Wikipedia

Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 17

< Talk:Asperger syndrome
Latest comment: 17 years ago by 71.116.41.201 in topic Something's missing...
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

WTF?

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments14 people in discussion
Reminder: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

...can have both positive and negative effects... Excuse me? What positive effects could there be? I'm pretty sure even Prader-Willi Syndrome is less detrimental for a given person than Asperger's. Take it from someone diagnosed with it. User:Gmeric13@aol.com —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to quote one of our references,[[1]]
"Individuals with Asperger disorder have normal or even superior intelligence, and they may make great intellectual contributions... Published case reports of men with Asperger disorder suggest an association with the capacity to accomplish cutting-edge research in computer science, mathematics, and physics. While the deficits manifested by those with Asperger disorder are often debilitating, many individuals experience positive outcomes, especially those who excel in areas not dependent on social interaction. Persons with Asperger disorder have exhibited outstanding skills in mathematics, music, and computer sciences. Many are highly creative, and many prominent individuals demonstrate traits suggesting Asperger syndrome. As an example, biographers describe Albert Einstein as a person with highly developed mathematical skills who was unaware of social norms and insensitive to the emotional needs of family and friends."
That's a brief summary, but I hope that it answers your question. A lot of us aspies wouldn't want a cure if they could invent one. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have Asperger's, and I feel it is the reason why I have such a logical mind- which is why I excel rather typically at mathermatics, computer science, physics and music. Basically, I'm confirming the above. 77.96.223.11 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I know plenty of people with Aspergers, including myself, and I highly contest the notion of positive effects. Unless my memory is full of holes, I cannot seem to recall any cases where AS has improved my life and I have seen it have equally devastating effects on others. Just my two cents. Eddy1701 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I was wrong. Not definitely, but perhaps. Another thing - while the average person with Asperger's may be especially good at mathematics, I was always terrible at word problems. Every night in elementary school for a very long time, my parents would have to sit down for 3 hours and go over the problem with me and I still wouldn't understand. It's that way once again today, when it doesn't look like I will pass a required course to graduate from high school. Maybe something's wrong with me because I don't think this is a good thing. User:Gmeric13@aol.com

Well, any mental disorder has it's ups and downs. 99.230.152.143 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


My doctor said i might have asperger syndrome, so for the ups, i have managed to represent my school in every single maths challenge i can. If that not proof enough, my doctor said to see it as another way of looking on the world, i seem to have the biggest vocabulary, i can spell really well, only bad side is that i dont really understand complex instructions. So far i have managed to realise that i have confused myself writing this.90.240.114.176 17:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


A psychratrist told me that Asperger synrome has a persons mind working DIFFERENTLY then normal peoples. It may be defiecent in SOME areas, but better at others. A lack in the areas related to social development and non verbal communications may be countered with in increased ability to do complax maths and science. That is what I think that bit is about. Corrupt one 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Corrupt One, my maths is outstanding compared to the other people in my group, my science is... er.. well physics and chemistry are OK (saying that i am fascinated by the periodic table), my only downside in science is biology. As for the social dvelopment, i seem to not be able to find people like me, and when i do they tend to ignore me (They say i say the wrong things, well the majority cant be wrong!), so i guess thats bad socialising on my part. Hmm, the bit about minds working differently confuses me, i think i think the same way as most people, however i like to feel in control, and so i like games, Guild Wars for example, im in 100% control.90.240.114.176 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

oindexter Propellerhead Im sorry, but there is no actual proof that Albert Einstein had asperger syndrome whatsoever. And by the way, being intelligent about scientific areas is a positive aspect? T Yeah right, but you're gonna end up alone in a laboratory with no friends. I really don't see AS as a positive syndrome. One can achive superior intelligence without having aspergers. Sorry pals, but it's the truth. -Aspergerkid1116 i like numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.111 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that matter if working in a laboratory is your passion? Who needs friends anyway? OK OK, everyone, and especially you, I get it... 84.53.74.196 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have Asperger's. But the problem is that when I say that to people they have no idea what it is or what that means. So they wiki it, and what do they get? Psychobabble. The people editing this entry need to realise it doesn't belong to them and that they are not writing a psychology textbook. They are writing something that needs, first and foremost, to explain Aspergers in simple terms to someone who doesn't have a clue what it is or what it means. 124.171.76.249 13:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you have any specific suggestions for the page? Unfortunately though the article is aimed at a lay audience, it is indeed a technically and medically complex entity. WLU 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For 12 years I suffered from unreliable memory, OCD, ambiguity of mind, severe lack of sense of humor,etc... instead I was very well and creative at mathematics , physics, computer science, music , drawing skills etc... 8 years ago doctor diagnosed(wrongly) OCD for me...last year another doctor added bipolar to OCD as his diagnosis. and last month I understood that its ASPERGER... My social function when it comes to humor is really impaired but I love to be aspie , its different and powerful, creative, and I think we should use our well-developed abilities. and thats price is suffering from lonelyness, a deep deep lonelyness. its the price of intense and extreme characteristics we own.Victorxtc 08:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)<email redacted>

It affords us individuality in a rigidly controlled society. Easily worth the price. Evil Egg 12:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


I have Asperge's but I'm not fascinated in numbers at all, I am bad at complicated mathematics but when visualizing it , I easily handle it. My vocabs are very weak and insufficient to chit chat. I can't entertain anyone, they leave me as soon as understanding this. But I am very well developed from childhood , at music , visual fields, concepts , philosophy , logic , algorithmic sciences(like computer), 3d imaginations , creativity in all fielad named before. My communication skills were so weak from childhood but, using patterns elicited from my mistakes and looking at society, I can approximately manage to make some friends.(exactly as called Active but Odd) Victorxtc 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)victorxtc

Just because some Aspies don't like being Aspies, doesn't mean that it's always bad. I'm an Aspie, and I do have a lot of social problems and stuff, but my Aspieness makes me who I am. I wouldn't trade it for anything. And anyway, I think most of the negative effects of Asperger's are a result of society not knowing how to react to us, than a direct result of our difference. I eventually met two friends who have Asperger's, and we all get along great. Better, in some ways, than some neurotypical threesomes, even. We don't go around talking crap about each other behind our backs, or getting mad and ignoring people and acting all mopey instead of explaining what's getting to us, or freaking out because goodness forbid there was one night when one of us didn't feel like hanging out.
I think many people who see Asperger's as such a negative thing were diagnosed at an early age, before they could truly learn to appreciate who they really are. Before I knew I had Asperger's, I knew that I was different from everybody else. I also knew that I was happy to be me. I liked being able to focus on one subject, I liked being in control over peer pressure, and I liked not worrying about whether or not my clothes matched. I didn't like how, no matter what I did, I could never seem to truly understand others. But it didn't matter to me, because I knew that I could never be happy as "one of them", anyway. I grew confident in myself. So confident that when I found out I had Asperger's, I thought, "Hey, look. They have a name for people like me." And that was it. But I know that if I'd been diagnosed a few years earlier, I'd never have been able to accept it. Whether or not this is your reason, I feel sorry for those of you who aren't happy with who you are. But that doesn't mean that Asperger's is all bad.

Reminder: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am special issue on AS

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The January 2003 issue (Volume 12, Issue 1) of the journal Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America contains several high-quality articles about AS, that are all open to the public without subscription. They are a tad dated, but in some cases less dated than stuff we already cite, and it's nice to cite freely-readable articles. I've added citations to three of them, both in Asperger syndrome and in Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. The articles I've read have been Klin & Volkmar, Fombonne & Tidmarsh, and Tstatsanis. Perhaps someone else can take a look at the others, as I'm starting to run low on time. Eubulides 07:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I've put references to all of those citations (except the editorial first one) in the article. Attwood was the biggest stretch, since his article is really sprawling, but it covers a lot of treatment issues so I didn't want to let it go. Eubulides 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"See also" versus "Further information" style issue

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Asperger syndrome uses the "seealso" template, which results in text that looks like this:

See also: Autism therapies

But other medical articles (e.g., Influenza) tend to use the "see" or "further" template, which looks like this instead:

Further information: Autism therapies

Is there any reason this article uses "seealso"? Eubulides 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never figured out the difference is supposed to be, and I don't think it matters as long as we're consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that the "see" template is more common than "seealso" in Wikipedia and I'd prefer "see" unless there are some objections. No big deal either way. Eubulides 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me; the one that does matter to me is that we not use the "Main" template if we aren't using summary style to summarize a main article back to this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I made the change. Eubulides 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Symptoms Appear Very Vague

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not saying Aspergers doesn't exist, but a lot of the symptoms described in the article appear very vague.

Some aren't so vague-- like the sort of savvant tendency to hoard facts in narrow and somewhat unnconnected areas of interest-- that does appear to point to some kind of legitimate issue or problem--

But I'm wondering if the additional somewhat loose and not-so-clearly-defined symptomology may also lend itself to a whole lot of misdiagnosis beyond the people who really have this problem.

Keep in mind that every new 'disease' creates a new industry for that disease, and there is a lot of money to be made in inflating the symptoms to 'increase the market'-- and each new 'patient' is worth $125 an hour to a therapist (not to mention the billions in potential drug money once a 'treatment' is developed.

I just have a feel from reading this that there probably ARE people with a syndrome needing attention-- and yet the inflation of the list of 'symptoms' may serve to also inflate the rate of diagnoses beyond people who really have this thing-- all to the financial benefit of therapists, psychiatrists, academic researchers and perhaps eventually drug companies as well.

Greater research into how people deceive themselves is probably needed in our society just as much as research into Aspergers may legitimately be needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.173.199 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the US. In the Netherlands, mental health care is free (well, we pay taxes obviously), and I'm not sure whether we have any fewer diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome than in the US. Even if we had, it would be OR to connect the incidence of AS in a country with the size of its (supposedly) biased 'psychiatric industry'. 84.53.74.196 22:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Recap

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

What else needs to be done? I'm wondering if others feel we're close or if we need a list at this stage? I'm waiting to sit down with a final printout to check for consistency, flow and wikilinking until we have a fairly close, final version. Current size is 29KB readable prose. I wish we had one more image (why was the MRI image deleted?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to copyedit "History" still, but am out of time right this second. Ideally someone else would then copyedit the whole thing, as you mention. Eubulides 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
After you've been thru history, I'd like to ask TimVickers or Colin to take a look. I'll also review when you're done, mostly looking for wikilinking etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why the image was removed. Perhaps someone disliked its appearance? I wish they'd explain. Eubulides 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, if we've now worked through all of the issues raised above, can we archive the top 14 sections (thru Tweak needed to Diagnosis), leaving the valuable free access to the Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics onward? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me to archive, but I'd wait a couple of days first as there's been a lot of editing activity there and in the article in the past few days and others might need some time to catch up. Eubulides 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'll wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a question on the talk page of Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome about diagnosis in adulthood. I thought we had no info, but in the new free sources Eubulides found above, we do have something at

Eubulides, I'm hoping you'll have time to gel adult diagnoses down to a sentence or two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Attwood has a few pages on adult diagnosis as well(in his Complete Guide). But why only a sentence or two when 70-80% of the population is adult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenke (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Attwood's book is not a peer-reviewed source (the reviewed source we have has plenty of info). Do you have a reliable source documenting that 70-80% of diagnoses are made to adults? I believe most diagnoses are children. A sentence or two, relative to the size of the entire section, doesn't seem out of line to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a book, and has it's sources listed, like any other. Is there a rule or law that says one can not use information from books, directly or indirectly? You asked for info, the book has some and points to other sources. I stated that about 70-80% of all people with AS would be adults (since 70-80% is adult and AS doesn't go away when growing up), not that 70-80% of diagnoses are made to adults. I do think it would be useful to give the issue of diagnosing adults - and the differences with diagnosing children - proper attention. Two lines in *that* article about diagnosing adults would not do the issue 'justice'. I did not realize that you might have been talking about *this* article.--Fenke 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom ruled on reliable sources in scientific articles here. I'm unclear whether you're asking for more information in general on adults (which is available in the same link given for diagnoses) or whether you're asking for more information specifically on diagnoses in adults; the link given does summarize adult issues as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (Attwood's book, while good for layreadership, is neither a medical textbook, nor peer-reviewed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I got adult diagnoses down to one sentence in this article, here. More detail can be added to the subarticle later. Eubulides 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting update

Had a quick run through and tweaked a few things. A few issues:

In History:

diagnostic validity of Asperger syndrome is tentative - I am unhappy with the word 'tentative' here but 'disputed/questionable/equivocal/weak' are all a bit strong and I feel place too much of a negative spin. 'controversial'? but this is overused and not apt either. 'debated' ?
Stubby paras in some of the Characteristics subsections aren't a good look but the alternative of lumping them is tricky too.

Anyway, just some thoughts. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed "tentative" to "unclear". Hope that works. The paras' stubbiness looks OK to me, but I don't mind stubby as much as others do. Eubulides 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and PS, thanks for the copyediting. More please! Eubulides 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stick a fork in it

I think the article is good enough to pass FAR now, and have put in a "Keep" vote in the FARC commentary. Another copyediting pass wouldn't hurt, if you have the time. My time to work on this has about run out. Eubulides 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

NAMED IN HONOR OF ?

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I find it most bizarre and uncomfortable for AS to be described in being name "in honor of" Asperger. True, it is more than frequent and typical for pathological conditions, disorders and diseases to be name after the person WHO FIRST DESCRIBED THEM, but never, in any medical or psychology text, have I read "named in honor of" ... and I question if this particular phrase should be retained or rewritten to reflect the standard actual adoption of names to define an acknowledge the professional who first described a pathological condition. Yes, it is possible to Google many references to "in honor of", but these are mere lifting of text from WP.

When seeking the more common uses of "in honor of", you find the naming of charitable organizations after a major funder, hospital wings after a distinguished physician who attracted distinguishment and supportive funds, organizations dedicated to helping others and being named after a deceased child Kiwi 09:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm..tricky "named after..x" sounds a bit casual for an encyclopedic article, splashing the word 'eponymous' is a bit jargonistic and unnecessary. I do see your point. Any ideas? just simply "named for" ? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with casual if it's accurate and well-stated. I changed it to "after". Eubulides 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Good morning all - including Eubulides. Well, I note that this morning it has been continued to be "in honor of" in the second paragraph of the article, though it seems to have been altered, far down the page, under "History"
So let me suggest THIS. According to what is currently in the AS article, if anyone can CITE where in Wing's article, she states that she is naming the syndrome IN HONOR OF, then let's footnote it and I'll be quiet.
Wing's article doesn't say "honor". I changed the other "named in honor of" to "named after". Eubulides 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lorna Wing is credited with widely popularizing the term in the English-speaking medical community in her 1981 publication[1] of a series of case studies of children showing similar symptoms.[2] Wing's translation and publication effectively gave the condition its current name.[3] It was Asperger who, in 1944, described four children in his practice[4] who had difficulty in integrating themselves socially.

It seems rather straight-forward that it was Wing who adopted the term, just as other researchers relate back to the person who first clinically observed, described and defined. Kiwi 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay. To be fair, a similar "in honor of" in any of the non-English publications up to that time would suffice. Look, the man had observed FOUR institutionalized patients when he described the syndrome. It was others, obviously, who then recognized similar traits in patients of their own. Kiwi 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

little queries

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

First statement about 1944: does it need a reference, or is this covered in the body of the article? The caption says "in the 1940s" rather than "in 1944". Tony (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

1944 is ref'd in the History section; I removed the confusing reference to the 1940s in general, since Asperger's work continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues with Little's survey

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

User:Tony1 had some questions and suspicions about the Internet-based survey of mothers (Little L (2002). "Middle-class mothers' perceptions of peer and sibling victimization among children with Asperger's syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders". Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 25 (1): 43–57. doi:10.1080/014608602753504847. PMID 11934121.). I just now took the time to read that paper for the first time, as well as Little's earlier letter about it (Little L (2001). "Peer victimization of children with Asperger spectrum disorders". J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 40 (9): 995–6. PMID 11556644.), along with a followup paper based on the same survey (Little L, Clark RR (2006). "Wonders and worries of parenting a child with Asperger syndrome & nonverbal learning disorder". MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 31 (1): 39–44. PMID 16371824.). With all that in mind, I think the survey doesn't deserve so much space in Asperger syndrome. It was not a random survey, and as Little & Clark say, it "cannot be considered a representative sample of families of children with AS/NLD." I therefore removed the details and left only a pointer to Tsatsanis's summary of the situation. Tsatsanis writes "there is more evidence to suggest that children with AS occupy the role of victim rather than victimizer", which sounds like a fair summary, so I rewrote the text to match that better. Eubulides 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer victimization is an important aspect of AS, Little's survey gives insight into it's prevalence, others (Hay, Tantam) have published on it's impact on the victims. On Little's research, (1) How is this research not random enough and (2) what is the wiki policy on evaluating research? Fenke 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Victimization is certainly important, but the issue is already summarized in the article now. The detailed numbers in Little's survey are unreliable compared to the other items in the article; the article shouldn't emphasize those numbers at the expense of the other, better-attested items. In response to the query "Asperger victimization" Pubmed lists only Little's survey (PMID 11556644, PMID 11934121, PMID 16371824, all of which are about the same Internet survey) along with an incomprehensible (to me) Japanese-language review (PMID 17354573). Can you please cite the other reliable sources you mention? It would be most helpful to have a reliable comparison of victimization rates for those with AS compared to other ASD or to neurotypicals. Thanks. Eubulides 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Concur, completely. Both Tantam and Tstasani have enough to say that is not from a biased survey, that we can stick to higher quality sources. We've got more peer-reviewed, high quality literature to work with now, and we don't need to use literature that is non-random and with such a strong disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done and thank you, Eubulides. Tony (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, whaddya know, after the above discussion a new study on victimization and AS came out in Pubmed, and it's a study that wasn't done by Little. I've only read the abstract, but my kneejerk reaction is that it agrees with Little's survey but is no more reliable (it's a small, non-random survey), and that Asperger syndrome's current summary of victimization still suffices. I'll give the citation here in case someone else wants to check it out.

Shtayermman O (2007). "Peer victimization in adolescents and young adults diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome: a link to depressive symptomatology, anxiety symptomatology and suicidal ideation". Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 30 (3): 87–107. doi:10.1080/01460860701525089. PMID 17885828.

Eubulides 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

MedMos

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

The one thing that I would address at this point is to do some simplification. Yes, to add some words to explain a more technical or obscure term, in addition to adding a WP link. And for some of those terms, to make sure they are, if in another paragraph further down, to again be linked. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WP:MEDMOS (since I don't know how to do links without looking them up and I have felt too ill to do much of anything the past two days, having only a couple of hours of feeling "normal" today). This is the only comment I feel comfortable in advancing at this stage of getting this article to FAS. Kiwi 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am more used to the jargon and don't see the problems as easily as others might. Can you please help out by listing the obscure terms here? You can just copy them from the article and paste them on the talk page. Other editors and I can then search for their occurrences in the article and add explanations. Thanks. Eubulides 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more Kiwi. I have always believed that if something is worth saying at all is worth saying so clearly that anybody can understand it. Perhaps you would be so good as to provide a couple of examples of what you mean? --Zeraeph 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Zeraeph! I was thinking of you when I decided to finally wade into the fray!!
Okay! I think I can do that. There aren't a lot that stopped me completely flat in my tracks, but there may be more that didn't make me stumble, but that would be Greek to other. This gives me something helpful and productive to do and actually has lifted my spirits, making my malaise less oppressive. Kiwi 03:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples I found

It is a shame that WikiLinks don't cause a new window to open, making it easier to get back to the original article - maybe to the Wiki-dictionary? I think there is one? It would be cool if they were small pop-up windows. For all I know, they are.

  • spectrum (from "autistic spectrum"). Even the article Autistic spectrum fails to enlighten anyone as to what spectrum means in defining this or any other disorder. What it means is "spectrum means that autistic disorder range from very severe disability where they will never be able to do a lot to in-between, yet differing kinds of problems and then to where the person can function in society with less problems and less need of support.
  • reciprocal - current article referred to starts "reciprocity refers to in-kind positive or negative responses of individuals towards the actions of others" IN-KIND????? When was the last time you used that term? from the current article. "difficulties in social communication and =reciprocal social skills=," might be described as being able to figure out what someone means and to respond the way that is expected. Yeah, it's kinda rough, but I'm not a social scientist.
  • cognitive development - DREADFUL intro paragraph. Why not an explanation that it refers to the development of thinking skills or something?
  • language peculiarities - linked to nothing and not explained
  • It means unusual use of language, along with unusual development of language, but it's a bit too long to say that. I tried to reword it here. McPartland says "atypical", for what it's worth. Eubulides 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • motor clumsiness - finally, in the third paragraph of the intro paragraph, someone gets around to explaining what it Motor Clumsiness means (to the person who wrote the article anyway) "Clumsiness and tendency to fall down are a matter of poor balance and gross motor coordination". With my grandson, it is problems with fine motor skills like buttoning and figuring out how to get his t-shirt on and off. These things may indicate future difficulties in drawing, coloring and writing, or in playing certain sports. But at less than 3, he never fell down, climbed well and could run like the wind.
  • diagnostic validity - duh??? for someone without a research statistics course under their belt, they do not understand VALIDITY is one of the 3 vital parameters (construction, validity and reliability) that tells whether a given research project actually achieves what it set out to do. In other words, is it sound research where the nex guy will get the same results ... or is it BS? But we need something simpler like ", in other words, do the observed symptoms mean what they seem to mean or are they a totally separate brain dysfunction."
  • phenotype - in this article, used in the following way -> ASD, in turn, is a subset of the broader autism phenotype (BAP). When you click on phenotype, you find an article that immediately is immersed into genetics, then evolution.
  • prosody - my lord, I'm not even going to try to describe how poorly the linked article is at saying anything
  • hypothesis - needs a wiki-linking if the intro is decent, otherwise, a brief definition or explaination
  • "intact intellectual and linguistic ability" - intellectual often commonly means someone well-educated who shows off with big words. Linguistic is completely obscure to most persons. Each portion of this bit could be briefly explained without a fuss
  • intellectual - thinking and reasoning skills.
  • linguistic - the ability to learn & use words correctly
  • adherence to routines - why not, sticking to routines
  • amass volumes - collect vast volumes
  • asymmetrical - different on one side of the body than the other
  • metaphor in the phrase "use of metaphor meaningful only to the speaker" - link says, a rhetorical trope defined as a direct comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects. In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." I don't recall my English teacher being this obscure. Everyone in the class understood what a metaphor.
  • pendantic - linked article stinks - why not just say "sounds like a teacher"
  • intonation - DREADFUL linked article that focuses on pitch and prosody. Why not just add to explain what the word means in those with AS?
  • tangential speech - commonly found in some mental illnesses, should be briefly explained as the speaker letting one expressed thought lead him to suddenly start talking about that new subject, often never to return to complete what was being talked about.
  • That paragraph already explains that, no? It says, "Speech may convey a sense of incoherence; the conversational style often includes monologues about topics that bore the listener, fails to provide context for comments, or fails to suppress internal thoughts. Individuals with AS may fail to monitor whether the listener is interested or engaged in the conversation. The speaker's conclusion or point may never be made.…". Perhaps the paragraph could be worded better; any suggestions? Eubulides 10:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to criticize -- the second paragraph of Speech and language is brilliantly put together. And maybe my understanding of the presumed vocabulary level of the target population presumes a lot of education...

Now, ON THE OTHER HAND,

  • stereotyped leads to a GREAT intro paragraph
  • nonverbal communication leads to a rather rough article, but at least it does a fairly decent job of getting the point across
  • prevalence - well defined in first paragraph of intro
  • pervasive developmental disorders leads to pretty good clear stuff

If any of the following paragraphs give anyone problems, they all have daughter articles that will explain any obscurities or confusions.

