5 ms·

"behavioral impairment" is a social judgement, not a biological flaw. Homosexuality was long considered a psychiatric disorder, so be careful putting blind fai

"behavioral impairment" is a social judgement, not a biological flaw. Homosexuality was long considered a psychiatric disorder, so be careful putting blind faith in psychiatric judgements.

rsstack 6y ago
Many people with ASD (not all! not most! but many) can barely survive on their own. I'm not talking about "too shy to buy groceries". ASD should be prevented medically. That is not to say people with ASD aren't often amazing people or that their lives aren't worth it, but minimizing the rate at which ASD occurs will mean far fewer people will suffer in the future from something that is (hopefully) preventable.
- SargeZT 6y ago
  Barely can be an understatement. My youngest sister is severely autistic and absolutely couldn't survive without a strong support system, both from the state and our family. She lives in a group home with 19 other people in a similar state. With that said, due to my exposure to autism through my sister, I have seen cases that are far worse than hers. Completely non-verbal people with autism, those who experience panic attacks when they see an unfamiliar person, the list goes on. We tend to focus on the lighter end of the spectrum, where people can lead functional and fulfilling lives. Most people don't see the other side of the spectrum, where autism is devastating to every single person involved.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > We tend to focus on the lighter end of the spectrum, where people can lead functional and fulfilling lives. There's a form of survivorship bias here: the greater the degree of impairment, the less broad social contacts the person is likely to have, so on average most people's experience is going to have people who have less severe impairments overrepresented compared to their relative frequency among those with the diagnosis. And I'm sure most people that think about the issue recognize that on an intellectual level, but it's still difficult to tune out the effect that has on one’s “gut feeling” about the subject.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- tokai 6y ago
  I worked with a guy that died from malnutrition. We worked hard on getting enough food in him, but he had so many issues related to food and eating that his body eventually capitulated. He was a really sweet dude, we talked a lot about computers. His diagnosis didn't feel like a social judgement. The impairment literally killed him even though he wanted to live.
- microtherion 6y ago
  > Many people with ASD (not all! not most! but many) can barely survive on their own That part is absolutely true. > ASD should be prevented medically. But this part (apart from the fact that it's not currently feasible) is just too categoric. I certainly know several autistic people who would prefer to get rid of their autism, if given a choice. But I know plenty on the milder end of the spectrum who would not — e.g. because their distress in social situations is outweighed by the benefits conveyed by an increased ability to focus.
iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
I feel obliged to point out that when people try and equate behavior that is completely within the bounds of what society considers normal (being gay) with what can be a crippling and life affecting condition, it does nobody a service. Anymore than e.g. saying red hair used to be a sign of weakness, outdated views have no bearing on this discussion. Just because outdated views once existed and that normal behavior is now normal does not mean that we shouldn't label impairments as such in order to try and understand and help those affected by them. Edit: very interested in feedback on why this either rubbed some people the wrong way or was perceived as a negative contribution to the discussion
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  > completely within the bounds of what society considers normal (being gay) Feedback at your request - This rubbed me the wrong way because homosexuality was classed as a disorder in my lifetime. (And that has an impact on me, still today - and it is still used as justification for criminalisation in 72 countries). So, there is fair reason to equate them. If we were having this discussion in 1973, would you be saying "it does nobody a service to see homosexuality as normal"? Because a large proportion of psychiatrists and people were saying that. What makes those people (in the past) wrong to say that, while you (in the present) are right to say this?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> "behavioral impairment" is a social judgement, not a biological flaw. Yes, pretty much all of modern psychiatric diagnosis are explicitly diagnosing a combination of inability to succeed in the concrete social conditions one finds oneself in combined with concurrent behavioral or other symptoms, not “biological flaws”. (Which, incidentally, would also be subjective judgments; biological features are objective, that an objective feature is a flaw is a subjective judgement call.)
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  There are a great many psychiatric disorders that highly correlate with the arbitrary definitions of success used to justify that those that correlate negatively are to be called “disorders”. It's not even about success in society; it's simply about whether the psychiatric authority considers it undesirable, and in want of eradication. Drapetomania even existed, which had nothing to do with success. The authority simply considered it undesirable that slaves fled. Many behaviors that correlate very negatively with success are not considered mental disorders, for they the authority considers them desirable. And of course, it's an entirely circular argument. There are also some disorders that correlate very negatively with success and thus called disorders, but the disorder is more or less “not caring about success”. — there are disorders characterized by the subject's indifference how he is socially perceived.

