Criticism of Broad Autism Phenotype

It appears to me to be a useful way to describe people with autistic traits who do not quite reach the criteria for diagnosis. Obviously, such people exist, why not give them a term that describes them in a succinct way? While autism is a spectrum, the spectrum must extend beyond those who are clinically diagnosable into the population in general, as this is what all multifactorial conditions do.

It just bothers me because no classification system is perfect and ones that are based on personal opinion and multiple criteria are even less perfect. Throw in long wait times and personal biases that we see reported over and over, leads to people falling through the cracks.

I may have fallen outside of the criteria when I was at my most productive. But that very 'productivity' in itself led to where I am today.

That is a criticism of the diagnoses of all non-physical conditions that do not have definitive yes/no tests available. A person cannot be borderline Down's Syndrome, as Chr. 21 trisomy is definitive, but borderline autism is all too real.

That is a criticism of the diagnoses of all non-physical conditions that do not have definitive yes/no tests available. A person cannot be borderline Down's Syndrome, as Chr. 21 trisomy is definitive, but borderline autism is all too real.

That actually makes sense now.

And their poetry is the third worst in the known universe.

Martin said:

in the words of a certain Vogon

I had to look that word up.

They aren't very attractive.

But chromosomal abnormalities are both definite, and detectable. For most autistics the contributory factors, even just the genetic ones, are diffuse and complex.

Like I said, psychology and psychiatry are not amenable to mathematical precision, they are 'hand waving' disciplines. Hoping for exactitude, or complaining about its absence, in the words of a certain Vogon, "Is futile".

There is also such thing as Mosaic Down Syndrome, where some chromosomes is abnormally altered.

Yes. I am in total agreement.

But there is an inherent misunderstanding amongst laypeople and bureaucrats that diagnosis IS 100% scientific and accurate. Therefore accommodations are denied to people.

"the sound of people talking in the office makes me unable to work"

"the sound of a sudden surprise dropping of a spanner can actually reduce me to tears"

- doesn't matter, you need a diagnosis before we will accommodate you. Come and see us in four years when you have one. Living with it as best we can, isn't much solace for these people.

Diagnosis of multifactorial conditions characterised by behavioural traits is imprecise. Psychology and psychiatry are much less well defined and accurately measurable or predictable than physical or even biological sciences. That is a reality that we have to live with as best we can.

That hits exactly on my point, Martin.

Who decides where this "borderline" is? (rhetorical question)

Additionally, we are dealing with a sum of borderlines on a collection of scales into a single borderline.

It's arbitrary enough with one scale - my comment further below is

"You score 144.399389 on this scale - sorry you don't fit this box - you have to suffer in silence by yourself!

You score 145.21991 on this scale - welcome to the club!!"

But then the ASD borderline is based on several of these already arbitrary borderlines.

And THEN, some of these tests are not as scientific and reliable as a layperson would be led to believe. Especially as masking is only recently being taken into account (by some.)

And THEN, there are hidden motives like not wanting to cause any financial cost to the already underfunded health services.