PS: My spelling, grammar and periodic ability to be totally incomprehensible are things I can only apologize for - Severe PTSD back in 2000 changed me forever in certain permanent ways, though after 8 months or so, I could finally start reading things more complicated than Reader's Digest with any comprehension. Kiwi 03:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Eubi, thank you for all your work in reviewing, working on and commenting on all my suggestions. I'm pretty drained right now and will have to leave my full review til later, but I am anxious to see them all. From the few I have glanced at the other evening and one of your arguments since do not please me. It is both allowed and even encouraged to use a brief explanation within following parentheses and this, I think, might address a few of the terms in a more helpful manner. As for the rewordings, I say YEAH! But more later. I promise they will all be critiqued again -- doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart? (smiling) Til later. Kiwi 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Large scale changes

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I haven't looked at the article for while and I am shocked at the opening paragraph. What was a reasonable paragraph has now regressed to a point where it only extolls one extremely POV stance. I just looked through this talk page and see no justification for it. I don't have time right now but I will read through the histories and get where it went this way and make some suggestions. I would not show this article to anyone I knew as authoritative about Asperger's. Alex Jackl 17:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does attempt to maintain NPOV; please put here any specific suggestions for improving it that regard. The current lead has more "positive" stuff at the end (in the 3rd paragraph), and more "negative" stuff in the beginning (in the 1st paragraph). Perhaps moving some of the "positive" stuff earlier would lessen the shock? Eubulides 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Alex's assessment, I have collected high-quality sources you may wish to use in this effort. I will offer them up as they become pertinent to the discussion here. CeilingCrash 03:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you list them here? We can refer to them as needed. I just looked in the talk page archives for high-quality sources that you mentioned within the last month, and found two: Baron-Cohen et al. 2001 (PMID 11439754) and Asperger 1944. Both sources are indeed high quality and both are currently referenced multiple times in the article, the first in the lead. If the article is overlooking more sources of similar quality, please let us know. Eubulides 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Eubi, I disagree that the lead paragraph is less than ideal, but very much in line with any professional presentation of the disorder. First one must explain the basis - one cannot start by saying, "Hey, we're going to tell you about diabetes-tuberculosis-AIDS, et al, but first let us tell you the most positive stuff about it, before telling you what it essentially and truthfully is." Kiwi 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alex too. But I honestly feel that what is needed here is some kind of mediation, while the article is reworked, to ensure that no one editor is allowed to dominate and determine who can contribute to the article, or what they can contribute. We are all equals here, there are no "superior officers" (as any worthwhile admin will tell you). Nobody should be setting themselves up to lecture and dictate to other editors, or tie them up in endless arguments until they haven't got time to do anything but give up and walk away. I have been reading WP:OWN and WP:GAME and feel that both have been openly flouted throughout the review process here, and that has succeeded in excluding many editors and viewpoints that would, otherwise, have provided appropriate balance. --Zeraeph 07:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Here I find a close rabble-rousing post reflective of what you just posted in the FARC, leading not with reflections on the needed precepts and guidelines, but on personality.
I, too, have reviewed "gaming the system" and what is described comes nowhere near describing what is actually being done - where only one Wiki policy is being invoked, that being that Wike is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and needs to BE an encyclopedia.
And I also read the "ownership of articles" which in no way whatsoever reflects the kind of job where the editor in question does her job - then LEAVES, not checking in for about a year or when it is once again put up for review FAR (by someone else) as having degraded to the point where it no longer qualifies for FA status. During the rest of the year, her attentions are drawn to one article after another, to whip each one into good shape, trying to achieve FA status.
I respectfully submit my opinion that when criticisms devolve to serious attacks on the characters and behaviors of another editor, there are venues to address such matters and that doing such things here is inflammatory and disruptive, derailing the process at hand. If you choose, once again, to go that route, I hope this time you will engage in the process rather than bow out immediately, recognizing the weakness of your position.
As kindly as possible, Kiwi 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately, the facts of what has happened with this article (in your absence) are at considerable variance with that opinion. --Zeraeph 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent to Eu.) Yes, I'll place them here over the next couple of days for ease of reference, i'll break out a new talk section ... CeilingCrash 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


List of Relevant Wiki Policy in recent debate

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates that significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented in an article concerning that subject. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Consensus

4) It is expected that in cases of disagreement that users will attempt in good faith to negotiate with one another in order to arrive at solutions which result in comprehensive articles which fairly represent all significant points of view which can be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Wikipedia:Consensus Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • False consensus

5) "At times, a group of editors may be able to...overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV.... This is not a consensus Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other policies Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And let me point out again, that "Main Article" and "See Also" child articles are pointed out prominently at the very beginning of each sub-topic directly under each heading, not ignored or hidden from the view of those who are seeking to find out all aspects of what is known about AS. If this were not done, this page would become overly long. Currently, a paragraph mentioning the existence of all these other topics and links is, I understand, in the works so it can be introduced into talk, discussed, reviewed, gain consensus, then polished & tightened.

Kiwi 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting Formal Mediation

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Before this gets any bloodier (or becomes a lifetime vocation for anyone) I suggest the wisest course would be to bring this to WP:MC, and have all the issues here formally mediated once and for all. For myself I am concerned about:

But I am sure others can add to that list. Until this is properly resolved it will just crop up over and over again. --Zeraeph 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Clear examples of article instability, which I see as the main reason why this needs to be sorted out finally with Medcom:

--Zeraeph 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I reluctantly support such mediation, especially if a) they come not to resolve a dispute, but rather to referee where necessary in accord with WP and b) they take some time to absorb the differing views on this topic and apply minimal unilateral power only where necessary and c) the person is acceptable to all interested parties. In other words, King/Queen Solomon is what i'm hoping for :-b

Calibre did an excellent job but simply lacked ultimate authority, btw. CeilingCrash 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources on AS abilities.

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm going to use this section to collect sources - primary and secondary, for consideration. Plz open up a new section for discussion, so that this can remain a simple list. These won't be in any particular order.

memory : Beversdorf DQ, Smith BW, Crucian GP, et al. Increased discrimination of "false memories" in autism spectrum disorder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (peer reviewed, eight research centers participating)
"We found that individuals with ASD are able to discriminate false memory items from true items significantly better than are control subjects. Memory in patients with ASD may be more accurate than in normal individuals under certain conditions. These results also suggest that semantic representations comprise a less distributed network in high-functioning adults with ASD. Furthermore, these results may be related to the unusually high memory capacities found in some individuals with ASD."
PMID 10900024
Cited by 16 articles per Google scholar
memory/visual Do high functioning persons with autism present superior spatial abilities? Caron MJ, Mottron L, Rainville C, Chouinard S.
"Superior performance for individuals with HFA was found in tasks involving maps, in the form of superior accuracy in graphic cued recall of a path, and shorter learning times in a map learning task. We propose that a superior ability to detect ... simple visual elements yields superior performance in tasks relying on the detection and graphic reproduction of the visual elements composing a map. Enhanced discrimination, detection, and memory for visually simple patterns in autism may account for the superior performance of persons with autism on visuo-spatial tasks that heavily involve pattern recognition"
PMID 14728920
vision : Superior visual search in adults with autism.
"Recent studies have suggested that children with autism perform better than matched controls on visual search tasks and that this stems from a superior visual discrimination ability. This study assessed whether these findings generalize from children to adults with autism. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that, like children, adults with autism were superior to controls at searching for targets. Experiment 3 showed that increases in target-distractor similarity slowed the visual search performance of the control group significantly more than that of the autism group, suggesting that the adults with autism have a superior visual discrimination ...ability."


PMID 15358868
Cited by 7 articles per Google scholar

(thanx for the PMID, sandy, i don't really know how to turn those up.)

vision Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (Netherlands, peer reviewed, two research centers participating).
Superior Disembedding Performance of High-Functioning Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Their Parents: The Need for Subtle Measures.
We assessed the disembedding performance on the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) of high-functioning subjects with autism or autism spectrum disorders from multi-incidence families and the performance of their parents. The individuals with autism spectrum disorders were significantly faster than matched controls in locating the shape, but their parents were not faster than a control group of parents. However, both the individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their fathers made significantly fewer incorrect attempts before finding the right shape than matched controls.
PMID 16612576
No citations in other articles per Google scholar

acoustic

Enhanced Pitch Sensitivity in Individuals with Autism: A Signal Detection Analysis

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/089892903321208169

doi:10.1162/089892903321208169

Cited by 25 articles per Google scholar
general (secondary source - not a primary study):
Is Asperger’s syndrome/High-Functioning Autism necessarily a disability?, Simon Baron-Cohen, U. Cambridge Centre for Autism Research
This article considers whether Asperger Syndrome (AS) or high-functioning autism (HFA) necessarily lead to disability or whether AS/HFA simply lead to 'difference'. It concludes that the term 'difference' in relation to AS/HFA is a more neutral, value-free, and fairer description than terms such as 'impairment', 'deficiency' or 'disability'; that the term 'disability' only applies to the lower functioning cases of autism; but that the term 'disability' may need to be retained for AS/HFA as long as the legal framework only provides financial and other support for individuals with a disability.
PMID 11014749

updated CeilingCrash 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cited by 16 articles per Google scholar SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
general (secondary source, not a study)
Autism: Common, heritable, but not harmful.
We assert that one of the examples used by Keller & Miller (K&M), namely, autism, is indeed common, and heritable, but we question whether it is harmful. We provide a brief review of cognitive science literature in which autistics perform superiorly to non-autistics in perceptual, reasoning, and comprehension tasks; however, these superiorities are often occluded and are instead described as dysfunctions.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X06319097

(thanx to SG for the scholar reference counts, which i think are pretty good indicators of general acceptance)
general (not a study)
Enhanced perceptual functioning in autism: an update, and eight principles of autistic perception.
We propose an "Enhanced Perceptual Functioning" model encompassing the main differences between autistic and non-autistic social and non-social perceptual processing. Increased perceptual expertise may be implicated in the choice of special ability in savant autistics, and in the variability of apparent presentations within PDD (autism with and without typical speech, Asperger syndrome) in non-savant autistics. The overfunctioning of brain regions typically involved in primary perceptual functions may explain the autistic perceptual endophenotype.

(bolding is mine - CeilingCrash 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

PMID 16453071


abstract reasoning The Nature and Level of Autistic intelligence.
(This is a very recent, rather long and complex study. I'll excerpt some passages here, with the caveat they are out of context. Also, it is not clear to what extent autism, HFA and AS have been intermingled, or this is just Autism proper.)
"A third of the subjects scored above the 90th percentile on Raven's Matrices" (more excerpts to come)
PMID 17680932 Full article http://psych.wisc.edu/lang/pdf/Dawson_AutisticIntelligence_PS_2007.pdf

updated CeilingCrash 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Sources for AS abilities

Latest comment: 17 years ago40 comments4 people in discussion

I shd point out that these sources paint only half the picture, for example, with 'memory ASD people also exhibit demonstrable deficits. The picture that emerges is mixed, with AS ppl better at some things and worse at others (even within a single person. Also, we run into trouble where Asperger's is simply considered HFA by many researchers. More l8r, I'll set these considerations aside for the time being and keep adding, of course others are encouraged to add as well. updatedCeilingCrash 01:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the above, and add that there is no reason to exclude reliably-sourced information which is not based on a formal study of a particular ability or disability. Observations which have been made repeatedly by a number of specialists over a period of several decades, and which have gone undisputed, approximate what WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation calls "a fact." NPOV is, in Jimbo's words, "absolute and non-negotiable," and policy (NPOV, V, OR), not guidelines, is where the emphasis should lie. It is not our job to conclude that widely held, undisputed, verifiable beliefs about AS are speculative; as you have pointed out, to do so is both OR and a violation of NPOV. We have placed far too much emphasis on the WP:MEDMOS guideline, which is, in its own words, "not written in stone," and too little on policy, which IS written in stone. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad CC is putting together these sources for consideration; hopefully we can discuss them soon (I'm just too tired today, and have to catch up in other areas tomorrow). It's not clear to me where the info belongs, since most of it is specific to autism rather than Asperger's, but hopefully Eubulides can shed light on that and put the studies in broader perspective, since he has access to many sources. PP, MEDMOS merely reflects ArbCom decisions about the policy of WP:V. Raul is a beaurocrat and ArbCom member; see his response on the ArbCom decision wrt sourcing in medicine articles (specifically, autism) here. This has been upheld on several other featured articles, so if it went to ArbCom again, the conclusion would likely be the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about the link and comments you provided, that was to a discussion about pseudoscience published by unreliable sources. How does that relate to comments made by leading scientists in peer-reviewed papers? Poindexter Propellerhead 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a link within a link; the main link was to Raul's response at Autism, and his reponse included a link to an ArbCom decision and his interpretation of the ArbCom decision with respect to medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussing an unscientific telephone survey, he linked to this,[[2]] an arbcom ruling on a physics-related edit war (disagreements about sourcing, and about what should or should not be characterised as pseudoscience). Which part of that ruling did you feel applied to the topic under discussion? Poindexter Propellerhead 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm too tired to follow your line of questioning today, but the answer is back to Raul's answer I linked above. I'll quote it here (from the diff above):
  • " ... the arbitration committee has already given you what you seek [3]: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.. Medicine is an applied science, and clearly medical articles should rely on sources appropriate for a scientific article."
If I'm still missing the question, Colin might be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
My concern was primarily about statements which were published in peer-reviewed papers, sorry if I didn't state that clearly enough. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites. Of the 5 mentioned so far, Baron-Cohen 2000 (PMID 11014749) is already cited in the article, so I assume we needn't worry about it. I have not had time to read the other 4 papers (my available time is shrinking) but will try to get to them soon. They all appear to be primary studies; it would be helpful to know what our preferred sources (reviews) say about this stuff. SandyGeorgia, you have access to Baskin et al. 2006 and I do not; what do they say about these 4 papers, or similar papers? I can look at McPartland & Klin 2006 and Klin 2006 or perhaps you can check them out as well. Also, perhaps someone can do a Google Scholar search to see what reliable sources (preferably secondary sources) has been citing these studies. Eubulides 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll dig back in to them tomorrow or the next day (I *must* respond to the Lung cancer FAC first, as I've rudely ignored the poor nominator too long and after the insane pace of work on this article for a month, I could use a day or two to decompress). I'll start on them as soon as I can, but after I do lung cancer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the number of articles citing the studies above (per Google scholar). Since I don't have access, I can't evaluate the articles citing them, but a couple don't appear to enjoy consensus or seem to have contradictory results, but I really shouldn't judge based on abstracts only. For comparison purposes, I looked at an article I know to be seminal widely-cited research in TS (PMID 9651407) and found it is cited by 110 articles. Another less popular but still seminal article (PMID 9804036) was cited by 56 articles. I haven't reviewed Baskin yet because I had the PDF on a laptop that went on the blink, and now I have to download it again, will do tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If we are to judge papers by citation count, I would urge a little care in doing so. For example, both of those TS papers are 9 years old, yielding a citation rate of 6.2-12.2 cites per year. TS has had roughly twice as many papers published on it as AS has, so for an AS paper, even 3 citations a year might be quite respectable (if it is cited in agreement, rather than cited in disagreement). Poindexter Propellerhead 02:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If we are to judge papers by citation count ... We're not, in isolation anyway. We need to see if these studies are refuted, validated, corroborated, enjoy widespread consensus, cited by the best quality journals, and so on. That can't be judged by numbers only, but numbers are one piece of it. If something is cited 100 times, that may tell us something (or may not -- I can come up with TS examples that are cited because they're so bad and so thoroughly refuted). If something is cited 5 times, it's easier to read each study. I can't do anything without full journal access, but at least the memory study appears (based on abstracts only) to potentially not enjoy consensus. Without access, I just don't know what to do next, and am feeling badly that Eubulides is often left with all the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC) (PS, an aside about comparing the relative numbers of studies, these are autism studies, not AS studies, and autism is far better studied than TS. Anyway, agree that absolute numbers are not the issue ... it's a matter of looking at what we need to look at ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I did track down one disagreement with the memory study, it failed to replicate the superior scores on "false memory" tests of verbal material, but instead found that autistics showed superior performance on "false memory" tests of visual material. It's too new to have any citations of its own yet.[[4]] Poindexter Propellerhead 04:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That may be the same one I saw, but I'm reluctant to draw conclusions based only on abstracts, since I don't have full access. Anyway, that's why we rely on major reviews; they pull it all together, discussing all research angles, validated, replicated or refuted, and what enjoys widespread consensus. I'll look into the reviews tomorrow when I re-download them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The reference-counts are a good measure of acceptance, I think. Where it is very low (like zero), I will look for others. Also, many of these studies mention confirming earlier studies; i will endeavor to get at those more seminal studies. Some editors have expended enormous effort before and during the FAR, and despite my disagreements with them I applaud their hard work and don't wish to imply some obligation to assess this stuff immediately. We have time. I'll keep adding sources and watching the discussion for guidance on how to better source this material.
(added)CeilingCrash 05:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC) On the other hand, we may wish to keep in mind that talents are not particularly interesting to the medical community whose mandate is to treat deficiencies, except as possible diagnostic tools (which has actually been suggested for the Embedded Image Test and Block Design Test(soon to be sourced), so a high reference count may be a sufficient but not necessary condition to establish credibility. CeilingCrash 05:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly agree. To look at how this panned out in the history of TS, for example, the diagnosis was around for well over a century before the first papers which documented positive aspects were published. The role of medicine is seen as treating things which are wrong, and even those with conditions which often seem to be entirely beneficial, such as hyperlexia, should expect the medical/psych community to consider them to be suffering from a disorder (between 1957 and 2003 I could find only one case study of a single individual which claimed that it was beneficial, dozens of others spoke of it as a disability, disorder, or comorbidity). Anyway... yeah. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It may be informative to obtain the total reference counts for study authors themselves, if possible. CeilingCrash 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the reviews

Sorry for the delay; the computer where I had all the reviews went belly up. I looked over all of the reviews (it's quite possible I don't know what I'm looking for in neuropsych terms, still looking, not done). The two papers that have the most mention of the neuropsych profile and most discuss the issues in the sources above are Kasari (PMID 16639107) and McPartland (pp. 774–775). I can't find anything related in Kasari, but maybe Eublides can look at the executive function, TOM info on p. 498. The Klin paper (available online) has a favorable paragraph discussing hyperlexia (search on the word "fascinating" to find the paragraph) but Klin's paper is clearly divided into two sections: autism vs. AS, and that part is in autism. Here is everything McPartland says:

Research indicates that individuals with AS possess a unique neuropsychologic profile, which, pending further research, may serve to distinguish between AS and HFA and validate differential diagnosis [24]. Klin and colleagues [25] compared individuals with AS with individuals with HFA on a variety of neuropsychologic measures and determined that individuals with AS exhibited deficits in fine and gross motor skills; visual motor integration; visual-spatial perception; nonverbal concept formation; and visual memory with preserved articulation, verbal output, auditory perception, vocabulary, and verbal memory. Individuals with AS have been reported to exhibit stronger verbal abilities relative to performance abilities, with particular weakness in visual-spatial organization and graphomotor skills [26,27]. In the study by Klin and colleagues [25], all but three subjects with AS presented with a neuropsychologic profile consistent with a nonverbal learning disability [28]. A review of the literature confirmed this pattern of differential neuropsychologic profiles, with individuals with HFA consistently showing lower scores on measures of verbal functioning [29]. This study also found that individuals with AS did not consistently show nonverbal weaknesses or increased spatial or motor problems relative to individuals with HFA. Concordant with this finding, some researchers have argued that individuals with AS evidence overall greater cognitive ability than individuals with HFA, regardless of verbal versus nonverbal ability [30]. Resolution of this issue is complicated by the employment of heterogeneous diagnostic schemes, which have been shown to influence IQ differential directly [31].
  • [24] Lincoln AJ, Courchesne E, Allen M, et al. Neurobiology of Asperger syndrome: seven case studies and quantitative magnetic resonance imaging findings. Current Issues in Autism 1998;18:145–63.
  • [25] Klin A, Volkmar FR, Sparrow SS, et al. Validity and neuropsychological characterization of Asperger syndrome: convergence with nonverbal learning disabilities syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1995;36:1127–40.
  • [26] Ghaziuddin M, Mountain-Kimchi K. Defining the intellectual profile of Asperger syndrome: comparison with high-functioning autism. J Autism Dev Disord 2004;34:279–84.
  • [27] Ehlers S, Nyden A, Gillberg C, et al. Asperger syndrome, autism and attention disorders: a comparative study of the cognitive profiles of 120 children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1997;38:207–17.
  • [28] Rourke BP. Nonverbal learning disabilities: the syndrome and the model. New York: Guilford; 1989.
  • [29] Reitzel J, Szatmari P. Cognitive and academic problems. In: Prior M, editor. Learning and behavior problems in Asperger syndrome. New York: Guilford Press; 2003. p. 35–54.
  • [30] Miller JN, Ozonoff S. The external validity of Asperger disorder: lack of evidence from the domain of neuropsychology. J Abnorm Psychol 2000;109:227–38.
  • [31] Klin A, Pauls D, Schultz R, et al. Three diagnostic approaches to Asperger syndrome: implications for research. J Autism Dev Disord 2005;35:221–34.

