Hans Asperger

I agree with Carol Povey's comment. Completely.

The whole affair is troublesome to say the least. As someone with Jewish heritage I'd have had 2 reasons to worry. Looking at the whole picture though what would have happened if Asperger didn't do the research. I feel for the children that were euthanised. One problem I do have with this piece is that because of Czech's paper Asperger's work might be buried due to the moral dilemmas this may raise in academia.

I'm really not surprised by it though. The Nazi's performed hysterectomys and *** reductions routinely for cruelty and research. They use the techniques today that were born out of those horrors. They basically went wild with research because of the excuses the ideology gave them. I don't see any stigma being implied to people who have these procedures or any mention of the Nazi's that did them. Why should Asperger's be any different? The answer for me is controversy.

The Japanese were terrible too. Unit 731 was a Japanese unit that did medical experimentaton and biological weapons experimentation on large numbers of people in WW2. Their "inventions" killed half a million. The medical techniques they discovered are used today and the biological weapons were of great interest to the allies. The Americans granted many Unit 731 members immunity. Many went on to practice medicine and some carried on the research in allied nations. This bothers me greatly. Asperger gets highlighted (and rightfully so) but people who did experiments on live subjects (I won't detail them here because they are very, very, extreme) and created devastating biological weapons (which were continued to be developed) are never mentioned. The Soviets went after them as criminals but the Americans rolled out the red carpet for them. They also did this for Nazi's they deemed useful.

There have been eugenics issues for Autistic people far more recently. In nations that never get criticized or mentioned. Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark had programs up until the late 70's. The mentally ill, people with PDD's such as Autism, and lots of other "burden's to society". It's never mentioned. These countries should be dragged over the coals. We knew the Nazi's were pieces of *** but why should they get away with it.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/225135

Sweden started in 1906 and didn't stop until 1975.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden?wprov=sfla1

Even more recently Belgium have been allowing people with Autism to "euthanise" themselves. Also people with depression, schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses. They should be helping people deal with their problems. Maybe they are considered "a burden to society". That's a phrase from facist ideology.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/europes-morality-crisis-euthanizing-the-mentally-ill/2016/10/19/c75faaca-961c-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b31509b04502

There are injustices going on right now that are just as bad as Nazi Germany. You won't find them being reported on. We need to stay vigilant.

Some people have already indicated that they no longer wish to use 'Asperger's' and aspie. It makes me wonder if DSM-5 was aware this issue might eventually arise and so sought to replace it with a position on the ASD spectrum. I'm still not feeling particularly condemnatory about this, but I support Cloudy Mountains. With big names signing an editorial in support of Czech, I don't think it will disappear any time soon. I have heard that some people who worked with Asperger in his later life formed the impression he was somewhat aspergic himself. One imagines that might not have been an entirely insignificant factor in such troubled times. One thing that caught my attention was that he seems to have deliberately played up labels indicating high-functioners with the idea that they would be more useful alive to the Third Reich. But he also must have known that those people he deemed less 'useful' were going to be sent to institutions where euthanasia was practiced. And sometimes he was stricter in his classifications than the Nazi administrators of those institutions - although being permitted to survive in such a harsh environment was of extremely dubious worth.

I'm not in disagreement with the term Asperger's being dropped for a place on the spectrum either. I agree with her comment that people that have been given the diagnosis as "Asperger's" or identify as such shouldn't worry.

One thing that did stand out for me was the part in the article where Czech was quoted as saying........

“Asperger refused to acknowledge the reality of anti-Jewish persecution by the Nazi regime; this indifference is visible both during and after the war,” said Czech.

The historian admitted that his findings might well be painful for autistic people and their families to digest, but said he was obliged to reveal them. (as a person with Jewish heritige and ASD I find it offensive that he is using both Jews and Autism as currency for his career, what does Asperger's opinion have to do with a diagnosis made on a person with nothing to do with Asperger's opinion and their families? It's not like they are Nazi!)

“It would have been wrong for me to have withheld this information, however difficult it might be to hear,” he said. “At the same time, there is no evidence to show his contributions to autism research were tainted by his problematic role during National Socialism. So purging the term Asperger from the medical lexicon would not be helpful. Rather, this should be an opportunity to look at the past and learn lessons from it.”

Earlier in the article it says........

In his 43-page paper, Czech is deeply critical of authors in the English-speaking world, who he accused, over decades, of perpetuating a “predominantly apologetic narrative” of Asperger, “based on the limited range of sources available to them”. He also criticised Uta Frith, considered one of the UK’s leading autism experts, saying she had barely mentioned Nazism in her 1991 book Asperger and His Syndrome, which he believed had been instrumental in establishing the common view that Asperger had “defended his patients against the Nazi regime at great personal risk”, when the opposite had been the case, Czech said. Frith declined to comment for this article.

