17 ms·

You mention people you consider neurotypical who were studying hard science subjects. I wonder whether they might, all the same, be quite field independent -- t

by theoh 9y ago

You mention people you consider neurotypical who were studying hard science subjects. I wonder whether they might, all the same, be quite field independent -- this is a trait that analytical people often have, without it putting them on an autism spectrum. The visual test in the blog post is actually a field dependence test: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-1698-3_1726 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1... What I'm getting at is that there are broader, non-clinical variations in cognitive style that complicate the notion of neurotypicality. Anyone studying science is unlikely to be at the extreme field dependent end of the scale. So part of the imbalance may rest on real but non-clinically significant cognitive differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_dependence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_dependence

sudosteph 9y ago
Great links! But I'm confused by the definition of "autism" that you're using. I'm referring to the DSM-V defined "autism spectrum disorder". In my comment, NT refers to "person not meeting criteria for DSM-V autism spectrum and not diagnosed as such". The field dependence test is interesting, but does not replace a actual diagnosis by an expert as far as I can tell. While I can accept "most autistic people do well on the test " (it was pretty instant for me), I'm not convinced that a strong performance by someone who does not meet the criteria for autism spectrum disorder is proof that the person in question is actually somewhat autistic. Maybe there are other factors that make someone good at recognizing it? And even if it was a good indicator, there is no guarantee that the 4:1 sex imbalance in diagnosed autism spectrum disorder translates to an equivalent imbalance in high-performing non-autistic-diagnosed (but hypothetically still autism spectrum by field dependence criteria) people. Would love to see some studies though.

by theoh 9y ago

sudosteph 9y ago

Great links! But I'm confused by the definition of "autism" that you're using. I'm referring to the DSM-V defined "autism spectrum disorder". In my comment, NT refers to "person not meeting criteria for DSM-V autism spectrum and not diagnosed as such". The field dependence test is interesting, but does not replace a actual diagnosis by an expert as far as I can tell. While I can accept "most autistic people do well on the test " (it was pretty instant for me), I'm not convinced that a strong performance by someone who does not meet the criteria for autism spectrum disorder is proof that the person in question is actually somewhat autistic. Maybe there are other factors that make someone good at recognizing it? And even if it was a good indicator, there is no guarantee that the 4:1 sex imbalance in diagnosed autism spectrum disorder translates to an equivalent imbalance in high-performing non-autistic-diagnosed (but hypothetically still autism spectrum by field dependence criteria) people. Would love to see some studies though.