3 ms·

'Noisy' autistic brains seem better at certain tasks

15 points by zeristor 3y ago

zeristor 3y ago
Full title: “‘Noisy’ autistic brains seem better at certain tasks. Here’s why neuroaffirmative research matters”
constantcrying 3y ago
>Neuroaffirming research can examine the uniqueness and strengths of neurodivergence. So it is a non-science which exists to make people feel better about themselves, regardless of the actual facts? It is absurd to base research on the presupposition that the result has to have a positive impact on the self evaluation of the readers of the research. What even is this?
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
  Is it "affirmative" as in "must be positive" or "affirmative" as in "let's not start by assuming this condition is an unalloyed negative"?
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    Any science which tries to examine the "uniqueness and strength" can't be a science unless it also tries to examine the opposite in the same way. The fact that "field" cares about the value judgement of the result is the problem.
    - galacticbang 3y ago
      This makes no sense. You can identify traits and behaviors that society deems positive and those that it deems negative and use that information to form testable hypotheses. What’s more, one single test cannot evaluate multiple things. It must be focused. Historically, the research has started with the bias that autism is a negative. They just start with the bias that autism is a positive. That they call this out is not important as criticism on the current state of scientific research into autism, but it also allows the reviewers to better evaluate the research to ensure that this bias did not affect the structure or outcome of the research. It also may spur others to re-evaluate older results to see how the unspoken cultural bias that autism is a negative affected the structure, outcomes, and analysis of that research. You can’t take human bias out of scientific research, but that is why the scientific method is rigorous and why the review process exists. However, even then, if your reviewers are part of the same culture, cultural bias is still likely to creep in.
      - constantcrying 3y ago
        >What’s more, one single test cannot evaluate multiple things. It must be focused. Historically, the research has started with the bias that autism is a negative. They just start with the bias that autism is a positive. Both approaches are ridiculous. Maybe they should try doing science and not set up experiments to provoke an outcome? This is why the replication crisis exists.
- delecti 3y ago
  It sounds like you're starting from exactly the same bias that these researchers are attempting to correct. From earlier in that same paragraph: > A shift from the medical to a more social model has also seen advocacy for it to be reframed as a difference, rather than a disorder or deficit If you start from the presumption that autism is a disorder, you're more likely to identify difficulties, and less likely to identify strengths. And indeed, this article focuses on some strengths they identified by taking a different angle. And the very next sentence after the one you quoted very clearly acknowledges that the strength the article discusses is directly related to a difficulty that autistic people have: > Psychology and perception researcher David Simmons and colleagues at the University of Glasgow were the first to suggest that while high neural noise is generally a disadvantage in autism, it can sometimes provide benefits due to a phenomenon called stochastic resonance.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    If you replace the bias that it is "bad" with the bias that it is "good" you have achieved exactly nothing. Medicine considers disorders which are "bad" because it wants to help. A disorder which people do not consider "bad" is automatically ignored by medicine.
    - dwaltrip 3y ago
      All research makes assumptions. You can’t test everything about the universe in each experiment. The nice thing about science is that others can then challenge those assumptions, if they think it’s worthwhile.
      - constantcrying 3y ago
        If your research assumes the outcome of the research it isn't research, it is wish fulfillment. It is totally disingenuous to claim I am "against science making assumptions". Obviously. Why do you feel the need to lie like that?
        3y ago
- jdgoesmarching 3y ago
  It’s equally absurd that nearly all research to this point presupposes that any neurodivergence is purely a medical disorder. Ironically, this belief that science is purely objective and exists outside a social framework is how we arrive at these types of unquestioned faulty assumptions. That’s how we get homosexuality still being in the DSM as a mental disorder until the 70s. “Maybe autistic people have some unique strengths” is hardly the most biased or ridiculous hypothesis in modern academia.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    Completely disingenuous. Read the quote, it is about assuming that neurodivergent people need science to find out why it actually is a good thing. A total farce.
    - declaredapple 3y ago
      I think there's clear social impairment. Making friends is harder and it takes more "manual" effort to socialize "effectively". However much of this social impairment may or may not be a real problem. "special interests" and "obsessing over one topic" is an impairment in social scenerios, but can be extremely beneficial for tasks related to that special interest.
      - constantcrying 3y ago
        And?
olesya1979 3y ago
[flagged]
ddmf 3y ago
> It is important to note we did not include clinically diagnosed autistic participants Nothing about us without us.

