[TeaBrain]

I'd argue that having the descriptor of "asperger's" is much more useful than simply having a blanket descriptor of "autism". Low functioning people who are described as having autism, have very little in common with most of the high functioning type.

[seba_dos1]

> have very little in common

[citation needed]

[TeaBrain]

Do you really need a citation that a non-verbal, uncommunicative and non-independent "non-functional" traditional autism case is different from what would often be referred to as "Asperger's", which is common amongst software developers? Or take people like Elon Musk, Bill Gross and David Byrne, who all claim to have Asperger's, Bill and David having been formally diagnosed. These people, who achieved great success, and went through most of their lives without needing a diagnosis, are clearly nothing like the non-functional patients with clearer traditional cases of autism.

[seba_dos1]

First you claimed that they "have very little in common", and now merely that it "is different"... although in the next sentence you go back to "clearly nothing like"?? You seem quite undecided about what you actually want to say.

They're obviously "different", but there's plenty of reasons to believe that they have a lot in common, so going against established science should require some citations.