Not sure what's next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Baskin et al. (PMID 16596080) said nothing? That's the review paper I lack easy access to. Eubulides 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Baskin is only a six-page paper, a lot of that taken up by tables. It's scope is limited:
Baskin Table of Contents
  • Fritz: The First Asperger Syndrome Case Study (all about history)
  • Incidence, Prevalence, and Potential Etiologies (includes discussion of MMR issue)
  • Neuroanatomy (lots of neuroanatomical findings, nothing on neuropsych, has dicussion of facial expression recognition research)
  • Empathy and Asperger Syndrome (long discussion of empathy research ... Confirmation of lack of empathy was provided by Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, ... also humor and alexithymia)
  • Treatment
  • Conclusion
Main Points (from a Table summary)
  • Asperger syndrome (AS) was first delineated by Hans Asperger and Leo Kanner working independently in the 1940s. The syndrome, which primarily afflicted young boys, featured a profound lack of social reciprocity, insistence on sameness of routine, and severe difficulties in social integration. The children also were noted for precocious speech. Asperger believed these individuals possessed a high level of original thought and could exhibit exceptional achievement later in life.
  • Autism and AS were included in the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) in 1993 and in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) in 1994.
  • Study findings of possible causes of autism suggest a multifactorial etiology, an interaction between genetic and environmental factors.
  • AS is often diagnosed at a later age because it does not present with language abnormalities associated with autism. Diagnosing at a younger age would allow for effective behavioral therapies and advanced interventions that may improve the prognosis.
  • Conditions that share a high comorbidity rate with AS include Tourette syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety.
  • No pharmacologic treatments exist for AS. Atypical antipsychotics are prescribed for AS patients showing aggression and repetitive behaviors. Risperidone has demonstrated efficacy in treating aggressive outbursts and self-injurious behaviors of autistic children.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Baskin et al. say nothing on the subject; thanks. Eubulides 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through some of the surveys that we all received copies of, and while few mention specific strengths in memory and perception, there are occasional references, such as this one (Frith, 2004, Emanuel Miller lecture: Confusions and controversies about Asperger syndrome): "Individuals with Asperger syndrome give ample proof that they have the intellectual resources to make sense of the physical world through often excellent perception and prodigious memory." Unless we get full copies of the papers which cite the studies which CC refers to, I think that comments like those are about as much indication of academic consensus as we're likely to find. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be good to mention "often excellent perception and prodigious memory" although we don't need to use those exact words. Eubulides 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Poindexter, where'd you find that comment? There were two papers in the original batch I could never download, so I wonder what I missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In the Frith paper I cited, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:4 (2004), p 682, beginning of the first new paragraph. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Found it; the problem was that I "filed" it under alexithymia, and forgot it was a broader review. I didn't review it again in the last batch; did you get through it all, or should I have another look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I read it all, and thought it was one of the best papers of the bunch.
Re:memory, there's also mention (Hippler & Klicpera, p. 295, section on "Special Gifts and Abilities," last sentence) that 14% of Asperger's patients had eidetic memory. I didn't notice discussion of memory, positive or negative, in the other papers shared by the group. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll reread Frith tonight, but I agree that we should be able to come up with a phrase to add around that memory sentence (sticking closely to what the source says). Not sure where that gets added. I'm less enthusiastic about Hippler & Klicpera, since they are looking back at HA's original patients, which may or may not be representative of current diagnoses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Starting to review this, there is some very good verbiage in the Frith article, and I see what happened. What first brought me back to this (AS) article was that Zeraeph asked me to mediate her dispute with Soulgany101 on Alexithymia. When we got the sources from Tim early on, I downloaded and saved the Frith paper as "Frith Alexithymia". I wrote the Alexithymia paragraph early on, and filed Frith with the other Alexithymia papers. I most likely never revisited the Frith paper again while I was pushing to get all the writing down before I traveled. I'm going to start a new section below and start pulling out things we might want to consider working in; perhaps Eubulides will review them vis-a-vis other current research and incorporate them in the best place if warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Frith Emanuel Miller lecture

Frith U (2004). "Emanuel Miller lecture: confusions and controversies about Asperger syndrome". Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines. 45 (4): 672–86. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00262.x. PMID 15056300. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Little is as yet known about the often considerable cognitive strengths in Asperger syndrome, or about the difficulties observed in higher-level executive skills. Studies are needed that define the developmental course of the disorder and the nature of the strengths and weaknesses in both social and non-social domains.
  • Specific difficulties in maths, as well as in perceptual and motor tasks, a pattern thought to be typical for NVLD children, are often present in Asperger syndrome, but not necessarily so.
  • ... the currently prevailing view is that Asperger syndrome is not an essentially different disorder from autism, but a variant of autism, and located at the milder end of the spectrum of autistic disorders. This view is consistent with the incomplete, but growing information that we have about genetic, neurophysiological, cognitive and behavioural information: autism and Asperger syndrome are highly related subtypes of disorders of the autism spectrum. On the other hand, we are far from a consensus. Rhinehart, Bradshaw, Brereton, and Shaw (2002), for instance, believe that, despite the demonstrable clinical overlap between Asperger syndrome and autism, it is still premature to rule out the possibility that these disorders may be clinically and neurobiologically separate.
  • It is possible that even at an early age the problems of Asperger syndrome are obscured by the specific strengths that are often associated with the disorder. The child who shows ‘adult’ or precocious language, who has special interests and excellent memory, is unlikely to make parents rush to a clinic, even if this child does not interact with peers. Parents may overlook this sign when the child at first seems more advanced than potential playmates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Some individuals with Asperger syndrome lead near normal lives and show excellent adaptation. Others can hardly cope and need constant supervision ... there are different degrees of severity. However, in some cases the disorder can appear to be more severe, not necessarily because the core symptoms are more severe, but because additional clinical disorders aggravate the picture (Gillberg & Billsted, 2000).
  • Green et al. (2002) found motor impairment in every single case they assessed. Reitzel and Szatmari (2003) reported that ... 21% had specific reading difficulties and 46% specific maths difficulties ...
  • In contrast with the social difficulties, it is notable that people with Asperger syndrome often have extremely good understanding of the non-social world (e.g., Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright et al., 1999).
  • One possibility is that the cognitive style of weak central coherence facilitates painstaking analysis of perceptual and verbal detail and thus can lead to peak performance (Happe´, 1999). ... Another possibility is that as a result of lacking topdown control, bottom-up processes are unusually strong and incoming information is processed to a high degree (Frith, 2003). Recent empirical studies in this area have provided evidence for enhanced perception in autism in auditory and visual modalities, at no cost to the global level of information processing (Plaisted, Saksida, Alcantara` , & Weisblatt, 2003; Mottron, Burack, Iarocci, Belleville, & Enns, 2003).
  • It is doubtful whether impairments in executive functions will be found to be milder in Asperger syndrome than in autism. Likewise, it remains to be seen whether the strengths due to attention to detail, as postulated by weak central coherence theory, will be less extreme. Asperger individuals are often known for their meticulous work whether it is in crafts, art or science and their ability to identify hitherto overlooked details. Likewise, anecdotes suggest that difficulties tend to arise from the fact that people with Asperger syndrome see situations in fixed and absolute terms, rather than relative to context.
  • It is possible that some people will be characterised by mild social problems but severe executive problems, and other people with severe social problems but mild executive problems.
  • Anecdotally, in children and adults with Asperger syndrome, there is much evidence for the ability to role-play and to create fictitious worlds in words and pictures (Tantam, 1991). Biographical accounts sometimes tell of extensive and wide-ranging imaginary activities.
  • In most cases of autism, pretence and imaginative play have been described as absent or delayed, and, if present, they are often described as restricted, stereotyped and repetitive. This assumption may not hold in the case of Asperger syndrome. Indeed, children with Asperger syndrome were found to be more able to produce creative narratives than children with autism (Craig & Baron-Cohen, 2000).
  • Individuals with Asperger syndrome give ample proof that they have the intellectual resources to make sense of the physical world through often excellent perception and prodigious memory. This strength in general information processing capacity is likely to act as a means for learning about the social world as well. These individuals can find a different developmental pathway.
  • Unfortunately, individuals with Asperger syndrome can be denied recognition and help because they are intellectually bright and may be able to give the impression of a near normal competence in routine interactions. The appearance of normality is deceptive, however, and breaks down when novel or stressful situations arise.
  • An astounding fact about Asperger syndrome is that a proportion of individuals can achieve high academic qualifications, and a few, high scientific distinctions (Baron-Cohen, Wheelright et al., 1999; Fitzgerald, 2002). However, many individuals with Asperger syndrome do not find a vocational niche in adult life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. One thing that emerges (warning, personal commentary alert:) is the notion that ASD ppl have good memories and "weak central coherence." That is, there is a persistent notion - nay, assumption - that autistics have less reasoning ability, and increased rote memorization skills and attn to detail to compensate. This has been put to the test by Baron-Cohen and by Dawson and found untrue; Dawson found that ASD ppl actually move more fluidly from global to local schemas and back again, and as for mathematics, there appears to be a distinctly bimodal distribution. I am sure many ASD kids have trouble in maths, but Baron Cohen found that of the 11 very best mathematics student in the Mathematics Olympiad (in which 90 countries participate), 7 passed the DSM test for AS. This IS a small sample size, but it's statistical significance that matters rather than sample size. If the null-hypothesis is that Aspies really aren't more likely than NT's to win the Olympiad, and assuming a VERY generous estimate of 5% for the incidence of AS in the population, the p-value (chance of getting the results Baron-Cohen observed) is less than one in 100 billion. Given less than 5% incidence in the population, the p-value is even lower so the confidence level is 99.999999... % that AS's are more likely to win the olympiad, which is an intense contest of mathematical creativity at the high school level.

Put more simply, a randomly chosen AS child is 50 times more likely to be an Olympiad winner than an NT child. So we have a very interesting and complicated situation here ... CeilingCrash 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Detailed commentary on sources

I'm a bit short on time and so will look at the sources one by one; can't do them all at once, starting with the first one mentioned.

  • Beversdorf et al. 2000 (PMID 10900024). This was about HFA, not AS, though the authors seem to think there's no reason to distinguish HFA from AS.
  • Happé & Frith (PMID 16450045) mention this study in their Table 1 but do not discuss it other than that one line item. They do discuss other studies that found stable memory for exact pitches, enhanced local processing of musical stimuli, reduced interference from melodic structure, reduced McGurk effect, superior visual search, superior discrimination learning of highly confusable patterns, and reduced gestalt grouping, all in the context of ASD rather than just AS. None of the previously-mentioned findings were replicated. In some related areas, initial findings have had problems in replication; these include reduced susceptibility to visual illusions, feature-based face processing, and Navon hierearchical figures. Happé & Frith caution that the last task is known to be sensitive to small variations in methodology, a caution that I would apply to all these studies.
  • A non-Pubmed-indexed (and I think less-reliable) review briefly mentions the study but says only that it supports the idea that "adults (rather than children) with HFA have unimpaired LTM" (long term memory), which seems to bypass the main claim of the study. Here's the citation: Huang AX, Wheeler JJ (2006). "High-functional autism: an overview of characteristics and related issues" (DOC). Int J Spec Educ. 21 (2): 109–26.
  • A study by Kamio & Toichi 2007 (PMID 17031448) lists Beversdorf et al. as one of several "contradictory studies", and their "previous work" section concludes "the hypothesis that individuals with ASD are less susceptible to memory illusion has not been supported consistently." Kamio & Toichi studied 13 HFA and 15 AS subjects, with the results being that AS do not differ from neurotypicals in false-memory tests, but HFA does differ. They note that their results for AS differ from those of Bowler et al. 2000 (PMID 11195990).
  • Beversdorf et al. 2007 (PMID 17191098) say that there are "divergent results" for the false-memory task, citing Bowler et al. 2000 as well.
My own conclusion is that this particular study does not make the cut for Asperger syndrome. There is significant disagreement about false-memory tests, and we do not have a reliable review discussing them. It may make sense to mention the more-general area, using Happé & Frith's survey as a guide. Eubulides 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

More later as I find the time. Eubulides 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment on a huge point Eu just brought up. Many researchers consider HFA to be identical to Asperger's (understandable, under the assumption that the 'spectrum' is one-dimensional.) Others say "HFA/Asperger's. An interesting twist is that HFA is not defined at all in the DSM, so if they don't mean AS it's not clear what the h@ll they mean. CeilingCrash 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Each study on HFA should define what it means by "HFA". You're quite right that there's no standard definition. Typically "HF" means "scored higher than N on general IQ test T", where N and T vary from study to study. "A" might mean either autism (i.e., autistic disorder), or autism+AS+PDD-NOS, or ASD. It's a bit of a mess. Eubulides 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Caron et al. 2004 (PMID 14728920). This was about both HFA (11 subjects; IQ at least 87) and AS (5 subjects). Results for AS are not broken out.
  • Happé & Frith (PMID 16450045) mention this as a result that agrees with EPF and disagrees with the original formulation of weak central coherence. That's all they say about it.
  • Edgin & Pennington 2005 (PMID 16328713) did a study of spatial cognition that found no difference in spatial performance for adults, but faster reaction time for children. Their fig. 2 suggests the difference goes away in adolescence. They did break out results for AS versus HFA.
  • Kana et al. 2006 (PMID 16835247) say "several previous studies have found that high-functioning individuals with autism may have a sparing or even an advantage in visuospatial processing" and list Caron et al. as one of the studies.
  • Mottron et al. 2006 (PMID 16453071) do not cite Caron et al. in their review of EPF. I find this peculiar, as Mottron is a common coauthor. Weird. Maybe publication delay?
  • Silk et al. 2006 (PMID 16877661) say "Individuals with autism spectrum disorders typically have normal visuospatial abilities" in their abstract but the main text substitutes "normal or superior" for "normal", and cites Caron et al..
  • Papers from the Mottron group say strong things like "A wide variety of paradigms have shown that autistic individuals present with superior performance on visual tasks." (Wang et al. 2007, doi:10.1080/13546800701417096, not in Pubmed??)
In summary: it's odd that Mottron et al. didn't mention this in their review. Outside the Mottron group the operative phrases seem to be "normal or superior visuospatial abilities". Edgin & Pennington indicate some caution is appropriate. I couldn't find a review to guide us on this area, other than the ones already mentioned.

I'm not sure it's worth wading through these references at the slow rate I'm going. Perhaps we should just cite Frith's "excellent perception" and be done with it? Eubulides 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have wound down. I haven't had time to read and review all those citations in the same detail. However, I tried to address the issue with this change, which cites Mottron et al. 2006. Eubulides 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Implicit emphasis on AS as synonymous with Autistic Disorder

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In many places in the article, we make statements which are based not on studies of AS, but rather of studies on people with various sorts of autism. While many researchers consider AS and HFA to be so similar that there is no point in even distinguishing between them, there is at least a significant minority who have championed the continuing existence of AS as a distinct diagnosis. If we treat studies on persons who were diagnosed with autistic disorder as if they had been diagnosed with AS, we implicitly bias the article in favor of the one viewpoint. So, even though I happen to believe that AS and HFA are the same in most important aspects, I intend to go through this article and weed out the bias. AS may not be very well researched, but there is not such a dearth of information that we are compelled to introduce large amounts of material on arguably different topics. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly any study or review that is about ASD or AS+HFA, and is not just about AS, should be clearly cited as such. Whether these other studies should be mentioned at all is a judgment call. In some cases (e.g., teratogens, or overdiagnosis) there is little evidence specific to AS but it is quite plausible that similar mechanisms are in effect, so it may still be worth mentioning these studies. Admittedly this is a judgment call. Eubulides 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Autism/Asperger's

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is a huge difference between Autism and Asperger's and this seems to not be adressed in this article. The Causes of Autism Link should not be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.154.56 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is your complaint that AS is not (as is commonly believed) a condition on the autistic spectrum, or is your compaint that you believe that not everything on the autistic spectrum should be called "autism"? The Wednesday Island 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to put words into anyone else's mouth, but I think that both of those are valid points. This is an article on AS, which is currently not defined as a subset of Autistic Disorder. Arguments for keeping the distinction from HFA are based mainly on age of language development, and language-based IQ scores relative to performance IQ. Whether those distinctions are meaningful enough to keep treating them as different conditions is debatable, but until the revision of DSM and/or ICD, they are officially not the same. If they ever become officially the same, this article will probably disappear. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's who of AS

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

I think to assess who are the globally authoritative sources on AS, a bit of history may be helpful. The diagnostic category was first suggested by psychiatrist and physician Lorna Wing at the University of Cambridge in 1981 in her paper, Asperger's syndrome: a clinical account. She based her paper on the 1944 thesis published by Hans Asperger.

Having taken the lead in identifying AS, U Cambridge has since formed the Autism Research Centre, which maintains a full-time staff of 30 scientists, doctors and support staff. By any measure, the ARC ranks among the world's most prominent and productive research centers on AS; arguably it is the #1 research center in the world.

In 1981, Wing was thesis advisor to two graduate students : Simon Baron-Cohen and Tony Attwood. Baron-Cohen remained at U Cambridge to pursue research into AS and is now director of the ARC. Among Baron-Cohen's numerous achievements : He coinvented the Theory of Mind hypothesis, invented and verified the now standard Cambridge Screening Test (AQ) ... he is currently looking for a "mathematics/autism gene" as well as proposing a new dx standard to replace the DSM.

While Tony Attwood has not pursued research in this field, as a secondary source, his book "A Guide to Asperger's syndrome" has been a standard text for clinicians for decades.

About 10 years later, The Yale Child Study took the lead in Autism research in America, comprised of 30 physicians, scientists and researchers under the direction of Fred Volkmar. (The YCS also studies Tourette's, OCD and other disorders.) Volkmar is especially notable for being the coordinator of the International Field Trial for Autism and Related Disorders, which developed the definition of AS used in the DSM-IV.

Very recently a new voice has emerged in a joint Canadian/American effort. The collaboration of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Specialized Clinic at the University of Montréal and the University of Wisconsin-Madison has begun to make major waves with their recent publication of The Nature and Level of Autistic Intelligence.

In summary, Baron Cohen at Cambridge and Volksmar at Yale are founding authorities on the subject. Also notable is Attwood, while the Montreal/Wisconsin group seems worthy of attention. Of course, Hans Asperger himself is worthy of note as well. I am quite sure this overview is not exhaustive by any means, and welcome any additions to it.

updated CeilingCrash 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge and Yale are way up there of course, but you can find citable experts at lots of other places. I'd add experts at Autism Genetic Resource Exchange, Autism Speaks, Boston University, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, King's College London, Massachusetts General, McGill, McMaster, Stanford, Sydney University, University College London, UC Davis, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, U of North Carolina, U of Pennsylvania, U of Pittsburgh, U of Texas, U of Utah, and U of Washington. I'm not really up on non-English-language research, though they are less important for an English-language article. Undoubtedly I've missed some as well. Eubulides 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just want to know what the *heck* Swedo ever did in autism to warrant that position on the DSM-V panel. DSM-V Task Force (PDF) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, she's a big cheese at NIMH, and recently won an award for her prominent role in some high profile, dubious science. To take a failure like that and turn it into a crowning triumph is no mean feat, so I think she must bring a lot of skills to the research community. Schmoozing and brown-nosing come right to mind. The person who titled the DSM-V assignment PDF "Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is less effective than electroconvulsive therapy for depression" was probably a close relative of hers. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see "you all" are as impressed as "we all" are, particularly by the recent turns into certain areas (perhaps PANDAS didn't pay out well enough, but now it may make it into DSM after all). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yea. On the other side of the coin, Baron-Cohen laid a few stinkers himself, especially the "theory of extreme maleness." It should be noted that Michelle Dawson of "The Nature and Level of Autistic Intelligence" fame is also a fervent political activist and autistic herself. While her work is done in concert with a team of NT folk, and to dismiss it on these grounds would be unscientific and discriminatory, she does have an ax to grind and I'd like to see her work replicated by disinterested researchers. CeilingCrash 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
But "extreme maleness" and "theory of mind" are vague hypotheses which don't specify an exact mechanism, and are therefore resistant to sudden and complete refutation. I'm no expert on PANDAS, but my impression is that it's headed the way of thimerosal. Poindexter Propellerhead 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The strength of the NIMH, coupled with internet-armed parents desperate to believe their children's tics aren't genetic and were caused by a bacteria and can be cured with antibiotics, versus a hypothesis that is very hard to prove or disprove ... will science prevail? I guess we'll find out when DSM-V is written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
While Eubulides is quite correct about there being a number of citable experts, my personal inclination would be to use caution with studies from AGRE (affiliated with Cure Autism Now) and Autism Speaks (or any other advocacy groups, of whatever stripe) until they can be independently confirmed by other researchers. They may be no more agenda-driven than some universities, but there's the matter of appearance. I might also drop studies by the Mottron/Dawson team from the list of undeniably credible researchers for the same reason, as there will be some who (rightfully or wrongfully) will look askance at autism studies in which an autistic participated. It shouldn't be any more of a conflict of interest than having non-autistic researchers is, but nobody's accused the human race of being overly rational. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that we should worry whether reliable sources have ASD themselves; Wikipedia editors should be rational. I see your point about advocacy groups, though; I mentioned AGRE and Autism Speaks more for brain study data, where the worries about axe-grinding are less. Eubulides 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It'd be absurd to reject reliable sources because just they had ASD. And then it would ridicule the Wiki Policies on reliable sources and npov and all that. But you would certainly prove some of the points Michelle Dawson's makes in her advocacy writings. --Fenke 22:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that Mottron and Dawson should be considered discredited, not at all. Merely whether they belonged on the extremely short list of "world's most eminent authorities." I consider the Mottron/Dawson team to be on the same level as many solid researchers out there. I think that they may, one day, have earned the right to be lumped together with people like Wing and Baron-Cohen, but right now they're still a (promising) new team, which has to prove that they deserve to be thought of that way. And hopefully, a few papers from now, they will have established their academic credentials to the point where Ms. Dawson will be thought of as an expert and unbiased researcher, rather than as an advocate. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with both PP and Fenke, I guess I am trying to get a handle on the "top ten" researchers in the field in terms of acceptance and credibility. This is not to imply that new research - which almost by definition hasn't yet been widely accepted, or that research by advocates or ASD ppl shd be excluded by any means. In terms of getting a sense of the state of knowledge of AS, I expect it would be a balance of the "top 10", dx manuals, and more recent research, in roughly that order. FWIW, I am ASD so my reservation on AS-advocates-as-sources is not personal. 208.49.146.130 15:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ICD and DSM dates

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Poindexter, we had a problem with these dates about five talk page archives ago, and never sorted it out. It was definitely added to DSM in 1994, but some sources said ICD in 1992, another said 1993; I don't think any source said ICD in 1994. [5] That's why we left it vague. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I just accepted the WHO's version of events as correct: authorized in May 1990, distributed in 1994.[6] But I do remember the discussion you refer to. Was there some reason to doubt the WHO's statement? Poindexter Propellerhead 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No reason to doubt any particular source, just never sorted out why they all said something different, so thought it best to be vague. I would think WHO would be authoritative in this case, but don't know why others reported 92 and 93. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I've been able to piece together, it seemed as if they voted to approve the text in '92, with maybe some last-second revisions in '93, but don't quote me on that. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance!

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It doesn't help people with Asperger's when people see on this page that treatment of autism is the same as treatment for asperger's. I posted this complaint as I know many people with AS and I can tell you it's completely different to Autism, and I have Psychologists to back this up. Asperger's has a bad rep already, let's not make it worse by making people think it is like Autism because it isn't. I remember about 5 weeks ago on Channel 10 (Australia), they said that Lisa Nowak (astronaut) had "Asperger's a form of Autism". This completely ridiculous and shows the ignorance people have on the topic. Win43

I don't have any data on this, but the standard treatment for AS as I understand it is - no treatment, as none is necessary. I have heard repeated mention, however, of the 'cocktail' used to treat the comorbids of depression, anxiety and ADHD : An SSRI, a benzodiazepene, and an amphetamine, respectively. My personal experience is that most of the problems that result from AS are a consequence of NT rigidity in its social norms, and reflexive denial of special talents. CeilingCrash 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, but I don't think medicine is appropriate for adults. Children who are newly diagnosed to Asperger's can take something called luvox, which helps get rid of the obsessive nature of kids with AS, when their brain is growing. When an adult I think that if you are experiencing problems of depressions (most do) you should see a councilor or psychaitrist, as medicine is not going to help the mind at an adult age. Win43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.134.239 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim Page

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Readers of and contributors to this article might be interested in Parallel Play, author Tim Page's description of his life as an Asperger autistic. --Bluejay Young 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PBS Wednesday Night - WIRED

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's scarcely the entire show, but might lead to something of value to a daughter article as a jump off point to further investigation. Wired Science (New) 7:00 PM CST, 8:00 EST - may show at a different day and/or time in your area - go to pbs.org and look for your own local channels

The first-season opener of the technology-science magazine examines technology that helps children with Asperger's syndrome. Kiwi 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Something's missing...