So it seems Czech finds it OK to defend Asperger's research by his own standard but Frith cannot. He even admits it she was using a "limited range of sources". I'd rather have Frith using her time on research in Autism anyway.

Frith is an expert in Autism, Czech is a not particularly prominent historian from what I can make out. Czech seems like an attention seeker. He could have written the paper on Asperger and not used it as a hit piece on Frith.

Frith has done far more for Autistic people than Czech ever will. Frith has the potential to do more if she isn't dragged through the mud. My fears are already being confirmed! I just hope that this whole thing doesn't affect anything inside of current research!

Cloudy Mountains said:

You are basically saying that you have been in a a bit of back and forth and expressing your opinion in the manner you do.

The 'back-and-forth' thing, as many notice, is because I do not hold to a singular perspective on any point of view, but seven, and as such my first diagnosis at 12 years of age, after my first mental and emotional breakdown at school, was that I was quote, "Psychopathic and or Schizo-effective."

So basically I am embodied by seven personalities, with each one offering a different perspective, and we attempt to convey a singular perspective or opinion together.

Due though to having regular stressed induced seizures, reaching a written consensus can involve some very muddled states of affairs for others.

After for instance having a seizure, I was asked a question involving a complex answer, and it was recorded and written down. Once I had recovered, I was asked the question again, and I answered it again. In the first recordings, I had achieved what was a referred to as a, "Complete fruit salad" with no word being in any particular order. In the second recordings I used exactly the same words, but in the right order.

Cloudy Mountains said:

Burying it in further semantics and language that can be confusing to some.

and

Cloudy Mountains said:

You seem to need semantics.

Basic semantic example, in the structure of a word ~ are vowels in the 'toe-mar-toe' or 'toe-may-toe' sense of 'tomato', and as an example in the structural arrangement of a sentence, "The busking musician plays 'live' in order get money to 'live'.

Everybody therefore uses semantics to communicate, whether they need or want them or not, and the burying thing is not therefore my attempt to confuse or manipulate anyone, it is just what happens when I am hung-over from a seizure.

Cloudy Mountains said:

It was a need for me to repeat it because you kept rephrasing the opinions you had in reply to me. If anyone reads this it is plain to see. I really don't see what the rest of the worlds perspective has in relation to anything, it's just diversion.

In fact a divergent course of consideration from that of your divergent consideration ~ so no diversions at all. The reason that I mentioned the individuality of every-ones place on the earth was in respect of individual points of view. You saw no relevance to this as I previously described it. This might not of changed.

Cloudy Mountains said:

Czech had an opinion of Frith, so did you. You also had an opinion on the damage the paper could do to Frith's reputation. Opinions aren't facts. You can form an opinion on facts. We've just took facts to form different opinions.

When you state that we just took facts to form different opinions, that is exactly what I was referring to in that I respect and support the concrete facts of science and nature, and those reporting and experiencing them.

Cloudy Mountains said:

I'd disagree. This certainly isn't benefiting anyone.

A basic and long standing fact of life regarding human sense and sensibility; is that ~ as the expression goes:

"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

So when I state that this is for the benefit of all, I mean everyone reading this thread and learning about what it means to have autism, and the psychological processes we use in communicating with each other, and others on the NAS website forum.

And when I state that I do this for the detriment of no one, I mean by this that I have no plans in mind to cause any problems for anyone. I am diagnosed as having problems with interaction, communication and imagination, and as such that is much a fact for you as it is for me and anyone else in the community, to various degrees, recalling that, according to Dr Stephen Shore:

“If you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism,”

Cloudy Mountains said:

I'm not going to change your opinion on Czech's attack on Frith, who I have stated is an important part of the Autism reseach community repeatedly.

Thus we are in agreement regarding the same issue, in different ways. Your opinion  of Uta Frith involves her as being in a fragile predicament, and my opinion of her involves her being in a robust position ~ involving the following facts. 

The facts of Czech's paper in historical terms in the sense of who was where and at what point, very very good. His suppositions of peoples psychological motivations are abstract and not particular to my taste. Czech has been on the go for nearly ten years perhaps at most, and has published as many articles, as far as I have been able to ascertain.

The facts of Frith's pioneering research in autism, dyslexia, theory of mind and so on with others has forty years concrete standing, she has published loads and books too, and has mentored Simon Baron-Cohen in the UK, Tony Attwood in Australia, and other living legends in the field of Austic research also.

If anyone was actually daft enough to try and damage Frith's reputation, there would be serious closing of ranks in the Autistic research community, who would step forward for or with her without hesitation. The fact of this statement has been proven to one extent with Sahil Singh Gujral from the USA on Sunday.

The attack you describe is actually based on the age old and time honoured scientific method ~ of listing old proofs in order to add to or replace them with new proofs.

Those are the facts of my opinion in total to date, and you have the facts of yours. I am sorry that in attempting to assure you ~ I have confused and frustrated you. 

Cloudy Mountains said:

I'm going to step away from this now because I feel it is to the detriment of you and we have taken up enough of each others time.

