Children's tests used on adult assessment?

I agree .
Since the Italian third grade I had been writing plots for comics.
They are called scripts.

I have public diagnoses, those apply to us.

So I have very serious autistic deficits.

Either I'm special or something just doesn't add up to me at all.
If you even think that we autistics ok maybe we lack eye contact, we have produced scientific genes,

Since a Genius is already particular to himself, and not comparable to our IQ maybe "high" (there are 300 people who have not produced anything valid,

Which also makes one think of the calculation factor of the IQ , then generally ninth of long duration, i.e. of many days of time.

But they lack completeness.

In short, I can't be the best in school, and at the same time the stupidest on the planet in social relationships.

There will be a different reason than those proposed. If you only think that we are 107 years late to the first intuition about human autism...
Then ok, a series of nomenclative errors and too peremptory studies intervened on the six so or differently from so.

And a serious miss until Gorgeous Miss Lorna Wing who has made a fantastic contribution to our lives.
(Thanks Lorna)

it was 1981 and just missing both H.Asperger and Leo Kanner , now we have Anthony Attwood who is iconic (Great!)
<>
In my life I have compensated for difficulties in my own way.
It's not good, I always have extreme discomfort, but I'm not complaining.

Unfortunately, as you write, it is social communication that is lacking in us.

I know many languages (not English or true from how I write), but what do I know, to tell you, on the plane I spoke with an inhabitant of another region in her language (In Italy there are at least three languages and not one language and 20 dialects ).

The point is that if I don't know how to communicate with people even though I know their basic lexicon 4 times (numerically), then it's me who doesn't know how to communicate, not them who don't understand.

Ok, every 2 years here in Italy the language is distorted and at the same time it becomes impoverished and 14 year olds do not know the words of a 26 year old.

They just don't know them.

And not because they are worse than us but because their communication does not include them,

I've read thousands of books, articles of all types, I have passes for different university subjects, but if I don't communicate in practice I'm the one who's not good in this society.

Warning: I do not communicate adequately with people with logical IQ.M. even taller than mine.
I was writing to our Aspie communicators who do conferences on autism.

The halls are crammed with people.
But they are people who are either autistic or relatives of autistics.

There is also a lack of communication from the Government *Clear about how we are.

They are not doing anything in the conferences because they don't actually open the dialogue to the NTs.

* It's not just because of them, it's okay that we're suddenly out of the Egg of Mork and Mindy (Robin Williams).

That is, we *Appeared to them and we are Aliens.

We are not aliens, we must find the effective way to communicate.

I have been writing this for years to the researchers I know.

If they don't understand, it means that we are autistic and don't use the right way.

Then: you have no flaw in this regard.
And we are autistic, we are just like that.

However, well, I wrote to important interlocutors, close to Attwood.

We get the wrong way to make ourselves understood.

Let's change it if anything.

(Shasbat!)

I have a wonderful imagination. I wrote some pastiche Science Fiction/Fantasy stories in imitation of the author Jack Vance. I had no problem creating worlds or plots, what did I have trouble with? Writing flowing, believable, dialogue. Difficulties with communication are central to autism, not circumscribed imaginations.

On the part damaged by childhood trauma that you describe, there is a therapy called EMDR.

I've tried many different ones, but one thing makes it impossible for me to enjoy them, and that's exactly my way of perceiving a certain type of imagination.

I think that a fundamental mistake is made here too, we don't have the same neurology as NTs and inevitably we don't function like them.

Another mistake (in my opinion) is that we think of an abstract imagination that is the same for all of us.

But there is no absolute imagination.

In fact, in some things we will never succeed.

I am writing this to you for several reasons.

One that even if I have an IQ sufficient to answer some questions, the famous Sally and the false belief, I didn't succeed.
I skipped 2 tests, I wouldn't own theory of mind.

A few years ago I wanted to understand how to patent my ideas (prototypes).

Then I saw the costs and never tried again.

