5 ms·
Criminal is a strong and unwarranted claim. TFA posits the 'the numbers keep rising' - that's not in contention so you can't use it as a counterpoint - though
by Jedd 4y ago
Criminal is a strong and unwarranted claim.
TFA posits the 'the numbers keep rising' - that's not in contention so you can't use it as a counterpoint - though the idea that it's attributable to diagnostic changes isn't new.
I'm sure I read about this in one of the Freakonomics books, but can only find this reference to a paper they discussed on their site 15 years ago:
https://freakonomics.com/2007/06/revisiting-the-autism-epidemic/ https://freakonomics.com/2007/06/revisiting-the-autism-epide...
In terms of credible causes, changes (in DSM) to diagnostics, and incentives around the subject have changed, and that seems to be a sufficient cause to explain the numbers.
Do you have other credible causes in mind, with some citations to accompany?
- AzzieElbab 4y agoI stand by “criminal”. We live in societies that incentive us to have fewer kids and to have them later in live(considered risk factor for autism ). In the meanwhile pediatrics are not keeping up. So saying all is fine is criminally counter-productive.
- Jedd 4y agoI don't think anyone's asserting everything is fine. To me it read that TFA is saying the rise is numbers is a consequence of changes in diagnostics. You asserted criminality originally because numbers are rising (not in contention) and credible causes have been identified - are you saying rises in numbers are purely due to trend of later-age in parents, or are there additional? Do those explanations cover younger parent cohorts that also see a rise in diagnosed cases?