Asperger's doesn't particularly exist. IIRC it is being removed from the DSM-V; 99.5% of sufferers are self-diagnosed with information that they found on the internet, and sometimes have confirmed with helpful psychiatrists.
The criteria seems to be that one has a terrible personality, is simultaneously high-maintenance and inconsiderate of others, thinks very highly of one's self, but lacks any other connection with the autism spectrum.
You're mixing in two different things, self diagnosis according to Internet reading, and professional diagnosis which use the DSM for insurance payments. Don't confuse them like this. Professional diagnosis may well be growing faster than you like, but the same is true for prison population which is also based on a very good but imperfect system (juries and trials).
I'm not even sure how to respond to this. For one, there's a distinct difference between Asperger's and High-Functioning Autistics, and while they may have taken it out of the DSM, it doesn't change the fact that these changes in characteristics exist and when diagnosed correctly, can still identify the subset of issues each are facing and how to respond/deal with those issues.
Secondly, people forget that autism, as a spectrum, is being studied further and further and as such, we are finding more reason to believe that it actually does affect a lot of people -- not necessarily that it is grossly misdiagnosed. Furthermore, the number of doctors knowledgeable enough in diagnosing someone at any range of the spectrum is low. As we learn more about it, we are seeing people their 20s, 30s, some even well into their 50s and 60s finally being diagnosed because they were able to adapt well-enough that it seemed nothing was wrong on the outset.
Similarly, females on the spectrum are also often misdiagnosed with anxiety, depression or eating disorders because of how it affects them, and therefore we think that autism primarily affects men even though that may not be the case at all. Society tends to prime girls at a young age to be more sociable (but doesn't frown upon them being shy either), so they are often able hide under the radar, but continue to suffer in other ways. I'm on the spectrum myself, and I've had doctors laugh at me for wanting to be tested because "I 'look' and 'act' 'normal'," to them, which is incredibly insulting. Additionally, those that are trained to detect autism are often pediatricians, not general practitioners that aren't taking into consideration the adult patient's learned-skills over time. This is often what leads people to try to figure out what is wrong with them through other means, and I don't think we should be going around telling other people who they are and aren't. There will always be hypochondriacs, but this is one of those situations where I feel like we should try to take people seriously before we write them off entirely.
So thanks for the armchair neuropsychology, but nobody needs it; we still have a lot to learn.
The DSM isn't armchair psychology, it surveys accepted professional practice. The rest is just my personal opinion: terrible personality isn't commonly considered a medical diagnosis, so I don't think I need a license.
> The criteria seems to be that one has a terrible
> personality, is simultaneously high-maintenance and
> inconsiderate of others, thinks very highly of one's self
The criteria seems to be that one has a terrible personality, is simultaneously high-maintenance and inconsiderate of others, thinks very highly of one's self, but lacks any other connection with the autism spectrum.