5 ms·

There's an observation I made a while ago: pretty much all people that I heard stating that they are "on the spectrum" were americans. Why is that? I never che

There's an observation I made a while ago: pretty much all people that I heard stating that they are "on the spectrum" were americans. Why is that? I never checked but I would be surprised if the prevalence is higher than in other western countries. So what is it? Is it better diagnosed or just wrong (wrong diagnosis, self-diagnosis, pidgeonholing bc it's cool to be non-average,...), or maybe there is an issue that people in Europe wouldn't admit that they are on the spectrum and the prevalence is actually on the same level as in the US?

charliesharding 8y ago
Every human is "on the spectrum". The guidelines are extremely flimsy and if you've ever been stressed in a social situation you're essentially on the spectrum. In software engineering I hear it almost as a joking term of endearment.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  This sort of folk-argument is common vs depression, too, and works just as well - yet there is such a thing as clinical depression, and it's just a different animal than a reactive funk.
Spooky23 8y ago
It’s a hot diagnosis to get IEPs, and attracts a lot of attention in media. (Extra school services) That has made it part of the vernacular. It sucks for parents and adults with more serious spectrum disorders as getting the help you need is subject to constraints and schools try to push kids out who start to do well.
everdrive 8y ago
My impression is that not all cultures demand extroversion so much. See Japan, Austria, etc as some easy throw away examples. No one there is considered strange for being a bit stiff and un-expressive.
- bsder 8y ago
  Why would you mention Japan when the word hikikomori exists?
  - ionised 8y ago
    Hikikimori is not synonymous with introversion.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      Only "H implies I" is necessary for his statement to go through, not "H IFF I." Do you intend to say that recluses who are mostly interested in what other people are up to, or think, exist?
      - ionised 8y ago
        But he didn't make a statement, he asked a question about why the previous poster mentioned Japan with regards to extraversion when they have such a thing as hikikimori. By comparing the two he appears to be suggesting that hikikimori are just introverts, and as such proof that Japan does in fact have a cultural obsession with extraversion. It's not the assertion that Japan is a largely extraverted country that I took issue with (though I would say it is debatable), it was the (it seems to me) equating of introverts and hikikimori. I just wanted to point out that hikikimori are not introverts. Introversion is not a mental illness. Hikikimori may very well be, depending on the individual. I find that most people have a poor understanding of the introversion/extraversion spectrum and wrongly attribute things like social anxiety, timidity, lack of confidence agoraphobia etc. to introversion. Then again I may have misunderstood the point of his question and read too much into it.
    - bsder 8y ago
      > Hikikimori is not synonymous with introversion. Hikikomori sure as hell isn't extroversion. It's going to encompass a lot of introverts. And it is considered at the level of an offense against society. > No one there is considered strange for being a bit stiff and un-expressive. While you may not be expected to express your emotions, Japan has lots of public "rituals" that you WILL comply with or be labeled "strange". (The late evening salaryman drinking party, for example.) Maybe it's not "extroversion" toward strangers, but Japan is extremely uptight about your interactions within your "in-group". You will interact and you will show proper deference, etc. Attempting to duck these public rituals or not interacting at them with gusto will very quickly get you approbation. That's extremely hostile to introverts--probably more so than even the US where there are areas where people will simply leave you alone.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rjf72 8y ago
An acquaintance was involved in diagnosis of autism in US schools. There are autistics that clearly have something severely wrong with them. They flap their hand, frequently have extremely low IQs, and are not going to be able to effectively participate in society in any meaningful way. You don't need much any expertise to diagnose these people, other than to know that autism exists. Her expertise came in diagnosing people whom I think many would challenge the diagnosis of. It seemed anybody who exhibited less interest in social interactions or engaged awkwardly, and had 'quirks' was designated as being "on the spectrum." There are radically different different rates of diagnosis in the US by state. Though there are going to be some biases between states, this does seem at least reasonably strong evidence against any sort of genetic, environmental, or other factor. It's obvious that "autism", whatever it may be be, does exist but I think the sharp differences in diagnostic rates are probably simply down to the clinician choosing to diagnose (or not) people who do not clearly exhibit as autistic. It'd be interesting to have 10 clinicians each independently diagnose the same 1000 children. I expect you'd see some fairly sharp differences between them. Go figure, another aspect of psychology that's not replicable.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > There are radically different different rates of diagnosis in the US by state. Though there are going to be some biases between states, this does seem at least reasonably strong evidence against any sort of genetic, environmental, or other factor. It's not, since there are strong environmental differences between states, and probably significant differences in population genetics. There may be clinical biases, too, but there existence dish by open our the other factors.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  As noted elsewhere here by others, the clinical definition of Autism has radically changed recently, with Asperger's being folded in. This was done- in a vain attempt to increase funding for children with Asperger's, IMHO.
  - TheOperator 8y ago
    The entire DSM-V definition of autism was transparently guided by political concerns such as making sure nobody no longer qualified as disabled. Which fundamentally makes it an expansion of the prior definition. It's absolutely mind boggling how the bible of psychiatry can be so dominated by politics and have very little actual connection to replicable science or empirical data.

charliesharding 8y ago

Every human is "on the spectrum". The guidelines are extremely flimsy and if you've ever been stressed in a social situation you're essentially on the spectrum. In software engineering I hear it almost as a joking term of endearment.

