3 ms·

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

by _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).
        mannykannot 5y ago
        The article here is all about arguing against what you have been saying: its author argues that the autism spectrum is not "a typical spectrum [that] is the exact same thing as gradients of frequencies" - or a gradient of anything else, for that matter. This is, in fact, the main point of the article! Carrie Beckwith-Fellows' TED talk does not address this issue at all: she makes an analogy to the color spectrum, but there is no indication that this analogy extends to there being an underlying gradient analogous to frequency. Both author and speaker argue that even the conflation of the somewhat pop-sci gradient of high/low functioning with the spectrum is a misunderstanding! I think the important message from both people here is not that there is no gradient - of "functioning", stress, or something else - but that it is / they are largely orthogonal to the dimension plotted out by the spectrum's categorical values.
        _y5hn 5y ago
        At this point, I think we're just talking beside each other's points. My first post, as a reply to other posts, is just about spectrum and gradients, really being the same, but there's a duality between the continuous frequencies/gradients and the perceptions of colors. I'm being general, whereas you are pointing out problems with too general models (or aggregates for that matter). I don't disagree with that. To attempt to reply though: There doesn't need to be a psychological variable, there just need to be made one or more tests that scores aggregates. However, as the article and TEDx talk says, a number or two would not paint the whole picture of a complex socio-psychological issue.

by _y5hn 5y ago

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).
        mannykannot 5y ago
        The article here is all about arguing against what you have been saying: its author argues that the autism spectrum is not "a typical spectrum [that] is the exact same thing as gradients of frequencies" - or a gradient of anything else, for that matter. This is, in fact, the main point of the article! Carrie Beckwith-Fellows' TED talk does not address this issue at all: she makes an analogy to the color spectrum, but there is no indication that this analogy extends to there being an underlying gradient analogous to frequency. Both author and speaker argue that even the conflation of the somewhat pop-sci gradient of high/low functioning with the spectrum is a misunderstanding! I think the important message from both people here is not that there is no gradient - of "functioning", stress, or something else - but that it is / they are largely orthogonal to the dimension plotted out by the spectrum's categorical values.
        _y5hn 5y ago
        At this point, I think we're just talking beside each other's points. My first post, as a reply to other posts, is just about spectrum and gradients, really being the same, but there's a duality between the continuous frequencies/gradients and the perceptions of colors. I'm being general, whereas you are pointing out problems with too general models (or aggregates for that matter). I don't disagree with that. To attempt to reply though: There doesn't need to be a psychological variable, there just need to be made one or more tests that scores aggregates. However, as the article and TEDx talk says, a number or two would not paint the whole picture of a complex socio-psychological issue.