AS more likely to be suspected of crime even if they're not guilty, because said anxiety can be mistaken for anxiety over getting caught. So, even if the proper critera were met for sources, the possibility of false accusation should also be noted.[[Special:Contributions/209.244.187.155|209.244.187.155]] ([[User talk:209.244.187.155|talk]]) 13:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asperger syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article only describes the disadvantages of Asperger's, except for noting that individuals with it often have excellent auditory and visual perception. It notes that Aspergers have obsessive interests but doesn't describe how they are often very knowledgeable about them (That's why Hans Asperger described his young patients as "little professors". It also doesn't emphasize that Asperger's people only have some of the symptoms described (that's why it's a syndrome). I don't consider myself experienced enough to make big changes but I hope someone who is sees this.--Supertask (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this criticism is a bit vague. Could you please be more specific? In rereading the article I didn't notice major problems in this area. For example:
The article talks about someone with AS winning the Nobel Prize.
The concluding sentence talks about AS abilities as probably being a valuable characteristic of our species.
The "little professors" remark is mentioned in three different places.
That being said, the article is obviously far from perfect, and if you can suggest specific problems with wording or make specific suggestions, that would help us improve it. Eubulides (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wired Magazine referred to AS as the "Geek Syndrome", suggesting that the typical symptoms/characteristics of AS are helpful for computer professionals and engineers. Frotz (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that sort of topic is currently covered in Asperger syndrome as follows: "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 and AS has not prevented some adults from major accomplishments such as winning the Nobel Prize." The math-ability source is Chiang & Lin 2007 (PMID 17947290), a more-recent and (on this subject) more-reliable source than Wired.
if the contention is to be made about the nobel prize, i think at least one example should be included. i have recently read speculation that paul dirac (physics,1933) was an as sufferer(?). also isaac newton although he precedes the nobel by a bit.Toyokuni3 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"At least one" or "at most one"? :-) We have reliable information about only one person with AS winning the Nobel. This information is already cited in the article, and people who are curious about the identity of the individual can easily find out who it is by following the citation. The person in question is not notable enough to make the cut for this article; the vast majority of Wikipedia readers will never have heard of him. Eubulides (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i missed the reference to v. smith. nonetheless you should see the personality section in the paul dirac article. at least it's good for a laugh. i don't mean to belittle the condition, but dirac's comment about his wife is undeniably funny.there is also reference to the psychologist who has written that dirac had asperger's. apparently he is well thought of in the field.do you think he represents a citable source for a nobel laureate having asperger's? obviously, i can't know your familiarity with theoretical physics (it certainly isn't my field) but i do know and can assure you that dirac was/is very,very notable.on a par with heisenberg,schrödinger, bohr, fermi, etc. Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Dirac is notable but it's only speculation that Dirac had AS. The source in question doesn't claim Baron-Cohen thought Dirac had AS, so the Paul Dirac article has it wrong. I'll go fix it now. We shouldn't rely on speculation in Asperger syndrome. Eubulides (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is no longer unbiased, as either Wikipedia or members have deliberately removed many positive comments about people with AS. This article has also had remaining portions re-worded to be misleading and give the impression that those with AS are mentally slow, humorless, or that dealing with Aspies is much more difficult than it really is. This article would be much more accurate if many of those deleted adpects were restored. Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then here is a sample of something that has been edited from previous versions:
Notable cases
AS is sometimes viewed as a syndrome with both advantages and disadvantages,[112] and notable adults with AS or autism have achieved success in their fields. Prominent AS-diagnosed individuals include Nobel Prize-winning economist Vernon Smith,[113] electropop rocker Gary Numan,[114] Vines frontman Craig Nicholls[115] and Satoshi Tajiri, the creator of Pokémon franchise.[116] Colorado State University professor and author Temple Grandin was diagnosed with autism at a young age, and has used her autism to her advantage in her profession as an animal behaviorist specializing in livestock handling.[117][118]
The syndrome was in the news in 2007 because of the suicide of Nikki Bacharach, the only child of the songwriter Burt Bacharach and his former wife, Angie Dickinson. The younger Bacharach had AS. A month later, Daniel Tammet, the subject of the television documentary Brainman, published Born On a Blue Day: Inside the Extraordinary Mind of an Autistic Savant (Free Press), a memoir of his life with AS, and was profiled in The New York Times.[119]
Some AS researchers speculate that well-known figures, including Thomas Jefferson[120], Jeremy Bentham,[121] Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton,[122] Glenn Gould[123] and Ludwig Wittgenstein,[124] had AS because they showed some AS-related tendencies or behaviors, such as intense interest in one subject, and/or social problems.[125][126] These speculative diagnoses, especially posthumous ones, remain controversial, as they work only from biographical information and sometimes ignore documented traits that would indicate against Asperger syndrome.[122] Autistic-rights activists use such speculative diagnoses to argue that it would be a loss to society if autism were cured.[127]
