First assessment - telling a story with 5 objects

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.

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Anyone who has taken AQ or RAADS tests can see that many questions are aimed at what are now considered outdated stereotypes of autism and are gender-biased. The same is true of 'testing' for autistic traits, anything that is susceptible to becoming outdated and discredited is not a reliable diagnostic tool.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

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. 

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.

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.

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.