First assessment - telling a story with 5 objects

Hi Bob.   i just want to point out, that the test is supposed to be able to identify those with autism, so they specifically give you tasks that a 'normal' person would be ok with but an autistic person would struggle with.

the purpose of the task is to see if you can do it or not ...  if you can't, it does make you a bad person, it just another indicator that you are autistic.

I rather suspect that, like most things, the ability to generalise and form and manipulate abstract ideas varies enormously between autistic people. Charles Darwin showed many autistic traits, but he was a genius at the inception and manipulation of abstract ideas. In my working life as a scientist I quite often solved problems using approaches that other people had not apprehended at all. I would have had little problem in making up stories about objects, I'm very glad that that sort of test formed no part of my autism assessment.

Yes, it will. It could actually result in the wrong diagnosis.

It's not imagination. It's the ability to form, or not form abstract ideas.

It's not about imagination in the book test. It's about having, or not having, the ability to understand or form abstract ideas. Giving you five random objects and asking you to tell a story is difficult for people with Autism. The book is as abstract as it gets. I Googled the tests after I took them and found this information. I have a wonderful imagination and often visit my alternate world, but I found the test impossible. The book had no story to me, just a random set of pages and I was bogged down with the small details and saw no story,

This tells the assessor that you have trouble with forming abstract ideas. I had to Google the test after they had been to see me. I found it equally hard and a little absurd. Apparently, People with Autism find it hard to do this test. 

The book is designed to tell the assessment interviewer how your brain works. People with Autism don't see a story, just a book of random pages. I had the same test and the story made little sense to me, in fact, I didn't see a story at all. I was too busy looking for patterns and small details. I thought frogs on Lilypads were absurd. Autistic people have a problem with abstract ideas and you can't get more abstract than this book. The fact I was bogged down in the details obviously meant something to them. Don't feel like a failure because you are meant to fail, if you have autism. I Googled the book test after they had been and found that it can tell them a mountain of stuff about the way your brain works. I didn't see any story because there were no words. It was so abstract that it meant nothing to me, apart from noticing the small details and patterns in the bushes, stars and clouds. There are two details in particular that they are looking for and I won't tell you what they are because it will compromise your test. I didn't see either of them. I guess every single person will have a different take on the book and that is fine. There is no failing.

I have written some Sci-Fi pastiches; I found that I was very inventive in coming up with plots,  good at descriptions, reasonable in producing relatable characters, but really abysmal in constructing dialogue. If I was asked to create a story about objects I would be fully capable of doing so, but they would not be talking to each other to any great extent. But how much would this say about my communication difficulties, which are less about ability and more about dislike, discomfort and eventual overwhelm?

In my case, I found the result of my story-telling with objects very illuminating. Despite the fact that I consume stories all the time, can recognise good writing from bad, and love some quite esoteric  things that are highly imaginative or escapist, it seems that (as I have always suspected) my ability to be highly imaginative spontaneously is very limited. The blind spot I had while doing the exercise was to think that what was being assessed was whether I could construct something with a beginning, middle, and end, that was a coherent and logical narrative. Instead, what was revealed (the penny only dropped with the write-up) was that I used three of the objects as essentially exactly what they were. I hadn't made a pencil into a person, I used an action figure for that. I made a car a car. I made a rubber band a fan-belt (just an upscaled version of the same concept) And my scenario was simplistic and workaday. It was helpful to see that I lack that effortless ability to abstract that most others possess.

Another example of the same kind of thing. I was at a training thing a few years back: learn how to give a talk (should the need arise- thankfully it hasn't!). An icebreaker exercise was: everyone will pick any subject they like, and talk about it for two minutes. You have one minute to choose your topic, and then five to prepare your talk. I froze. Not a single idea would enter my head. The tyrany of choice was overwhelming. The lady running the course shook her head at my uselessness in coming up with one idea, pulled out a printed list of ten things (seems there's been at least one precedent!) and I grabbed one of those with relief - the lifecycle of a pencil. 

It would be very difficult, and probably highly psychologically damaging, to raise children without initiating conversations with them; I have two children. You have difficulties that are outside of my experience, and I was selectively mute as a young child. How can I have had any knowledge of them, except by your telling me? Please stop assuming that other people can divine your experiences and make allowances for them.

I can't help thinking that such tests are an infantilising treatment to inflict on adults, to some degree. If I had been confronted with such tests I rather think that I might have just refused to engage at all; what would an assessor surmise from that?. I suspect that many autistics have a great deal of imagination, but much of it may not be typical of that of allistics.

There is also the difference between capability and inclination. I am capable of being social, even with strangers, but I find it uncomfortable and would rather avoid it. I think that this counts as a 'difficulty with communication', at least as seen by neurotypicals. If I am over stimulated socially, too intensely, for too long a time, I will eventually shutdown or meltdown. This I would be able to tell an assessor, but they would not see it, because I can usually hold things from imploding or exploding until I am on my own. My undoubted ability to make up a story on any subject - I'm intelligent and I have read huge amounts fiction - says nothing about my autism traits or difficulties at all. But I can tell someone about them quite accurately.

Well I guess I'm odd then, because I do struggle, even with close family. Especially with the family I grew up with. 

Please stop making assumptions about other people's abilities based on your own experience. We are all different. 