I have experienced no detriment whatsoever in learning more about fellow researches, the current state of affairs in world wide autism, and all the discussions and varying opinions have been thoroughly fascinating, or if not incredibly intriguing.  Thank you though for your concern though, as it is very much appreciated, and I consider the time very well spent in communicating with you, and everyone else, here and elsewhere on this forum.

Cloudy Mountains said:

This has descended into babble. I'm going to hold my opinion because I don't need your approval. You don't need mine or anyone else's either.

Well the babble thing is not a unusual dismissal in any sense, what with the communication issues as mentioned above in this post. And I respect your opinion that you do not need my approval, and those who need my approval that they are wonderful human beings ~ have it directly when requested as such, and indirectly in my heart unconditionally and perpetually for the duration of  life ~ as being to me sisters and brothers from other mothers. I have that thing called over-friendliness in autistic terms. 

Cloudy Mountains said:

I'm going to let it go, my ego will allow it.

I find my ego to be a projection of focus for my personalities, in the sense of being a vocal range tester for the pitch, tone and volume of my voice ~ whilst speaking with others in near vicinity, or else when calling, shouting or yelling out ~ so as to draw attention from others at a distance. Thus it is that when nobody needs to hear my voice, such as typing here, my personalities answer when written to, or we carry on as we do inwardly.

Cloudy Mountains said:

For the benefit of the forum, and all the best to you

Live long and prosper 

Deepthought said:

I have been as you have here but only in the sense of 'writing' my opinion, being that words and sentences are linguistic architectures as being semantic structures, which are dialectic variations, or accents in the spoken regional sense, by way of conveying meaning according to individuality.

You are basically saying that you have been in a a bit of back and forth and expressing your opinion in the manner you do. Burying it in further semantics and language that can be confusing to some.

Deepthought said:

Of course not ~ when it comes to semantics being used in writing or speech in every way, and this is so regardless of if anybody needs or wants it or not.

You seem to need semantics.

Deepthought said:

If though you think there is no need for repeating opinions in different ways about the same thing, you are entirely mistaken in having done so. This was a need for you, and you needed to fulfil it. This is the nature of many discussions between individuals, as based upon everyone having different perspectives from different locations on the Earths surface, in each and every case.

It was a need for me to repeat it because you kept rephrasing the opinions you had in reply to me. If anyone reads this it is plain to see. I really don't see what the rest of the worlds perspective has in relation to anything, it's just diversion.

Deepthought said:

I respect and support the concrete facts of science and nature, and everyone experiencing and reporting them as such here and elsewhere therefore ~ whether it be Czech, Frith or whomever else ~ scientist or not. I do not take sides.

Czech had an opinion of Frith, so did you. You also had an opinion on the damage the paper could do to Frith's reputation. Opinions aren't facts. You can form an opinion on facts. We've just took facts to form different opinions.

Deepthought said:

This for the benefit of all, and the detriment of no one :-)

I'd disagree. This certainly isn't benefiting anyone. I'm not going to change your opinion on Czech's attack on Frith, who I have stated is an important part of the Autism reseach community repeatedly. I'm going to step away from this now because I feel it is to the detriment of you and we have taken up enough of each others time. This has descended into babble. I'm going to hold my opinion because I don't need your approval. You don't need mine or anyone else's either. I'm going to let it go, my ego will allow it.

For the benefit of the forum, and all the best to you

 GOOD NIGHT I MIGHT CONTIUE THIS DISCUSSION IN THE DAY TIME BUT I NEED TO GO TO BED NOW.

By your argument it would have been difficult to try the *** at Nuremburg who used the defence obeying orders as those on the allied side were not put in this position and many people in the air force obeyed orders to bomb civilians.    if you are a thief up before Court it would not be a defence to tell the Judge and Jury you were never in my position of being short of money.

David said:

No but people might ask you would you have obeyed orders as Hans Asperger did?

Well, as in reality you are asking me, my answer is that:

I did not grow up in the first half of the century.

I was not exposed to the socially shared and enforced sexism, ageism and tribalism (or altogether just elitism) that was going on in Austria in those days.

I did not have a wife and five children to support.

and, 

More simply ~ I was not, nor ever shall be in the same position as Hans Asperger, as I am not Hans Asperger, and this is the current era.

As the saying goes ~ "Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes." as means  be compassionate, rather than judgement involving generalised incrimination or defamation.

Personally, I think it reasonable for people to refer to their diagnostic classification as it is.

The first exception to this being if the diagnosis of the condition is not in symptomatic terms befitting.

The second exception, as applies in your case ~ on the basis of moral and ethical grounds in cultural or ethnic terms, is that HFA, ASC, ASD (or something along those lines) is more befitting for 'you' as an individual.

Does this make sense to you?

No but people might ask you would you have obeyed orders as Hans Asperger did?