"behavioral impairment" is a social judgement, not a biological flaw. Homosexuality was long considered a psychiatric disorder, so be careful putting blind faith in psychiatric judgements.

rsstack 6y ago

Many people with ASD (not all! not most! but many) can barely survive on their own. I'm not talking about "too shy to buy groceries". ASD should be prevented medically. That is not to say people with ASD aren't often amazing people or that their lives aren't worth it, but minimizing the rate at which ASD occurs will mean far fewer people will suffer in the future from something that is (hopefully) preventable.

SargeZT 6y ago
Barely can be an understatement. My youngest sister is severely autistic and absolutely couldn't survive without a strong support system, both from the state and our family. She lives in a group home with 19 other people in a similar state. With that said, due to my exposure to autism through my sister, I have seen cases that are far worse than hers. Completely non-verbal people with autism, those who experience panic attacks when they see an unfamiliar person, the list goes on. We tend to focus on the lighter end of the spectrum, where people can lead functional and fulfilling lives. Most people don't see the other side of the spectrum, where autism is devastating to every single person involved.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > We tend to focus on the lighter end of the spectrum, where people can lead functional and fulfilling lives. There's a form of survivorship bias here: the greater the degree of impairment, the less broad social contacts the person is likely to have, so on average most people's experience is going to have people who have less severe impairments overrepresented compared to their relative frequency among those with the diagnosis. And I'm sure most people that think about the issue recognize that on an intellectual level, but it's still difficult to tune out the effect that has on one’s “gut feeling” about the subject.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
tokai 6y ago
I worked with a guy that died from malnutrition. We worked hard on getting enough food in him, but he had so many issues related to food and eating that his body eventually capitulated. He was a really sweet dude, we talked a lot about computers. His diagnosis didn't feel like a social judgement. The impairment literally killed him even though he wanted to live.
microtherion 6y ago
> Many people with ASD (not all! not most! but many) can barely survive on their own That part is absolutely true. > ASD should be prevented medically. But this part (apart from the fact that it's not currently feasible) is just too categoric. I certainly know several autistic people who would prefer to get rid of their autism, if given a choice. But I know plenty on the milder end of the spectrum who would not — e.g. because their distress in social situations is outweighed by the benefits conveyed by an increased ability to focus.

iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago

I feel obliged to point out that when people try and equate behavior that is completely within the bounds of what society considers normal (being gay) with what can be a crippling and life affecting condition, it does nobody a service. Anymore than e.g. saying red hair used to be a sign of weakness, outdated views have no bearing on this discussion. Just because outdated views once existed and that normal behavior is now normal does not mean that we shouldn't label impairments as such in order to try and understand and help those affected by them. Edit: very interested in feedback on why this either rubbed some people the wrong way or was perceived as a negative contribution to the discussion

throwaway2245 6y ago
> completely within the bounds of what society considers normal (being gay) Feedback at your request - This rubbed me the wrong way because homosexuality was classed as a disorder in my lifetime. (And that has an impact on me, still today - and it is still used as justification for criminalisation in 72 countries). So, there is fair reason to equate them. If we were having this discussion in 1973, would you be saying "it does nobody a service to see homosexuality as normal"? Because a large proportion of psychiatrists and people were saying that. What makes those people (in the past) wrong to say that, while you (in the present) are right to say this?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> "behavioral impairment" is a social judgement, not a biological flaw. Yes, pretty much all of modern psychiatric diagnosis are explicitly diagnosing a combination of inability to succeed in the concrete social conditions one finds oneself in combined with concurrent behavioral or other symptoms, not “biological flaws”. (Which, incidentally, would also be subjective judgments; biological features are objective, that an objective feature is a flaw is a subjective judgement call.)

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
There are a great many psychiatric disorders that highly correlate with the arbitrary definitions of success used to justify that those that correlate negatively are to be called “disorders”. It's not even about success in society; it's simply about whether the psychiatric authority considers it undesirable, and in want of eradication. Drapetomania even existed, which had nothing to do with success. The authority simply considered it undesirable that slaves fled. Many behaviors that correlate very negatively with success are not considered mental disorders, for they the authority considers them desirable. And of course, it's an entirely circular argument. There are also some disorders that correlate very negatively with success and thus called disorders, but the disorder is more or less “not caring about success”. — there are disorders characterized by the subject's indifference how he is socially perceived.