But if my mind observes it is creative, if I see a problem I find unusual solutions.

This passage of medical attribution baffles me.

Because if I don't have something I don't have it, but I never have it.

Instead Randomly yes.

It depends on whether he rationally understands things that don't come naturally to me.

Scenarios are constantly changing, I will always find different scenarios.

Most of these I won't know how to make them mine.
Others yes.

So again by my hypothesis, there cannot exist a single abstract or imaginative thought form.

I'm afraid they oversimplify things.

(Sorry, I hope this is readable)

now it is interesting to shift the focus of reflection to those people who may be weak in this competence, for example people with autism spectrum disorder. Are we really sure that this is the case? On the one hand, if we rely on the DSM 5 diagnostic manual, we find two central aspects in the manifestation of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): a deficit in the area of social communication, which includes the deficit in communication ( both verbal and non-verbal language) and social impairment (ability to interact socially with others); an imagination deficit, i.e. a restricted repertoire of repetitive and stereotyped activities and interests and behaviors. We assume that most people with autism spectrum disorder is conditioned, in his thought, by rather fixed rules, indeed their difficulty in everyday life often depends on the inability to detach from already defined schemes and to tolerate the variability of events. On the basis of this, we could deduce that these people are unimaginative. But that's not the case. To broaden the perspective on this issue is an English study from 2015 which focuses attention on an important paradox: how can autistic people have difficulty with the imagination but at the same time be represented in many creative fields? They generate fewer symbolic responses but generate more unusual responses and this makes their mind unique. In particular the study, conducted by Dr. Martin Doherty's group of the University of East Anglia and published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, investigates the paradox of creativity in autism. That is, if people with mild autism have cognitive styles conducive to creativity or if they are disadvantaged by the rigidity implicit in the cognitive and behavioral style of the autistic phenotype. 312 subjects were evaluated by observing two variables: the quantity of responses (fluency) and their rarity (innovation) faced with stimuli that required possible alternative uses of tools and objects. Surprisingly people with high autistic traits generated a high number of unusual responses to divergent thinking tasks, yielding 4 or more rare responses. This may explain the paradox. Indeed, it has been hypothesized that for a complex genetic condition to remain within the population, there must be advantages conferred on individuals who inherit some of the condition's traits. The incidence of special skills and interests, and attention to detail in some people with autism agree with this statement. This study also suggests that a difference in divergent thinking may be among these benefits. Consistent with previous knowledge, researchers in the study found evidence that fluency (number of alternatives) in divergent thinking is negatively related to the presence of autistic traits. However people with high levels of autistic traits were more likely to produce unusual and novel responses. This would be a potential cognitive advantage for creative problem solving. However, it must be remembered that the study involved only adults with mild or subclinical autism and within the sample there was a strong variability. If we now have proof that it is wrong to say that autistic people cannot be creative, it is equally wrong to say the opposite.

My mind works purely on the visual.
Problem : I have to translate words into pictures if someone talks to me.

And do the reverse in response.
I almost completely miss the self-talk.

<>

You see, at about 4 years of age I taught myself to read.

They were pictures...
Images of letters then using the comics there was the drawing that explained, it was simple.

I did the same thing with my first book which was Peter Pan revised in the Disney phase, because Peter Pan has a very different literature from what they used then.

Over the years, I saw my deficits.

And I imagined how to bypass them differently than usual.

I have no imagination at all.

I have worked for 16 years of my life to implement the imagination on me.

You will write to me that it is discordant with the concept of abstraction.

<>

Albert Einstein in a 1929 interview said “Imagination is more important than knowledge”, and added “knowledge is limited. Imagination embraces the world."

The ability to create mental images is undoubtedly one of the most amazing activities of the human mind.

Already from Aristotelian psychology it is clear that the faculty of producing images is something connected to the senses but not limited or conditioned by them, distinct from intellect and opinion.