To this day I think it funny when I refused to bend over for getting a sum wrong nearly fifty years ago  the teacher told my Mother that in the Army you have to obey orders as well as at School. My Mother said that the Germans obeyed orders too much.

I do not know what you mean.  What I am saying is very simple as a Jew I find the term Asperger offensive as he might have been a Nazi.  Re Mild Autism the GP in 2009 said that in 1976 that was the equivalent of Asperger Syndrome.  Please make your replies clearer as I have not got the faintest idea of what your last reply meant.

I'm comfortable continuing to use the term Asperger's and certainly don't think it would indicate to anyone that I harbour Nazi sympathies. 

The debate about Asperger himself, and his work, is interesting but I don't feel it reflects directly upon me or what I choose to call my AS. As someone else mentioned on here, there are many terms we use that have less-than-spotless associations and I don't feel that this is the worst of them.  

Endymion said:

Ugh!

I assume you are displaying your disgust again according to some extent what you interpret as being "badgering" ~ i.e. 'repeatedly and annoyingly ask (someone) to do something' (Google Dictionary). Rather than though asking or annoying me, you are using a visceral definition as a strong inference, or hint, and thereby avoiding any clarification regarding your intentions and motivations ~ perhaps?

A simpler question should be put Do you want the  label Asperger to be replaced in the light of what we now know about Hans Asperger.?  The debate is getting very complicated.  What issue do you respect differences of opinion as we seem to be talking about different things.

Thanks for all your replies.  There are two separate issues here.   Firstly I think it is a good idea to change the term as we do not want to apply that because you have a diagnoses you would have obeyed Hitler.   On the second issue my GP explained to me in 2009 that I have the label Asperger Syndrome as a Psychiatrist who came to visit us in 1976 about something different said I was mildly Autistic.  In 1990 my Father asked the family therapist whether I would have turned out better if I had been brought up more strictly.  The answer he got was that I am as I am because I have  Asperger Syndrome.  Well I have many difficulties nothing to do with Autism but I often do know what other people are thinking.  I have perception problems I cannot recognise people and get lost easily.  I consider myself a person with difficulties and I have Autistic traits. 

Going back to the first point  I think they were right after the war not to recognise Asperger Syndrome as he was a Austrian who worked for Hitler so very simple please  call it something else.  I have visited beautiful  Austria three times and been to Berlin briefly last  year so I am not saying we should boycott modern Austria and Germany.

Ugh!

Endymion said:

Not at all! The differences of opinion have been interesting in gaining perspective on both sides of a subject I'm no expert in but am interested in! It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

Do you then mean by ~

Endymion said:

Ugh!

~ that you are 'disgusted' or 'horrified' by your interpretation of my statements previously as being involved in,

Endymion said:

It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

and so forth?

Not at all! The differences of opinion have been interesting in gaining perspective on both sides of a subject I'm no expert in but am interested in! It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

Endymion said:

Ugh!

You do not like or recognise differences of opinion from the equalitarian perspective? Or something other?

Ugh!

Cloudy Mountains said:

You are saying the same things again and again but using semantics to repeat your opinion

I have been as you have here but only in the sense of 'writing' my opinion, being that words and sentences are linguistic architectures as being semantic structures, which are dialectic variations, or accents in the spoken regional sense, by way of conveying meaning according to individuality.

Cloudy Mountains said:

There is no need.

Of course not ~ when it comes to semantics being used in writing or speech in every way, and this is so regardless of if anybody needs or wants it or not.

If though you think there is no need for repeating opinions in different ways about the same thing, you are entirely mistaken in having done so. This was a need for you, and you needed to fulfil it. This is the nature of many discussions between individuals, as based upon everyone having different perspectives from different locations on the Earths surface, in each and every case.

Cloudy Mountains said:

You obviously don't have the same concerns over the implications of Czech's article and the damage it could do to a valuable member of the Autism research community. I do.

I respect and support the concrete facts of science and nature, and everyone experiencing and reporting them as such here and elsewhere therefore ~ whether it be Czech, Frith or whomever else ~ scientist or not. I do not take sides.

This for the benefit of all, and the detriment of no one :-)

Deepthought said:

Czech's paper balances a long standing argument, and science only provides evidence on the basis of it being the next clue, or set of clues ~ final and absolute answers are socio-political derivations.

Most academics are fully aware of what publish and be damned means, but as long as the application of the information is of a high standard, and involves the incrimination of no one, respect is often more as such earned than it is lost.

As for being an apologist for Asperger, Frith seems not to be so in relation to Czech's findings, so respect due there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The socio-political deriviations of Czech's paper are what I'm talking about Czech deliberately points out Frith. If you read my earlier post about the piece this is made plain.

Deepthought said:

I doubt it will make any real difference as autism is not a big thing on the socio-political front ~ regarding whom associated with whom seventy to eighty years ago, given that people are way more concerned with the therapeutic and support issues of the current day regarding autism itself. 