(I am not bothering to transfer the specific references indicated by the numerals in the interest of space because there are 15 reference notes.) This is an entry in earlier versions of the article that are well cited and supported, as well as that they help to show both how some Aspies have helped to contribute to developments in both arts and sciences to the benefit of others. It also helps to illustrate that Aspies can not only be fully functioning members of society, but valuable contributors as well. To remove sections like these places a slant on the overall article that shows negative aspects while overlooking many positive things that have come from those with AS. Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not bothering to transfer the specific references indicated by the numerals in the interest of space ... " And that sums up the largest flaw in this analysis. The fact that there is a little number after a statement doesn't mean the statement was well-supported or conforms to WP:V, WP:UNDUEorWP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article used to be much more complete but has been chopped down severely by somone(s). The part I take particular offense at (being someone with AS myself) is the implication that people with AS are not able to understand humor, irony, or teasing on anything more than an "cognitive" level. Whoever edited out the comments from some time back about the fact than many Aspies have a very developed sense of humor that is often based on wordplay, doggerel, and other such things needs to look at whether they were doing so for a "cleaner" article, or simply because they personally can't conceive of someone who's autistic in any way being able to have a sense of humor. I have looked at this article compared to earlier versions and find it rather disappointing that many of the good aspects of Asperger's were chopped out, including the list of famous Aspies and those strongly suspected of having it. To remove all the positive parts of this article is, in my view, reprehensible. (In fact, I added in something this evening about many Aspies actually having a sense of humor, and someone came along and chopped it right back out.) If it was someone who does not work for Wikipedia, I would request they be reported for manipulating articles. If it's someone who works for Wikipedia, they be talked to and made to restore the article to help show Aspies in a more realistic and unbiased light. Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the rationale for the deletion was explained in the edit summary: the information was unsourced. A substantive change in content will always be scrutinized for its references. The information you added may be confirmed by personal experience, but per WP:source, it needs to be supported by published scholarship. JNW (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JNW's summary exactly explains why I reverted that edit.
The current Asperger syndrome does not say people with AS "are not able to understand humor". It says they "may not enjoy it due to lack of understanding of its intent" (my emphasis), which is not at all the same thing. The cited source is Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller 2005 (PMID 16639107).
Do you have access to the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders? If so, I suggest consulting Lyons & Fitzgerald 2004 (PMID 15628606); it is a reliable source on the subject and may provide a different perspective from that of Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller 2005.
Or if you can suggest better sources than these, that would be even more helpful. Please see WP:MEDRS for what constitutes a reliable source in articles like these.
Here is a sample of something that was edited from the original article, and was sourced within the article itself.
Individuals with AS may use words idiosyncratically, including new coinages and unusual juxtapositions. This can develop into a rare gift for humor (especially puns, word play, doggerel and satire). A potential source of humor is the eventual realization that their literal interpretations can be used to amuse others. Some are so proficient at written language as to qualify as hyperlexic. Tony Attwood refers to a particular child's skill at inventing expressions, e.g., "tidying down" (the opposite of tidying up) or "broken" (when referring to a baby brother who cannot walk or talk).[33]
This citation references the book: Atwood, Tony (2006). The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome, Jessica Kingsley Pub. ISBN-1843104954,p. 82
The current article is much less comprehensive than even the article from 14:48, 18 May 2007. (Which was also more thoroughly referenced from my examination.) The current article is also worded and edited in a manner that can be very misleading regarding the intellectual, educational, and social abilities of those with Asperger's. And while it is understood that psychological data will change over time, certain aspects will not change, such as what is referenced above. I can verify the humor reference personally as an Aspie myself, for example. (Much of my own sense of humor is based on wordplay, puns, multiple word connotations, and the like. And a large number of people have noted that I have a well developed sense of humor.) Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Attwood's books are not peer-reviewed, and in some cases, peer-reviewed literature disagrees. For a specific item to be included in the article, it should conform to WP:V, WP:UNDUE and not be contradicted by peer-reviewed sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like Attwood's breezy and informal style, but I'm afraid SandyGeorgia is right: his non-peer-reviewed book is not as reliable as the peer-reviewed literature. As far as I can tell from the Amazon limited search capability, Attwood cites two sources on AS and humor: one is a case study (a mother writing about her children), which is a weaker primary source; the other is Lyons & Fitzgerald 2004 (PMID 15628606), the review I suggested above.
Currently, Asperger syndrome cites Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller 2005 (PMID 16639107), which has this to say about AS and humor:
Social understandings and interactions with others are seriously impaired in children with HFA and Asperger syndrome. For example, although these children have considerable verbal ability they fail to utilize language appropriately in social interactions. Part of the issue may be due to difficulties in taking the perspective of others, thus resulting in poor performance in conversations and interactions with others. Understanding nonliteral language and abstractions, whether humor, irony, or teasing, can be challenging for these children.