The ability to imagine allows you to get out of the box of rationality and gives the mind the opportunity to explore new perspectives. Starting from this assumption, it is immediately clear how this ability can play a central role in solving small everyday problems up to important choices

 <>

An NT interprets this statement more or less like this: we are all so different, therefore we all have discomforts.

Some of it is valid, much of it is illogical.

We are also different in being different.

And we don't understand some things.

On the fact that we try to understand how the minds of subjects who study in scientific research work, yes.


But they could very well be using neuroimaging techniques while taking tests.

Also from the tests it appears that he perceives the colors 10 times compared to the male standards, the female ones are even greater.

Male sighted 1 million colours.

In my case 10 million colors.

A woman has been scientifically evaluated tetrachromatic, a "Superwoman" can identify 100 million colors, while the human eye normally perceives about a million. Her name is Concetta Antico, and she is an Australian painter.

I read you with pleasure.
IQ 170.
This too is inaccurate when you think about it.
Long-term IQ tests are based on mathematical logic.

And the intelligences are not only those.

Mine was 154 (it changes over the years and tests are done taking age into account).

The sub-intelligences and unconventional intelligences have not been deciphered, I am not describing those of H.Gardner but others as well.

<

I agree that each of us Aspies (now wrongly included in the HFA, you will see that this discriminant will change), is different from the other Aspies.

The aim of these tests is to see how your mind works. The simplicity is not the point. People on the spectrum find it almost impossible to understand the abstract. There is nothing more abstract than giving you a bag of sundry items and then asking you to formulate a story, When I had the test I found it impossible and yet I have a vivid imagination. It matters not what you have learned. I have an IQ of 170 and couldn't do this test. The frog book is designed for the same purpose. I found myself bogged down in the small details and saw no story at all. Yet, I read avidly as a child. I thought the concept of frogs on lily pads was absurd. I was unable to interpret the story because there was no narrative. That is the difference. I need a narrative to fully understand the story and my brain doesn't understand a bunch of pictures as a story, in the same way that I wasn't able to use random objects to make one. I think people are misunderstanding this fundamental detail. The tests may seem absurd and childish, but our brains work in the same way. They are trying to figure out which part of your brain you are using. In short, which part has been undeveloped due to trauma as a child or abuse. I Hope this helps you. I had to Google it after the assessment to see what in the Sam Hill it was all about.

Thanks very much Matt and Recom, I wish you could come to my next appointment as witnesses for the defence! That's how this process feel - as if I'm on trial for falsely caliming to have AS.

Thanks yoo for that link Recom, it's now in my 'favourites' list. 

Technophobe23 said:

To feel that a positive diagnosis could be denied me because I did 'too well' in stupid tests like these, would make me quite angry, and very depressed.

They may be stupid tests because you can't imagine that they would be useful! There is a possibility that they did help the diagnostic staff to form an opinion. Also you are likely to be struggling with being too categorical in your thinking.

I remember a time at primary school when I was being asked to pretend to be a tree in a drama class. I remember this, 50 years later, and my memory of it was what a stupid thing to be asked to do. I have thought that many things were stupid since then but often I was probably just lacking the imagination to believe that anything outside the truly rational world could be worth anything.

If you are struggling with depression then have you seen therecoveryletters.com/the-recovery-letters I heard about this on an All In the Mind recording from Radio 4.

It seems to be fairly true regarding the plagiarism idea, I can't remember off the top of my head who it was, but there was a historian who believed there is only about 7 original stories and that everything else is just a retelling of those 7 basic plot lines but with the details altered. People tend to write from what they know, whether that is first hand experience or from another account. 

To get back onto the subject of the test, there is many things which could account for someone being good at the task. For example, if someone with ASD was an avid reader, wrote a lot of fiction and studied the art of story telling, etc. It could result in them performing better on such tests as they have the kind of experience and aquired knowledge which lends itself well to the task.