Your opinion is different to mine. Autism is a big socio-political issue. Research, care, treatment, and funding for all of these things are constantly an issue as many posters here will have experienced. Czech probably knew he would have gotten attention due to Autism being so prevelant in the media and public conciousness.

Deepthought said:

In not having directly followed or read any of Frith's work, I just did a little internet trawl concerning her Academic achievements ~ and I would suggest the closest she will ever get to no longer being or getting funded is if she decides to retire, for her own reasons. 

I have read Frith's work and followed her achievements. I'm just not comfortable with someone directly mentioning her and smearing her name. In the climate of today's academic circles Frith's reputation could be smeared.

You are saying the same things again and again but using semantics to repeat your opinion. There is no need. You obviously don't have the same concerns over the implications of Czech's article and the damage it could do to a valuable member of the Autism research community. I do.

Cloudy Mountains said:

If Czech is trying to make out that Frith is an apologist for Asperger it could cause her image to be damaged within academia.

Czech's paper balances a long standing argument, and science only provides evidence on the basis of it being the next clue, or set of clues ~ final and absolute answers are socio-political derivations.

Most academics are fully aware of what publish and be damned means, but as long as the application of the information is of a high standard, and involves the incrimination of no one, respect is often more as such earned than it is lost.

As for being an apologist for Asperger, Frith seems not to be so in relation to Czech's findings, so respect due there.

Cloudy Mountains said:

Academia is funded by people that have to cater to public opinion or have an socio-political agenda.

I doubt it will make any real difference as autism is not a big thing on the socio-political front ~ regarding whom associated with whom seventy to eighty years ago, given that people are way more concerned with the therapeutic and support issues of the current day regarding autism itself. 

Cloudy Mountains said:

If Frith is de-funded or her position is put at risk it would logically affect current scientific research.

In not having directly followed or read any of Frith's work, I just did a little internet trawl concerning her Academic achievements ~ and I would suggest the closest she will ever get to no longer being or getting funded is if she decides to retire, for her own reasons. 

If Czech is trying to make out that Frith is an apologist for Asperger it could cause her image to be damaged within academia. Academia is funded by people that have to cater to public opinion or have an socio-political agenda. If Frith is de-funded or her position is put at risk it would logically affect current scientific research.

If Czech is trying to make out that Frith is an apologist for Asperger it could cause her image to be damaged within academia. Academia is funded by people that have to cater to public opinion or have an socio-political agenda. If Frith is de-funded or her position is put at risk it would logically affect current scientific research.

David said:

By your argument it would have been difficult to try the *** at Nuremburg who used the defence obeying orders as those on the allied side were not put in this position and many people in the air force obeyed orders to bomb civilians.

This you state above is your argument.

You asked me if I would have obeyed orders as Hans Asperger did ~ on the basis of what other people might think all big and shame.

And I essentially stated I live in the hear and now version of reality, and not the elsewhere and otherwise version of mentality ~ such as also for example:

David said:

if you are a thief up before Court it would not be a defence to tell the Judge and Jury you were never in my position of being short of money.

Cassandro said:

Well it sounds like the end of the conversation.

The end of one post starts or enables the beginning of another.

Cassandro said:

To me 'semantics' means 'meaning'.  It's a part of grammar that is not to do with syntax but the logical structure of a what a sentence conveys.

Being that as according to Google Dictionary:

Semantics is the linguistic and philosophical study of meaning.

Syntax is the set of rules, principles, and processes that govern the structure of sentences in a given language, usually including word order.

Grammar is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language.

Semantics in the concrete or objective sense involves using Syntax and Grammar equally to establish meaning.

Cassandro said:

However, some people (I think particularly in the US) use it to mean 'splitting hairs'.

In the abstract or subjective sense, Semantics is used subjectively to replace and displace the concrete or objective term:

Sophistry ~ the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

Sophistry can also be used as reference by which to apply the concrete use of semantics, syntax and grammar ~ in order not to manipulate, but instead to inform.

Sophistry then involves what is not to done in terms of deception, and semantics therefore what is ~ in terms of information.

Cassandro said:

I suspect Cloudy Mountains and Deepthought were using it in almost opposite senses.

Yes, I from the inclusive perspective of integration, or holistic outcomes, in terms of being pro-positive ~ i.e. the continuation of Frith's career.

And CM from the exclusive perspective of disintegration, or catastrophic outcomes, in terms of being pro-negative ~ i.e. the obstruction of Frith's career.

Cassandro said:

For the substantive point, I don't think this is about the modern-day researchers much.  There's no reason a mental health worker or a journalist should know everything about history.  I don't think it's about use of 'scientific' information obtained with coercion even.  It's really a question about whether we want to continue to almost 'honour' someone about whom new material has come to light. 

I do not myself honour people in terms of using diagnostic criteria or practical apparatus that has been developed. If something works well, I make good use of it, and thereby honour the dead by instead honouring the living, and all that.