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

I do not see anything about how often people with AS (like me)get married. I've heard in the past that they usually that few get into romantic relationships, and even fewer get married. For me, this my greatest fear. Could somebody put up statistics on this please.--Lionheart Omega 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if statistics like that existed, but I'm afraid they may not. The text currently says "Adolescents with AS may exhibit ongoing difficulty with self-care, organization and disturbances in social and romantic relationships; despite high cognitive potential, most remain at home, although some do marry and work independently." It cites McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291) but that source doesn't have any more details. If anyone knows of a reliable source with more details, please let us know. Eubulides 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to reassure you, Lionheart Omega, I will say that my experience is that people with AS do often get married, although it can take longer to find a partner they want to stay with, and more difficulties do emerge. But I will also say that the only evidence you will be able to find to bakc this up is anecdotal; we just don't have enough data on adults with AS- or autism- to say much of anything about them, which is why it's not in the article. If you're interested in this, there are books out there about what it's like getting into a relationship with an aspie or what it's like to be aspie in a relationship; just be careful because there are some books out there that only exist as an excuse to further badmouth someone's ex-spouse. --Luai lashire 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Statistics can not say (predict) a lot about any outcome for an individual. You can know all there is to know about the statistics of rolling dice but that knowledge will not tell you what the outcome of the next roll will be.--Fenke 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
An enormous amount is missing from this article: the characterization of Asperger's in any context outside treatment of symptoms. To answer your question, there is no evidence to suggest people with AS have lower incidence of romantic relationships; if you visit various AS forums you will find that most are involved romantically. This is an interesting issue especially with regards to 'assortive mating', AS ppl seem prone to mate up with other AS ppl. The quotation by EU is puzzling, " ... most remain at home, although some do marry and work independently." They're adolescents - they live at home! Long story short, there is no clinical data to suggest AS's will be less successful romantically, professionally, or in terms of independence. CeilingCrash 07:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Lionheart Omega take it from me, a fellow aspie on the inclusion of this info, I personally do not think this is nessesary information. Don't worry so much, Ok? 99.230.152.143 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense. I doubt there is information on the other syndromes pages about marriage rates. There wasn't on the three that I checked. Plus, if marriage rates among "aspies" hasn't ever been published in anything, then technically it's not missing from wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research Fredsmith2 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this very screwed up, because as a teen with AS, I like girls a lot, and my mom always said it doesn't matter. Than again, not everyone's AS symptoms are the same. I only just have few symptoms. 71.116.41.201 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Reference

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Law & Order: Criminal Intent - Episode Propability contains a very good depiction of an adult with asperger's syndrome.

I saw many similarities to a young patient (age 9) with AS, I recommended to his family that they viewed the episode together so that my young friend could see that he was not alone, and to get a feeling for how his AS could develop.

I believe that AS is underrepresented in popular culture and that we need more depictions of AS in film and TV. This will help caregivers and teachers to recognize AS earlier and thus create better understanding and treatment options.

I believe that this Episode of Law and Order is a good first step. And I warmly recommend it to friends and Family of AS.

I would like to have a reference to this episode of Law and Order on the main page, but I don't know if a popular culture reference if the right way to do it. I will tentatively add a "Cultural Reference" section to the main article and then let the expert community around this page edit it to pieces. :-) Jesper Jurcenoks 15:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The usual rule is that popular culture is kept separate from the main page on the medical condition. See, for example, Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome and Tourette syndrome, or Sociological and cultural aspects of autism and Autism. Possibly you might want to create a new section in the latter page. Please see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles for more information on the general issue of cultural references to a Wikipedia topic. Eubulides 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Nintendo Kid Disorder

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There have been studies in the past of how excessive computer game playing, often called by the media Nintendo Kid Disorder, can afftect kids. When I saw this article and the symptoms, I recognized them right off. However, I do not have the material to use as referance material. Can anyone provide anything, since I think it would be interesting to have this possible sub category of Asperger Syndrome pointed out. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrupt one (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, any kid who spends a lot of time playing video games instead of hanging out with people can now have their mommy and daddy get them diagnosed with this syndrome. nice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.188.49 (talk • contribs) 06:12, October 24, 2007

I agree. It may seem that way, but it probably isn't. Unless, of course, in fifth grade every boy had AS in my school. I highly doubt that.

☻I am only here because the Vulcans want to know when they should come☻ (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Source for oppositional defiant disorder etc.

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Asperger syndrome #Epidemiology said this:

Individuals with AS may also be diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, tic disorders and Tourette syndrome, general anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

and cited Gillberg C, Billstedt E (2000). "Autism and Asperger syndrome: coexistence with other clinical disorders". Acta Psychiatr Scand. 102 (5): 321–30. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.102005321.x. PMID 11098802. This source was added on 2006-07-20 here. I just now looked at the cited source, and its text does not mention oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or general anxiety disorder. The source mentions that there is an association between tics and AS, between Tourette syndrome and AS, and between bipolar disorder and AS, but that is a different claim. The source also mentions there are many similarities between symptoms of OCD and OCPD and the repetitive behaviors typical of AS, but again, that is a different claim. I applied this change to make the article match the source better. Eubulides 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexithymia in AS

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

The latest study re alexithymia in HFA/AS: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a782825045~db=all~jumptype=rss

Wondering whether this is worth mentioning? 121.222.133.213 08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno; it is a small study, and it doesn't say how many of its experimental group had AS. In contrast, Lombardo et al. 2007 is larger and is freely available and almost all its experimental group had AS as opposed to HFA. I'm sort of inclined to leave the reference list alone. Eubulides 08:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. keep it simple. 121.222.133.213 09:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if mention of Alexithymia improves the article. The original expression of Occum's Razor, "do not multiply entities beyond necessity" seems to apply.
Alex. is not a DSM disorder in and of itself, but rather a characteristic that all people share. So the statement "a correlation between AS and Alexithymia" does not seem meaningful, absent a test for inclusion into the class 'Alexithymia'. We could say more precisely that ppl with AS have been observed with lower scores on the Toronto Test, but it isn't clear what the point is (this test also lacks an objective criteria, it is subjectively scored.) Absent any direct implication to real-world consequences, such as "people with AS have been shown less able to resolve conflict due an ability to verbalize their emotional state", it's not clear what we're saying. After all, putting emotions into words is sometimes the *worst* possible thing a person could do. In short, if we leave the correlation in, we shd clarify it such that reader is not left with the impression that "ppl with AS have Alexithymia and This Is A Problem", rather "People with AS have a lower Toronto Alexythmia Score, see this other article." updated CeilingCrash 01:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to fix this problem by changing "associated with alexithymia" to "associated with high levels of alexithymia". Eubulides 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "high levels" makes the correlation clear. For ceilingCrash, the TAS-20 actually does discriminate between high and low alexithymia, and a clinically significant number of the AS individuals assessed (a majority of in most studies) have scores in the high 'alexithymia' range. (The TAS-20 uses cutoff scoring: equal to or less than 51 = non-alexithymia, equal to or greater than 61 = alexithymia. Scores of 52 to 60 = possible alexithymia). 121.222.133.213 08:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. alexithymia is not determined by whether or not one puts emotions into words, because if this were true then every stoic, shy, socially-phobic, or even physically mute person would also be alexithymic. Thats a literalistic reading of the etymology of the label. If you move to the more accurate clinical definition of the alexithymia construct one sees it is largely defined by the inability to identify emotions, of which not speaking ones feelings is a secondary outcome. 121.222.133.213 09:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enuf. I wonder if these studies are correcting for gender; males are 2/3 the 'alexithymic' population and roughly 4/5 the AS population, so Aspies wd are automatically almost twice as likely to be Alex. CeilingCrash 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of studies find that alexithymia is equally distributed amongst males and females, with overall about 5-10% of the total population having some degree of elevated alex, and this group usually having some kind of added disorder such as AS, autism, PTSD, anorexia, etc. There are some less common findings of a higher prevalence among males, but this is usually because (typically stoic) males score somewhat higher than females on questions targeting the factor 'difficulty describing emotions', but generally score the same as females in the important core factor target of 'difficulty identifying feelings'. Nevertheless, even if there were validity in the question of gender imbalance for alexithymia rates, the prevalence in AS seems to be at much higher group rates than can be accounted for by a gender hypothesis alone. 121.222.133.213 07:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to believe those with high alex. scores usually (>50%) have a clinical disorder such as AS, PTSD. Can you source that? Also, wikipedia's alexithymia article states prevalence around 10-13% of the population, with males about 2x as common. If you can source these, perhaps you can update that Alex. article. 24.128.99.107 17:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that we are engaged in a bait-and-switch here, between definition and working-definition. The definition of alexithymia is that it is an attribute of a personality, in and of itself relatively innocuous, that manifests in everyone in various degrees subject to different metrics and is not a clinical disorder. On the other hand, we are taking the Toronto Scale's cut-off to form the construct "alexithymic", a subclass of the population with implied further pathologies. So it becomes a de facto disorder in its own right. The value of the toronto metric has been questioned, even by its own founder - due to the subjective nature of the scoring and other concerns. It has been around for decades and never promoted to clinical disorder. Have studies been repeated showing a correlation between Toronto-Alexithymia and Psych Disorders *in the general population* (not clinical populations who by definition have problems) ? 24.128.99.107 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That single study saying that males are almost two times more likely to be alex (well, its actually less than 2x..... I think it was around 17% males to 10% females) is not representative of the majority of study-findings in which males and females score at much the same levels. I actually don't know why that reference was even included in the WP alex article as it is given undue weight in comparison to the majority findings noted directly above it. I think you'll also find that alex usually accompanies other disorders if you research all the studies, though I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination to act as research assistant for you on that subject. A quick roam through the available material on the www will show you that high-alexithymia is overwhelmingly found with other disorders, but significantly that the prevalence in those disorder groups is usually higher than in the 5-10% prevalence of the general population. (eg. studies have found, for example, a prevalence of 85% in autistic spectrum disorders, 40% in posttraumatic stress disorder, 63% in anorexia nervosa, 56% in bulimia, 45% in major depressive disorder, 34% in panic disorder, and 50% in substance abusers, etc.). This suggests that the 5-10% group of the general population with elevated alexithymia is constituted significantly by the individuals with other disorders like those mentioned above. At present the mention of alex in the AS article is very short and concise, and I don't see any problems with the wording. 121.222.133.213 22:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not ask you to be my research assistant; the burden of proof here and in scholarly forums is upon the one making the assertion. Thus your assertion that alexithymia, as defined by the Toronto scale, usually accompanies a clinical disorder ... remains unsupported. To return to topic here, I again question the value of this inclusion in the article, but have no serious objection since Eu's rewording. updated CeilingCrash 23:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It was a conjectural thought ("I think you'll also find....." or "This suggests....."), rather than an assertion of immutable fact requiring proof. Such a thought is intended to offer a plausible view which might be validated by surveying the available material if anyone has the interest (I don't have enough interest in those questions unfortunately). 121.222.133.213 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

what about?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This seems close to selective mutism, or apathy, besides the interest thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.69.190 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this article be tagged POV

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I believe so, I wonder what the consensus is. This is a somewhat subjective judgement based on a survey of the major voices in the field and their relative weights. The FAR certainly indicates a disagreement over where the centrist view lays. Without resurrecting the debate too much, I just wonder what everyone thinks. CeilingCrash 05:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's being a bit vague about major voices. Can you be more specific? Which major voices in the field are not adequately covered by the article? For reference, currently it cites by name Allen, |Amaral, Arndt, Asperger, Attwood, Avikainen, Barnes, Baron-Cohen, Baskin, Beidel, Bellgrove, Berthier, Berthoz, Billstedt, Blacher, Bogdashina, Bradshaw, Bremner, Brereton, Brown, Cederlund, Chavez, Chavez-Brown, Cherkassky, Chiang, Childress, Clubley, Cook, Coplan, Corvin, Dakin, Daly, Dapretto, Dawson, Dekker, Ehlers, El-Gabalawi, Eric, Evans, Fitzgerald, Fombonne, Foster, Francis, Frith, Ghaziuddin, Gillberg, Gowen, Grosse, Happé, Hari, Hawkins, Hider, Hill, Iacoboni, Jacobi, Jawad, Joukamaa, Jussila, Just, Kana, Kasari, Keller, Khouzam, Kielinen, King, Klin, Kraemer, Krasny, Leiguarda, Leslie, Leventhal, Lin, Lindberg, Lombardo, Lord, Martin, Matson, Mattila, McMahon, McPartland, Miall, Minshew, Moran, Morgan, Mottron, Müller, Murphy, Murray, Myles, Nagy, Newcomer, Nishitani, Nunn-Thompson, Ozonoff, Palmer, Paul, Peckett, Pirwani, Piven, Plomin, Polimeni, Price, Priest, Provencal, Ramachandran, Rao, Rapin, Rey, Richdale, Rinehart, Rodier, Rogers, Ronald, Rotheram-Fuller, Rutter, Schalow, Schmitz, Schopler, Shattuck, Skinner, Sofronoff, Sopko, South, Sperber, Stachnik, Staller, Starkstein, Stodgell, Szatmari, Tani, Tantam, Tidmarsh, Tonge, Towbin, Tsatsanis, Volkmar, Weidmer-Mikhail, Wheelwright, Willey, Williams, Wing, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the World Health Organization. I've left out the et al.s (mostly because I'm lazy.…) Eubulides 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of, nor has there ever been an example presented of, any significant viewpoints published by reliable sources that are not represented in the article according to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also, since it just passed FAR, tagging it would probably be seen as pointy and not good faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The sources in question are obvious from the last 4 months of Talk (see archives.) Simply put, nowhere in this article is the non pathological view offered: people dx'd with AS have been to exhibit superior performance in certain areas. For example, Baron-Cohen's paper showing 7 out of 11 Mathematical Olympiad winners met the DSM criteria for Asperger's was dismissed as a "small sampling of scientists" and met with the absurd criticism that it did not show 'causation'. Baron-Cohen's statement of his own results was overturned by incorrect and OR objections and not included.
We are not concerned with how tagging this article will 'probably seem'. We are concerned with its accuracy and NPOV in presenting the current state of knowledge. I am curious to whether other editors, reviewing the sources mentioned in the recent months, feel a POV tag is appropriate. I expect it will take some time for others to chime in on this question. CeilingCrash 07:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit vague to say "see archives"; can you please be more specific here? The only source that you mentioned specifically was Baron-Cohen's paper (PMID 11439754). But that paper is cited twice in the article (once in the lead), and is quoted once. This hardly seems like dismissal. Eubulides 07:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand the portrayal CC has been angling for, but short of any sources which support the superiority of certain functions in AS it can't reasonably be characterized as POV to have not included such a vision.... it is in fact POV to request this characterization in the entry in the absence of any further reliable sources. 121.222.133.213 08:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
--(added)-- scroll up to the section, "Sources on AS abilities", and you will see many. CeilingCrash 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Just compare the representation of Cohen's paper here against the original. And see this one. http://www.springerlink.com/content/21t03377610752g0. In any case, my purpose here is to simply poll consensus, I am not trying to build the case here. Interested editors are encouraged to read the recently archived Talk. CeilingCrash 08:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
CC, I thought you had read the entry above showing a 46% rate of math disability in AS? Also there have been so many discussions of your interpretation of the B-C paper that I'm having a hard time understanding why you still have the same idea about it you advanced months ago, prior to all of that discussion? I think all involved editors went overboard here to include all POVs, even when some of those views may not warrant the weight they were given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I see such an addition (a 'Strengths' subsection perhaps perhaps in the characteristics heading?) as potentially useful, depending on the sources. Ceiling, best might be to compose even just a bulleted list of potential changes and present it? It may be easier to give an opinion depending on what you have in mind and what you can find. Though reference 5 in the intro does demonstrate that people with AS can function extremely highly and there are other brief references to strengths, it does not explicitly mention that AS can potentially provide advantages in certain areas. I definitely don't see this as a POV issue so much as an aspect of the article that is lacking and deserves a mention. My vague background knowledge is that people with AS can have significant advantages (notably in areas of interest), but I couldn't provide a reference for it. WLU 16:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good suggestion, a new section. A tag, after all, doesn't provide new content. Again, I just wanted to poll consensus here. CeilingCrash 18:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
WLU, pls see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS: all positives that can be attributed to AS are already included in the article, even if there was more content to warrant a full section, it would not belong in Characteristics, and I don't believe there is enough to warrant a separate section. Information of this type is usually relevant to Prognosis or some other section, depending on the actual content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
By "compare the representation of Cohen's paper here against the original", are you saying that the current summary of Baron-Cohen et al. 2001 (PMID 11439754) is inaccurate? If so, what exactly is the inaccuracy? Saying "just compare" is a bit vague. The second paper that you mention (Baron-Cohen et al. 2007, doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9014-0) is about autism; it provides no statistics about AS or AS+HFA, and as such is an unlikely source for an article about AS. Eubulides 00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
To qualify, about the only sources I'd think were appropriate would be peer-reviewed ones that explicitly discuss and research 'benefits' of AS. Just webpages discussing the same wouldn't work. I leave the 'where' up to the more dedicated contributors. WLU 02:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
We left no stone unturned in trying to identify every positive statement we could find in reliable sources; I don't know what else there is to find unless something new is published. We even gave mention of positive minority viewpoints in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In which case, it looks like it's up to CC to provide any sources that may have been missed to support any further changes to the page in this direction. WLU 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the NPOV status of current article

Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

The crux of the apparent POVism is this(not to speak too much for others). The article avoids the simple statement, that AS is linked to any sort of talent or ability. Where it does make mention of this, it hedges its language and forms syntheses out of differing sources. B Cohen writes that 'mathematical talent is linked to autism'; the article states that while on average AS ppl show average math talent (one source), that AS is linked to high achieving mathematic*ians* (B Cohen). The article states that people with AS have reached the highest levels of achievement in certain fields ... that is not what Baron Cohen said. Of the 11 Mathematics Olympiad winners (these are high school students in a competition for talent), he found 7 of them to be AS by DSM criteria. This is one subgroup outperforming another. This is a link to special talent. The article doesn't say this, it takes pains not to say it.

A 'link' can take many forms. 'Link' does not (as was objected in Talk) mean causation, and it does not mean direct linear correlation. That is, when a researcher says "AS is seen to be linked to talent X" that does not mean "people with AS have, on average, a higher ability in X." A correlation may be non linear. For example, 80% of the subgroup may perform below average, and 20% may perform at the 99.9 percentile. Or, at the very highest level of achievement, we may see the subgroup disproportionately represented (a child with AS is 50 times more likely to win the Mathematics Olympiad.)

The tendency in the current article is to hedge and mute this information - and there is a lot of it in differing areas. Rather than letting the sources speak for themselves, this article attempts to decides these issues, and does so from the POV of AS-as-pure-pathology. This issue is not about Baron-Cohen and it's not about me. It's about the state of knowledge of AS. AS has been linked to a set of deficits and also to a set of talents. Several editors stated in the FAR that the talents are under-/mis- represented in this article. In short, "you can't say that here." A sampling of the kind of source i am referring to may be found in the Talk section above, "Sources on AS abilities"

