5 ms·

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 th

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?

Aoyagi 10y ago
I'd think the amount dropped significantly once Asperger's was removed from the spectrum in DSM-5 (although this article seems to ignore that fact).
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  Asperger's was folded into the spectrum, and the actual condition was removed as a "standalone".
- RankingMember 10y ago
  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.
- scott_s 10y ago
  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 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."
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    >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. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Time for a new book.
    - scott_s 10y ago
      I like Steven Novella's nuanced take on this issue: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dsm-5-and-the-fight-for-the-heart-of-psychiatry/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dsm-5-and-the-fight-for...
- LifeQuestioner 10y ago
  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.
  - Aoyagi 10y ago
    Oh, so it was the other way around, basically? Well, thanks for correcting me.
Aelinsaar 10y ago
Because that 1% demonstrates a staggeringly wide range of intelligence, and there are enough to study without too many confounding factors.
- VLM 10y ago
  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.

Aoyagi 10y ago

I'd think the amount dropped significantly once Asperger's was removed from the spectrum in DSM-5 (although this article seems to ignore that fact).

Aelinsaar 10y ago
Asperger's was folded into the spectrum, and the actual condition was removed as a "standalone".
RankingMember 10y ago
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.
scott_s 10y ago
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 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."
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  >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. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Time for a new book.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    I like Steven Novella's nuanced take on this issue: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dsm-5-and-the-fight-for-the-heart-of-psychiatry/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dsm-5-and-the-fight-for...
LifeQuestioner 10y ago
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.
- Aoyagi 10y ago
  Oh, so it was the other way around, basically? Well, thanks for correcting me.

Aelinsaar 10y ago

Because that 1% demonstrates a staggeringly wide range of intelligence, and there are enough to study without too many confounding factors.

VLM 10y ago
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.