In a review of humor in autism and Asperger syndrome, Lyons and Fitzgerald [PMID 15628606; labeled "of special interest" by Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller] suggested that using and understanding humor is a complex process involving problem-solving, memory, mental flexibility, abstract reasoning, and imagination. It also requires an affective response and knowledge of the social context. Children with Asperger syndrome and HFA seem to have some humor understanding, perhaps because of the mathematical properties of humor and logic, but lack the affective understanding to participate fully in humorous exchanges. Similarly, Martin and McDonald [PMID 15264499; labeled "of outstanding interest" by Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller] found that young adults with Asperger syndrome were less likely to understand ironic jokes than typical controls and thus unable to utilize the social context for interpreting conversational meaning. Thus, although individuals with autism usually understand the cognitive basis of humor, particularly around topics they have interest in, they seem to lack the understanding of the intent of humor; that is to share enjoyment with others.
Since both Attwood and Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller both cite Lyons & Fitzgerald (PMID 15628606) and since that is a review, I dug it up. You can read the abstract by following the PMID yourself. The conclusion is too long to quote in its entirety, but its first paragraph is typical:
"Each of the neuropsychological/lateralization theories and underlying brain bases reviewed can account for some aspects of impaired humor appreciation in autism/Asperger syndrome. The well documented deficits in linguistic abilities, pragmatics, mindreading, executive functions, episodic memory, self awareness, central coherence and affective processing in individuals with autism and to a lesser extent in Asperger syndrome all contribute to these difficulties. However, despite this overwhelming evidence there are many anecdotal and parental reports of humor in individuals with autism/Asperger syndrome of all levels of functioning. Examples range from basic slapstick humor to highly sophisticated humor based on nonsense and logical confusion of language. These accounts seem to contradict the assumptions of our humor understanding in autism/Asperger syndrome and challenge some of the psychological theories with regard to creativity, imagination, reciprocal social interaction, executive functioning and mindreading."
With all the above in mind, it does appear that the text in Asperger syndrome #Speech and language could use some improvements to match the sources better. I propose replacing this text:
Individuals with AS appear to have particular weaknesses in areas of nonliteral language that include humor, irony, and teasing. They usually understand the cognitive basis of humor but may not enjoy it due to lack of understanding of its intent.[1]
with this text:
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.[1] Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of impaired humor appreciation, there are many anecdotal reports of humor in individuals with AS, which challenge our theories of humor in AS.[2]
I think that would be good, and would consider the matter of humor resolved well enough on my part. My primary concern is not to have the article written with the specific terms I want, rather it's to help show that not all Aspies are the same and that there's at least evidence of many having strong and well developed senses of humor... often because some of us have a strong understanding of language and its nuances.
Perhaps you might also consider finding a way to incorporate the following from the final section of the List of people on the autistic spectrum; article as a way to help make this more complete?:
"research has shown that individuals with autism and Asperger Syndrome are impaired in humor appreciation, although anecdotal and parental reports provide some evidence to the contrary."[39] They describe several individuals with Asperger syndrome who display a sense of humor and further suggest that a minority of such individuals, especially those that are mathematically gifted, can possess a sense of humor that is superior than average due to their unusual personalities, experience and intelligence.
The reference number points to: ^ Lyons V, Fitzgerald M (2004). "Humor in autism and Asperger syndrome" (PDF). J Autism Dev Disord 34 (5): 521–31. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-2547-8. PMID 15628606. Retrieved on 2007-11-26.
Thanks, I made the above-discussed change. I'm dubious about the "several individuals with Asperger syndrome who display" text that is in People speculated to have been autistic, though; I don't think it summarizes the source accurately. The only individual they specifically mention is Ludwig Wittgenstein and they (rightly) don't talk about his sense of humor, only his "highly developed linguistic and mathematical abilities". They claim he "suffered from Asperger syndrome", citing Fitzgerald 2000 (PMID 10795857), but this diagnosis is quite speculative; James 2003 (PMID 12519805), an enthusiastic proponent of the theory that Newton and Einstein had AS, merely lists Wittgenstein as a "possible case", and Oliver Sackssays (PMID 11591871) the claim is "very thin at best." Eubulides (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat late perhaps but I think the qualification overwhelming scientific evidence is perhaps a bit overdone in light of the given sources and citations. Or was that humor, or humour? Fenke (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. The source does say "overwhelming" but does not say "scientific"; "scientific" was my own addition and in hindsight (after looking at the source again) it was not right. The "overwhelming" seems a bit much to me, looking at their sources; at the risk of being accused of exercising my judgment I toned it down to "strong" (if you object, obviously "overwhelming" is better-supported by the source). Eubulides (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New review by Woodbury-Smith and Volkmar
Pubmed reports the following recently-published review of AS:
The full text is not yet available from the publisher's website, but judging from the abstract it looks like an excellent review and I suspect we should use it as a source for this article, when the review comes out and we have time to digest it. Eubulides (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't seem to have a policy on whether/why images are kept, so I can't tell if this is a valid rationale or not. Also, I can't even tell if it's a boy or a girl, so it's not like it's immediately clear who this is. I'll put in a comment at the commons. WLU (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That helps somewhat. I really wasn't sure what a "spontaneous interest" would be. I guess enjoying achievements with others might be liking accomplishing something as a team? But don't in fact aspergers people generally like sharing information about their interests with others? Шизомби (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This line seems counter-intuitive: "and the speech of those with AS typically lacks significant abnormalities". It implies that those who are not A.S. HAVE significant abnormalities in their speech, and that does not seem to me to be a common view of average humans. Antilog (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That phrase is intended to be part of the earlier "although". The phrasing here is a bit confusing, since the meat of the sentence comes at the end and is only a few words. I tried to clarify it a bit. Eubulides (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asperger Syndrome and Dyssemia
Children and adults with Asperger Syndrome may possibly exhibit dyssemia, as the diagnosis of AS coexists with other conditions, or their AS condition may be confused with dyssemia. Dyssemia consists of a series of difficulties with expressive and/or receptive nonverbal communication, the language of relationships. These difficulties may refer to facial expressions, gestures, body posture, pitch and tone of voice, appropriate touch and interpersonal space, mood, adaptive manners, punctuality, functioning and performing in rhythm with the environment, clothing, make-up, and hairdo style.