I shall be back to edit the article at a later date, as this is what Wiki invites us all to do. Updated CeilingCrash 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article specifically includes mention of the only reliably sourced claims of positives associated with the condition, and it even gives extra weight to those in the lead. CC, you commented above that you weren't concerned about whether edits or tagging might seem pointy.[7] I'm not sure if you're understanding that it's a question of disruptive editing. If you feel that content which can be attributed to reliable sources is missing from the article and is not accorded due weight per WP:NPOV, that has not been demonstrated, and tagging the article could be viewed as pointy and disruptive by admins or ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC) P.S., by the way, in the diff above, who is "we"? I hope there is still not on- and off-Wiki canvassing to disrupt this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is another wiki principle. --Fenke 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point. Until I saw this exchange I was reluctant to insert myself into what seems to be a running debate about whether this article should be considered POV. But this needs to be said: Based on my reading of WP policies and in the absence of any display of bad faith by CC, SandyGeorgia's response is shockingly inappropriate. (See also "be welcoming" and "be civil," which would seem to preclude tossing around unfounded accusations.) The proposition that, based on his comments here, CC is angling to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is ludicrous. The rules on disruptive editing clearly state that they apply only to "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." Does anyone dispute that CC is sincerely trying to address what he perceives as biases and omissions in the current revision of this article? If not, then regardless of what anyone thinks about the value of his comments (which I personally find very helpful and insightful), I'm stunned that they sparked this legalistic debate. What is accomplished by threatening him, except perhaps intimidating someone who is clearly capable of contributing constructively to the article?
Re: whether the changes proposed by CC could be referenced, CC has repeatedly referred his critics to section 13 of the talk page, which contains nine sources on AS abilities (I count six primary, three secondary.) Have they been cited in support of the point CC is trying to make? If I read this page correctly, no one has responded to the substance of those articles, or given any reason for rejecting them, but somehow we've reached the point of threatening to call in the admins, which for reasons I've already explained should not even be on the table here.Species8471 02:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how you construed all of that out of 1) the fact that there was past canvassing regarding this article, and 2) me responding to CC's statement about not being concerned about seeming "pointy" by explaining what "pointy" means in this context. Nor do I understand where you read any accusations aimed at CC; if there is one above, by all means point out the exact wording and place where you think I accused CC of anything or threatened so that I can clarify any misunderstanding. And, if there is text based on the sections above, please propose that text so it can be discussed. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I was primarily responding to "2", i.e. your statement that "it's a question of disruptive editing..." Here "it" clearly referes to edits CC just announced he plans to make (including but not limited to tagging the page as POV.) So it certainly sounded like you were accusing him of trying (or at least planning) to "disrupt this article," and threatening to call the admins on him if he did. You didn't just say what "pointy" means, you said that he was planning to insert a POV tag into the article, which would constitute "disruptive editing." I read the page on disruptive editing, concluded this was an absurd accusation and explained what made me think so. You then added that this might also "be viewed as pointy and disruptive by admins or ArbCom," which sounded like a threat to me. Why would they be involved, unless someone (if not you, who?) got them involved?
I'm sorry if I completely overreacted or misinterpreted what you said, but it still seems like one possible (if not the obvious) interpretation, so perhaps you should explain what you really meant. (P.S. I didn't "construe" anything out of "1) the fact that there was past canvassing regarding this article", because I had no idea what that comment was about. I'll take your word that there was canvassing in the past, what does that have to do with the way you responded to CC?) Species8471 05:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear you know the history of this article, but you were certainly quick to make assumptions about my intent; please try to assume good faith and ask when you're not sure rather than assuming, and please take care with statements that begin with "you said" when I've said no such thing. Besides being a long-standing object of on- and off-Wiki canvassing, this article has been the subject of too many discussions on AN and AN/I to count, at least three mediations, and discussion of a possible community ban. After all of that dispute resolution and mediation, if the article ends up in the same situation again in spite of three successful (and one recent) Featured article reviews, for the same reasons, ArbCom is usually next in line if the same issues continue to surface even though they have been resoundingly resolved many times. Three featured article reviews is already some sort of record; if the issues still aren't resolved, or can't be resolved without resorting to a POV tag (which should be a last resort) what's next? Does that help you understand the reference to ArbCom in context and that it was not aimed at CC, who wasn't even around for the past issues? I did not say CC planned to insert a POV tag. CC inquired about consensus for POV, appeared not to understand my first explanation of WP:POINT, so I clarified what pointy means in this context, in the event CC had not understood. The rest of your misunderstanding is already explained at CC's talk page, so I won't fill up more space here; knowing the history of the article may help you interpret comments in context in the future. Tagging an article as POV, particularly when it just completed FAR and talk page discussion has been productive, without explaining or justifying that POV is likely to be considered pointy and disruptive by uninvolved observors; explaining that to someone who didn't seem to understand the previous use of the word pointy is not the same as accusing that person, and certainly wasn't in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You're correct that I haven't been monitoring this article closely, except for a brief period over a year ago - what's your point? I know of no way of reviewing a year's worth of edits that isn't extremely tedious, so of course in my first comment I made inferences based on the information available to me. I had no indication that it was inadequate, and I certainly don't need your "help" in interpreting comments in context. Indeed, all of the contextual information I have, including the contents of this talk page, and Eubu's talk page, reinforces my original conclusion. The new information you've supplied (your summary of the history of the article and reference to CC's talk page) suggests among other things that CC personally applying the POV tag has caused a ruckus in the past. The other potentially disruptive activity you mentioned ("anti-POV" editing without explaining the alleged POV) could only apply to CC, given that you're responding to his post in which he talks about doing this. (OTOH, if you've ever posted about anyone else doing this, that context might be very relevant.) So it still seems like a logical deduction that you were warning him against doing one of those things. Finally, this context does not explain why you would suddenly (pointedly you might say) try to "clarify" seeming-pointy and its consequences, if not as a warning. Your "clarification" refered him to the page on disruptive editing, which described penalties that accrue only to the person who creates the alleged disruption. You specifically mentioned two things only CC has done or planned to do AFAIK. You pointed out that both could be considered "disruptive editing." Your link states that truly "disruptive editors" - which could only mean him - need to be "removed." I still can't think of any reason to inform CC of how his actions would be viewed and the consequences, if not as a warning. (I suppose I could call it a warning instead of a threat, but I'm still not clear on why there would be consequences unless you're actually threatening to report his behavior to someone. Is there an admin charged with periodically checking this article to ensure it's not pointedly edited or tagged as POV, who would discover CC's hypothetical edits anyway?)
I wouldn't say I'm significantly less confused now. There are only a few points that seem totally clear to me:
  1. There's one misstatement in my first comment: you are technically correct that you did not say you suspected CC of planning to disrupt the article, either with a POV tag or "pointy" information, but the implication still seems pretty clear. See above.
  2. I'm sensing some unjustified condescention here. Obviously, *I* think my comment is well-reasoned and not held together by assumptions, so there's no need to lecture (e.g. "ask when you're not sure rather than assuming") especially when that comment isn't backed up with anything - not a single example of an assumption I've made. You seem to think that you have also argued the evidence and countered with another plausible interpretation, so I'll assume good faith here, but I honestly don't see it. Also, some of your related comments are clearly in bad faith - see below.
  3. I think there's a fundamental distinction between your comment and mine, which is that I never criticized YOU, only your words. But you had to hit back with "you were certainly quick to make assumptions..." which clearly reads as a personal attack. I suspect there are other subtle barbs, some of which are potentially more offensive in this context, but I'll do my best to believe that they were unintentional if you say so. But please stop this now.
  4. The current thread will completely overshadow this section if allowed to continue. If you can try one more time to clarify what you were actually saying to CC and why (hint: be very specific) I'd suggest doing that here. Would it be possible to continue the he said / she said part of it, and any other discussion that's not directly relevant to the article on my personal talk page? It really seems like no one will be able to find the on-topic discussion otherwise. You can have the last word here if you like.Species8471 13:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I have clarified on CC's talk page, and you are continuing to draw a number of faulty conclusions, which I won't take space with here other than to deny your conclusions. You are making assumptions that I have accused CC of something that I have not; please stop, and confine your comments here to the article. CC mentioned being unconcerned that something might seem pointy; I explained why it mattered. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like it's not clear to you whether the section 13 sources have been cited in support of the point CC is trying to make. It's not clear to me, either, which is why I've asked multiple times here for clarification. Section 13 is quite long, and was discussed at length both in section 13 and section 14, and by the end of section 14 the discussion seemed to have exhausted its participants. I eventually attempted to address the issue of the cited sources with this change, which nobody has followed up on until now. Until CC's suggested changes are clear I'm not sure how any of the rest of us can proceed. I myself don't know whether I agree with CC. Eubulides 04:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not at all clear to me what text CC wants to include, in spite of the number of times we've inquired; I laid out a plea for clarification on CC's talk page. Hopefully we can figure this out without any more of the kinds of stretches seen above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Does it matter if we understand ahead of time? If he wants to add something, why can't he just do it? I may not have made a lot of edits until relatively recently, but I've read every relevant policy I've come across, and I seem to remember that I was urged to "be bold in editing" and let other people re-edit or revert the changes if necessary. If you don't know what he's going to add, it's probably not something that's already been the subject of a dispute, right? Species8471 05:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
CC wasn't inquiring about bold editing; CC was inquiring whether the article is POV, without several of us understanding why s/he considers it POV, in spite of having asked for months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
He's certainly tried to explain why he thinks it's POV and what he's going to do about it, right here on this page, what's not clear about his comments? The bulk of his comment simply says that there are known links between AS and specific talents and abilities and gives an example. He also said that some amount of information on this subject was deliberately left out of the article, creating a negative spin. The very last thing he said was "I shall be back to edit the article..." I put two and two together and concluded that he's planning to add the omitted information he described (do you think I'm too quick to make assumptions about his intentions?) He has every right to do this. I now see that you're perhaps not making an issue of this, but I'm not sure what the issue is then. The two previous comments (by you and Eubu, respectively) mentioned confusion over "what text CC wants to include" and "CC's suggested changes" so until a moment ago, I thought we were all talking about the same thing: CC's stated intention of editing, presumably to correct the alleged omissions.
Is my paraphrase of the allegedly-biased omissions unclear? If not, how has he failed to explain the alleged POV? If you don't know where he's getting his information, why not just wait for him to add it and then see if it's adequately referenced? On the other hand, your most recent comment highlights the fact that he's "inquiring whether the article is 'POV'", as opposed to actually editing, which might be true, but how is that the issue? (Whether he's literally asking people questions or stating that he considers it POV or both, he has every right to do so. Everyone else has the right to respond to the content of the allegation and that's about it as far as I know. His reasons seem clear to me, and if they're not clear to you, you can either keep asking for clarification or give up and wait to see what he does. Either way, it doesn't seem to warrant this discussion of canvassing, FAR, AN/I, and other jargon, never mind the warning/clarification about "pointiness" and its consequences.) Based on his talk page, my next guess would be that you're afraid someone is going to tag the article as POV. I'm not sure I want to go there again - I promise not to say you said it if you'll tell me whether you were thinking/implying/predicting it, OK? While Szyslak noted that CC has tagged this article as POV before, and asked that he instead discuss its POV-ness here, and use the tag as a last resort, you said (just now) that you never thought he would do that. So, perhaps you are instead concerned that this discussion could somehow spawn some sort of new, escalating POV dispute, even if it doesn't result from CC tagging the article himself. Alright, those are my guesses, how'd I do this time? Species8471 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The only example I've seen (Baron-Cohen on math) in this discussion is an issue already covered in archives which more comprehensive sources don't fully support and about a concept which is already included in the article. No, there has not been yet an example provided of POV or a reliably sourced viewpoint that is not accorded due weight in the article. We don't label articles POV based on straw polls of consensus in the absence of any example (please see WP:POLLS); if someone believes the article should be tagged POV, that should be backed by a specific discussion of reliably sourced information which is not included in the article according to WP:UNDUE. I don't know who Szyslak is or who noted that CC had tagged the article before or how your speculation about individuals' motives is relevant to improving the article; I have clarified the misunderstanding on CC's talk page, where that discussion belongs. Please focus your talk page commentary on improvements to the article; if the article has POV issues, we need specific examples of reliably sourced information that is not included according to WP:UNDUE. Speculation about individuals won't help resolve content issues. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, Baron-Cohen et al. 2007 (doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9014-0) is about autism, not about AS; it provides no statistics about AS or about AS+HFA. The sources cited in Asperger syndrome are about AS (or about AS+HFA). Furthermore, the Chiang & Lin 2007 source (PMID 17947290) is a review article, not just a single study; it's just the sort of secondary source that WP:MEDRS#Some definitions and basics says should be preferred here. Their conclusions begin with this paragraph:
The findings reviewed in the present article suggest that the majority of students with AS/HFA demonstrate average mathematical ability compared with the normed population. Their mathematical ability is relatively lower than their intellectual ability but the clinical significance of the difference is small. Further, the findings reviewed here suggest that some individuals with AS/HFA have mathematical giftedness.
Compared to this reliable source, Asperger syndrome is currently biased in favor of "mathematical giftedness" as compared to "average mathematical ability". Asperger syndrome highlights the "giftedness" in the lead, and it gives it about twice the space as the "averageness", whereas the reliable source gives "averageness" about twice the space as "giftedness". Eubulides 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides, is it acceptable WP practice to put the extra wording (undue weight?) on giftedness when it is not done in the original Chiang & Lin source? I'm not saying it isn't right, but just wondering what motivates this extra accent. Also, the extra weight placed on 'some individuals with AS/HFA have mathematical giftedness' still doesn't tell us how (or if) this differs from the fact that some non-AS individuals also have mathematical giftedness, which renders the phrase somewhat meaningless. Do any of the reliable sources state that the number of individuals with this giftedness is more prevalent in AS than in general? 121.222.133.213 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course WP should give similar weight as reliable sources. The disagreement between Chiang & Lin 2007 and Asperger syndrome on weight came about because the article's wording on giftedness predates Chiang & Lin 2007, and the article's wording hasn't been updated to reflect the new source. This is a contentious area, and it must be said that Chiang & Lin are not the only reliable source on the subject (even if they are the only reliable review), so I had been putting off updating the wording, but now that the subject has come up we might as well address the problem. Eubulides 03:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A few quick points. Other editors have defended my position so well I have nothing to add.
Baron Cohen's first paper did not find "some individuals with mathematical giftedness", it found mathematical giftedness occurs so much more frequently in AS that, of the 11 most gifted students, MOST of them had AS. Given an approximate 1% occurrence of AS, this is no small result.
As for the "we" I mentioned earlier, in my comment "We are not concerned with how tagging this article will 'probably seem'. We are concerned with its accuracy and NPOV ..." which seems to have led to suspicion of conspiracy and canvassing - the "we" simply meant all of us, the wiki collective. We are all (hopefully) concerned with accuracy and NPOV, not appearances and internal politics. CeilingCrash 08:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
To follow up, when i first came to wikipedia, 18 months ago or so, I did place a POV tag on this article. It was quickly reverted and led to a discussion in Talk, where I received a warm welcome and education in the culture and spirit of Wikipedia. Since then I have never added a tag nor made any edit besides minor corrections. Certainly no one can claim I have been a disruptive editor. I do plan to make more substantive edits in the future. I have taken pains to ensure my sources adhere not only to the letter of RS, but to the higher de facto standards for medical issues : peer review, world-recognized authority, etc.
I did initially interpret Sandy's objections as Species did, as a set of legalistic warnings against my direct participation here. The ensuing discussion reassured me that well-sourced, good faith edits are indeed welcome. CeilingCrash 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that's cleared up, CC, and I'm sincerly sorry for any unintended consequences of my Too Much Information post. I honestly don't know where Species is drawing some of his/her conclusions from (I had no knowledge of your past POV tag, or if I did, I don't remember it, which is another issue), but I hope we can get this talk page focused back on the article, and away from speculation about personal issues. My only intent was to answer your concern about POV and to explain the importance of avoiding the impression of appearing disruptive or pointy by adding a tag without discussion and examples of the issue. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Baron-Cohen et al. 2001 (PMID 11439754) did not report that "mathematical giftedness occurs so much more frequently in AS". They reported that AS occurs more frequently among Mathematics Olympiad winners (and similar groups). The latter does not imply the former. The Baron-Cohen et al. results do not exclude the hypothesis that mathematical giftedness is equally likely among those with AS and among neurotypicals, but that those with AS prefer to study math for some other reason. Eubulides 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
To add further explanation to why we hadn't revisited this, we covered this issue indepth (months ago, in archives now), there were numerous explanations to this effect, and I thought it was understood and settled. At any rate, we left mention of a math connection in the lead, which I also thought was an acceptable compromise, even though that mention in the lead isn't really justified by the literature and does give undue weight to the point. There are some misunderstandings about what the literature supports; it would help if we could get to the bottom of this if there are other cases still, which is why I encourage talk page discussion of any remaining concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That such undue weight/accent is already placed on this idea to appease its serial agitation on this talk page does not seem a worthy reason for its inclusion (an agitation which may continue along the same lines by those with a special interest in it). That said, I do see some merit, if it can be reliably sourced, in the proposition that "devotion to special interests" may produce prowess in certain activities, but this is a very different proposition from 'AS produces mathematical giftedness in higher numbers than in the non-AS population'. 121.222.133.213 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

The article says "Diagnosis is most commonly made between the ages of four and eleven." This may be the case for children but it does not speak to people who are now over about 20 - i.e. who might have been born before diagnosis was commonly available, but they still have Asperger's syndrome. The experience of people diagnosed in later life needs to be stated here. This is a problem which may be quite common, in the local area there are no services for older people with asperger's syndrome, but lots for children. I think the article (and the main article on the diagnosis of asperger's syndrome) needs to be expanded beyond this common statement. The statement may be statistically true for people with a diagnosis but the age distribution of people who probably have asperger's syndrome extends the whole way. Tony Attwood has said he feels sorry for people not diagnosed until adulthood, and has said quite rightly that this is a problem that may well disappear in time, but that time will be a long long time coming.

Soarhead77 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We can only base the article on reliable sources; if you can find anything in the information above that we missed, we can talk about how to include it. Some of those articles listed above contain the most comprehensive info about adult diagnoses that we could find, but since all of it is not "spun" in the positive direction some editors want, it might not get included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't read Soarheads remark as being related to the previous section about the article's POV. But now that you mention it, the lack of publications about diagnosis of AS in adults is remarkable - even when beyond the control of wiki-editors. --Fenke 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really find it all that remarkable. I know that some editors believe a unique situation exists for AS because it's a relatively new diagnosis; Tourette syndrome is an older diagnosis but, like AS, a diagnosis that first becomes evident during childhood, and almost all of the TS literature focuses on children (unless you consider Oliver Sacks' writing on TS credible). I just don't think this is so unusual for diagnoses which are most typically made in childhood. I'm not saying that the dearth of info is a *good* thing, but it is what it is, and we can only report what reliable sources write. There's a bit more data on prognosis for TS, but it really hasn't been studied that much longer than AS, as it was considered a virtually non-existant condition (less than 50 cases worldwide) until about the same time AS was made a diagnosis. I suspect that the real reason we have such a problem finding information specific to AS is that a lot of the relevant info gets rolled into autism publications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick off-topic question, SandyGeorgia - why don't you consider Oliver Sacks' writing on TS credible? --DearPrudence 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be long, way off-topic, and not really appropriate here. I would summarize it by saying that one of his peers has discussed the issue of his writing on UseNet; Sacks' writing is more about the sensational and "bizarre" aspects of severe TS, which is *very* far from the norm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I base what I said on my own experience to some extent. I suspect it is relatively easy to diagnose children with AS (hence there is a lot of service for this and a lot in the literature). Once people like me start to go through life with no diagnosis (this was probably 40 years in the future when I was born) you accumulate all manner of life experience, from being bullied to getting a job and the like, all this makes adults to my mind totally unique, and this perhaps much more difficult to diagnose. There is a reason for my screen name! Soarhead77 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In considering adults, we shift naturally from diagnosis to prognosis; how does AS evolve over time? It has since been removed, but this article previously made mention that ASD kids are seen to naturally improve over the course of time. Here is a more recent and larger study (AS, high functioning ASD and severe autism have been lumped together; the improvement was more pronounced on the higher functioning end ...)
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/Autism/tb/6812
"Symptoms of autism, including maladaptive behaviors and impaired social interactions, appear to lessen over time in a significant percentage of patients..."
- Shattuck PT et al. "Change in Autism Symptoms and Maladaptive Behaviors in Adolescents and Adults with an Autism Spectrum Disorder." J Autism Dev Disord DOI: 10.1007/s10803-006-0307-7

CeilingCrash 20:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

* Shattuck PT, Seltzer MM, Greenberg JS; et al. (2007). "Change in autism symptoms and maladaptive behaviors in adolescents and adults with an autism spectrum disorder". Journal of autism and developmental disorders. 37 (9): 1735–47. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0307-7. PMID 17146700. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That point is still present in the current article. Asperger syndrome #Prognosis says "ASD symptoms are more likely to diminish with time in children with AS or HFA" and cites Coplan & Jawad 2005 (PMID 15995041). Coplan & Jawad is a better source on this point, since it's talking about AS+HFA in particular, and not about ASD in general; also, it's a refereed journal article and not merely a news article. Eubulides 20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good, I must have overlooked it. We may wish to cite both sources, (the link i gave was just to a news article about the source, the source is J Autism Dev Disord DOI: 10.1007/s10803-006-0307-7). The latter is, I think, the largest to date. In any case, glad we have it. The natural improvement is an important matter for assessing whether supposed "cures" work, for educators, parents, and of course those designated as AS. CeilingCrash 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Your point about natural improvement and supposed "cures" is a good one, and is important for both AS and for autism in general. I'd like to see that point made in both Autism and Asperger syndrome but it needs a reliable source. I'm afraid that Shattuck, Seltzer et al. 2007 (PMID 17146700) is about ASD, not AS, and does not break out AS (or AS+HFA) separately, so it is not that good a source for an AS article. The point that ASD symptoms become less severe with age is covered in Autism #Prognosis, which says, "Although core difficulties remain, symptoms often become less severe in later childhood.… Some adults show modest improvement in some symptoms, but some decline; no study has focused on autism after midlife," and cites Howlin 2006 (doi:10.1053/j.mppsy.2006.06.007) and Seltzer, Shattuck et al. 2004 (PMID 15666341), two high-quality reviews. I'm not sure the new results in Shattuck, Seltzer et al. 2007 are worth complicating Autism; the new info there is relatively subtle and it is just one study after all, albeit a good one. Eubulides 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how much of the natural improvement is down to coping skills. This is not verifiable so I wouldn't argue for it, but I sometimes in my case suspect it is. I know I can be pretty deeply AS-ish when I want, ghod knows that causes me enough problems at times, but at the same time, when sitting with a doctor on Monday he said my empathy was quite good after I reminded him for the second time that the sun was in his eyes! My wife tells me how AS-ish I can be... this paper points to Simon Baron-Cohen's method of diagnosing adults. Does anyone know of others? One of the things he says in this paper is the paucity of diagnostic tests for adults. Soarhead77 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Another editor reverted this text; I'm copying it here for discussion. First, it's not based on a reliable source. Second, it was added to the wrong place. Third, it places too much emphasis on the vanity aspects of who did the research. Fourth, it engages WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps Eublides can salvage something here to add to Causes, if there is any refereed published research in reliable sources.

Because each case of autism differs in symptom severity and presentation, autism may arise for different reasons in different people. To get a handle on this diversity, researchers have been working to identify subtypes, known as endophenotypes, in autism. In a study using subjects and data from the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange (AGRE) and funded in part by the former National Alliance for Autism Research and by Cure Autism Now, the researchers analyzed numerous morphological, clinical, and biochemical features of 241 people with autism to see if any features co-occurred with macrocephaly. In addition to finding that head circumference was highly correlated with height and weight, they found that macrocephaly was associated with more impaired adaptive behaviors, but with less impaired IQ scores and verbal language development. Most surprisingly, macrocephaly was also associated with immune disorders in either the patient or their family. This finding adds to the growing body of research pointing to a role for the immune system in autism. http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science_news/new_research_reveals_autism_subgroup_macrosomy.php

I can't find any PubMed record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's well known that there's an association between macrocephaly and autism; this is currently covered in Autism #Pathophysiology, which cites the review article DiCicco-Bloom et al. 2006 (PMID 16807320). I don't know what the new study's results are exactly, since we have no journal citation. Judging by the press release the new results give more detail but (if past results in this area are any guide) should probably be confirmed before being covered or emphasized in Wikipedia. At any rate the study doesn't seem to have been about AS and if so it doesn't belong in Asperger syndrome. Eubulides 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The smoking gun : Baron-Cohen, POV Bias

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Let me return to the original Baron Cohen paper a moment. Not because this one source is so crucial, but because its treatment here makes blazingly clear an inescapable fact :

Source material submitted for discussion here, if it claims a link from Asperger's to any kind of talent or special ability, is systematically and uniformly rejected on grounds totally alien to Wikipolicy.

As a tertiary source, Wikipedia's job is to determine verifiability, not truth. The editors here are not here to peer-review material; their sole job is to determine credibility of sources, accuracy of their presentation, and balance among them. As a medical article we hold our sources to a high standard, we expect medical researchers of some repute publishing in a peer reviewed journal.

In short, if a credible source says it, it belongs here. If you object to the statements of that source, your objection is Original Research and entirely irrelevant. If you want to counter the statements of that source, you need to find another credible source that does it. That's it. Our job is exactly that simple.

With that in mind, let me give the study, and go back through the logs, and illustrate the ways in which a single study, which clearly states its conclusion and is credible prima face, has met with precisely the exclusionary bias which I allege.

A bit of background. Simon Baron-Cohen is one of the leading figures in ASD research; arguably he is the world's most prominent. He studied under Lorna Wing at U Cambridge when Wing first introduced Asperger's , he developed the AQ screening tool which is now standard amongst physicians and researchers, he is now director of the world-famous Cambridge Center for Autism Research which employs thirty researchers and regularly publishes ground-breaking research. Not only is he a notable, credible source, I literally cannot imagine how anyone could be more credible.

He wrote a paper entitled The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ):evidence from Asperger Syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. The paper is a bit complicated, it reports several findings. It introduces the AQ screening tool, verifies its accuracy, and also investigates the connection between scientific skills and ASD. I shall make no attempt to interpret his results, rather i shall cite directly from his own abstract. This study involved 1,000 people and 11 Mathematical Olympiad Winners.

"Scientists (including mathematicians) scored significantly higher than both humanities and social sciences students, confirming an earlier study that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills. ... This was replicated in Group 4, the Mathematics Olympiad winners ... On interview, 11 out of 11 of these met three or more DSM-IV criteria for AS/HFA, and all were studying sciences/mathematics, and 7 of the 11 met threshold on these criteria." - Simon Baron-Cohen

So Baron Cohen says autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills. Literally. He says that. Just now.

But months later the article does not say it. It sort of, almost says it, "people with AS have reached the highest levels of ..." But our article does not say autism is linked to scientific skills. And we're still arguing about it. Because some editors here have an OR bone to pick with Dr. Baron-Cohen's work :

This editor picks an OR fight with the Cohen over his statistical sampling, and also his conclusion (which somehow becomes mine)

excerpt from talk archives (not a live comment from this editor)
the text is far more wrong than I originally thought. You are mistaking casuality and drawing completely erroneous conclusions based on confusion over sampling issues and correlation. -- Sandy Georgia 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC), Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive13

Another editor presents an OR objection based on 'causality'. Baron Cohen says nothing about causality. ---

excerpt from talk archives (not a live comment from this editor)
Another problem with making this conclusion is that correlation does not imply causation. If you find a group of mathematicians that have Asperger's, is it the fact that they have Asperger's that causes them to be good at maths, or is it that fact that they find it difficult to interact with people and express emotion the reason that they are more likely to enter fields where abstraction and logic are highly valued? -- Tim Vickers 01:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC), Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive13

Next we encounter OR theories about the *mechanism* of the link - why ppl with AS are seen over-represented in these talented groups. Somehow it is implied that if we can hypothesize a mechanism - such as ppl with AS prefer to study math - we have somehow invalidated the researcher's stated result.

excerpt from talk archives (not a live comment from this editor)
"people will apply Occam's razor and attempt to first explain these effects using the phenotypes we know, rather than hypothesising new aspects of the phenotype for each correlation discovered ... Similarly, the observation that people comfortable with abstraction and uncomfortable with emotion gravitate towards professions that fit their personalities can either be explained with the basic phenotype, or a new aspect of the phenotype could be hypothesised - "they are better at these professions" -- Tim Vickers 01:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive13
excerpt from talk section above (not a live comment from this editor)
"The Baron-Cohen et al. results do not exclude the hypothesis that mathematical giftedness is equally likely among those with AS and among neurotypicals, but that those with AS prefer to study math for some other reason." Eubulides 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
excerpt from talk section above (not a live comment from this editor)
To add further explanation to why we hadn't revisited this, we covered this issue indepth (months ago, in archives now), there were numerous explanations to this effect, and I thought it was understood and settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


In the Featured Article Review, we see the credibility of Simon Baron-Cohen, arguably the world's most recognized researcher, causually dismissed :

excerpt from FAR archives (not a live comment from this editor)
"no important secondary source has mentioned either Dahmer or the math connection; they are both no more than speculation by individuals that got published ..." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [8]

All of this is a reckless, biased overstepping of wikipedia's stated mandate. The source is credible. Questions of interpretation are removed by directly citing the source. The source states "autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills". That a majority of Olympiad winners met the DSM criteria for AS.