I never start conversations with strangers, unless forced by circumstances, but it would be odd if that extended to my close family.

I wonder if some of it is how you approach a task rather than the task itself. I definitely think this was the case when I had to tell a story from pictures. I had 4 similar tasks about making something up and I think each one probably looked at different things and not just imagination. For example I take the making a story from pictures task to replicate how we make sense of social situations and how we build up from detail rather than go straight in for the bigger picture. It was hard because I had nothing to go on. It made no sense. But I persevered. I do wonder how neurotypical people would go on with and go about these tasks. It would be really interesting to see the differences. Also I think the tests are useful because if you take someone's word for it, they might have traits which look like autism but are not. Altho I do think if you are putting yourself forward for assessment you probably have a good reason to. I do agree the questionnaires are out dated though. 

Glitter I too struggle with the comparisons because people are either too polite to point things out, are a bit similar to me anyway and also I have never lived inside anyone else's head so I don't know how some things compare. On the other hand there are things which I inherently know I am different to others but it's hard to put my finger on and they are not in the questionnaire.

In contrast, I don't even mention it because it's difficult for me to start conversations. So I don't have that same history.

I have managed to write this after a lot of research, extensive therapy on the subject, and years of analysis. My point is five years ago I was not able to understand it, let alone articulate it.

The fact that you misunderstood what I said about not talking about noticing things shows that I'm still not expressing myself clearly enough too.

An assessor may not understand all of the above by observation alone, but it's part observation and part questioning, written and verbal. It's a whole process. 

I came into this thread to try to bring some positive thoughts and I don't want to get in an argument so I'm going to step away now.

Glitter said:

I also struggle with questions that compare my experiences with others. Like "I notice details that others do not." I have no idea because that would involve me having to actually talk to other people about what I notice and find out if they noticed it too.

A history of bringing things to the notice of other people in general conversation would be sufficient. I know I often point out things to my wife and children, I have no need to quiz them as to whether they noticed it beforehand, it is obvious by the frequency that I bring things to their attention that I have a tendency to be more observant than they are.

Would a stranger, however clinically qualified, pick up on the difficulties in communication you have described, purely by observation over a few hours? I tend to think not. Plus you have eloquently described your history of communication difficulties, without me being able to see you. I am, of course referring to written as well as verbal descriptions of traits and behavioural history. I am not saying that observation is not useful, just that it should not override, never override, the testimony of the autistic individual about their own autism.

I would disagree- autism affects our ability to communicate and pick up on social cues. When I first talked to a psychologist she asked me "Does it affect you at work?" And I said no, because I did not then understand the difficulties I had. Then later someone at work started shouting at me about issues I didn't pick up on, and I got uninvited to a staff outing, and I thought about how much of my time I spent reading at lunch or avoiding situations where I had to talk to people. Or the feeling of panic I got when I had to ask to borrow the laminator, for example. But I wasn't able to express any of this at the interview.

When I study things about autism for work or my own interest, I find a lot of it centres on sensory issues, and I think that's because it's the easiest thing to describe.  It's taken me a lot if self-analysis and time to figure out how I relate to my own feelings, and my partner pointing out that I'm displaying signs of stress even when I don't feel it emotionally.  

I also didn't realise that some of the things I experienced were unusual. There was an audio in a module I did here, that was an example of how a restaurant sounded to an autistic person. I thought that was just what a restaurant sounded like.  Now I wonder how it sounds to NTs.

I also struggle with questions that compare my experiences with others. Like "I notice details that others do not." I have no idea because that would involve me having to actually talk to other people about what I notice and find out if they noticed it too.

Communication is SO HARD!  Especially talking about my own feelings and needs. It took me four years to ask for a conversation with my boss that I needed to have, and even then I only managed because I asked in an email to have it. And even then, every time I saw her I felt internal panic and was unable to initiate contact until it had all gone through.

So I would definitely not be a reliable narrator about my struggles. Autism impairs my ability to communicate.  I'm sure I'm not the only person that that's true for- it's right there in the diagnostic criteria. 

I think that this type of test is useful for children, who often cannot reliably describe their traits and difficulties, but it is a bit insulting to inflict them on adults, adults with average or above average intellect. Adults can describe their history and 'symptoms' accurately and this should carry far more weight than tests or observation.

Anyone who has taken AQ or RAADS tests can see that many questions are aimed at what are now considered outdated stereotypes of autism and are gender-biased. The same is true of 'testing' for autistic traits, anything that is susceptible to becoming outdated and discredited is not a reliable diagnostic tool.

I think of it like going for an eye test. I do not feel a failure if I cannot read the bottom line of letters. I don't get embarrassed or upset if i have to tell them that "number one" is more blurry that "number two." They're just using the tools they need to assess what I can see and get the right glasses for me. The autism assessment is doing the same.

Having said that, I do use my imagination as escapism a lot. I've written 1.3 million words of fanfic in the last few years. That's like War and Peace twice. Granted, most of that isn't heavy with plot. And it's taken me a few years to come up with an actual plot for the novel I want to write. So I guess mine just takes longer.

I'm still waiting for my assessment but I'm intrigued to see the infamous frog book. I'm really glad people don't give too much detail about it because I want to see what I come up with, and preparing it in advance would spoil the results.