4 ms·

I see nothing here to suggest that the author is missing the point of “a gradient”; on the contrary, she knows what it is, that it is not what is meant by “spec

I see nothing here to suggest that the author is missing the point of “a gradient”; on the contrary, she knows what it is, that it is not what is meant by “spectrum” here, and argues persuasively that mistaking the latter for the former causes misunderstanding. Here, she is giving an example of how this can happen: “My doctor recently referred to my autism is “mild.” I gently pointed to my psychologist’s report which stated that my executive dysfunction as being greater than 99th percentile. “”That means I am less functional than 99% of people. Does that seem mild to you?” I asked her. “But, you see, I can speak, and I can look people in the eyes, so they see my autism as “mild.” My autism affects those around me mildly but my autism does affect me severely.“

_y5hn 5y ago
A typical spectrum is the exact same thing as gradients of frequencies. The difference is just in interpretation and actionable mitigations. You can operate on both levels of such a model, for different purposes and effects.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  This is not a typical spectrum in the sense you describe. As far as I know, There is no plausible model in which the various categories of the spectrum are explicable as different values of a single continuous variable. Attempting to apply this model seems to be part of the problem.
  - _y5hn 5y ago
    You can say everyone is unique (unique categories), but you can also say everybody is human (one category). Being gradients/spectrum _is_ the model. All models about life will be flawed, unprecise and pretty shallow. It's important to be aware of and avoid misuse and misapplications of such models. This doesn't mean you can never use any model. They are tools, and we must have awareness of their outcomes and shortcomings. Even simple models can have very complex outcomes in a complex world, or when dealing with individuals (singletons) vs populations (accumulations).
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      By writing “gradients/spectrum” you are begging the question here, assuming that the spectrum is a categorical variable with an underlying gradient, analogously to the color spectrum’s basis in frequency. What you have not said, so far, is what psychological variable you regard as analogous to frequency.
      - _y5hn 5y ago
        Sure. By going into the perception part of frequency, or even psychology, we go more into the subjective. We can start to see colors, or types/groups of people's minds. This can help with understanding differences, in groups, types or categories. It's all tools, and such categorization might help with differences that people struggle with. For example, more specific struggles than autism/non-autism alone. But then again, you can also find commonalities even on the individual level, that might help universally. So it's all multiple models and some of them operating in multiple dimensions. Inventing new models doesn't automatically discard other models. My point is simply, instead of looking at it as either this OR that, the models are that model AND that model too, while trying to recognize strength and weaknesses of our biases. When confronted with new information, we tend to discard old information, as if it's all unapplicable or not politically correct. That's perhaps psychology too :) Perhaps, linked to the competitive nature of humans.
        mannykannot 5y ago
        These are all generalities. We still have not seen any explanation of what psychological gradient you think underlies the autism spectrum specifically :)
        _y5hn 5y ago
        The article touches on it. This TEDx talk goes into more depth below the "gradient" level: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2dhWWUyQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2dhWWUyQ4 I won't claim to be an expert how it differentiates across "groups" of people. I do care a bit about keeping an open mind and try to see multiple perspectives at the same time though. But yes, that often makes it more general and less powerful (one-sided).
emodendroket 5y ago
The argument is clear but not entirely persuasive. There are a lot of people on the spectrum who have no hope of expressing their thoughts in an essay like this or ever living independently. Whether we call it “mild” or “high-functioning” or some other choice along the euphemism treadmill, it does not change the fact that these people have very different prospects.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I may have misunderstood your point here, but I do not think the author intended to suggest that her situation was in any way a worst case, or to minimize the difficulties faced by others. On the other hand, I do think she was pointing out that terms like high or low functioning are not categories of the spectrum, and nor are they the sort of issue it is intended to differentiate between.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    I took the point of the piece to be that thinking about it in terms of "best" or "worst" cases was itself wrongheaded, and that there's no meaningful distinction you could make between "high" or "low" function. Assuming that's what she meant, I don't agree.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      I feel that it is implicit in the passage I quoted that the author sees such a distinction, but that her doctor was mistaken in assuming that it is determined by the spectrum diagnosis.
blitzar 5y ago
> ”That means I am less functional than 99% of people. Does that seem mild to you?” I asked her. If you are less functional than 99% of people, but more functional than 99% of autistic people, one might consider that mild autism yes.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mannykannot 5y ago
  Arguably one might, but one would be being uselessly tendentious in so doing.