I created this section to fill a gap in the article. Regardless of the negative connotation of the word "nerd", it remains the usual, street English word to describe AS and must appear at least once in the article.
Unless the references specifically used the word "nerd", that section looked like original research. I would also agree that this would seem to be a minor aspect of Asperger, and I doubt the scholarly sources spend a lot of time discussing the nerdiness of AS. WLU (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WLU. Further, please do not transclude another article here; this is a featured article, and if an outside article deteriorates or doesn't meet FA standards, that can affect his article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that "nerd" is the usual, street-English word to describe AS. Lots of nerds do not have AS, and vice versa; and reliable sources do not at all equate the two notions. I agree that the section in Nerd is original research; it should not be included here (or in Nerd either, for that matter). Eubulides (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear what is the relevance of one layperson author's speculation to a well-sourced medical article. Does Benjamin Nugent have some training or qualifications to make diagnoses that isn't revealed in the interview? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This link should be of interest: [1]. It is an article by a professor of psychiatry at UCSD discussing the relationship between the nerd stereotype and Asperger's, as well as related autism spectrum disorders. I have added the citation to the disputed section which was transcluded in order to address the OR criticism, although I agree transclusion may not be the best way to add this section to this article. I think discussion of this topic is relevant and entirely appropriate, however, in order to place Asperger's within a societal context: both to illustrate the stigma often faced by people with AS, and to point out how society has historically viewed and responded to people with AS. It need not be claimed or implied that everyone who is called a nerd has AS nor that everyone with AS will be seen as a nerd by peers, rather the noteworthy phenomenon here is that there is a clear and documented overlap between the stereotype on the one hand and behavioral profile associated with AS on the other. Schomerus (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That link is not to peer-reviewed research; it is a hypothesis that nerds suffer from what the author dubs "mild PDD" (MPDD), a condition that is apparently neither PDD nor AS. The connection to Asperger syndrome is dubious, and anyway the "mild PDD" hypothesis does not appear in, and has not been tested by, any peer-reviewed research that I know of. Eubulides (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These two topics could well do with being covered. I am pretty sure that the phenomina of Asperger managers is quite a common one and is very little researched. If anyone knows of any research on Asperger managers please let me know. I do know of a book sold by Amazon called "Managing With Asperger Syndrome: A Practical Guide For White Collar Professionals" by Malcolm Johnson who is an Asperger manager giving advice for other Asperger managers. Asperger managers often have bad unintended consequences as they dont understand office politics, are oblivious to any office bullying that is going on around them and have serious problems judging someone's character resulting in errors such as promoting the wrong person. On the plus side Aspies are generally more honest than non-Aspies but they can easily get manipulated by a bully. --Penbat (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that Aspie managers and Aspie parents exist but there is little research would be better than nothing. Anyway maybe there is some research out there I dont know about. I am pretty sure I have personally have had 2 Aspie managers and am personally convinced it is common.
The obvious question about Aspie parents is how it impacts the upbringing of the children. Also are both parents likely be Aspie rather than just one ? --Penbat (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two other interesting questions are:
1/ What percentage of Aspies know they are Aspies either because they worked it out for themselves or were diagnosed by a professional ?
2/ What percentage of the different professions are Aspies. I guess accountants and software engineers have a higher percentage of Aspies than most and I would be surprised if there were hardly any teacher Aspies.--Penbat (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the syndrome does not make a person infertile or unemployable it doesn't seem worth mentioning that some people with it are parents or managers. Your other questions are interesting but appear to be calling for more research; Wikipedia is an inappropriate place to do this. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling for more research. I am asking if anyone knows of any existing research so some text can be written in this article. No-one is saying that Aspergers makes anyone infertile or unemployable but the awareness of the general population about Aspie coworkers is very low. Study of thsse topics is very worthwhile. There is a book available suggesting specific professions that an Aspie may take to. The phenomina of Asperger managers, for example is highly important. I am convinced that I had an Aspie manager in two companies I worked for and am convinced that in both cases a serious bullying culture thrived as in both case the Aspie manager was oblivious to its existence and the bullies rang rings around him. If the manager had not been an Aspie I am sure the bully cultures would not have thrived.--Penbat (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go out on a limb and claim that no research on this subject has been reported in any reliable source. (I did a brief search on it, and found nothing.) Eubulides (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Obviously my experience and conjecture dont stand up as valid scientific evidence. But it is a compelling and powerful proposition that:
"A significant number of bully cultures (in for example the workplace and schools) thrive because the relevant person in position of authority has Aspergers Syndrone and is both oblivious to the bullying and is himself manipulated by the bullies."
