5 ms·

That's completely incorrect. Autism has clear physiological differences in the brain. It's not just a personality difference. People like to call themselves au

by m00x 2y ago

That's completely incorrect. Autism has clear physiological differences in the brain. It's not just a personality difference. People like to call themselves autistic when it's just social awkwardness, and some doctors might even improperly diagnose them, but these are separate from the condition. https://www.healthcentral.com/condition/autism/autism-brain-differences https://www.healthcentral.com/condition/autism/autism-brain-... This could help us prevent autism completely.

faeriechangling 2y ago
>People like to call themselves autistic when it's just social awkwardness, and some doctors might even improperly diagnose them, but these are separate from the condition. What makes such a diagnosis incorrect when various forms of social awkwardness satisfy criteria A and D of the diagnostic criteria [1], and all of the criteria for social pragmatic disorder[2]? In the DSM-V-TR era psychiatrists are instructed to not just judge somebody to not be autistic if they do not appear socially awkward, and to additionally ask if they find social interactions distressing, and observe them for longer in more naturalistic settings to find the deficit in social functioning[3] as part of a thus far continuously lowering diagnostic bar as to what is considered sufficient social awkwardness to be diagnosable. >Autism has clear physiological differences in the brain. Which physiological changes in the brain make you autistic, or put another way, which physiological changes in the brain must you lack to NOT be autistic? I've heard of any autism diagnosis's and self-diagnosis's and I've never heard of any of them being based on a brain scan and yet people go around calling others and themselves autistic. I've never heard of a diagnosis being lost or gained due to a brain scan. I've heard this insistence that we can infer the territory, the neurological conditions of peoples brains, from the map, the behaviourist diagnosis, and there may be a correlation but it can't be said that any given person with an autism diagnosis has any given specific neurological change. The only thing we test for IS behaviour, and infer biology from it. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_(pragmatic)_communication_disorder#Diagnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_(pragmatic)_communicati... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_new_diagnostic_criteria_for_autism/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_n...
- StressedDev 2y ago
  You cannot self-diagnose, and only a trained medical professional can diagnose autism. By trained medical professional, I mean an autism expert who is either a therapist (PHD, PsyD, LMFT, etc.) or a psychiatrist. Most people who use terms like autistic, bi-polar, sociopath, narcist, etc. are using the terms incorrectly. Also, I suspect you are correct that most ASD diagnoses do not use brain scans and rely on a trained professional's judgement and observations. That fact does not mean that autism does not exist or that some autistic people may have physical differences from neurotypical people.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    I’m not sure you think the word “cannot” means what most people think it means.
  - yareal 2y ago
    You absolutely can self diagnose. Your self diagnosis is not as reliable, thorough, or trustworthy as a professional diagnosis. Self diagnosis is often the first step towards a professional diagnosis. You can choose to believe self diagnosis is low or zero value, but that's your own value judgement, which is separate from "can" and "cannot".
- m00x 2y ago
  Diagnosis for autism is complicated because some people act the same as people with clear physiological changes, but without those changes. This puts medical boards in a sticky situation where they have to be inclusive since there's not enough research to say the latter group are definitely not autistic. I'm in the camp that you shouldn't diagnose an issue without clear physiological or chemistry differences, but I'm not in control of the medical boards. I think we all agree that you shouldn't self-diagnose.
throwaway2562 2y ago
Here’s hoping. Autism is pure hell for some families. Unless of course self-declared leaders of the ‘neurodivergent community’ declare such efforts to be genocidal, modern eugenics, and so on. Relatedly, I was struck to see the recent breakthrough in curing congenital deafness condemned by members of the ‘deaf community’ on Twitter. So we unfortunately have good reason to expect the same kinds of folly here.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  I've seen the same protests among certain deaf communities and it baffles me that someone would oppose a cure to what is obviously a medical condition. In the same vein, I wouldn't oppose a cure for autism, despite my own diagnosis. Why go through the pain and suffering that comes with autism in a world of non-autists? I've seen more than enough of the lives of people with non-high functioning autism to realise the absolute living hell a cure like this could prevent. I'm wary of the "cures" people have tried, most of them based on fake psychology or pseudoscience, but I have no reason to expect the authors of this paper to be in it to show how their kid is "normal", like most people looking for "cures" seem to be. I expect this article to be quoted many times in the terrible Facebook groups that will also recommend things like bleach enemas to desperate parents, but I also expect good developments from the real scientists trying to understand and perhaps cure (the worst cases of) autism.
  - filleduchaos 2y ago
    > it baffles me that someone would oppose a cure to what is obviously a medical condition Ultimately, not everybody seeks to be "normal", and there is plenty of reason to fear the imposition of normalness when simply being functional would have done just fine.
    - shermantanktop 2y ago
      When you are close to the norm, it’s much easier to ignore your differences. When you are farther away, you have to decide what to do: deny them, accept them, mask them, amplify them. None of us are truly normal.