_y5hn 5y ago

A typical spectrum is the exact same thing as gradients of frequencies. The difference is just in interpretation and actionable mitigations. You can operate on both levels of such a model, for different purposes and effects.

mannykannot 5y ago
This is not a typical spectrum in the sense you describe. As far as I know, There is no plausible model in which the various categories of the spectrum are explicable as different values of a single continuous variable. Attempting to apply this model seems to be part of the problem.
- _y5hn 5y ago
  You can say everyone is unique (unique categories), but you can also say everybody is human (one category). Being gradients/spectrum _is_ the model. All models about life will be flawed, unprecise and pretty shallow. It's important to be aware of and avoid misuse and misapplications of such models. This doesn't mean you can never use any model. They are tools, and we must have awareness of their outcomes and shortcomings. Even simple models can have very complex outcomes in a complex world, or when dealing with individuals (singletons) vs populations (accumulations).
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    By writing “gradients/spectrum” you are begging the question here, assuming that the spectrum is a categorical variable with an underlying gradient, analogously to the color spectrum’s basis in frequency. What you have not said, so far, is what psychological variable you regard as analogous to frequency.
    - _y5hn 5y ago
      Sure. By going into the perception part of frequency, or even psychology, we go more into the subjective. We can start to see colors, or types/groups of people's minds. This can help with understanding differences, in groups, types or categories. It's all tools, and such categorization might help with differences that people struggle with. For example, more specific struggles than autism/non-autism alone. But then again, you can also find commonalities even on the individual level, that might help universally. So it's all multiple models and some of them operating in multiple dimensions. Inventing new models doesn't automatically discard other models. My point is simply, instead of looking at it as either this OR that, the models are that model AND that model too, while trying to recognize strength and weaknesses of our biases. When confronted with new information, we tend to discard old information, as if it's all unapplicable or not politically correct. That's perhaps psychology too :) Perhaps, linked to the competitive nature of humans.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        These are all generalities. We still have not seen any explanation of what psychological gradient you think underlies the autism spectrum specifically :)
        _y5hn 5y ago
        The article touches on it. This TEDx talk goes into more depth below the "gradient" level: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2dhWWUyQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2dhWWUyQ4 I won't claim to be an expert how it differentiates across "groups" of people. I do care a bit about keeping an open mind and try to see multiple perspectives at the same time though. But yes, that often makes it more general and less powerful (one-sided).

emodendroket 5y ago

The argument is clear but not entirely persuasive. There are a lot of people on the spectrum who have no hope of expressing their thoughts in an essay like this or ever living independently. Whether we call it “mild” or “high-functioning” or some other choice along the euphemism treadmill, it does not change the fact that these people have very different prospects.

mannykannot 5y ago
I may have misunderstood your point here, but I do not think the author intended to suggest that her situation was in any way a worst case, or to minimize the difficulties faced by others. On the other hand, I do think she was pointing out that terms like high or low functioning are not categories of the spectrum, and nor are they the sort of issue it is intended to differentiate between.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I took the point of the piece to be that thinking about it in terms of "best" or "worst" cases was itself wrongheaded, and that there's no meaningful distinction you could make between "high" or "low" function. Assuming that's what she meant, I don't agree.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I feel that it is implicit in the passage I quoted that the author sees such a distinction, but that her doctor was mistaken in assuming that it is determined by the spectrum diagnosis.

blitzar 5y ago

> ”That means I am less functional than 99% of people. Does that seem mild to you?” I asked her. If you are less functional than 99% of people, but more functional than 99% of autistic people, one might consider that mild autism yes.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mannykannot 5y ago
Arguably one might, but one would be being uselessly tendentious in so doing.