15 points by zeristor 3y ago

Full title: “‘Noisy’ autistic brains seem better at certain tasks. Here’s why neuroaffirmative research matters”

>Neuroaffirming research can examine the uniqueness and strengths of neurodivergence. So it is a non-science which exists to make people feel better about themselves, regardless of the actual facts? It is absurd to base research on the presupposition that the result has to have a positive impact on the self evaluation of the readers of the research. What even is this?

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
Is it "affirmative" as in "must be positive" or "affirmative" as in "let's not start by assuming this condition is an unalloyed negative"?
- constantcrying 3y ago
  Any science which tries to examine the "uniqueness and strength" can't be a science unless it also tries to examine the opposite in the same way. The fact that "field" cares about the value judgement of the result is the problem.
  - galacticbang 3y ago
    This makes no sense. You can identify traits and behaviors that society deems positive and those that it deems negative and use that information to form testable hypotheses. What’s more, one single test cannot evaluate multiple things. It must be focused. Historically, the research has started with the bias that autism is a negative. They just start with the bias that autism is a positive. That they call this out is not important as criticism on the current state of scientific research into autism, but it also allows the reviewers to better evaluate the research to ensure that this bias did not affect the structure or outcome of the research. It also may spur others to re-evaluate older results to see how the unspoken cultural bias that autism is a negative affected the structure, outcomes, and analysis of that research. You can’t take human bias out of scientific research, but that is why the scientific method is rigorous and why the review process exists. However, even then, if your reviewers are part of the same culture, cultural bias is still likely to creep in.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      >What’s more, one single test cannot evaluate multiple things. It must be focused. Historically, the research has started with the bias that autism is a negative. They just start with the bias that autism is a positive. Both approaches are ridiculous. Maybe they should try doing science and not set up experiments to provoke an outcome? This is why the replication crisis exists.
delecti 3y ago
It sounds like you're starting from exactly the same bias that these researchers are attempting to correct. From earlier in that same paragraph: > A shift from the medical to a more social model has also seen advocacy for it to be reframed as a difference, rather than a disorder or deficit If you start from the presumption that autism is a disorder, you're more likely to identify difficulties, and less likely to identify strengths. And indeed, this article focuses on some strengths they identified by taking a different angle. And the very next sentence after the one you quoted very clearly acknowledges that the strength the article discusses is directly related to a difficulty that autistic people have: > Psychology and perception researcher David Simmons and colleagues at the University of Glasgow were the first to suggest that while high neural noise is generally a disadvantage in autism, it can sometimes provide benefits due to a phenomenon called stochastic resonance.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  If you replace the bias that it is "bad" with the bias that it is "good" you have achieved exactly nothing. Medicine considers disorders which are "bad" because it wants to help. A disorder which people do not consider "bad" is automatically ignored by medicine.
  - dwaltrip 3y ago
    All research makes assumptions. You can’t test everything about the universe in each experiment. The nice thing about science is that others can then challenge those assumptions, if they think it’s worthwhile.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      If your research assumes the outcome of the research it isn't research, it is wish fulfillment. It is totally disingenuous to claim I am "against science making assumptions". Obviously. Why do you feel the need to lie like that?
      - 3y ago
jdgoesmarching 3y ago
It’s equally absurd that nearly all research to this point presupposes that any neurodivergence is purely a medical disorder. Ironically, this belief that science is purely objective and exists outside a social framework is how we arrive at these types of unquestioned faulty assumptions. That’s how we get homosexuality still being in the DSM as a mental disorder until the 70s. “Maybe autistic people have some unique strengths” is hardly the most biased or ridiculous hypothesis in modern academia.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  Completely disingenuous. Read the quote, it is about assuming that neurodivergent people need science to find out why it actually is a good thing. A total farce.
  - declaredapple 3y ago
    I think there's clear social impairment. Making friends is harder and it takes more "manual" effort to socialize "effectively". However much of this social impairment may or may not be a real problem. "special interests" and "obsessing over one topic" is an impairment in social scenerios, but can be extremely beneficial for tasks related to that special interest.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      And?

olesya1979 3y ago

[flagged]

ddmf 3y ago

> It is important to note we did not include clinically diagnosed autistic participants Nothing about us without us.