Little research has been done in this area. On exception is "Toxic Coworkers: How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job (by Alan A., Ph.D. Cavaiola, Neil J., Ph.D. Lavender)" but even this doesnt mention Aspergers as the book only covers personality disorders and Aspergers isnt a personality disorder. But it does cover Schizoid Personality Disorder which I think is similar to Aspergers but unlike Aspergers is a voluntary adaptive condition.
I doubt there's going to be much research on it, AS is relatively rare, about 2-3 in 10000, and I'd expect managers with AS to be even rarer since AS strengths usually aren't in the skills needed for management positions. But if you do find solid information on managers with AS it would probably be welcomed. Fenke (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rare as it is I'd be surprised if it was as low as that. According to the National Autistic Society in the UK the occurrence of all ASCs is about 1 in 100. On this basis 2-3 in 10,000 would imply that only about 1% of people with an ASC have AS. Its true to say that the current occurrence is essentially unknown - this is one reason the UK government has recently said they will attempt to establish the number of people with it (in both adults and children). Simply on the basis that all the conditions required for autism except the delay in language are required for AS would make me think the incidence was higher. We have had two occurrences (me and another) to my knowledge in my place of work, which might imply 1 in 700 if this was typical which I don't suspect it is - apart from anything else there may be more, I've generally assumeed there will be, simply because lots of people go right through life without ever knowing they have AS. There are also many people in denial - I know of at least one.
I've been told that I have none of the skills needed to become a manager - I tend to discount this for two reasons, the person who said this is a known bully (we have at least 12 people who would be claimed to have been bullied by this person), and I have managed a factory in the past. I might be unusual in that I also have two university degrees Soarhead77 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more common than the figures mentioned. Also you can almost double it if you just look at male Aspies. Also I think you will find the incidence is much higher in the computer or finance industry. My Aspie candidate 1, was actually the company finance director not so much a line manager, but as a consequence I think the company was very dysfunctional as he had problems relating to the requirements of the employees (equipment was inadequate for example). My Aspie candidate 2 was a departmental manager and got there through many years of technical experience. The company appreciated that he was not good with people so they recruited a manager under him to manage people but I think this manager was an NPD bully and manipulated the Aspie manager. --Penbat (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As i mentioned, Aspies can learn to be better managers see for example "Managing With Asperger Syndrome: A Practical Guide For White Collar Professionals" by Malcolm Johnson who is an Asperger manager giving advice for other Asperger managers. --Penbat (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only motivation is to highlight areas that have not yet been covered in this article and asking if anyone knows of any relevant research which can be used to support new text relating to these areas. --Penbat (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree here. What in a sense both Penbat and myself have done is to investigate whether evidence for particular assertions is available, and I in particular have said (or at least intimated) that such evidence might become available in the future. Soarhead77 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Physical reprecussions of Asperger's Syndrome?
Solely behavioral and/or neurological things that can stem from Asperger's are mentioned - things like depression, anxiety, etc.. But, shoudln't some physical one be there, too?
I will grant that hypertension, high blood pressure, and even stroke could fall under a wide anxiety umbrella - so if that is your reason for not mentioning them I can understand. However, it seems that the stress associated with an Aspie's attempts to survive in the daily routine of most would lead to this, and perhaps to easier work burnout if not monitored closely. Or, have they actually found that that is not the case, and I am trying to think too logically on this?
Again, though, perhaps you mean to cover all of these in anxiety. (Or, perhaps "anxiety and other stress-related conditions could be place in place of just plain "anxiety.")209.244.187.155 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following text was added as part of a new top-level section Personal relationships that cut the existing Asperger syndrome #Characteristics in half, in a confusing way:
Having Aspeger syndrome can make staying in a personal relationship extremely difficult. The constant battle with miscommunications alone can be both exhausting and heartbreaking for both parties involved. Maxine Aston[3] suggests several ways to better communication when there is a situation where one partner has Asperger syndrome, and one does not. Some of these include utilizing the telephone and e-mail rather than talking face-to-face, or talking with the lights turned down. Tony Attwood[4] suggests using written communication, which allows each partner to actually take some time to think over what they want to say.
If this material is added to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism I suggest first reviewing WP:MEDMOS #Audience, in particular the section "Signs of writing for (other) patients", as it does appear that this text suffers from some of the problems listed there.
