5 ms·

I know what you mean by "mild autism" but an article [1] that was recently discussed here [2] explains that "mild" vs. (say) "severe" does not quite capture the

I know what you mean by "mild autism" but an article [1] that was recently discussed here [2] explains that "mild" vs. (say) "severe" does not quite capture the nuance of the condition. Just pointing it out here because I found it interesting. 1: https://neuroclastic.com/its-a-spectrum-doesnt-mean-what-you-think/ https://neuroclastic.com/its-a-spectrum-doesnt-mean-what-you... 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29682917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29682917

alexvoda 5y ago
I remember when that article was trening on HN. I wonder how supported by data that article is, because if it is scientific it would be a wonderful quick and easy reply to people using autism and the spectrum for various arguments. Higher resolution (of concepts) is better.
guerrilla 5y ago
Weren't they just saying that the spectrum isn't a measure of severity, not that one can't talk about severity separately.
- Okx 5y ago
  The article also argues that severity of autism doesn't really make sense.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Alright, well I can't agree to that part. It all depends on your goals and some people are less able to accomplish their own goals than others due to those traits from the spectrum. There's no need for conceiving of utility to others to speak of grades of functionality.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Sure, but the point is that the thing that is ‘severe’ isn’t ‘autism’. An autistic person can be severely disabled, but the disability is itself a trait they only some autistic people have, so it doesn’t make sense to call the disability ‘autism’.
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        That doesn't seem like a useful place to draw the distinction. If someone has more autistic traits, they can be considered to be more autistic but not necessarily more disabled.
        zepto 5y ago
        It’s not clear why you are disagreeing with me. More autistic isn’t the same a ‘severe’.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        well you can have a benign tumor or one that is killing you, by that theory we should say the one that is killing you shouldn't really be called a tumor.
        zepto 5y ago
        No. You presuppose autism to be a disease, like a tumor.
        chucksta 5y ago
        I think you are showing bias, there is nothing in that comment to suggest the point of the comment is calling autism a disease. I see it as juxtaposing the same condition to different outcomes.
        zepto 5y ago
        The commenter uses cancer as an analog for autism. That implies disease. It’s not a neutral comparison, and it’s not my bias that introduced the concept of disease. If you think it’s possible to make the same point without reference to a disease, then by all means do so.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Well, if it leaves one unable to function effectively in society, or seriously hampered in that, it does make sense to differentiate from a less strong case.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - zeckalpha 5y ago
      That is a problem with society being severe, rather than the autistic individual
      - coldtea 5y ago
        Well, the society is what it is. If a person can't e.g. talk to someone to buy food, and the huge majority of people can, then they have a problem. That's not severe - it might be not perfectly accomondating, but it's reasonable. And of cource society does try to help in many ways (consulting, people being understanding, parents, school experts, medicine, etc)
Groxx 5y ago
yeah, autism is very much an "umbrella term". we define it by the effects, not by any identifiable causes. there are still broad "less impacted" and "more impacted" cases, arguably a spectrum, but it's very very much not linear. cystic fibrosis used to be under the (all-encompassing) umbrella "chronic fatigue" because, well, they were chronically fatigued. when its niche finally gained enough data to escape the umbrella, diagnosis and treatment greatly accelerated. of course, you'd expect that once a cause is identified, but umbrellas tend to contain many totally unrelated sub-causes with wildly different subtleties that just happen to fit a vague description that matches others.

alexvoda 5y ago

I remember when that article was trening on HN. I wonder how supported by data that article is, because if it is scientific it would be a wonderful quick and easy reply to people using autism and the spectrum for various arguments. Higher resolution (of concepts) is better.

guerrilla 5y ago

Weren't they just saying that the spectrum isn't a measure of severity, not that one can't talk about severity separately.

Okx 5y ago
The article also argues that severity of autism doesn't really make sense.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Alright, well I can't agree to that part. It all depends on your goals and some people are less able to accomplish their own goals than others due to those traits from the spectrum. There's no need for conceiving of utility to others to speak of grades of functionality.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Sure, but the point is that the thing that is ‘severe’ isn’t ‘autism’. An autistic person can be severely disabled, but the disability is itself a trait they only some autistic people have, so it doesn’t make sense to call the disability ‘autism’.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      That doesn't seem like a useful place to draw the distinction. If someone has more autistic traits, they can be considered to be more autistic but not necessarily more disabled.
      - zepto 5y ago
        It’s not clear why you are disagreeing with me. More autistic isn’t the same a ‘severe’.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      well you can have a benign tumor or one that is killing you, by that theory we should say the one that is killing you shouldn't really be called a tumor.
      - zepto 5y ago
        No. You presuppose autism to be a disease, like a tumor.
        chucksta 5y ago
        I think you are showing bias, there is nothing in that comment to suggest the point of the comment is calling autism a disease. I see it as juxtaposing the same condition to different outcomes.
        zepto 5y ago
        The commenter uses cancer as an analog for autism. That implies disease. It’s not a neutral comparison, and it’s not my bias that introduced the concept of disease. If you think it’s possible to make the same point without reference to a disease, then by all means do so.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Well, if it leaves one unable to function effectively in society, or seriously hampered in that, it does make sense to differentiate from a less strong case.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zeckalpha 5y ago
    That is a problem with society being severe, rather than the autistic individual
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Well, the society is what it is. If a person can't e.g. talk to someone to buy food, and the huge majority of people can, then they have a problem. That's not severe - it might be not perfectly accomondating, but it's reasonable. And of cource society does try to help in many ways (consulting, people being understanding, parents, school experts, medicine, etc)

Groxx 5y ago

yeah, autism is very much an "umbrella term". we define it by the effects, not by any identifiable causes. there are still broad "less impacted" and "more impacted" cases, arguably a spectrum, but it's very very much not linear. cystic fibrosis used to be under the (all-encompassing) umbrella "chronic fatigue" because, well, they were chronically fatigued. when its niche finally gained enough data to escape the umbrella, diagnosis and treatment greatly accelerated. of course, you'd expect that once a cause is identified, but umbrellas tend to contain many totally unrelated sub-causes with wildly different subtleties that just happen to fit a vague description that matches others.