Further disagreements may be taken up with Dr. Baron-Cohen, they have no place here.

This study should not have taken up more than a few minutes of our time. It is one of many I should like - and have tried - to introduce. The persistent objections to it are symptomatic of a massive failure to act as editors within the confines of Wikipolicy, where instead the incredulous have fashioned themselves as Subject Matter Experts empowered to pass judgement on the world's leading research authorities. This failure is sustained and systematic and forms the basis of my allegations of POV. This failure is shameful. CeilingCrash 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

CC, can you please explain what text you want to add, what important viewpoint is not accorded due weight and relate your concerns above to the Wiki policy at WP:UNDUE and guideline at WP:FRINGE? That would help all of us understand what you think is missing and what you want the article to say; we have included B-C's views, so it's still hard to understand what you're asking. Months ago, the text suffered serious issues of original research, synthesis and misrepresentation of sources; let's find ways to add information according to policy and due weight. What you have shown above is not shameful; it is that many editors (and there are many more in archives) have attempted to explain these issues and move forward. Yet no matter how many times we've asked, we still don't know what text you want to add. I'm also confused about why this is becoming an issue about Baron-Cohen; our focus is not on the researcher, rather the standards of peer review in the publications we use. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
We need not form our own opinion of the study reported in Baron-Cohen et al. 2001 (PMID 11439754), as it is already covered by a reliable secondary review of math and AS/HFA. The review, Chiang & Lin 2007 (PMID 17947290), puts the study in context with other studies done by other researchers who are just as reliable as Baron-Cohen et al. C&L's first conclusion is that most individuals with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability, their second conclusion is that most individuals with AS/HFA have a modest math weakness (relative to their general abilities), and their third conclusion (derived from Baron-Cohen et al.) is that some individuals with AS/HFA are mathematically gifted. Currently, Asperger syndrome is disagreeing with a reliable secondary source as to the importance of the one study that you mention. WP:MEDRS makes it clear that secondary sources like C&L's are preferred to primary sources in situations like these. Eubulides 04:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A valid point! And i hope this is the type of objection we consider moving forward. Not that this particular study is my point here, but to respond directly : these studies are not in contradiction with each other. The picture that emerges is that AS have generally average-to-slightly weak math skills, but "some" are gifted. This "some" is consistent with Cohen's thesis. In other words, performance is bimodal, with a second peak in the extremely gifted range of Olympiad Winners. I am not aware of any secondary source questioning Cohen's thesis. CeilingCrash 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Baron-Cohen et al. 2001 provides no evidence that performance is bimodal. No other reliable source does either, to my knowledge. Bimodality is one possible explanation but there are others, and without reliable sources we can't present speculation like that in Wikipedia. Eubulides 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Baron Cohen finds a high (relative to population) incidence of AS in extremely talented math students. Very high (astonishingly high) in fact, 7 out of 11 meet the DSM criteria. C&L find on average Aspies show normal or below normal performance. These two facts are entirely compatible, if true they logically require at least a bimodal distribution (clustering of points at two regions, the high and the medium-low.) It could be n-modal. The term bimodal is really just a mathematical term for such a dual-clustering. I agree there is no need to introduce this abstraction in the article (it smacks of synthesis), tho it may be helpful to us in seeing how both results can coexist (indeed, they only way they can coexist). The point is these two studies augment each other, they are not in logical opposition. updated CeilingCrash 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The two facts do not logically require a bimodal distribution, nor do they require clustering of points at two regions, nor do they require an n-modal distribution. An alternative explanation is that individuals with AS/HFA have the same distribution of math skills as neurotypicals, and that neurotypicals with math skills are more likely to be siphoned off into non-math occupations. I am not at all claiming this possible explanation as fact or suggesting that it be included in the article; I am merely saying that it is plausible and cannot be ruled out from the data. Eubulides 07:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Directly quoting the SBC line without providing any context is patently open to misleading the reader, particularly as the generality of the phrasing is so open to misinterpretation. For that reason I vote against completely isolating the SBC sentence from it's context as CC has done above. Ie. if it is going to be singled out for inclusion, it needs very detailed contextualizing, so probably effecient and neutral to utilize the Chiang and Lin presentation as suggested by Eubulides. 121.222.133.213 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, provide context! What he found, how, among who, and so on. He also has another paper, "Autism is linked to mathematical talent". I hope this and future sources enjoy the same fair consideration.CeilingCrash 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
ah, is "Autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills" the sentence that CC wants to add? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, seems to be that quote?? Until he offers an alternative, I'm assuming that he wants that phrasing adhered to. Of course it would still require contextualizing. 121.222.133.213 04:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care about Cohen. I want new sources to be considered in accordance with Policy, balanced against other sources, put in context, but not mired in months of OR dispute. CeilingCrash 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm slow, but I'm still trying to capture the big picture here after your new post. If I'm reading correctly above, you seem to be saying that you believe that 1) some editors are intentionally biasing the article because 2) we have a "bone to pick" or some beef specifically with Baron-Cohen. Is that close at all? If so, where does that notion come from? None of this is about Baron-Cohen; it's about WP:UNDUE and using reliable secondary sources per WP:RS and WP:V. Why would anyone here have a beef with B-C and why would anyone want to bias the article negatively about AS? We're just trying to be accurate; we can't say X unless the preponderance of reliable sources back that, because we don't give undue weight to fringe theories. We need to know what you want to say and how we can relate it to mainstream published literature. Until we get there, we truly are chasing our tails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to suggest a phrasing CC, otherwise we are chasing our tails pointlessly. 121.222.133.213 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My point here is not to propose a change in content. It is to propose a change in process, away from OR and back to Policy. My small point is yes, Cohen claims a link from AS to scientific and mathematical skills. That statement should be made as such, subject to balancing and broader context.

But this is trivial and obfuscates my real point : let us avoid the extra-editorial debate that plagued this source, as shown in my initial rant, in the future. That's all I am asking. So that each new source does not spark a similar firestorm. The subsequent objections voiced by 121.222.133.213 and by EU exemplify the sort of valid and Policy-centric discussion that I hope will prevail in the future. Thanks to all spending time on such a long post. updated CeilingCrash 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Two sentences, based on a correlation, in a single study, the actual purpose of which was very different than to investigate the links between HFA/AS and mathematical/scientific aptitude, does not a reliable source make, for the statement 'There's a correlation between AS and math/science ability'. Perhaps I am missing something by not reading the whole article, but if the '7/11 meeting 3+ criteria' is the only source for a fairly strong statement in a long and well-referenced article, I don't think there's merit in adding the statement. Were there studies whose focus were on researching said possible correlation, yes. Give the source statement as I see it, the sentence in the intro is appropriate, but could go no further. I can't see having a statement on the page that is longer than the article reference that spawned it. CC, did you have further sources for the point? And given the source and my reading above, I can't see this is as a mis-application of policy. For an article of this length and profile, in my mind the only way a more extensive discussion could take place of the purported abilities would be whole articles published in journals that devote a large proportion of their content towards the link between AS and science/math. WLU 15:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The math connection, ctd

Latest comment: 17 years ago103 comments10 people in discussion
(responding to WLU above, as the math connection was not the impetus behind that section.)
A good question, what is the weight of the source? I fixed the link so you can read the whole article. Cohen says "autistic conditions are linked to scientific skills." Actually he found 7 of the 11 Olympiad winners to meet all 4 dx criteria for AS, he found all 11 meet at least 3. To do a little arithmetic in order to judge statistical signficance, 1 Aspie would have have been 10x the expected occurence of AS. Finding 7 gives a p value of less than one billionth of one percent. It's statistical significance, not size that counts. The other place he draws this conclusion is on 800 students at U Cambridge, using the AQ screening tool, which he goes on to validate.
Does Cohen say that "people with AS have, on average, more scientific skill"? No, he doesn't.
Cohen is careful to say "linked to scientific skills". The link he demonstrates is not that AS ppl, on average, show greater skill. Rather he is finding that, in groups of talented people, there are disproportionately high numbers of Aspies.
Does he say that "AS ppl are more likely to have unusually high levels of skill?" No, but that is a necessary logical conclusion from their over-representation in talented groups. But it seems prudent to let others make that statement, and let Cohen speak for his own results, "linked to talent."
I think this gives a sense of the weight of his stated claim. Certainly his methods are imperfect (the AQ tool, was the dx on the olympiad winners possibly biased) but these research issues are for Cohen's peers, not us, to criticize (i'm not aware of any that do, but if anyone is i hope they post it here.) Sample sizes and such do not seem (to me) to be overstepping into OR analysis, but a simple editorial metric of the study's weight. I thnk you can say cohen's statement of a "link to scientific skills" has significant weight in terms of sampling, but agree that his results should be expressed in his own wording and perhaps given broader context.
Is this connection drawn more directly? Yes it is. Again from Cohen at the Autism Research Centre
Mathematical Talent is Linked to Autism DOI 10.1007/s12110-007-9014-0
So we see more weight accruing for this statement (378 math students, 414 in the control). In this paper, interestingly - but not conclusively - B Cohen indicates evidence for a genetic link between autism and mathematical skill. He is currently investigating this, I'll watch for his results at a later date.
Now, it would be good to see secondary sources and other researchers making this 'link' assertion, which I will try to find. Again, I welcome this properly constrained discussion.

updated CeilingCrash 19:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly am confused about what you want here, CC. We now have 68KB of discussion on this page alone (with volumes more in archives) but in spite of all that discussion, a clear adherence to policy in the current article, and clear consensus that changes aren't warranted, you state (above) that "My point here is not to propose a change in content." If you aren't proposing a change in content, I just don't know what to do with all of this. We still don't know what you want. Maybe I'm the only who really isn't getting it, but I suggest that you propose the content you want, or we move along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to WLU, regarding the wording of the "link to mathematical talent" as it appears in the current article. It's a good discussion, about the weight of that study, and the presence of further support for that statement. It's a properly constrained editorial discussion. My complaint was the profusion of OR disputations - in the past - that were presented in Talk in the decision making process. I no longer have that complaint. In simplest terms, I'd like to see the phrase "linked to mathematical talent" in the text. Others disagree. Let's have that discussion, and I am happy to lose that argument, so long as it is constrained to the credibility and weight of the statement's sources. Let's treat further sources with the same editorial dispassion. updated CeilingCrash 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that helps; at least we know exactly what change you want :-) OK, so if we were to add that (don't take this text literally, please, it's for example purposes only):
  • Baron-Cohen says X
which is not fully supported by medical consensus (corrected to) consensus in the published literature, in order to maintain neutrality, accuracy, and due weight, we would also have to add,
  • Baron-Cohen says X; other sources say Y.
Are you going to be happy with "Y", which based on a preponderance of the literature, will basically refute X? Will adding this accomplish what you hope? (This is a hypothetical, separate from the issue that it may be outside of our role to conduct this debate within an article anyway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
We must be careful with "medical consensus." Mathematical talent is not a medical issue. Doctors do not treat mathematical (or any other talent), so the emergence of 'medical consensus' cannot be reasonably expected for any positive trait associated with a neurlogical condition. This is nit-picking, perhaps, but "expert consensus" seems a better term. The lack of "full support" in the pathology-treating community does not detract from the weight of X.
If BC says X, and BC is adjudged credible, and X is of sufficient weight to warrant mention, we should say X. If Y contradicts X, then X is cancelled out, toss out Cohen. But no Y has been presented or found. The CL study does not contradict what B Cohen calls the "link to talent". No source I am aware of does. CL says most aspies perform at normal levels, BC says they are disproportionately represented in talented groups. (See the previous discussion on bimodality.) So we should say "Y and X", not "X but Y." updated CeilingCrash 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Bad word choice on my part: consensus in the published literature (replaced above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Nit-picking on my part. CeilingCrash 21:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Many secondary sources have reported on this link, I'll be back to provide some more, here's one ... "Published case reports of men with Asperger disorder suggest an association with the capacity to accomplish cutting-edge research in computer science, mathematics, and physics." -- James Robert Brasic, MD, Johns Hopkins. (i'll return with link and more sources.)CeilingCrash 21:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
(I have other commitments for a while, I just wanted to answer WLU's question regarding weight and the presence of more direct findings on the autism->talent thesis. I think BC has been now gotten fair treatment (if not beaten to death) here, any wording change to the article (if any) is not - to me - a pressing matter.
I look forward to similar, source-based review of other areas that complete the whole picture of AS, in areas of acoustics, visual perception, memory, language and cognition. I'll return in a short while (I still owe WLU secondary sources on BC). To recap the sources under discussion, they were :
The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Malesand Females, Scientists and Mathematicians DOI 10.1023/A:1005653411471
Mathematical Talent is Linked to Autism DOI 10.1007/s12110-007-9014-0
updated 24.128.99.107 23:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Before I am forced into further embarrassing backtracking, CC, do you have further sources beyond the single source for the AQ article?
  2. Does the Errata add anything significant beyond what the article itself adds? I can't seem to read it.
If the answers to these questions are 'no', then here's my opinion. This is a single study, whose main purpose is to validate the AQ instrument. Though there may be statistically significant correlations between HFA/AS (more accurately, AS/HFA-like-traits as from what I can see the AQ isn't a diagnostic instrument) and math/science abilities found within this study, it is still a single study, and one designed to test an instrument, rather than prove a link between the AS/HFA and academic achievement. Even though it is Simon Baron-Cohen, it is still only one study. Reading the citations of the study within the article, I would venture that the first sentence ("Adults with AS have reached the highest levels of achievement in fields such as mathematics, physics and computer science") is a bit of a stretch (though I lack some context as the abstract references a previous study that was confirmed). Only group one was diagnosed with AS/HFA and an admittedly brief look through the full paper did not indicate they were exceptional within math/science (paraphrasing - a proportion of degrees and occupational breakdown similar to group two, the randomly selected controls), group four, the mathletes, 'met criteria' in various ways (including the 7 who apparently would have been diagnosed, were this a diagnostic interview) which is a hair's width from diagnosis, but a significant hair's width. Does this mean that 'Adults with AS have reached the highest levels of achievement in fields such as mathematics, physics and computer science'? In my mind it does not, since the AQ does not diagnose AS (Baron-Cohen himself says on p. 17 'We wish to underline that the AQ is not diagnostic'). However, I think it could be said that adults who score highly on an instrument that assesses AS-like traits (or similar wording) have reached extremely high levels of achievements within specific fields. I much prefer the second citation of the study, "AS has been linked to high achieving mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, and engineers, and the condition need not be an obstacle to achievement at the highest levels in these fields." This seems to be much closer to what the abstract is saying. I'm surprised that this study is not already referenced, which would seem to support the link between ASD and math/physics more (though it is more about autism than AS). Perhaps it could be phrased "Asperger-like traits have been linked to high achieving mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, and engineers" as everything after the 'and' is a bit of an equivocation - it doesn't say that it helps, I don't see any reason to imply it would be a barrier, and the AQ doesn't diagnose AS, it assesses autistic spectrum traits. I don't see any reason to add a whole section on the topic or expand beyond the two mentions extant. Said section would have only one source (or two at a stretch) to justify its content. I'd say a whole section on an article like this one based on one source would be undue weight. WLU 08:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
WLU, your conclusions are what several of us stated (in talk archives now) several months ago, which is why I thought we were done with this, and why I thought the verbiage about math left in the article was an exceedingly generous compromise that would help keep everyone happy. Specifically, as you stated, "This is a single study, whose main purpose is to validate the AQ instrument." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
<embarrassed cough> redacted per below; I agree with SandyGeorgia, I rule In my defense, there are fifteen pages of archives... I agree it is a very generous compromise. Lacking further sources, I don't see anything that could be added. WLU 11:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
oh, my, WLU, I certainly didn't mean to embarrass you or imply that you had to read through 800KB of talk page archives ... I only entered that response to point out that there has been no intent to ignore CC's concerns or exclude positive aspects, rather that I thought that discussion had already been dealt with and put to rest. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and for making you feel embarrassed; I should also say that you *certainly* explained the issue far better than I ever have, so your response is helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, I hope that CC appreciates the somewhat independent review of the evidence. Having obviously not read the archives, yet coming to the same conclusion, it looks like consensus to me. WLU 23:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Briefly (busy elsewhere for the moment), yes another source makes the claim directly, Mathematical Talent is Linked to Autism DOI 10.1007/s12110-007-9014-0 . While this study's methods are open to question, the title leaves little room for misinterpretation as to the claim of the researcher.
Again, and I wish to be very clear on this point, I am not objecting to the current coverage of the link from aspergers to mathematics talent in the article. I am objecting to editorial process in which editors have engaged in OR disputation of sources in the course of that decision. So long as the sources are considered for credibility, weight and balance I am perfectly happy with the outcome. The AQ study is by no means alone in making the claim, please see Mathematical Talent is Linked to Autism and stay tuned for more. But there is no point in providing further sources if the decision making process is not constrained to wiki policy, and instead devolves into OR review of the material (which has not, in fairness, reoccurred here since I raised the matter). There shouldn't be 3 months worth of discussion on a single source, the matter should have been dispatched after a few comments. If we can continue this source-based mode of discussion, we can move forward with much less discord. I'll be back w/ more sources as well (the Poincare Hypothesis, one of the last century's longest-standing mathematics problems, was solved by a person diagnosed w/ asperger's) ... updated CeilingCrash 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A week ago, you suggested "this article be tagged POV" and that "the crux of the apparent POVism is" that "the article avoids the simple statement, that AS is linked to any sort of talent or ability", going on to focus on mathematical ability in particular. The article has not changed in that week yet you no longer object "to the current coverage of the link from aspergers to mathematics talent in the article". Have you changed your mind (which is allowed :-) or now realise the focus of your unease was the talk page rather than the article? The "OR disputation of sources" wasn't, I believe, OR in any sense that goes against WP policy. The examples you gave above were IMO taken out of context. They weren't passing judgement on the source itself, more the conclusions or text taken from the source. When discussing why those words/conclusions may be wrong, editors would of course have to explain using original words based on their own expertise. Finally, there is nothing wrong with editors making short statements on the talk page that draw from their own experience or judgements—as long as the point is not at a tangent to the process of writing a good article. Colin°Talk 20:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You might have misunderstood him then, the math-link was an example, the central point was - from the start - OR through selection of sources. Oh, and you might want to consider changing your tone and attitude a bit and keep it respectful. Thank you. --Fenke 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Fenke, can you explain what's wrong with the tone of the post above, because I'm not seeing it? To offer another perspective, no, it's not an issue of OR through selection of sources, rather misunderstanding of sources. Regardless of the title B-C may have put on the paper listed above, the results do not show the connection some believe it shows, but that has been covered several times in archives. There were two issues in past versions of this article and discussions: unreliable (or not the highest quality) sources and misrepresentation/misunderstanding of even some reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify one potential misunderstanding: I'm not implying that CC was being in any way underhand wrt the "out of context" bit. Merely that if a reader saw that text above, they might think the editors were passing personal judgement on the source material, and not the conclusions or text drawn from that material. Also, despite not always understanding CC's point, I do respect his/her contributions. This debate might be overlong, but it is pretty respectful, intelligent, and source-led when compared to many other controversial topics. My point is to request we drop these OR allegations and move on (in the direction that CC is happy with) to discuss sources (and any text to be drawn from them) in a friendly and intelligent manner. Colin°Talk 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It's in - and behind - the part where you wrote: "... Have you changed your mind (which is allowed :-) or now realise the focus of your unease was the talk page rather than the article? ..."
Interpretation and evaluation of sources will remain a risk for POV and OR as well as allegations thereof. Spitting through ever growing archives (the size of a book) for something that may, or may not be there will become increasingly harder, could the introduction of a more stable and specialized section (like 13 and 14 here) or page where discussion of sources can take place and be reviewed be useful? --Fenke 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Those statements of CC that I quote appear to contradict themselves in that nothing has changed other than time. I change my mind and learn during discussions, so there's nothing wrong with that. The charge that the article was/is POV and that editors are conducting OR on the talk page seems unfounded. I'm not sure what you think is "behind" my question. I do agree that continuing to refer to and selectively quote from old archives becomes problematic. Sometimes it is better to draw a line and move on. Colin°Talk 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You appeared to insinuate he would have changed his opinion - which he didn't - or was backing out of it because he would have felt uneasy with his position. That was, in my opinion, below the belt. --Fenke 08:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"insinuate": suggest or hint (something bad) in an indirect and unpleasant way (AskOxford). No certainly not. I asked quite directly if he had changed his mind/opinion and don't believe I was unpleasant about it. And changing ones mind (as I've repeatedly said) isn't bad. And the "uneasiness" wasn't "with his position" it was my wording for how CC appeared to feel about the article (or talk page). It wasn't implying an "I'm uneasy with myself" kind of feeling (as you appear to be saying); it was an "I'm uneasy with this article" feeling. I truly want to know why someone would go from feeling the article was so POV that it needed labelled as such, to no longer wishing to change it. And why, if they no longer wish to change it (in this respect), are they still debating the point. Talk page discussions must be focussed on improving the article, not solely debating the topic or the finer points of WP policy. Colin°Talk 09:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I can accept that, the appearance of an insinuation was in entirely through my reading then. As for the POV, it was offered for discussion on the talk page, I suppose that's how it's supposed to be done. --Fenke 10:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea. It does seem like four months of discussing one sentence, to conclude that the current article is fine, isn't our best use of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
But the current article is not fine: it gives undue weight to the link between AS and math accomplishment, compared to our sole reliable review. Look for "Chiang & Lin" in the discussion above. This problem can be fixed with some wording tweaks, but that doesn't mean the current state is fine. Eubulides 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct, sorry, I didn't mean to overlook that part of the issue. I am hoping you will correct the wording, Eubulides, since your command of prose and the topic is better than mine and you have all the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've given two sources so far (repeatedly), here is the second again : Mathematical Talent is Linked to Autism DOI 10.1007/s12110-007-9014-0 Again, let's restrict comment to what the researcher says, the credibility of the researcher, and balance amidst other research. (We can reasonably debate if Cohen means AS/HFA here.) If we find ourselves contradicting the researcher, that has no place in our discussion of verifiability, not truth. If the researcher's conclusions are faulty, another researcher is likely to counter them. If that hasn't happened, it isn't our job to step in and correct this deficiency. Personally, I disagree with the present wording in the article but don't care all that much, and never did. I'd like to move at a faster pace in the future by restraining our considerations within the bounds of wikipolicy. There is a lot of material on AS not touched upon in this article, and more is emerging; beyond checking it for credible sources, verifiable sources, and due weight - i see no reason this has to be an arduous process at all. updated CeilingCrash 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Briefly, since we've already been over this in archives, that paper does not support the presumed link between math and autism (previously in the article). It was a study of a selected (that is, biased) sample: "Abstract A total of 378 mathematics undergraduates (selected for being strong at “systemizing”) ... " and the results showed "... a link between autism and systemizing, and they suggest this link is genetic given the association between autism and first-degree relatives of mathematicians." The study was again, not a global study of math ability in either autism or Asperger's, rather related to EQ SQ theory. The study is basically irrelevant to this article because it doesn't even look at math ability in broad populations of persons with AS, but might have a place in the systemizing article. The results of math ability in broader Asperger's samples that Eubulides referred to are not yet reflected in the article, and we do need to correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The study claims a link between autism and mathematics ability. Specifically, a higher incidence of ASD within a group of math students. Your commentary beyond this is OR and non editorial. To save readers here the click-through, the first part of the abstract reads thus :
Abstract A total of 378 mathematics undergraduates (selected for being strong at “systemizing”) and 414 students in other (control) disciplines at Cambridge University were surveyed with two questions: (1) Do you have a diagnosed autism spectrum condition? (2) How many relatives in your immediate family have a diagnosed autism spectrum condition? Results showed seven cases of autism in the math group (or 1.85%) vs one case of autism in the control group (or 0.24%), a ninefold difference that is significant. Controlling for sex and general population sampling, this represents a three- to sevenfold increase for autism spectrum conditions among the mathematicians ... - Simon Baron-Cohen
Baron Cohen does not say there is a group of ppl with AS have, on average, higher mathematical ability. Thus we shouldn't say it, and your objection that it isn't supported is a non sequitur. What Baron Cohen says is evident and beyond our mandate to approve. What he said is, "mathematical talent is linked to autism", in the title. Our job ends there. CeilingCrash 02:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That paper is about autism; it provides no statistics about AS or AS/HFA, and as such is a poor source for Asperger syndrome.
  • That paper is by the same research group as the already-cited Baron-Cohen et al. 2001 paper, and it doesn't add much; there's little point to citing it as well.
  • Of more use would be a reliable review or other secondary source.
  • We have multiple reliable reviews of AS which do not mention the topic of math and AS/HFA—a telling absence.
  • We also have Chiang & Lin 2007, which is a review that is only about the topic of math and AS/HFA. But we give far greater weight to Baron-Cohen et al.'s results than that review does.
  • It's hard to escape the conclusion that Asperger syndrome currently gives undue weight to the connection between AS/HFA and high levels of mathematical ability.
Eubulides 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You can not reject one source with the argument that it is not restricted to AS while using another that isn't either - nor could you link to non-as main articles. Arbitrarily using a criterion in one case and not in another just doesn't look particularly neutral. Would BC et al. be the first to have more then one paper cited? Then that (also) could be seen as a non-neutral argument to reject this source. --Fenke 08:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like there's some confusion here. The 2001 Baron-Cohen et al. paper is about AS/HFA. The 2007 paper talks only about autism. This Wikipedia article is about AS (which some claim is not distinguishable from HFA). This article does not focus on autism in general. Eubulides 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean the paper that's referred to in this section, the one that was published in 2005 and online in 2007? :D
That one mentions autism spectrum conditions, not autistic disorder, and given the population (undergraduates at Cambridge University), it would be safe to assume the ASD in question would be AS/HFA.
It wouldn't be the first and only ASD paper to be used as source for this article either.--Fenke 21:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I appreciate that Eu's objections are source-based (avoiding the need for a discussion of the nature of correlation.) As for two results from BC, we come to the question of his credibility and reputation. The Centre for Autism Research is one of the, if not the most well known, most respected and most-cited research insitution in the world. BC is director of this Centre, and both papers are cauthored by 5 or more researchers. In and of itself, it seems that as primary sources go, it doesn't get any better than this.
As for secondary sources, the absence of a statement does not implies its negation. Since mathematics is not a clinical issue, we can expect vast amounts of medical articles mute on the topic. However, there are secondary sources which mention this. Given that BC-2007 wrote very recently, it will take some time before secondary sources weigh on BC's 2007 study. You are right that secondary sources would be preferable and welcome on this. However, we should not reject primary sources on these grounds alone.
BC's paper is not "about autism", we run into a terminology problem that persists among researchers. BC uses the term "Autism Spectrum Disorder" to include AS, HFA and Autism. BC considers AS and HFA to be the same thing, and to fall on the same spectrum as autism. So it is a very valid question - in fact, the only valid question - to what extent is BC saying "Asperger"'s ? I agree with Fenke that it is almost certain that students at a world-class, competitive university like Cambridge are AS/HFA if they are ASD, but this conclusion should be sourced. I'll read thru the paper and see what i can find.24.128.99.107 21:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The Centre for Autism Research is one of the, if not 'the' most well known, most respected and most-cited research insitution in the world. Having seen this several times now, I want to say that this kind of unfounded editorial opinion about any given researcher doesn't help advance article improvement. There are dozens of renowned autism researchers, and many respected institutions. Focusing the issue on a particular author or institution is a bit of a strawman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the researcher under discussion, hence the focus. You don't seem to disagree that this is one of the most respected researchers in the world. "If not" does not make a direct claim. Opinions about sources credibility are precisely what we seek in assigning due weight. I can't imagine any basis whatever for your objection. 24.128.99.107 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not a dispute about Baron-Cohen's credibility. It is a dispute about how much weight to give this particular result. Baron-Cohen is credible, but that does not mean that every paper he's a coauthor on should be highlighted in Asperger syndrome, with a weight well above that given by reliable secondary sources. Eubulides 00:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've read the paper (Baron-Cohen et al. 2007) and it is indeed about autism. It reports that its subjects had formally diagnosed classic autism, high-functioning autism, or Asperger syndrome. The paper does not report how many subjects were in each diagnostic category. I disagree that "it is almost certain" that the subjects were AS/HFA rather than "classic autism"; if that were the case, the paper would have said so. And even if this study were about AS/HFA only (which it is not), the study would not be worth mentioning in Asperger syndrome, as we should be relying on Chiang & Lin's review as discussed above. Eubulides 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The paper says "autistic spectrum disorders", which includes all three categories. Your reasoning about about what they paper would have done, etc, is speculation. If we are to conclude that BC is talking about 'classic autism', that means 7 mathematics student at cambridge university have classic autism. A quick call to cambridge would show that not to be true. That is ... astronomically improbable. As for C&L, C&L in no way contradicts BC, so there is no reason to choose one to the exclusion of another, nor reason to conclude that BC is the only source to consider. Let us determine if BC is talking about AS, to what extent, and what other sources obtain for this issue. 24.128.99.107 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to keep the IP edits straight, 24.128.99.107=CeilingCrash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
My "reasoning" was a reply to speculation on someone else's part. I disagreed with that speculation, and still do; I admit that both sides of the disagreement are speculation, but the point is that the article cannot rely on speculation either way. Asperger syndrome cannot cite "a telephone call to Cambridge". C&L don't disagree with BC, but C&L do disagree with the emphasis put on BC's result in Asperger syndrome; that overemphasis in the article is a problem. Eubulides 00:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
So was it (in part) on the grounds of a speculation - being that the subjects would not be HFA/AS dx-ed - that the paper was rejected? The article includes other sources that are not strictly AS, and sources that report on studies with classic autism. Although papers on AS are preferred, papers on HFA, generic ASD's and even classic autism are already referenced. You can not arbitrarily accept one paper that is not specifically on AS and then reject another because it might not specifically be on AS. Fenke 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Generic sources on ASD can be helpful when we don't have more-specific sources, but that is not the case here. We have Chiang & Lin 2007, a reliable secondary source on the topic of AS/HFA and math, which already addresses the issue and supplies appropriate weighting. We also have Baron Cohen et al. 2001, a primary source on the topic of AS/HFA and math. We do not need another source that doesn't add any new points and that is further from the subject of the encyclopedia article. The topic of math and AS is already overemphsized in Asperger syndrome; adding new, less-than-relevant sources will not fix this. Eubulides 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We are clearly unable to achieve consensus on even the smallest of matters. I advocate formal arbitration on the issue of POV in this article, and hopefully some direction per sources moving forward.CeilingCrash 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