I would agree with most of this. One word of warning - most aspies that I know (including me) don't like using the telephone for reasons that aren't exactly clear. The other main difficulty in relationships is the lack of emotional response in aspies. The aspie in me wants to find the spelling mistake and correct it :-) Soarhead77 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nomination
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find this page mostly focuses on asperger syndrome as a disease and does not give weight to other views. It can also be seen by the wording in which it is not stated that these are just one groups views. The complaints on the talk page are yet another clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After putting a POV tag on an article, it does not suffice to merely complain vaguely that that the article is biased and that views are omitted. Any serious criticism must indicate which text is biased, which text should be included instead, and which reliable sources should be cited in the newly-included text. Please see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS for guidance as to what sort of text and sources are expected here. Eubulides (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had problems with the wording such as the words impairment and that it seems to be considered a disease. The sources cited from the beggining seem to be made up of mostly medical journals which can many time be ghostwritten. The sociological part thrown in at the end seems like an attempt to give a minimum opposing view. I would see this article in need of improvement I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Asperger syndrome is one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior. Like other psychological development disorders, ASD begins in infancy or childhood, has a steady course without remission or relapse, and has impairments that result from maturation-related changes in various systems of the brain." here is a quote from the wikipedia article. just read through and you will find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you're unable to justify either of the tags you've placed; telling us to read the article doesn't justify a POV tag. Since that has already been explained to you at Talk:Autism, which you also tagged, I'll continue the conversation there. Posting the article text to a talk page doesn't justify calling the article POV. Please provide specific sources and examples, or the tag will be removed. Tagging multiple articles without justification can become disruptive. Please provide sources and justification for the tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem is the wording in this article. It is suggestive. As far as neutrality there are conflicting views which should be specified, but the wording makes it seem like credibility is being given to the medical view and reading through it seems like I am reading a medical manual.
Can I suggest (which Sandy also hints at) that we continue this discussion at Talk:Autism rather than two places. I don't see anything being discussed here that isn't a concern shared with autism. Colin°Talk20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone recently posted a talk section called AS and Crime, which was quickly deleted on the suspicion of it being a sock for a banned member User:Jquandar. I have no way of knowing if the person who posted that section about AS and Crime is User:Jquandar or not (maybe an admin could check the IP's), but the information seems legitimate to me. I know it's not politically correct, and it might be possible to show that the data isn't true, but it seems to me that rejecting the idea of even putting it into the article on the basis of superficial similarity to something that an Encyclopedia Dramatica member posted a few weeks back is a bad idea. Even if by some chance it is the same person, shouldn't we take a look at the information and add it into the article if it seems legitimate?
(Note: It would seem that I chose to use my anonymous IP (65.175.254.105) to edit during the "Autism and Rape" thing because I didnt want it showing up in my recent edit history. I don't know who Jquandar is but I am familiar with Encyclopedia Dramatica and with the help of a friend who isn't on Wikipedia I was able to discover the other things that he/she had likely written. I recently switched from general vandalism watch to watching mostly autism-related articles. I have AS myself, but I'm a novice when it comes to knowledge about AS and autism so I mostly content myself to reverting vandalism and even then I will wait and let someone else do it if I'm not sure what to do. I'm just saying all of this in case anyone here is wondering who I am, since most editors of this page probably aren't familiar with me.) SoapTalk/Contributions19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's WP:RS, it should go in, with whatever caveats are appropriate. If it's not, it shouldn't. I can never really tell what "political correctness" is supposed to mean other than being polite to people. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on here. You remove not only text but the source URL's as well? Based on an unchecked and utterly false conjecture that I'm a sock puppet? or troll?(whatever that is). You are reminding me of Vietnam vets with PTSD. I understand it is not the most palatable of issues but that is no reason to wipe it off the page without discussion. At minimum Id like the links restored and something of my question, and maybe an explanation for why there was no check of my IP before wrongly concluding sock puppetry? I'm only suggesting the smallest of mentions in the article, perhaps a sentence or even half sentence if it is found legitimate. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC) PS. to put your mind to ease please note that I have not been involved in editing any of the previous discussions above, nor have I read them until now. So you can rest that I'm not one who frequents this entry, nor am I involved in AS groups outside of Wikipedia (can't believe I'm having to offer a reassuring resume!) 58.170.49.139 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has certainly been activity in the past few days by a sockpuppet account on exactly this topic, along with attempts to recruit people to this page. I'm afraid that in such an environment, large additions of highly speculative material on the same subject by IP addresses are subject to considerably more scrutiny. At this point it remains unclear whether this new effort is indeed independent. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, whats your problem with assuming good faith? Whilst I understand your valid (yes, I understand) suspicions of the motivation of editors, I take offense at your rhetorical question of whether my effort is indeed independent. I know absolutely nothing about another person posting something on this subject. By taking this suspicious stance you are also giving ammunition to those who (I agree, unreasonably) claim bias on your part. