An estimated 1% of the population currently (including those estimated as not diagnosed). Subject to rise as the DM-4/5 diagnostic criteria adapts.
Why does this fact of 1% of the population, mean the article is not viable?
Its hard to discuss since the article goes into considerable detail in opposition to your position, and you provide no detail beyond something paraphrased to it would be too difficult to do what was actually done successfully in the article.
I read the article; or at least a deep skim. Its examples, data, and arguments are pretty convincing. Lots of interesting data and citations provided in support of the theory.
If its a wrong theory, at least its well documented and interesting to think about and leads down interesting paths. Insert fairly obvious analogy to string theory.
That's not my understanding of what happened in DSM-5. My understanding is that Asperger's was removed as a separate diagnoses, as it now falls under Autistic Spectrum Disorder. The Wikipedia article seems to match my prior understanding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum), "The DSM-5 redefined the autism spectrum to encompass the previous (DSM-IV-TR) diagnoses of autism, Asperger syndrome, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), and childhood disintegrative disorder."
>The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity.
It was not removed - it was pushed into the "Umbrella" of "Autistic spectrum disorder" - why? Because there was no agreement as to what "High functioning autism" vs "Aspergers" was so different people diagnosing would put different people under different things.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that references to "Aspergers" were removed, but the diagnosis was basically just rolled into the greater "Autism spectrum" diagnosis.