polling for formal arbitration

Please put just votes here, and discussion in the next section. This may take a while, let's neither side canvas. CeilingCrash 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC) I support formal arbitration.CeilingCrash 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion of formal arbitration

There appear to be two schools of thought, one of Asperger's as pure pathology, and another which claims Asperger's is a mix of pathology, innocuous difference, and frequent gift. The micro-issue is we cannot reach consensus as to how to express the link between Asperger's and mathematical talent, per Simon Baron Cohen, in the article (Sandy and EU want to weaken the current language, others want it left alone or strengthened.) The macro issue is - this is what happens to credible sources wrt to any non pathological aspect of AS. Thus far the pathological-school has run rough-shod over the mixed school; the pathology school simply directly edited the article, despite the request that changes be presented in Talk first - an advisable practice for a contentious issue. Soon the mixed-school will respond in kind; introducing edits into the article. An edit war seems imminent, as well as much wasted text in Talk (which nobody else reads, after all). It is clear to me that an administrative arbitrator would help us to effectively interpret wikipedia policy wrt this conflict. It is difficult to imagine how someone, regardless of their perspective, could oppose this move if they believe policy supports their view. CeilingCrash 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think statements can be made about what anyone wants to do or has done to the article, since the article hasn't been changed. For all of the discussion above, there has been no proposed text and no article edits; in fact, you specifically said you aren't proposing content changes. I also disagree that there is a school of thought that advocates AS as "pure pathology"; there is a school of thought (on my part) that articles should be reliably sourced and text should reflect what the sources say, in accordance with WP:UNDUE. (Again, remember the example I gave long ago: if you want to include anything anyone has ever published about Asperger syndrome, you open the door for including text that Asperger's is linked to serial killers via Jeffrey Dahmer, and I don't think that would be indicated just because reliable sources have published that theory. We must measure due weight according to secondary reviews. Do we also want to include all of the studies linking criminal pathology to Asperger's? I hope not, since no secondary reliable sources mention that aspect. Please be careful with the slippery slope here.) A reliable source (already addressed by ArbCom for scientific theories) that presents any view of AS and text that accurately reflects what the source says is welcome (and in fact, already included) according to due weight. We seem to have a misunderstanding not about policy, but in interpretation of what the sources are saying and their importance with respect to due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hoho, you make it sound like a disaster will await the article even when reliable sources would be used, or cited differently. There's a library of reliable yet unused sources that do not postulate all kinds of weird theories. That was not a 'clean' argument, SG. Fenke 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC) -- edited by Fenke 10:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Fenke, but I can't follow what you're saying here. If we toss WP:UNDUE out the window by letting in "positive" items that aren't well supported by secondary sources, we open the same door for the article to include "negative" items. If you don't think that's a strong reason for following Wiki policy, then I guess I'm not following what you're saying. Hypothetical sentence in the article which is a logical conclusion of ignoring WP:V: One author says Asperger syndrome is associated with math giftedness; others associate Asperger syndrome with the criminal psychopathology seen in serial killers including Jeffrey Dahmer. Both could be sourced to the same kinds of peer-reviewed sources; neither are mentioned in the highest-quality secondary source reviews that WP:UNDUE requires. I really don't know what you're saying here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A typo, sorry, I've changed it now (italicized). Basically you appear to claim that referencing reliable papers that aren't about pathology but examine strengths would somehow open the door to material of considerably less quality, like that Jeffrey Dahmer study. That is a somewhat dramatic extrapolation. Fenke 10:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the worry here is cherry picking, the use of anecdotal evidence and the potential for hasty generalization either on our part or by a reader. A paper can be "reliable" and yet utterly insignificant wrt an encyclopaedia article. Even with the most careful language, giving undue weight to rare situations (both positive and negative) may lead the reader to assume the issue is of greater significance than it is. It is not just the lay press that focuses on the extraordinary: published case-notes tend to contain examples of the unusual rather than the mundane. Such case-notes and small-scale studies might well contain wild speculation by the author, which is meant to stimulate further research (and attract funds:-). A review paper (secondary source) tends to be more carefully worded and conservative. Colin°Talk 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Colin, SandyGeorgia's references to the Dahmer paper are overly dramatic. If her concern was with cherry picking or anecdotal evidence, she should have said just that, without the drama. Fenke 11:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a question about "pure pathology" versus "mix"; it is a question of what the reliable sources say and how much weight the Asperger syndrome article gives to the connection between AS and math gifts. We have one reliable review on math & AS, namely Chiang & Lin (PMID 17947290). This review says (quoting its abstract):
  1. the majority of individuals with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability;
  2. the majority of individuals with AS/HFA have a significant but clinically modest math weakness;
  3. some individuals with AS/HFA have mathematical giftedness.
Currently Asperger syndrome unduly emphasizes (3) by citing a primary source about it and mentioning it prominently in the lead, while doing neither for (1) or (2). This is undue weight and it needs to get fixed. Adding a redundant primary source for (3) would worsen matters by adding even more weight to (3). Emphasizing the link between AS and math by using primary sources to argue with our reliable review contradicts WP:MEDRS #Some definitions and basics and is not good practice for an encyclopedia. There has been no dispute about what our sole reliable review source says, or about the fact that the Asperger syndrome article seriously disagrees with our sole reliable review source about the weight of (3) versus (1) and (2), so there is no need for formal arbitration. Eubulides 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
C&L does not contradict BC if the percentage of gifted AS/HFA is high relative to the percentage of gifted NT, for example, if 10% of AS/HFA were gifted, while only 5% NT were. Fenke 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of logical contradiction. It's a question of undue weight. No one is saying that C&L disagree with BC's results. The problem is that Asperger syndrome gives BC's results far more weight than C&L do. Eubulides 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
CeilingCrash. I note in your comments way above that you claim "no special interest" (or words to that effect) in the AS maths genius angle and that you are merely concerned with undue weight, and other issues. But I can't help but notice you have come back to this singular issue of math talent in AS at least a dozen times in the last few months, and further that you are currently contributing to the Wikipedia Lambda calculus mathematics article. Whatever the level of your interest, the SBC source wording is potentially misleading when taken in context of the overall details of the study, and the C & L review confirms the importance of not overextending claims. EU and Sandy have been balanced and generous in the time devoted to understanding this problematic wording in SBC's study. So I presently don't see the need for formal arbitration, as the C& L source is precisely such arbitration. In fact I vote that the undue weight presently placed on this talent be removed from the article. Soulgany101 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not CC who keeps pulling the discussion towards this 'math' gift, but everyone else who keeps coming back to this detail. I think his concern - and I share it - is more with the general bias on pathology and deficits. This may be just a reflection of the current bias in research in the field, but it deserves some attention. Fenke 10:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Eubulides' summary of the current state of play wrt sources so far presented & how to interpret them and accord weight. The "frequent gift" that CC mentions isn't supported by any reliable analysis of the AS population as a whole (please point out if I've overlooked something). The labelling of one camp as "pure pathology" isn't helpful as I don't believe those so-labelled believe AS is always a completely bad thing for all individuals. Nobody is disputing point (3) above. The dispute is over weight and the correct use of what sources we have (secondary reviews vs primary). I have no doubt that Eb/SG would change their position if presented with different evidence. Talk of "respond[ing] in kind" and an "imminent" edit war is most unhelpful. It would help if both sides offered suggested changes on the talk page rather than endless academic discussion. I think Eb/SG are interpreting WP policy correctly, and note SG's concerns should we start down a path of rejecting such policies. However, being right isn't always enough...
It appears to me that Eb and CC want to take the article in opposite directions wrt maths ability. That both are uncomfortable with the current text is sometimes a sign that we have reached a compromise wrt POV. Such a compromise involves giving something to the other side even if you don't think it is deserved. The current article mentions all three points above. The language used in the body text is fairly neutral and IMO only slightly incorrectly weighted. The presence of a prominent sentence in the lead affords more weight than Eubulides would like but is it something you can live with for peace? Compared to the blatant lies, misuse of statistics, unsourced and badly sourced opinions, and other horrors in the other autism-related articles, this is a storm in a teacup.
The talents of all editors involved in this dispute are being wasted on a small part of an article that is pretty good already. Wikipedia would be far better served if, for example Autism rights movement was afforded the same attention. Falling out in an attempt to perfect (in ones own eyes) a small aspect of this article, while the rest rots, would be a tragedy. Colin°Talk 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I could live with a summary in the lead, but I have problems with the current wording and source in the lead. The lead currently says "Adults with AS have reached the highest levels of achievement in fields such as mathematics, physics and computer science." and cites Baron-Cohen et al. 2001 (PMID 11439754). But the BC study itself doesn't support the "highest levels of achievement" claim; the BC study is about something else. The "highest level" quote comes from this part of BC's discussion, a part that refers to some other studies: "Our recent single-case studies of very high-achieving mathematicians, physicists, and computer scientists with AS show that this condition need not be any obstacle to achieving the highest levels in these fields." That claim makes sense, but we need a source for it. BC provides no citation for that quote. What we need to do here is (1) track down these "single-case studies" and (2) cite them instead. When we do that, we need to (3) make it clear that we're citing single-case studies. I can live with that. Eubulides 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Following up: I identified the "single-case studies". It's a report of 3 AS cases: a physics student, a computer science student, and a Fields medal winner. The 3rd case is Richard Borcherds, but the paper doesn't reveal his identity. All three cases showed deficit on a theory-of-mind test and were at ceiling for tests of physics and executive function. I'd like a better source on this topic, as this source is old and is not readily available: it has no PMID or DOI, as apparently Neurocase wasn't Pubmed-indexed until volume 7 in 2001 and previous issues are not available from the publisher. I found an unauthorized copy online but that's no good for Wikipedia of course. However if this is the best source we've got then I suppose we can live with it. Here's the citation: Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Stone V, Rutherford M (1999). "A mathematician, a physicist, and a computer scientist with Asperger Syndrome: performance on folk psychology and folk physics tests" (PDF). Neurocase. 5 (6): 475–83. Retrieved 2007-11-08.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Eubulides 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC) (updated) Eubulides 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's available from the source, ARC: [9]. Fenke 10:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I updated my previous comment accordingly. Eubulides 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I carefully read the sources for the associations between AS and math ability (summarized about 1/3 of the way into this section). Given those studies, I think the only thing that can be said is that summarized in the sentence already in prognosis - AS has been linked to high achieving mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, and engineers, and the condition need not be an obstacle to achievement at the highest levels in these fields. Given the abstract of Chiang, which I hadn't read in my last look through, I strongly feel that the the sentence in the lead (Adults with AS have reached the highest levels of achievement in fields such as mathematics, physics and computer science)should be removed or altered to indicate what the references actually say - AS is not a barrier to high achievement. It should not imply that AS somehow gives advantage in certain fields, since I have seen no evidence that this is the case, while Chiang demonstrates that individuals with AS have average ability in math at least. Given what the references available now, all you can say is that some people with AS have done very well in some fields. The exact same thing could be said of any group - redheads, left-handed people, the Dutch, and amputees. The evidence available shows no reason to highlight individuals with AS for performing exceptionally well, any more than finding similar evidence for lefties, gingers and the Dutch. I agree with Colin, this is a tempest in a teapot that is wasting time and effort. Barring new sources, sources comparing people with AS to some control group, the only change that should take place is to remove the disingenuous claim in the lead. Being the lead, it should have only the most relevant, and prominent information, which claims of spectacular math ability is not. Arbitration is grossly unnecessary. WLU 15:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
WLU I agree absolutely and have said so all along. The current misleading implication of the wording in the lead -that AS creates genius- has been accepted in the present Asperger syndrome article because it has been bullied into semi-permanence (IMO) by constant pressure, argument, and in particular the serial dismissal of this "misleading" concern that various editors have cited for months. I too would prefer the less misleading, and therefore truthful version- AS is not a barrier to high achievement. To this last sentence I hedge that "special interests" held by AS individuals might be profitably connected to such prowess in fields like mathematics or music, but such would need a source to verify whether this is indeed a proven connection before being added. Is there a source connecting this? Anyways, I see no reason to compromise with the present phrasing which is obviously misleading? 124.186.83.250 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording for AS and math

With the above in mind, here's a proposal for improving the article's discussion of AS and mathematics.

  • In the lead, replace:
Adults with AS have reached the highest levels of achievement in fields such as mathematics, physics and computer science.<ref name=AQ/>
with:
Most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability; some are gifted,<ref name=CL/> and some reach their fields' summits as adults.<ref name=BC1999>
Although most individuals with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability and test slightly worse in math than in general intelligence,<ref name=CL> AS has been linked to high achieving mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, and engineers, and the condition need not be an obstacle to achievement at the highest levels in these fields.<ref name=AQ>
with
Although most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability and test slightly worse in math than in general intelligence, some are gifted in mathematics<ref name=CL> and AS has not prevented some adults from major accomplishments such as winning the Fields Medal, the highest level of achievement in mathematics.<ref name=BC1999>

In the above, the references are as follows:

Eubulides 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I support the new wording and in particular inclusion of the word 'some' in the appropriate places as suggested by Eubulides. Without further clarification there might still be a potential for the reader to be mislead because there is no clarification that such high-achievement is not special/peculiar to AS..... but I can live with that, as a more elaborate wording would prove cumbersome. The proposed wording is properly representative of the facts. 124.186.83.250 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, though I prefer simply removing the line from the lead and adjusting the line in prognosis to say 'AS has not shown a link to exceptional achievement in math, though neither is it a barrier to achieving high (highest?) level of success in a variety of fields.' Not enough info to say much beyond having AS/being an aspie does not delimit one's potential beyond associated anxiety conditions. WLU 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I get for not reading more closely. Remove from the lead completely, Eubulides' wording is perfect, I endorse it as far better than my own suggestion. WLU 02:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I'll accept the proposed changes but have a suggestion about the last clause of the lead sentence. The sentence is now focussed on mathematical ability rather than other fields, so the wording "their fields" is confusingly wider in scope. (Or did you really intend both "gifted" and "their fields" to refer to non-mathematical subjects). The source only supports the Fields Medal winner, so "some" is perhaps too vague. How about:
Most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability, some are gifted,<ref name=CL/> and a few extraordinarily so.<ref name=BC1999>
But to be honest, both this and the suggested lead text could adequately describe non-AS people too. Which leaves you wondering what we are trying to say. So I'd also support WLU's request just to remove this from the lead altogether. Colin°Talk 09:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So far that's 4 liking the change to the body, with the last 3 of those 4 suggesting that we instead simply remove the lead sentence in question, which I can go along with too. Any other opinions? Eubulides 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I prefer something left in the lead, and suggest linking to the list, which now includes reliably sourced anthropologists, singers, songwriters, musicians, authors, critics, painters, economists, video game designers, TV producers, and a Pulitzer, Fields and Nobel laureate. In other words. Let's get off the math already; people with AS have achieved in a variety of fields, so why on earth the focus on math and science fed by one source? Let's globalize it; I know there were words in the old eMed article that justify it. I suggest keeping Eubulides' wording in the lead, tweaking as necessary, but linking to the list thusly:
  • Some good suggestions there Sandy, which I'm willing to support if others give consensus. I'm also happy to leave things with the fairly strong consensus conclusions above. Either way looks viable to me. My only concern with your new suggestions would be with the adequacy of the sources..... EU I imagine might be best placed to comment on this. 124.186.83.250 13:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am leery of citing only List_of_people_on_the_autistic_spectrum#Asperger_syndrome to support the claim. That smacks of WP:OR#original research. A wikilink is fine, but we need a reliable source outside of Wikipedia. Eubulides 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That emed article is not a good source for the lead's claim either. The emed article is essentially an entry in a medical encyclopedia, and Wikipedia should prefer medical reviews and primary sources to other encyclopedias. I attempted to work around this problem by tracking down that emed article's sources on this particular topic. To my dismay, I found that the emed article exaggerates somewhat in this area: it says "Published case reports of men with Asperger disorder suggest an association with the capacity to accomplish cutting-edge research in computer science, mathematics, and physics," but the only source given for this claim is BC1999 which is just 3 cases (not an "association"), of whom only 1 case (the mathematician) had actually accomplished cutting-edge research. The emed's article's quote ending in "… especially those who excel in areas not dependent on social interaction" is another claim that is plausible on its surface but I did not find support for that claim in the emed article's sources (though I'd certainly be happy if someone else found support!). Eubulides 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing the leg work: I guess that's that. I wasn't suggesting we use the list as a cite, only that we link to it, as it shows, for example, who has the Fields, and more. I'd like it if we left mention in the lead, and I'd like to work in a link somehow, but I'm not hung up on either; we've got consensus that we need to stay true to the sources, so I'm fine with whichever way it goes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the lead mostly as it is, it's clear in it's current form and I'd agree with SandyGeorgia to not limit it to math. The suggested change to the lead sounds a bit contrived and it's content is already present in the 'prognosis' section, which doesn't need to be limited to mathematics either. --Fenke 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead cannot be kept as-is, as its weight greatly disagrees with our only reliable secondary source on the topic. Nor can we "not limit it to math", as we have no reliable review that agrees with the broad sweep of the current claim. Eubulides 04:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, the lead can be kept as-is (what else would you suggest, if there's no consensus on how to change it?) Anyway, you've already expressed your opinion, so unless I'm sorely mistaken there's no reason to state as fact your opinion that Fenke's opinion is invalid and cannot be allowed. (If you actually have veto power over individual opinions and/or how they can be expressed on this page, it would be easier if you just told everyone up front what we're allowed to believe.) Also, the only relevant policy I've been able to find among the 10 or so cited says that primary sources should not be used to "debunk" secondary sources. Since SBC is fully consistent with C&L, this policy has no bearing on the present discussion. Species8471 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty of consensus to change and/or delete the lead; please don't mistake attempts to choose the wording which most closely reflects reliable sources with any lack of consensus. I would not object if we deleted the entire sentence now, since it has been thoroughly discussed for almost a month. Eubulides is correct that the current lead violates WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. SBC is a primary source; it shouldn't be used to "debunk" secondary sources. It has no bearing on other research on AS. By the way, could you please lower the aggressive tone in your message? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So far there has been no objection to the proposed change to the "Prognosis" section, so I made that change. I left the lead's wording alone for now since we don't all agree. I count three (WLU, 124.186.83.250, Colin) as supporting removing this AS detail from the lead, two (SandyGeorgia, Colin) supporting keeping this AS detail in the lead but toning it down in different ways, and one (Fenke) wanting to keep the lead mostly as-is. I can live with removing this detail from the lead and I can live with Colin's rewrite; as mentioned above I have a few qualms with SandyGeorgia's rewrite and I disagree that we can keep the lead mostly as-is. Given all the above, it sounds like there's a mild preference to remove this detail from the lead, with Colin's rewrite being the alternative that would be supported 2nd-most. Eubulides 06:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, my rewrite made me come to the conclusion that we weren't actually saying anything in the lead. What do we expect the reader to have learned from reading it? That AS people have the same range of ability as the rest? And now that I've seen Eubulides prognosis text in-place, I've noticed that it is pretty awful prose (sorry). "mathematical...math...mathematics...mathematics". How about replacing "in math" with "here" or "in this respect" or some similar phrase. Extrapolating a single exceptional case into "some adults...major accomplishments" is WP:OR just like with Eubulides' doubts about using the "List of.." as a source. Really, we can only use this source as an example. So we could say "...some are gifted in mathematics (for example, Fields Medal winner Richard Borcherds)." The BBC provides a source. Colin°Talk 12:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How about for the lead:
Individuals with AS may need ongoing moral support and encouragement to maintain an independent life,[4] though AS has not prevented many from achieving high levels of success in their professional fields.[5]
I like it because a) it's shorter, b) it acknowledges that some people with AS do require help c) doesn't imply that AS comes with exceptional abilities d) it shows that AS also does not bar people from success. Basically it shows that like everyone else, people with AS can need help, or do extremely well. It de-links AS from any special abilities (which is unsupported) or significant professional impairment (which is also unsupported). I think this means I changed my vote.
And for prognosis:
Few studies have been performed on the effects of AS on functioning in specific subject domains. Individuals with AS have been found on average to perform slightly worse in mathematics than in general intelligence, though others demonstrate gifted abilities in this domain,[62] and AS has not prevented individuals from achieving significant professional success in math, physics and computer science.[5][Colin's BBC link]
I like it because a) it shows there is very little real evidence, b) it shows that there are some individuals who are exceptional, c) it shows that AS does not bar individuals from succeeding and d) it does not link AS with specific giftedness.
And may I say, this polite discussion is definitely invigorating! It renews my faith in WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS and WP in general! WLU 16:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we're close enough that I don't object to any version proposed, but I'm not crazy about using the BBC as a medical source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, getting the right wording is difficult! WLU's revised lead says "many...achieving high levels of success in their professional fields" yet is sourced to BC's paper that contains an example of only three exceptional individuals. Our current lead is actually quite an accurate statement, based on its source, but I accept Eubulides's argument wrt undue weight. WLU, is your first prognosis sentence supported by [62] and does our reader care (I know we do ;-)? The reword loses the fact that their maths ability is average, it only maintains the relative comparison to their general intelligence. In fact, a quick reading of the text may give the impression that their maths is poor rather than average. The "though others demonstrate" reads like these "others" are a separate group from the "average in maths" set. They aren't; they just represent one end of the range. Discussions of "general intelligence" are difficult with AS since the condition has an implicit assumption that individuals have at least normal intelligence. This isn't true of the rest of us.
We keep coming back to the "math, physics and computer science" phrase which IMO is falling for one of those logical fallacies I can't remember. Our source has a single exceptional example of someone from each of those subjects. Other than the paucity of sources, we have no other reason to mention those subjects. Where is the population analysis that gives weight to that choice of three?
I'm really going off the BC paper other than as a reliable source to back up a "There Exists One ..." statement. I understand Sandy's dislike of lay sources; I only included it to back up the clause in parenthesis (Richard Borcherds as the AS Fields Medal winner), which I think it does adequately (the BC paper fails to identify him). Here's the text I'm gently pushing for:
Although most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability, and test slightly worse in this respect than in general intelligence, some have mathematical giftedness[62] (for example, Fields Medal winner Richard Borcherds).[BBC]
Colin°Talk 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but I slightly prefer some of the current wording. Its "math" is shorter than the proposed "this respect", and its "are gifted in mathematics" is less awkward than "have mathematical giftedness". However, I take your point about the repetition of the word "mathematics". I changed it to refer to the Nobel Prize, which isn't math and is instantly recognizable so we don't have to explain it, and I changed an interior "mathematics" to "math" for brevity. Eubulides 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Blech, that's what I get for not reading sources first. I agree, the BBC, though it does justify the statement for one person, it is only one and don't really see the need to single him out. After reading it through, I'd rather remove the BBC link and take just the BC paper as saying AS doesn't prevent professional success. I only suggested the 'many' because I didn't want to use individuals again. We could say not prevented individuals with AS from.

My first prognosis sentence is not supported by [62], my only proof is the lack of other studies that document functioning in other disciplines. I'm happy to replace the 'slightly worse' with simply 'average'.

In my eyes, the reason we cite those three disciplines is because we have a paper discussing people with those three disciplines. Each person exists as proof that diagnosis with AS does not prevent success, it doesn't say anything further.

With these comments, here's my (hopefully) new and improved lead and prognosis:

  • Lead - Individuals with AS may need ongoing moral support and encouragement to maintain an independent life,[4] though AS has not prevented individuals with AS from achieving high levels of success in their professional fields.[5]
  • Prognosis - There has been only one{{fact}} study documenting the effects of AS on functioning on a specific subject domain - mathematics.[62] The overall finding was of average ability, though most exhibited a modest math weakness, and some were gifted.[62] AS has not prevented others from achieving significant professional success in math, physics and computer science.[5]

I realize the fact tag is an abomination, perhaps it could be re-written as 'one study', but I dislike singling out specific studies as a personal preference. It is only three people, but they're proof that AS does not bar a person from success. The only way I could see including the BBC link would be a statement like 'there is popular speculation that AS may provide advantages with certain mental abilities/tasks/pick your noun, though this is unsupported by scientific findings (to date?)'.[BBC] If we go into greater detail with Chiang's study to break down below average/some spectacular = average overall, that gets into interpretation or us trying to explain the study. The more I try to demonstrate all the findings of Chiang, the clumsier it gets.

What a mess! I think I'm muddying the waters more than I'm clearning them, so I'll leave it as a minor point within an otherwise solid article. WLU 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, all these suggestions are making things complicated (at least in my head). For the moment I'd just like to say that Eubulides recent amendment is well done and faithful to the sources and facts. As for the lead..... I still think it should go, because it doesn't add anything about AS which differentiates it from non-AS folks. So what's the point in using it? 124.186.83.250 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
oppose the change in wording to
Although most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability and test slightly worse in math than in general intelligence, some are gifted in mathematics[5]
for the rather painfully obvious reason that BC claims a disproportionate number of AS/AFA, as measured by both dx and his AQ scale, among talented and high achieving mathematicians. Of course, mere sources are no match for the POV bias here ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CeilingCrash (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, Baron-Cohen et al. 2007 doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9014-0 make no claims about AS/HFA. Their claims are about ASD in general. Baron-Cohen et al. 2001 do claim that those with AS/HFA score higher on the AQ test, and that Math Olympiad winners also score higher on the AQ test (though not as high as those with AS/HFA), but this is an indirect association, and so it's not the same thing as saying that "a disproportionate number of AS/AFA" is found among "talented and high achieving mathematicians". It's quite plausible that AS (or AS/HFA) is more likely to be found among mathematicians than among the general population, but we don't yet have a reliable source for this claim. All that being said, I would not object to briefly citing Baron-Cohen et al. 2007 in the body, so long as we cite it accurately and do not give it undue weight. Eubulides 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose any variant of the proposed wording which selectively omits what little information we have on AS abilities. Saying that AS is "not a barrier to high achievement" in math or whatever fields is misleading in that it implies no correlation, while reliable sources support a very strong association between AS and high mathematical achievement. Species8471 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • We have no source which supports an association (strong or otherwise) between AS and high mathematical achievement; perhaps you are misreading the research? If we had that research, this discussion would have ended weeks ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I think it might be helpful to return to the principles of WP:LEAD which suggest it should be stand-alone summary of the entire article, covering all major topics (most important points). I can't see how a mention of maths and engineering in the lead constitutes a general overview or summary of the most important points, as it is too specific in the minor details it cites. These details are better covered in the article. If I'm understanding WP:LEAD properly, the mention of this issue in the lead might best be served by a more general or generic statement that AS may not be a barrier to achievement. 124.186.83.250 12:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That was, in a nutshell, what I suggested as well; let's get off the math in the lead, as it gives undue weight to one area, not supported by sources. I'd rather see a generic statement somewhere, working in a link somewhere in the article to the List of people on the autistic spectrum#Asperger syndrome. Math in the lead violates WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. WLU 15:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. Of the first 3 people in List of people on the autistic spectrum#Asperger syndrome, one (Nikki Bacharach) is famous only for being the child of famous people, a child who recently committed suicide; and another (William Cottrell) is famous only for being a firebomber. This doesn't sound like a good list for a claim about AS and accomplishments. More important, I'm not sure what the reliable source for a generic claim would be. Eubulides 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

After rereading the article, it strikes me that "Prognosis" is just 3 paragraphs but currently gets 2 sentences in the lead. In contrast, "Diagnosis" (3 paragraphs) has zero sentences in the lead, and "Causes" (2 paragraphs), "Mechanism" (3 paragraphs), and "Epidemiology" (2 paragraphs) each have only half a sentence. Given all the controversy about the one "Prognosis"-related sentence in the lead, and given the difficulty of rewording it to make it brief and properly weighted, it sounds reasonable to remove that sentence from the lead. Eubulides 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also fine with me. WLU 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with this solution, but nobody has yet come up with a better one, and it does improve the lead, so I made the change. Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will publish something soon we can use; things have a way of working out. Perhaps we can archive in a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That is more in line with WP:LEAD even if not a perfect solution. SandyGeorgia sums up the situation for many editors with the suggestion that if/when new sources arrive on which due weight can be placed, then the article can be willingly and suitably amended. I'm fairly confident, based on my observations and on anecdotal evidence, that talentedness-in-AS will prove as clinically significant, though possibly tied with special-interest devotion rather than to the overgeneralized assumption by some that it is the result of superior neurological endowment. As Eubulides pointed out elsewhere, it is important to not weigh the scales too far in either extreme. Based on the current sources I believe we've achieved that balance by the present wording and weighting. 124.186.83.250 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to sign in

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CC, you have a number of entries on the talk page where you forget to sign in; the discussion would be easier to follow if you could remember to sign in to your account and sign your entries.[10] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have AS and am unable to drive....

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I have AS and am unable to drive. Does anyone else have this problem with asperger's syndrome and not being able to drive???? A special driving instuctor has told me that it will very difficult for me to learn how to drive. He futher told me that I had visual perception problems as well and, at this very soonest I may drive when I'm 22. That was last year when I was seventeen. Does anyone have any comments on this. I would like to know if other people with AS. drive??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.254.169 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this issue might be with other people who have the same problem, which as has been pointed out, is not uncommon. You can find such people at aspiesforfreedom or wrongplanet. Soarhead77 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what studies have been done on this, but you're not alone. I've heard of many people with AS having difficulty with driving. If this is a widespread phenomenon and someone has done research into the reasons behind it, it might be interesting to add to the article. --DearPrudence 06:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Tantam doesn't mention it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - like I said, I haven't come across any research dealing with it. All the reports have directly from other people. I would be interested to know if there is a connection, though, and what causes it. --DearPrudence 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have heard the same, and a mother of another Aspie even went so far as to tell my mother that ('to avoid disappointment') it wouldn't be a good idea for me to take up driving lessons. 25 lessons later, I passed the first time (which is pretty good in the Netherlands, I don't know about the US). So it is certainly possible. You could try looking for others with your problem on the forum at wrongplanet.net 84.53.74.196 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Autism spectrum quotient test

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

May be add this link to the article? http://www.msnbc.com/modules/newsweek/autism_quotient/default.asp (alternative link - http://aq.server8.org/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.131.133.72 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That has an article, at Autism Spectrum Quotient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adios

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

I must refrain from further participation in this article and Talk due to a potential for conflict of interest.

I urge remaining editors to bring this article into alignment with the POV expressed by the leading researchers in ASD, i.e., that this condition has the potential for both deficits and special talents. These talents include mathematical skill, musical (and auditory processing), memory (fewer false memories, incidents of 'photographic' memory) and others.

The refusal to include these sources here represents a failure in Wikipolicy (the only consideration here). It also represents an act of bigotry. CeilingCrash 16:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I object to the accusation of bigotry amongst any of the participants in these discussions. There is no "Pathology Posse" that only want to write about the negative clinical aspects of AS. I can't imagine why anyone would want to suppress mention of special talents, if we can afford them due weight and support them with appropriate sources. What I do see is a group of editors so committed to upholding WP policy on this Featured Article, that they will spend hours trying to get just a few sentences right. Once autism researchers do population studies on the presence of these talents, rather than write about a handful of exceptional celebrity big-brains that the media like to pick up on, then we might have useful sources to draw upon. Colin°Talk 17:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would not have used that word here, but not because I think it's inaccurate. It simply means prejudice (which need not even be conscious), or intolerance of divergent viewpoints. The article certainly reflects certain prejudices about autistic people, and there is a group of people working very hard to keep it that way. I can only reason from what I see, and I see a posse that goes to great lengths to pathologize a minority group. Of course this means everything has to be "just right" according to their jaundiced view, and all other views need to be suppressed by an means necessary. This is not a moral condemnation - it doesn't matter how invisible their prejudices are to them, or how right they think they are; my concern is that what they write here will shape other people's perceptions and end up harming autistic (AS) people. Species8471 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
All have their opinion, and it's my opinion that this issue should quietly fade away. WLU 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not going to fade away, unless you alienate everyone who disagrees with you, and you seem to be well on your way. Species8471 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The time that so many concerned editors have put into one sentence is commendable; I particularly appreciate the time Colin and Eubulides have invested into researching all the reliable sources on the matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This subject re talents in AS (particularly math talent) has been revisited 3 times now within the last 3 or 4 months, and each time an extraordinary effort has been expended by editors to attend to the subject. I'm concerned that each time it comes up, new editors aren't aware of all the drudgery that has gone on before (by devoted editors like SandyGeorgia) and so waste considerable time re-hashing the same discussions and consensus votes. I assume most editors here would be more than happy to add reliable and detailed sources on the subject of AS-talentedness if and when it arrives, but until then there is no point in expanding. I wish there were a way to collect all the discussion that have taken place on this issue during the preceding months and place it in a box at the top of this page, in case it gets raised again a month down the track. This way editors can be more economical about the amount of time and effort they devote to the subject as all the sources and their discussions would be at their fingertips. I'm not suggesting the subject shouldn't be raised (as I would welcome something useful on this topic), but rather that if it is raised again we might not have to totally reinvent the wheel. 124.186.83.250 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems more the case that extraordinary effort has been expended to avoid the subject. Using math talent as an example (again), most of this effort has gone into wikilawyering, although there seem to be a few attempts at scientific rationalizations - anything to keep those awful facts out of the article. Summarizing these rationalizations will not stop this discussion from recurring; only acknowledging the facts that have been presented will. Species8471 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The subject of talents in AS is an area of active research. Just in the past week or so, for example, Pubmed says five research articles have been published on it (PMID 17990090, PMID 17990089, PMID 17980944, PMID 17965928, PMID 17947288). Clearly we can't include all of these. It would be all too easy to push a particular theory ("people with AS have deficits" / "people with AS have extra abilities") by selecting just the subset of results that one agrees with. In cases like these I prefer to rely on reliable medical reviews and similar secondary sources. Eubulides 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. However, you are placing tremendous emphasis on secondary sources, which in the case of ASDs will inevitably be biased towards a disease model, whether that model is scientifically justified or not, and you haven't cited any policy that actually demands this, AFAIK. First, I scanned this part of the talk page for references to Wikipedia policies (I think there were about a dozen) and as far as secondary sources go, the best I could find is:
"Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to 'debunk' or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim."
So, this policy would only apply if CC were interpreting his source differently from SBC, and SBC also contradicted the review in question. CC seems to be saying that in reality, SBC merely extends the previous result by noting that although the population average might be the same for AS and Non-AS, AS is disproportionately represented at the high end. We've already discussed this thoroughly, and there were some very creative counterarguments, but it's pretty clear CC is not trying to "debunk" the previous study (I think he made it clear that he accepts the previous result and that the two are mutually consistent.) So much for that.
As an aside, I was at the SfN annual meeting last week, and I'm finding it very difficult to catch up with the roughly eleventy billion comments that sprung up on this page while I wasn't looking. Having to search through the complete text of several WP policy pages added to the problem. I'm proposing that if you want to claim that CC's position is inconsistent with some policy, the burden of proof is on you, and it would be very helpful to me if you could just summarize and/or quote the policy and/or link directly to the most relevant section of it in the future. Thanks.
Finally, if you're wondering why I think secondary sources might be even more biased, is there any reason to believe that a review article in science or medicine is an unibiased survey of the field that gives all evidence and views "due weight?" On the contrary, I think review authors have much more freedom to speculate, generalize and give undue weight to evidence that supports their pet theory. Some reviews are almost polemic (in our very first reference, "Here we argue that..." introduces a theory which is reported as fact in the article. I'd be much more comfortable if we could just cite one research article where anyone can look at the data and verify that it actually supports this theory. Of course, with research articles it's not often necessary to second-guess the author because they wouldn't get away with cherry-picking, speculation, etc. in the first place. Except maybe in autism research.)
I suppose the fundamental issue is that the article should be in line with the scientific consensus (if any) or describe the range of expert opinions. More specifically, WP:UNDUE says that the article "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I'm not sure how I'd precisely gauge the prominence of every viewpoint out there, but the method would certainly not be: pick any review article and assume it's representative of the entire field. Ironically, I think the majority of the researchers listed in section 17 would disapprove of this article. (This was a discussion of the most prominent researchers in the field.) Many have publicly stated that they think AS should be considered a difference, not a disability or disorder, a viewpoint which is thoroughly marginalized in the current article. So it would seem that according to the policy that's been brandished the most in our discussion, this article is almost entirely tailored to a minority viewpoint (or at least not the most "prominent" one), and requires a complete overhaul. Species8471 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The review method has not been "pick any review article and assume it's representative of the entire field". We have looked at all the recent review articles that we can find. Only one of them mentions the topic of math and AS. That review article is Chiang & Lin 2007, an article that covers only the specialized topic of AS/HFA and math. The problem is that the current lead sentence greatly disagrees with Chiang & Lin's weight. (It also disagrees with the weight of the other review articles we found, because they give the topic a weight of zero.) That is why we have a WP:UNDUE issue. Eubulides 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You raise another issue, which is that many researchers think that AS is a difference not a disability. This topic is prominently mentioned in the lead, and nobody is arguing to take it out. If you can find other parts of the article where this topic is "thoroughly marginalized", then please bring them to our attention and let's fix those parts. Eubulides 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports only the mainstream, not the bleeding edge (i.e. stuff that's been done but not documented yet) of research. Until there are reliable sources stating unequivocally that AS comes with clear advantages, either in a majority or an identifiable minority of those with AS, it's inappropriate to put it on the page. A discussion of the disability/difference viewpoints is appropriate (and present), but until the 'difference' POV has been adopted by researchers publishing in reliable sources it's not appropriate for the page. Even the five articles Eubulides put up above are somewhat equivocal and would be difficult to integrate in a meaningful way. It'd need a lot more than just the one 'better fluid intelligence' report to include a statement that AS improves ___ aspect of functioning. WLU 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A few other points now that I've had more time to consider Species8471's comments:
  • This is not an issue of consistency; it's an issue of undue weight (WP:UNDUE).
  • I don't understand this quote: "in our very first reference, 'Here we argue that…' introduces a theory which is reported as fact in the article". Asperger syndrome's very first reference is to McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291), a reference that does not contain the phrase "Here we argue that".
  • While I agree that secondary sources can be biased, I don't agree that in this field they are likely to be as biased, or more biased than, primary sources. Many of our primary sources are trying to prove a point, and are relatively brash about doing so. In comparison, the secondary sources currently cited in the article are relatively cautious, and are less willing to take the latest study as being gospel. This is appropriate and is closer to what we're looking for in Wikipedia. It's also wise, as primary sources in this area so often contradict each other.
Eubulides 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Wikipedia is not a discussion forum posts seem to be escalating in spite of the talkheaders. Perhaps we can wrap up the lead issues and archive this lengthy talk page, and then more aggressively enforce WP:NOT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I started on the lead wrap-up by committing the change as discussed in #Lead above. Eubulides (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This a lengthy cover story on the syndrome written in the Long Island Press for its November 7, 2007 issue as part of its "Our Children's Brains" series. As a article for the general public it would help with the "jargon" issues discussed above. [11] Edkollin (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent article, but I'm afraid it won't help the jargon issue directly, as we need someone to read our article with fresh eyes. As an external link it probably doesn't pass the WP:LINKS test. I did catch one "huh?" issue: it says that between 3 and 7 per 1,000 children have the syndrome, which is much higher than the range of 0.03 to 4.84 per 1,000 quoted by our source Fombonne & Tidmarsh 2003. I suspect they got those numbers from Ehlers & Gillberg 1993, which has several weaknesses as noted by Fombonne & Tidmarsh. Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, it's important that we continue to avoid adding the popular press, or we'd have an External link farm on every medical article. If this article needs help with the jargon, we need to help it here, not by adding an external article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wing L (1981). "Asperger's syndrome: a clinical account". Psychological medicine. 11 (1): 115–29. PMID 7208735. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference What'sSpecial was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ McPartland J, Klin A (2006). "Asperger's syndrome". Adolesc Med Clin. 17 (3): 771–88. doi:10.1016/j.admecli.2006.06.010. PMID 17030291.
  4. ^ Baskin JH, Sperber M, Price BH (2006). "Asperger syndrome revisited". Rev Neurol Dis. 3 (1): 1–7. PMID 16596080.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ and AS has not prevented some adults from major accomplishments such as winning the Fields Medal, the highest level of achievement in mathematics.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive_17&oldid=1090406776"