Talk:Asperger syndrome

Intense World Theory

The wiklink Intense World Theory is a redirect to Asperger syndrome#Mechanism. Yet, in that section (and on the whole page), this theory is not discussed. That doesn't seem right, as User:Epa101 mentioned before on 8 December 2018. I think this theory deserves its own page, and should be described shortly on the page about Asperger syndrome and on the page Autism spectrum. This was also previously discussed in 2010. I hope someone will help me with this! Laurier (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

in the first image is the thing really a molecule?

i had one of these toys when i was younger and i was wondering if it was really accurate for this to be a toy of a molecule.

"Restricted interests or repetitive behaviors, such as this boy's interest in a toy model of a molecule, may be features of Asperger's." Idespisethefrench (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It is the model of a molecular-type structure. ButterCashier (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not actually a model of a molecule, though, no. It's a magnetic construction toy.

I'll change the description. Oolong (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Potentially incorrect terminology

As someone who has high-functioning autism, I think this article should be renamed. The classification "Asperger syndrome" has fallen out of use recently, because autism is a spectrum. This signifies that this is somehow different from normal autism. I wouldn't say I'm offended, but I'm certainly surprised that this terminology is being used on Wikipedia. My apologies if I am incorrect. I don't want to seem hostile, but sometimes it comes off like that, since one can't hear one talk when reading posts online. This might be a drastic measure, but I think it'll pay off in the long run. Also, I'm using a school account. Keep that in mind. Good day, fellows! (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think an article on the former "Asperger('s) Syndrome" is useful for historical reasons. The article ought to clearly state that the term is outdated and no longer used, but understanding what exactly the term was used for is extremely useful given its previous widespread use. Dovepaste (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I could see how the phrasing 'is a former neurodevelopmental disorder' was a bit confusing, so I have edited it to read 'was previously considered a neurodevelopmental disorder'. I think that's a little clearer?

Does this entry still need the 'outdated terminology' warning at the top? Oolong (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The difficulty I have with cancelling the phrase "Asperger('s) Syndrome" is the alternative. If you tell somebody, "I have ASD Level 1", you aren't really telling them anything. It's hard to see how the conversation doesn't proceed "What is that?" "It's condition formerly known as Asperger Syndrome."

"Asperger's" is a term still in wide use among older folks like myself, and also outside Autism circles. It is no longer the clinical diagnosis. But everybody knows what a heart attack is, even though the clinical term is "myocardial infarction". Is there something so wrong with using a word that everybody understands to describe a particular condition? 142.33.224.121 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome has become "incorrect" in a number of ways.

Firstly, it is no longer a category in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, so Americans can't use it to get cover from their health insurance. Outside the USA, that is irrelevant.

Secondly, Asperger himself has become "incorrect" as we discover more about his collaboration with the Nazi regime in war-time Austria. That will continue to matter for a century or so, until Hitler becomes a remote historical figure like Napoleon.

Thirdly, we have the question of whether psychological terms should be used in a categorical or a dimensional sense. At present, diagnostic schemes yield quantitative scores which are used to make a qualitative diagnosis of a syndrome: they have to do that, because the question to be answered is usually, "Do we pay for this person to have that treatment/training or not?"

Fourthly, should there be an apostrophe and "s" at the end? A meeting of editors of American medical journals decided sometime in the 1990s that syndromes were in future going to be have a bare name with no possessive marker attached. That may work for American English, but might not be so great for other languages. Cultural imperialism at work! NRPanikker (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a reality that many people were diagnosed as having Asperger syndrome in the past, and this provided a useful explanation of that person's behaviour, and led to particular ways such people were "managed" in school and in other situations. This is a significant aspect of the history of such people. We cannot ignore that reality. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The amended lead sentence is very confusing. A lead sentence should indicate what something is, rather than what something "was previously considered". OK, so "was" might be appropriate therein for a person who is deceased or a company or television show (for instance) that no longer exists. But surely Asperger syndrome does still exist, even if it is no longer formally recognised as a distinct condition. And in any case, "was previously considered" is confusing as a way to open an article. The second sentence of the lead paragraph does, I think, an adequate job of saying what the change to the first sentence was trying to say.

Furthermore, we should avoid using the word "disorder", as it's inherently POV. Except where the word occurs as part of the formal names of specific conditions and categories thereof. There's a whole school of thought that people with AS – or on the autistic spectrum generally – are not disordered. — Smjg (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)