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked no question. If I were not assuming good faith, I would not be writing here. By the way, with phrases like "assuming good faith" you are clearly familiar with Wikipedia procedures. I suggest signing in rather than continuing to post from an IP address. Eubulides (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you want to quibble. You did not ask a question of whether my effort was independent, but you made a clear statement that it remains unclear whether my efforts were indeed independent. Note that I had already made a statement that your focus on "coincidence" did not follow through to the suggested reality of me being a sockpuppet, and yet you still feel a need to state that coincidence again. Would you like to take this paranoia further? 58.170.49.139 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Eubulides: I didn't think you would be keen to reply to this question of whether you wanted to continue with your paranoia. The fact that you deleted my heading, quotes, and links to studies, all based on your completely unsubstantiated and therefore paranoid assumption that I was a sock-puppet and troll, is unacceptable. Its called bad faith without reasonable justification, and I hope the reason you didn't reply to my question of whether you wish to continue with your paranoid statements is because you may have realized the error of your impulsive reaction (and if you dont, I hope someone points it out to you). I gave you the opportunity recant your actions and you came back with petty quibbling. You even abstained from my request that you reinstate something of my original question plus links to the articles I was citing (which you deleted). To point out the obvious, even someone with your extensive accumulated knowledge on AS studies does not have diplomatic immunity from respectful intercourse. Whilst I don't care one way or the other about the outcome of the topic I introduced, I do care about your inappropriate actions and sincerely hope that other editors record this incident for future reference. Thank you to others who responded to this sensitive topic in a non-paranoid manner. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AS and crime
I note the increase in studies finding an overrepresentation of AS individuals in acts of crime in relation to their numbers. For instance the following By Haskins and Silva:
'Asperger's Disorder remains an under-diagnosed condition because of clinical unfamiliarity with its adult presentation. As forensic clinicians become familiar with the presentation of Asperger's disorder, it appears that affected individuals are over-represented in forensic criminal settings. Unique features of such persons may heighten their risks for engaging in criminal behavior.' Asperger's Disorder and Criminal Behavior: Forensic-Psychiatric Considerations
The authors of that study, and other studies, eg. [2][3] mention the significant representation of AS individuals in sexual crimes, violent crimes, arson, cyber crime, stalking, and others. Whilst these might not be the best sources for these crime-AS correlations, a cursory read still suggests that the issue is at least significant enough to warrant a brief mention in the article. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 58.170.49.139 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources given are:
Haskins & Silva 2006 (PMID 17032961) is merely a set of case studies, which is not evidence of any association between AS and crime.
Stokes et al. 2007 (PMID 17273936) is about ASD, not Asperger syndrome.
Berney 2004, as far as I can see, contains no new data on this topic; is is almost entirely tentative speculation, based on one older result of Tantam.
None of these studies present scientific evidence on the subject. They are either speculation or case studies. Obviously there are examples of people with AS committing violent crimes. But the abovementioned sources are low-quality, are not particularly reliable, and have been selected to present AS as badly as possible (a theme that the banned member User:Jquandar and sockpuppets have recently promoted; pardon me, but I cannot help but notice the coincidence).
There are some very limited data on violent crime in general and Asperger syndrome / high-functioning autism. See, for example, Woodbury-Smith et al. 2006 (doi:10.1080/14789940600589464). There are several incidents reported in the popular press about offenders with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism; most of these individuals seem to also have other psychiatric disorders at the same time (e.g., major depression) (see Newman & Ghaziuddin 2008, PMID 18449633), which suggests that it may be other factors, not autism or AS per se, that increase the risk for violent crime.
Although the two sources in the previous bullet are considerably more reliable than the three sources previously mentioned, I'm not sure how to turn them into high-quality text that appears in Asperger syndrome. What we really need here is a reliable review on the subject, and I don't know of one. It would be out of place for us to write a mini-review on the topic ourselves.
Once again you raise the sockpuppet coincidence. For goodness sake provide any real evidence for that conjecture, or please desist! You are on the right track by discussing this issue, and thats all we need do. Simple!
I'm surprised at your claim that the sources are selected purely to present AS as badly as possible. Are you saying that about me? or about the authors of those studies? Either way I think its time you stopped with the hyperbole, and allow for a polite and friendly discussion of this sensitive subject. This issue of crime in the context of psych disorders of a common one (eg for personality disorders) and is not an attack on people with AS. It is more a question of the vulnerability of individuals toward these behaviors. I would like to see a breif mention in the article based on the surest of details these studies provide.
Based on Eubulides paranoia about me being (apriori) a sockpuppet I dont think an environment was created for a trusting, open-minded discussion. So I'll just drop it. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be fair to mention it, if backed up clearly by statistics. However it should then also be explained, otherwise it might invite discrimination. It might be good to clarify the kind of crimes committed more, and the reasons behind it. As such it would actually be informative. Merely mentioning a suspicion would do more harm then good, and barely holds any informative value. --217.122.225.60 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also must be mentioned that their anxiety in social situations might render people with AS more likely to be suspected of crime even if they're not guilty, because said anxiety can be mistaken for anxiety over getting caught. So, even if the proper critera were met for sources, the possibility of false accusation should also be noted.209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are some reports of an association with violence or criminal behavior in AS [3], [26], [27], a systematic review of the literature did not find support for increased behaviors of this nature in AS [28]. Taken along with the current results, there is more evidence to suggest that children with AS occupy the role of victim rather than victimizer [1], [29].