by m00x 2y ago

faeriechangling 2y ago

>People like to call themselves autistic when it's just social awkwardness, and some doctors might even improperly diagnose them, but these are separate from the condition. What makes such a diagnosis incorrect when various forms of social awkwardness satisfy criteria A and D of the diagnostic criteria [1], and all of the criteria for social pragmatic disorder[2]? In the DSM-V-TR era psychiatrists are instructed to not just judge somebody to not be autistic if they do not appear socially awkward, and to additionally ask if they find social interactions distressing, and observe them for longer in more naturalistic settings to find the deficit in social functioning[3] as part of a thus far continuously lowering diagnostic bar as to what is considered sufficient social awkwardness to be diagnosable. >Autism has clear physiological differences in the brain. Which physiological changes in the brain make you autistic, or put another way, which physiological changes in the brain must you lack to NOT be autistic? I've heard of any autism diagnosis's and self-diagnosis's and I've never heard of any of them being based on a brain scan and yet people go around calling others and themselves autistic. I've never heard of a diagnosis being lost or gained due to a brain scan. I've heard this insistence that we can infer the territory, the neurological conditions of peoples brains, from the map, the behaviourist diagnosis, and there may be a correlation but it can't be said that any given person with an autism diagnosis has any given specific neurological change. The only thing we test for IS behaviour, and infer biology from it. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_(pragmatic)_communication_disorder#Diagnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_(pragmatic)_communicati... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_new_diagnostic_criteria_for_autism/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_n...

StressedDev 2y ago
You cannot self-diagnose, and only a trained medical professional can diagnose autism. By trained medical professional, I mean an autism expert who is either a therapist (PHD, PsyD, LMFT, etc.) or a psychiatrist. Most people who use terms like autistic, bi-polar, sociopath, narcist, etc. are using the terms incorrectly. Also, I suspect you are correct that most ASD diagnoses do not use brain scans and rely on a trained professional's judgement and observations. That fact does not mean that autism does not exist or that some autistic people may have physical differences from neurotypical people.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  I’m not sure you think the word “cannot” means what most people think it means.
- yareal 2y ago
  You absolutely can self diagnose. Your self diagnosis is not as reliable, thorough, or trustworthy as a professional diagnosis. Self diagnosis is often the first step towards a professional diagnosis. You can choose to believe self diagnosis is low or zero value, but that's your own value judgement, which is separate from "can" and "cannot".
m00x 2y ago
Diagnosis for autism is complicated because some people act the same as people with clear physiological changes, but without those changes. This puts medical boards in a sticky situation where they have to be inclusive since there's not enough research to say the latter group are definitely not autistic. I'm in the camp that you shouldn't diagnose an issue without clear physiological or chemistry differences, but I'm not in control of the medical boards. I think we all agree that you shouldn't self-diagnose.

throwaway2562 2y ago

Here’s hoping. Autism is pure hell for some families. Unless of course self-declared leaders of the ‘neurodivergent community’ declare such efforts to be genocidal, modern eugenics, and so on. Relatedly, I was struck to see the recent breakthrough in curing congenital deafness condemned by members of the ‘deaf community’ on Twitter. So we unfortunately have good reason to expect the same kinds of folly here.

jeroenhd 2y ago
I've seen the same protests among certain deaf communities and it baffles me that someone would oppose a cure to what is obviously a medical condition. In the same vein, I wouldn't oppose a cure for autism, despite my own diagnosis. Why go through the pain and suffering that comes with autism in a world of non-autists? I've seen more than enough of the lives of people with non-high functioning autism to realise the absolute living hell a cure like this could prevent. I'm wary of the "cures" people have tried, most of them based on fake psychology or pseudoscience, but I have no reason to expect the authors of this paper to be in it to show how their kid is "normal", like most people looking for "cures" seem to be. I expect this article to be quoted many times in the terrible Facebook groups that will also recommend things like bleach enemas to desperate parents, but I also expect good developments from the real scientists trying to understand and perhaps cure (the worst cases of) autism.
- filleduchaos 2y ago
  > it baffles me that someone would oppose a cure to what is obviously a medical condition Ultimately, not everybody seeks to be "normal", and there is plenty of reason to fear the imposition of normalness when simply being functional would have done just fine.
  - shermantanktop 2y ago
    When you are close to the norm, it’s much easier to ignore your differences. When you are farther away, you have to decide what to do: deny them, accept them, mask them, amplify them. None of us are truly normal.