I think in cases such as mine because I performed so badly, it would certainly add weight to determining a positive diagnosis of ASD, but I find it hard to believe that the opposite could be true. That performing so well should add weight to a negative diagnosis. Realistically, I think if you performed well on that task all that can be said is that you are good at those kinds of tasks, I don't think it could logically rule out the possibility of ASD.

You seem to understand this very well. I wish I did!  Did I have a good point re the story composition / plagiarism matter or am I missing something there too?

Technophobe23 said:

What about map reading? Are people with AS meant to be unable to read maps?  Because to read a map is to interpret the lines and colours and symbols, using one's imagination, to create a mental picture of the landscape and where one is in it. If you can't do this, a map is no use to you!

I'm just challenging this idea that AS means an absence of that kind of imagination. The hairband as a pond example seems little different to a thin black outline with blue infill for a pond. Neither are ponds. But we know what the symbols mean (don't we?).

I also question whether making up stoiries as a child, using bits and pieces gleaned from previously encountered stories, can be called pure palgiarism or even copying. Surely, most stories are exactly that? Think about all the detective stories, all the Western films, the Mills & Boon tat - they're pretty much all the same stories, just re-worked and mixed up a bit. Same with music - very few songs/tunes are truly original. Some are of course, but generally, we are all influenced more than we tend to realise by our environment, including all the previous human input into it.

That's how I see it anyway. 

You're confusing a deficit in imagination with an absense of imagination. Nobody has suggested that people with ASD have no imagination at all, just that it is common for that imagination to be restricted by rigid patterns of thought.

Maps are typically very logical in form, for example, they use a 'key' which tells you what various symbols mean, in addition to this it is perfectly reasonable to assume that if you are knowingly looking at a pictoral representation of a landscape you could rationally expect to see things on there which represent roads, rail lines and bodies of water and it is not too challenging for anyone to associate the colour blue with water, these things would require a fairly low-level of imagination/flexible thinking. On the otherhand associating one object (eg; a hairband) with another object which doesn't look like, isn't related to nor connected in any real sense (eg; a lake) requires a larger degree of flexible thinking. The key to the issue and what is really being measured, is not so much how much imagination someone has, but how rigid their thought patterns are.

What about map reading? Are people with AS meant to be unable to read maps?  Because to read a map is to interpret the lines and colours and symbols, using one's imagination, to create a mental picture of the landscape and where one is in it. If you can't do this, a map is no use to you!

I'm just challenging this idea that AS means an absence of that kind of imagination. The hairband as a pond example seems little different to a thin black outline with blue infill for a pond. Neither are ponds. But we know what the symbols mean (don't we?).

I also question whether making up stoiries as a child, using bits and pieces gleaned from previously encountered stories, can be called pure palgiarism or even copying. Surely, most stories are exactly that? Think about all the detective stories, all the Western films, the Mills & Boon tat - they're pretty much all the same stories, just re-worked and mixed up a bit. Same with music - very few songs/tunes are truly original. Some are of course, but generally, we are all influenced more than we tend to realise by our environment, including all the previous human input into it.

That's how I see it anyway. 

I agree that this test would be more appropriate to a young child. At the top end of primary school, I loved stories, read avidly and wrote endless stories.

At face value you would think that I was using imagination, but I reused what I had read. Most of my stories were bits of stories I had read, rehashed. Pure plagiarism and good memory.

I have always thought that imagination was conjuring upsomething new. That is why young children are good at it, because they have less life experience and knowledge of other stories to get in the way.

Technophobe23 said:

Hints of the Triad - "lacks imagination", same as "lacks empathy". What a load of rubbish.

Asks you to try to create a story round some objects or a children's picture book story

It is a crying shame that this is the best we can expect from some professionals.

If you don't have good social referencing you may not acquire the thought processes associated with children's and young people's interactive games.

Doesn't mean you don't have imagination. Just you don't respond to conventional stimuli for imagination found amongst more social individuals.

But the intense focus and interests of people on the spectrum must display elabotrate imagination - just it is not socially based

Professional grasp of autism is an utter disgrace.