Cassandro said:

By the way, I don't think DSM-V dropping 'Asperger Syndrome' is related to history, since that was decided some time before the latest publications

Although the concrete historical data of Czechs paper was really good, it was not relevant to excluding Asperger's Syndrome as a diagnostic term, as that began in the USA with Autism Spectrum Disorder (or ASD) by way of the DSM-5 in 2013.

Czech's paper has though become rather relevant for some to drop the term now though.

Cassandro said:

It's more that 'Asperger Syndrome' was always intended as a stepping stone to enlarge the diagnostic categories.

Lorna Wing described her intention for using the diagnostic classification of 'Asperger's Syndrome' as follows:

The many patterns of abnormal behaviour that cause diagnostic confusion include one originally described by the Austrian psychiatrist, Hans Asperger (1944, 1968, 1979). The name he chose for this pattern was 'autistic psychopathy' using the latter word in the technical sense of an abnormality of personality. This has led to misunderstanding because of the popular tendency to equate psychopathy with sociopathic behaviour. For this reason, the neutral term Asperger Syndrome is to be preferred and will be used here.

http://www.mugsy.org/wing2.htm

No I do not want to honour Hans Asperger who worked for Hitler.  Many people are not going to forget who the man was.  Some of you have miss placed empathy by saying that Hans Asperger is not here to defend himself.  The Judges at Nuremburg rightly did not bother about their excuses and hanged many of them.    I do not think what Hans Asperger would say for himself would be very convincing.  I have now contacted the senior people in the NAS and we will see what is going to happen.

Well it sounds like the end of the conversation.  To me 'semantics' means 'meaning'.  It's a part of grammar that is not to do with syntax but the logical structure of a what a sentence conveys.  However, some people (I think particularly in the US) use it to mean 'splitting hairs'.  I suspect Cloudy Mountains and Deepthought were using it in almost opposite senses.

For the substantive point, I don't think this is about the modern-day researchers much.  There's no reason a mental health worker or a journalist should know everything about history.  I don't think it's about use of 'scientific' information obtained with coercion even.  It's really a question about whether we want to continue to almost 'honour' someone about whom new material has come to light.  By the way, I don't think DSM-V dropping 'Asperger Syndrome' is related to history, since that was decided some time before the latest publications.  It's more that 'Asperger Syndrome' was always intended as a stepping stone to enlarge the diagnostic categories.

Cloudy Mountains said:

You are basically saying that you have been in a a bit of back and forth and expressing your opinion in the manner you do.

The 'back-and-forth' thing, as many notice, is because I do not hold to a singular perspective on any point of view, but seven, and as such my first diagnosis at 12 years of age, after my first mental and emotional breakdown at school, was that I was quote, "Psychopathic and or Schizo-effective."

So basically I am embodied by seven personalities, with each one offering a different perspective, and we attempt to convey a singular perspective or opinion together.

Due though to having regular stressed induced seizures, reaching a written consensus can involve some very muddled states of affairs for others.

After for instance having a seizure, I was asked a question involving a complex answer, and it was recorded and written down. Once I had recovered, I was asked the question again, and I answered it again. In the first recordings, I had achieved what was a referred to as a, "Complete fruit salad" with no word being in any particular order. In the second recordings I used exactly the same words, but in the right order.

Cloudy Mountains said:

Burying it in further semantics and language that can be confusing to some.

and

Cloudy Mountains said:

You seem to need semantics.

Basic semantic example, in the structure of a word ~ are vowels in the 'toe-mar-toe' or 'toe-may-toe' sense of 'tomato', and as an example in the structural arrangement of a sentence, "The busking musician plays 'live' in order get money to 'live'.

Everybody therefore uses semantics to communicate, whether they need or want them or not, and the burying thing is not therefore my attempt to confuse or manipulate anyone, it is just what happens when I am hung-over from a seizure.

Cloudy Mountains said:

It was a need for me to repeat it because you kept rephrasing the opinions you had in reply to me. If anyone reads this it is plain to see. I really don't see what the rest of the worlds perspective has in relation to anything, it's just diversion.

In fact a divergent course of consideration from that of your divergent consideration ~ so no diversions at all. The reason that I mentioned the individuality of every-ones place on the earth was in respect of individual points of view. You saw no relevance to this as I previously described it. This might not of changed.

Cloudy Mountains said:

Czech had an opinion of Frith, so did you. You also had an opinion on the damage the paper could do to Frith's reputation. Opinions aren't facts. You can form an opinion on facts. We've just took facts to form different opinions.

When you state that we just took facts to form different opinions, that is exactly what I was referring to in that I respect and support the concrete facts of science and nature, and those reporting and experiencing them.

Cloudy Mountains said:

I'd disagree. This certainly isn't benefiting anyone.