Thanks. Sheesh, how could I have forgotten about those? Also, McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291) address the subject, saying "Researchers have investigated the notion that the combination of preserved intellectual and linguistic capacities with limited empathy and social understanding would predispose individuals with AS to violent or criminal behavior, but this hypothesis is unsupported by data."
And this review material is all currently summarized in Asperger syndrome #Social interaction, with the paragraph "The hypothesis that individuals with AS are predisposed to violent or criminal behavior has been investigated and found to be unsupported by data. More evidence suggests children with AS are victims rather than victimizers." In reviewing this summary, the phrase "and found to be unsupported" is too strong; it suggests that the matter is closed, which it's not. I changed it to "but is not supported".
Too confusing: no bullet points or diagnosis criteria
This article just isn't clear.
The Attwood book gives 3 different diagnosis criteria types. ie not just DSM-IV. This article is hard to read through and actually see what the list of traits (positive & negative) involved are. If I didn't already know, I would have a hard time figuring out form the article as it stands now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.222.149 (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This edit, which adds "or that the person is lying or insincere", is not supported by the cited source (McPartland & Klin 2006, PMID 17030291). That source doesn't talk about people with AS appearing to lie or be insincere.
This edit, which adds the italized words in "impaired nonverbal behaviors in areas such as lack of eye contact, no or inappropriate facial expression", adds words to the text unnecessarily, which adds confusion. The text is already talking about "impairments" in eye-contact etc, so there's no reason to change "eye contact" to "lack of eye contact". Saying "impairments in ... lack of eye contact" is a double-negative, which makes the text more confusing.
I suggest first proposing changes like these here, on the talk page (click on "new section"). Lots of editors watch this talk page, and you're sure to get comments.
It causes the lead to incorrectly imply that Asperger syndrome is an ASD that is characterized by "difficulties in social interaction and by restricted, stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities". But that is the characterization of ASD, not of AS.
It implies that the standardization of AS occurred when it was included in the DSM-IV. But it occurred earlier, when it was added to ICD-10.
It says "There is no treatment" for AS. But there are treatments. It's just that there is no single treatment.
It claims that there is a "significant debate among researchers" as to whether AS is a disorder, but we don't have a reliable source saying that.
I see now that the edit has been reverted, but it did point out some problems in the previous text:
The previous text leads with the definition of ASDs. But this is an article about AS, not ASDs. This is confusing (and I think it partly explains the above edits). It's better to lead with the characteristic of AS that distinguishes it from the other ASDs.
There's a missing "physical" in front of a clumsiness, to distinguish it from social clumsiness.
The last sentence of the lead is excessively wordy.
While I agree with most of what you said, and your edit is at least better than mine, I have to say that I'm not sure if the opening sentence should quite read like that. If it opens with "There is no general delay in language or cognitive development," then it makes it sound much less like a condition - which could present bias (IMO - open to debate). I think it's best to start the article with an opening sentence that recognizes the most ideosyncratic traits of Asperger Syndrome, positive or negative, and then leave the lack of verbal or cognitive developmental delayment for the next couple of sentences, as they are undoubtedly important in the first paragraph.
And as for the rationale for reversion that "difficulties in social interaction and by restricted, stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities" is not a diagnostic criterion for AS, but rather for ASD. Well, for starters, AS is considered to be, in and of itself, a very mild form or variant of ASD. And secondly, the stereotyped patterns of behavior/social awkwardness is one of the defining elements of the disorder. I would provide sources for this, but I'm a tad too lazy to do so.
I can certainly see your point about the opening sentence. It would be nice if the lead sentence included not just what makes AS differe from other ASDs, but also the parts of ASDs that AS shares. Perhaps the 1st two sentences should be combined? But the Wikipedia style guide says that the lead sentence should be a simple declarative sentence.... Eubulides (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hung up on the new lead sentence, but haven't found a way around it. The problem now is that we hit "the ASD in which" before we hit anything else that explains what all ASDs have in common, so understanding the at that point requires us to click out to the ASD link. It becomes clear as we read, but I get tangled at that point. I liked the original lead better, but I see what you're trying to accomplish, don't know how to solve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about replacing the first two sentences with the following?
Thanks. The "all" was designed to remove any ambiguity as to whether the "without" clause applied only to the "restricted" clause, or to both the "restricted" and the "difficulties" clauses. I wasn't sure myself whether it was needed, but if it's clear without the "all" let's leave it out, and I struck it from the suggested wording. Eubulides (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope nobody minds if I add Eubulides's version, as it is very good, concise, and eye-catching - and more importantly, a consensus exists to modify the text. Master&Expert (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