Nomentatus 8y ago
This sort of folk-argument is common vs depression, too, and works just as well - yet there is such a thing as clinical depression, and it's just a different animal than a reactive funk.

Spooky23 8y ago

It’s a hot diagnosis to get IEPs, and attracts a lot of attention in media. (Extra school services) That has made it part of the vernacular. It sucks for parents and adults with more serious spectrum disorders as getting the help you need is subject to constraints and schools try to push kids out who start to do well.

everdrive 8y ago

My impression is that not all cultures demand extroversion so much. See Japan, Austria, etc as some easy throw away examples. No one there is considered strange for being a bit stiff and un-expressive.

bsder 8y ago
Why would you mention Japan when the word hikikomori exists?
- ionised 8y ago
  Hikikimori is not synonymous with introversion.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    Only "H implies I" is necessary for his statement to go through, not "H IFF I." Do you intend to say that recluses who are mostly interested in what other people are up to, or think, exist?
    - ionised 8y ago
      But he didn't make a statement, he asked a question about why the previous poster mentioned Japan with regards to extraversion when they have such a thing as hikikimori. By comparing the two he appears to be suggesting that hikikimori are just introverts, and as such proof that Japan does in fact have a cultural obsession with extraversion. It's not the assertion that Japan is a largely extraverted country that I took issue with (though I would say it is debatable), it was the (it seems to me) equating of introverts and hikikimori. I just wanted to point out that hikikimori are not introverts. Introversion is not a mental illness. Hikikimori may very well be, depending on the individual. I find that most people have a poor understanding of the introversion/extraversion spectrum and wrongly attribute things like social anxiety, timidity, lack of confidence agoraphobia etc. to introversion. Then again I may have misunderstood the point of his question and read too much into it.
  - bsder 8y ago
    > Hikikimori is not synonymous with introversion. Hikikomori sure as hell isn't extroversion. It's going to encompass a lot of introverts. And it is considered at the level of an offense against society. > No one there is considered strange for being a bit stiff and un-expressive. While you may not be expected to express your emotions, Japan has lots of public "rituals" that you WILL comply with or be labeled "strange". (The late evening salaryman drinking party, for example.) Maybe it's not "extroversion" toward strangers, but Japan is extremely uptight about your interactions within your "in-group". You will interact and you will show proper deference, etc. Attempting to duck these public rituals or not interacting at them with gusto will very quickly get you approbation. That's extremely hostile to introverts--probably more so than even the US where there are areas where people will simply leave you alone.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rjf72 8y ago

An acquaintance was involved in diagnosis of autism in US schools. There are autistics that clearly have something severely wrong with them. They flap their hand, frequently have extremely low IQs, and are not going to be able to effectively participate in society in any meaningful way. You don't need much any expertise to diagnose these people, other than to know that autism exists. Her expertise came in diagnosing people whom I think many would challenge the diagnosis of. It seemed anybody who exhibited less interest in social interactions or engaged awkwardly, and had 'quirks' was designated as being "on the spectrum." There are radically different different rates of diagnosis in the US by state. Though there are going to be some biases between states, this does seem at least reasonably strong evidence against any sort of genetic, environmental, or other factor. It's obvious that "autism", whatever it may be be, does exist but I think the sharp differences in diagnostic rates are probably simply down to the clinician choosing to diagnose (or not) people who do not clearly exhibit as autistic. It'd be interesting to have 10 clinicians each independently diagnose the same 1000 children. I expect you'd see some fairly sharp differences between them. Go figure, another aspect of psychology that's not replicable.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> There are radically different different rates of diagnosis in the US by state. Though there are going to be some biases between states, this does seem at least reasonably strong evidence against any sort of genetic, environmental, or other factor. It's not, since there are strong environmental differences between states, and probably significant differences in population genetics. There may be clinical biases, too, but there existence dish by open our the other factors.
Nomentatus 8y ago
As noted elsewhere here by others, the clinical definition of Autism has radically changed recently, with Asperger's being folded in. This was done- in a vain attempt to increase funding for children with Asperger's, IMHO.
- TheOperator 8y ago
  The entire DSM-V definition of autism was transparently guided by political concerns such as making sure nobody no longer qualified as disabled. Which fundamentally makes it an expansion of the prior definition. It's absolutely mind boggling how the bible of psychiatry can be so dominated by politics and have very little actual connection to replicable science or empirical data.