A basic and long standing fact of life regarding human sense and sensibility; is that ~ as the expression goes:

"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

So when I state that this is for the benefit of all, I mean everyone reading this thread and learning about what it means to have autism, and the psychological processes we use in communicating with each other, and others on the NAS website forum.

And when I state that I do this for the detriment of no one, I mean by this that I have no plans in mind to cause any problems for anyone. I am diagnosed as having problems with interaction, communication and imagination, and as such that is much a fact for you as it is for me and anyone else in the community, to various degrees, recalling that, according to Dr Stephen Shore:

“If you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism,”

Cloudy Mountains said:

I'm not going to change your opinion on Czech's attack on Frith, who I have stated is an important part of the Autism reseach community repeatedly.

Thus we are in agreement regarding the same issue, in different ways. Your opinion  of Uta Frith involves her as being in a fragile predicament, and my opinion of her involves her being in a robust position ~ involving the following facts. 

The facts of Czech's paper in historical terms in the sense of who was where and at what point, very very good. His suppositions of peoples psychological motivations are abstract and not particular to my taste. Czech has been on the go for nearly ten years perhaps at most, and has published as many articles, as far as I have been able to ascertain.

The facts of Frith's pioneering research in autism, dyslexia, theory of mind and so on with others has forty years concrete standing, she has published loads and books too, and has mentored Simon Baron-Cohen in the UK, Tony Attwood in Australia, and other living legends in the field of Austic research also.

If anyone was actually daft enough to try and damage Frith's reputation, there would be serious closing of ranks in the Autistic research community, who would step forward for or with her without hesitation. The fact of this statement has been proven to one extent with Sahil Singh Gujral from the USA on Sunday.

The attack you describe is actually based on the age old and time honoured scientific method ~ of listing old proofs in order to add to or replace them with new proofs.

Those are the facts of my opinion in total to date, and you have the facts of yours. I am sorry that in attempting to assure you ~ I have confused and frustrated you. 

Cloudy Mountains said:

I'm going to step away from this now because I feel it is to the detriment of you and we have taken up enough of each others time.

I have experienced no detriment whatsoever in learning more about fellow researches, the current state of affairs in world wide autism, and all the discussions and varying opinions have been thoroughly fascinating, or if not incredibly intriguing.  Thank you though for your concern though, as it is very much appreciated, and I consider the time very well spent in communicating with you, and everyone else, here and elsewhere on this forum.

Cloudy Mountains said:

This has descended into babble. I'm going to hold my opinion because I don't need your approval. You don't need mine or anyone else's either.

Well the babble thing is not a unusual dismissal in any sense, what with the communication issues as mentioned above in this post. And I respect your opinion that you do not need my approval, and those who need my approval that they are wonderful human beings ~ have it directly when requested as such, and indirectly in my heart unconditionally and perpetually for the duration of  life ~ as being to me sisters and brothers from other mothers. I have that thing called over-friendliness in autistic terms. 

Cloudy Mountains said:

I'm going to let it go, my ego will allow it.

I find my ego to be a projection of focus for my personalities, in the sense of being a vocal range tester for the pitch, tone and volume of my voice ~ whilst speaking with others in near vicinity, or else when calling, shouting or yelling out ~ so as to draw attention from others at a distance. Thus it is that when nobody needs to hear my voice, such as typing here, my personalities answer when written to, or we carry on as we do inwardly.

Cloudy Mountains said:

For the benefit of the forum, and all the best to you

Live long and prosper 

Deepthought said:

I have been as you have here but only in the sense of 'writing' my opinion, being that words and sentences are linguistic architectures as being semantic structures, which are dialectic variations, or accents in the spoken regional sense, by way of conveying meaning according to individuality.

You are basically saying that you have been in a a bit of back and forth and expressing your opinion in the manner you do. Burying it in further semantics and language that can be confusing to some.

Deepthought said:

Of course not ~ when it comes to semantics being used in writing or speech in every way, and this is so regardless of if anybody needs or wants it or not.

You seem to need semantics.

Deepthought said:

If though you think there is no need for repeating opinions in different ways about the same thing, you are entirely mistaken in having done so. This was a need for you, and you needed to fulfil it. This is the nature of many discussions between individuals, as based upon everyone having different perspectives from different locations on the Earths surface, in each and every case.

It was a need for me to repeat it because you kept rephrasing the opinions you had in reply to me. If anyone reads this it is plain to see. I really don't see what the rest of the worlds perspective has in relation to anything, it's just diversion.

Deepthought said:

I respect and support the concrete facts of science and nature, and everyone experiencing and reporting them as such here and elsewhere therefore ~ whether it be Czech, Frith or whomever else ~ scientist or not. I do not take sides.

Czech had an opinion of Frith, so did you. You also had an opinion on the damage the paper could do to Frith's reputation. Opinions aren't facts. You can form an opinion on facts. We've just took facts to form different opinions.

