3 ms·

Is there any evidence that they have different underlying causes or are otherwise fundamentally distinct rather than one simply being an extreme case of the oth

by rntz 10y ago

Is there any evidence that they have different underlying causes or are otherwise fundamentally distinct rather than one simply being an extreme case of the other? (Honest question; I'm not familiar with the literature here.) Or, even if they were in some sense fundamentally the same, is your argument that their effects are so practically different that they ought to be called by distinct names anyway?

mercer 10y ago
Asperger's used to be classified separately but is now considered part of the autism spectrum. That said, I don't think this was done primarily because of a consensus over there being just one 'fundamental type' of autism. As I understand it, there isn't even a consensus on any theory of what autism fundamentally is. Some theories try to explain the social issues as a lack of Theory Of mind, but these theories don't cover the many other symptoms typical of autism. One more recent theory ('Intense Worlds') does present a 'fundamental' explanation for all/most symptoms, but AFAIK it's not well-accepted or supported by evidence (yet), and the fact that it explains so much is also considered a drawback (too vague / overfitting / whatever the term is). > Or, even if they were in some sense fundamentally the same, is your argument that their effects are so practically different that they ought to be called by distinct names anyway? I've noticed that there seems to be a movement in treatment approach that focuses on treating individual symptoms without focusing too much on the overarching 'labels'. In my experience it's been a very nice, down to earth approach, and it strikes me as more measurable too. This approach strikes me as particularly useful for autism because there's so much variation between different autists and the particular symptoms they exhibit.

3 ms·

Is there any evidence that they have different underlying causes or are otherwise fundamentally distinct rather than one simply being an extreme case of the oth

by rntz 10y ago

mercer 10y ago
Asperger's used to be classified separately but is now considered part of the autism spectrum. That said, I don't think this was done primarily because of a consensus over there being just one 'fundamental type' of autism. As I understand it, there isn't even a consensus on any theory of what autism fundamentally is. Some theories try to explain the social issues as a lack of Theory Of mind, but these theories don't cover the many other symptoms typical of autism. One more recent theory ('Intense Worlds') does present a 'fundamental' explanation for all/most symptoms, but AFAIK it's not well-accepted or supported by evidence (yet), and the fact that it explains so much is also considered a drawback (too vague / overfitting / whatever the term is). > Or, even if they were in some sense fundamentally the same, is your argument that their effects are so practically different that they ought to be called by distinct names anyway? I've noticed that there seems to be a movement in treatment approach that focuses on treating individual symptoms without focusing too much on the overarching 'labels'. In my experience it's been a very nice, down to earth approach, and it strikes me as more measurable too. This approach strikes me as particularly useful for autism because there's so much variation between different autists and the particular symptoms they exhibit.