I’m sorry. I don’t understand your reply, but it was not directed at all toward your son. I didn’t happen to think Chuck’s comment was “ignorant”. I don’t happen to agree with certain “descriptive terms” we were discussing and if you think that makes me a quack, well, then that’s your right.

Charlie’s diagnosis has been “autism,” plain and simple.

I stand corrected. Clearly I used the wrong analogy and description to refer to differences in high vs low functioning autism. And the the accuracy and distinction you correctly describe speaks more directly to the possible utility of classification in helping us better understand differences in what may possibly be different types of autism. That was the intention of my original comment. Clearly in this thread people (myself included) have talked about 2 types of labels, one that refers to levels of functioning on a particular domain, and another type that is intended to describe possible different conditions (for example the debate over High functioning vs Asperger’s).

I apologize if I offended anyone. Nestor.

If you thought I was questioning my sons core with describing his condition you are flat wrong and I take offense even to the notion. We are talking about a descriptive way to describe his condition- to read into anything more really makes wonder who the “quack” really is…

Very occasionally, researchers get it wrong (I know of a few examples), but if you have read the research, you will know that “high” and “low-functioning” refer to snapshot intelligence (or developmental) levels as measured by specific instruments, not to autism “severity.”

We presented data last year at IMFAR showing that “severe” autism phenotypes were not associated with low intelligence. That is, “severity” was not associated with level of functioning (as in, “high” or “low functioning”).

And “high” and “low functioning” do not describe kinds of autistics. They describe ranges of scores on tests of intelligence (or developmental level).

Autistics who fall in the “low functioning” range on one instrument or at one time may fall into the “high functioning” range on another instrument or at a different time. Autistics’ intelligence (that is, our level of functioning) seems to be much more variable across time and instruments than in nonautistic populations.

Also, autistics in the “low functioning” range have performed better on some tasks than typical children matched on age (that is, of much higher measured intelligence or developmental level).

I don’t think the problem is “semantics.” The problem is accuracy. Accurate information is always good for autistics. Claiming that “high” and “low functioning” “most often are simply discriptors of the severity of specific symptoms” is simply false. So are many other unfounded assumptions about “high” and “low functioning.”