Deepthought said:

This for the benefit of all, and the detriment of no one :-)

I'd disagree. This certainly isn't benefiting anyone. I'm not going to change your opinion on Czech's attack on Frith, who I have stated is an important part of the Autism reseach community repeatedly. I'm going to step away from this now because I feel it is to the detriment of you and we have taken up enough of each others time. This has descended into babble. I'm going to hold my opinion because I don't need your approval. You don't need mine or anyone else's either. I'm going to let it go, my ego will allow it.

For the benefit of the forum, and all the best to you

 GOOD NIGHT I MIGHT CONTIUE THIS DISCUSSION IN THE DAY TIME BUT I NEED TO GO TO BED NOW.

By your argument it would have been difficult to try the *** at Nuremburg who used the defence obeying orders as those on the allied side were not put in this position and many people in the air force obeyed orders to bomb civilians.    if you are a thief up before Court it would not be a defence to tell the Judge and Jury you were never in my position of being short of money.

David said:

No but people might ask you would you have obeyed orders as Hans Asperger did?

Well, as in reality you are asking me, my answer is that:

I did not grow up in the first half of the century.

I was not exposed to the socially shared and enforced sexism, ageism and tribalism (or altogether just elitism) that was going on in Austria in those days.

I did not have a wife and five children to support.

and, 

More simply ~ I was not, nor ever shall be in the same position as Hans Asperger, as I am not Hans Asperger, and this is the current era.

As the saying goes ~ "Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes." as means  be compassionate, rather than judgement involving generalised incrimination or defamation.

Personally, I think it reasonable for people to refer to their diagnostic classification as it is.

The first exception to this being if the diagnosis of the condition is not in symptomatic terms befitting.

The second exception, as applies in your case ~ on the basis of moral and ethical grounds in cultural or ethnic terms, is that HFA, ASC, ASD (or something along those lines) is more befitting for 'you' as an individual.

Does this make sense to you?

No but people might ask you would you have obeyed orders as Hans Asperger did?

To this day I think it funny when I refused to bend over for getting a sum wrong nearly fifty years ago  the teacher told my Mother that in the Army you have to obey orders as well as at School. My Mother said that the Germans obeyed orders too much.

I do not know what you mean.  What I am saying is very simple as a Jew I find the term Asperger offensive as he might have been a Nazi.  Re Mild Autism the GP in 2009 said that in 1976 that was the equivalent of Asperger Syndrome.  Please make your replies clearer as I have not got the faintest idea of what your last reply meant.

I'm comfortable continuing to use the term Asperger's and certainly don't think it would indicate to anyone that I harbour Nazi sympathies. 

The debate about Asperger himself, and his work, is interesting but I don't feel it reflects directly upon me or what I choose to call my AS. As someone else mentioned on here, there are many terms we use that have less-than-spotless associations and I don't feel that this is the worst of them.  

Endymion said:

Ugh!

I assume you are displaying your disgust again according to some extent what you interpret as being "badgering" ~ i.e. 'repeatedly and annoyingly ask (someone) to do something' (Google Dictionary). Rather than though asking or annoying me, you are using a visceral definition as a strong inference, or hint, and thereby avoiding any clarification regarding your intentions and motivations ~ perhaps?

A simpler question should be put Do you want the  label Asperger to be replaced in the light of what we now know about Hans Asperger.?  The debate is getting very complicated.  What issue do you respect differences of opinion as we seem to be talking about different things.

Thanks for all your replies.  There are two separate issues here.   Firstly I think it is a good idea to change the term as we do not want to apply that because you have a diagnoses you would have obeyed Hitler.   On the second issue my GP explained to me in 2009 that I have the label Asperger Syndrome as a Psychiatrist who came to visit us in 1976 about something different said I was mildly Autistic.  In 1990 my Father asked the family therapist whether I would have turned out better if I had been brought up more strictly.  The answer he got was that I am as I am because I have  Asperger Syndrome.  Well I have many difficulties nothing to do with Autism but I often do know what other people are thinking.  I have perception problems I cannot recognise people and get lost easily.  I consider myself a person with difficulties and I have Autistic traits. 

Going back to the first point  I think they were right after the war not to recognise Asperger Syndrome as he was a Austrian who worked for Hitler so very simple please  call it something else.  I have visited beautiful  Austria three times and been to Berlin briefly last  year so I am not saying we should boycott modern Austria and Germany.

Ugh!

Endymion said:

Not at all! The differences of opinion have been interesting in gaining perspective on both sides of a subject I'm no expert in but am interested in! It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

Do you then mean by ~

Endymion said:

Ugh!

~ that you are 'disgusted' or 'horrified' by your interpretation of my statements previously as being involved in,

Endymion said:

It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

and so forth?

Not at all! The differences of opinion have been interesting in gaining perspective on both sides of a subject I'm no expert in but am interested in! It just becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees when the badgering starts. 

Endymion said:

Ugh!

You do not like or recognise differences of opinion from the equalitarian perspective? Or something other?