8 ms·

"Diagnoses of autism have risen dramatically over the past few decades, from an estimated one in 2500 children thirty years ago to one in 150 today." is one of

"Diagnoses of autism have risen dramatically over the past few decades, from an estimated one in 2500 children thirty years ago to one in 150 today." is one of the first lines of the article. If you are so smart, and only you are so smart, what environmental factor has increased that rapidly?

jat850 4y ago
Why not diagnosis over environment?
- danamit 4y ago
  While it can be argued for other things like ADHD, I doubt it can be argued for cases of severe autism.
  - cyphar 4y ago
    1. The quote says "diagnoses of autism" not "diagnoses of severe autism" so if the definition of autism has expanded over time due to improvements in our understanding of autism (which it has) the diagnosis argument is far more effective. 2. It is easier for children of poorer people to get an autism diagnosis now than it was 50 years ago, so even severe cases might not have shown up in the stats if the child was born to a poor family.
    - danamit 4y ago
      I meant it could explain some of it, but not the full 16x times. I am talking under the presumption that researchers today are aware are correcting for that fact that there is some selection bias (if that's what I can called) in stats.
danparsonson 4y ago
We're much better at diagnosing it than we used to be.
- amatecha 4y ago
  Agreed. I have a friend who has been autistic their entire life, but was only acknowledged/diagnosed in the past little while, in their 30's. Back when they were a little kid, it was interpreted as just being a challenging/picky/quirky child, nothing "diagnosis-worthy". If the medical system and society better understood autism back then, it would have been noticed and diagnosed back then. I have heard the same approximate story over and over.
- skissane 4y ago
  That’s disputed; another point of view is that “autism” is a label and we’ve increased the scope of that label to cover a lot of things which in the past were either given different labels or no label at all. There are a number of voices in the academic/professional community questioning the great and growing breadth of the “autism” label and the flimsiness of the scientific justification for its expansion (people such as Laurent Mottron, Lynn Waterhouse, Allen Frances)
  - Rury 4y ago
    This. I think the problem is simply we're over-diagnosing autism. Basically borderline people would've been considered normal in the past, but are now considered autistic. Frankly, the entirety of symptoms involved in diagnosis sounds subject to a person's opinion of what people's behavior should be vs shouldn't be. Since this line is hard for everyone to agree on, we've come up with degrees of autism, like "high functioning" autism such as Asperger's syndrome. I'd argue, it's only when it's obvious (i.e. the person is largely dependent) while having said symptoms, that they're autistic... Just because someone behave's abnormally socially, has peculiar interests, and/or has delayed abilities (unless extreme), isn't sufficient IMO. Additionally, two different doctors may end up giving different diagnoses.
    - sascha_sl 4y ago
      Autism (and ASD) should really not be seen as this essentialist "yes or no". There are degrees to which people, considered autistic or not by your favorite arbitrary standard, exhibit autistic traits. And those traits are not strictly inherently better or worse than neurotypical traits. The standard for consideration as disorder should be the same as with most psychiatric disorders: Not mere presence, but causing issues that need support. But at the same time, the people that are doing fine with autistic traits are no less autistic. (Also, Asperger's has ceased existing a while ago)
sascha_sl 4y ago
Maybe because it's easier to get a diagnosis now and parents are more inclined to get their children checked? The medical system is not unchanging over the years. This is the same kind of thoughtful question as "why are there so many more left-handed/gay/trans people than x years ago" - because social factors have changed visibility of these traits, not because they didn't exist.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
aidenn0 4y ago
Besides the obvious differences in diagnosis that others point out (my parents specifically had me screened, and both neuropsychologists said no, while every therapist I've seen as an adult says yes), there's some reasonably compelling evidence that assortive mating has a role, and don't less compelling evidence that parents being older at time of conception may play a role.

jat850 4y ago

Why not diagnosis over environment?

danamit 4y ago
While it can be argued for other things like ADHD, I doubt it can be argued for cases of severe autism.
- cyphar 4y ago
  1. The quote says "diagnoses of autism" not "diagnoses of severe autism" so if the definition of autism has expanded over time due to improvements in our understanding of autism (which it has) the diagnosis argument is far more effective. 2. It is easier for children of poorer people to get an autism diagnosis now than it was 50 years ago, so even severe cases might not have shown up in the stats if the child was born to a poor family.
  - danamit 4y ago
    I meant it could explain some of it, but not the full 16x times. I am talking under the presumption that researchers today are aware are correcting for that fact that there is some selection bias (if that's what I can called) in stats.

danparsonson 4y ago

We're much better at diagnosing it than we used to be.

amatecha 4y ago
Agreed. I have a friend who has been autistic their entire life, but was only acknowledged/diagnosed in the past little while, in their 30's. Back when they were a little kid, it was interpreted as just being a challenging/picky/quirky child, nothing "diagnosis-worthy". If the medical system and society better understood autism back then, it would have been noticed and diagnosed back then. I have heard the same approximate story over and over.
skissane 4y ago
That’s disputed; another point of view is that “autism” is a label and we’ve increased the scope of that label to cover a lot of things which in the past were either given different labels or no label at all. There are a number of voices in the academic/professional community questioning the great and growing breadth of the “autism” label and the flimsiness of the scientific justification for its expansion (people such as Laurent Mottron, Lynn Waterhouse, Allen Frances)
- Rury 4y ago
  This. I think the problem is simply we're over-diagnosing autism. Basically borderline people would've been considered normal in the past, but are now considered autistic. Frankly, the entirety of symptoms involved in diagnosis sounds subject to a person's opinion of what people's behavior should be vs shouldn't be. Since this line is hard for everyone to agree on, we've come up with degrees of autism, like "high functioning" autism such as Asperger's syndrome. I'd argue, it's only when it's obvious (i.e. the person is largely dependent) while having said symptoms, that they're autistic... Just because someone behave's abnormally socially, has peculiar interests, and/or has delayed abilities (unless extreme), isn't sufficient IMO. Additionally, two different doctors may end up giving different diagnoses.
  - sascha_sl 4y ago
    Autism (and ASD) should really not be seen as this essentialist "yes or no". There are degrees to which people, considered autistic or not by your favorite arbitrary standard, exhibit autistic traits. And those traits are not strictly inherently better or worse than neurotypical traits. The standard for consideration as disorder should be the same as with most psychiatric disorders: Not mere presence, but causing issues that need support. But at the same time, the people that are doing fine with autistic traits are no less autistic. (Also, Asperger's has ceased existing a while ago)

sascha_sl 4y ago

Maybe because it's easier to get a diagnosis now and parents are more inclined to get their children checked? The medical system is not unchanging over the years. This is the same kind of thoughtful question as "why are there so many more left-handed/gay/trans people than x years ago" - because social factors have changed visibility of these traits, not because they didn't exist.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

aidenn0 4y ago

Besides the obvious differences in diagnosis that others point out (my parents specifically had me screened, and both neuropsychologists said no, while every therapist I've seen as an adult says yes), there's some reasonably compelling evidence that assortive mating has a role, and don't less compelling evidence that parents being older at time of conception may play a role.