3 ms·

Fascinating how classic research from the 40s has been turned on its head completely. Would be interesting to see parent's response.

kkwteh 6y ago
I can think of some rather obvious reasons why Kanner would reframe his position publicly. It's just way too taboo. Kanner said that his believed autism had a genetic basis. I think it's a cop-out, as I don't think it makes any sense to blame genetics for the sudden appearance and dramatic rise of autism (and other childhood disorders) over the timespan of a few decades, even if genetics may certainly play a role in our susceptibility to these disorders. In any case, this is merely my suspicion. I'm not a researcher on this subject. The reason why I wrote that comment is because the stakes are high and the evidence is suggestive enough that this merits more of a discussion. Every parent has to decide how much attention their child gets. How many parents would do things differently if they knew the impact it could have? Reading the research definitely opened my eyes and changed my opinion on how to raise our child.
- Pyramus 6y ago
  From the article and his papers it seems he never changed his opinion, but that he was being misrepresented 180 degrees, and that you, in good faith, believed that was his position. I also don't see evidence he claimed it is only genetic reasons. What he hypothesised (supported by current scientific understanding according to [1]) was that both autism and parenting behaviours have a common cause (genetics) making it a prime example for correlation does not imply causation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
  - kkwteh 6y ago
    I won't quibble. The larger point is that there are potentially devastating consequences if a child fails to attach to a loving and attentive adult, and that this is not adequately discussed or appreciated in our society. This is a huge tail risk that every parent should understand. If you are a parent or ever become one, you have the information to look into it and come to your own conclusions.

kkwteh 6y ago

I can think of some rather obvious reasons why Kanner would reframe his position publicly. It's just way too taboo. Kanner said that his believed autism had a genetic basis. I think it's a cop-out, as I don't think it makes any sense to blame genetics for the sudden appearance and dramatic rise of autism (and other childhood disorders) over the timespan of a few decades, even if genetics may certainly play a role in our susceptibility to these disorders. In any case, this is merely my suspicion. I'm not a researcher on this subject. The reason why I wrote that comment is because the stakes are high and the evidence is suggestive enough that this merits more of a discussion. Every parent has to decide how much attention their child gets. How many parents would do things differently if they knew the impact it could have? Reading the research definitely opened my eyes and changed my opinion on how to raise our child.

Pyramus 6y ago
From the article and his papers it seems he never changed his opinion, but that he was being misrepresented 180 degrees, and that you, in good faith, believed that was his position. I also don't see evidence he claimed it is only genetic reasons. What he hypothesised (supported by current scientific understanding according to [1]) was that both autism and parenting behaviours have a common cause (genetics) making it a prime example for correlation does not imply causation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
- kkwteh 6y ago
  I won't quibble. The larger point is that there are potentially devastating consequences if a child fails to attach to a loving and attentive adult, and that this is not adequately discussed or appreciated in our society. This is a huge tail risk that every parent should understand. If you are a parent or ever become one, you have the information to look into it and come to your own conclusions.