4 ms·

> Autism is a socioculturally bound diagnosis This is untrue and unsupported by evidence > It's a label for those perceived by others in a certain light This

> Autism is a socioculturally bound diagnosis This is untrue and unsupported by evidence > It's a label for those perceived by others in a certain light This is untrue and unsupported by evidence > defined in such a way that two with the same label can have remarkably little overlap in terms of observed behaviour This is untrue and unsupported by evidence > You diagnose autism based on how people act, not who they are You diagnose all disorders based on observable phenomena, not some sort of metaphysical essence. > Any biological markers for autism are politically suspect What is this, Lysenkoism? > as it would imply those without those markers are invalid Are you saying that in your view biology has some ability to mark people as valid or invalid? That's an extremist view and I wonder how you arrived at it. If your ideology requires you divide the world into "valid" and "invalid" people, then it's probably a good time to rethink your approach.

zer00eyz 2y ago
>> defined in such a way that two with the same label can have remarkably little overlap in terms of observed behaviour > This is untrue and unsupported by evidence Here is the diagnostic criteria for ASD: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html ... It literally lays out a path that can generate a non overlapping diagnosis. It sort of has to because we lummped what were previously two disorders together because people are sensitive to nazi's having existed. Now go to the UK where there is strong advocacy for a whole other set of diagnostic criteria for women. The DSM begins to look barbaric and/or sexist if not misinformed. The moment there is a biological underpinning to something like ASD it gets interesting because what do you do with all the folks with a diagnosis who DONT fit that label. They have something that looks the same but isnt... and the whole psychiatry/psychology community looks like quacks. DO note that im not opposed to these fields but they need to get their shit together on reproducibility.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  Thanks I'm thoroughly familiar with the DSM criteria, the ICD criteria, and the research literature. > It literally lays out a path that can generate a non overlapping diagnosis. It does not. If you believe there are exist two autistic people who have no overlapping symptoms please present an example. > The moment there is a biological underpinning to something like ASD it gets interesting because what do you do with all the folks with a diagnosis who DONT fit that label. Compare this to, "The moment there is a biological underpinning to something like cancer it gets interesting because what do you do with all the folks with a diagnosis who DONT fit that label." To which the answer is "that's a red herring, the current understanding of cancer doesn't require all cancers share the same biological origins, so why should finding one marker call that into question?" Or "The moment you locate the code line with a buffer overflow it gets interesting because some programs that seem like they have a buffer overflow don't have that line of code."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
mahatofu 2y ago
Thanks for introducing me to quite a few different topics.
faeriechangling 2y ago
Responding to all the "This is untrue and unsupported by evidence" statements. In the context of this thread, which is addressing a scientific article. > Autism is a socioculturally bound diagnosis I'm making a normative claim here, so your criticism is correct, as this is not a scientifically testable claim at all. I'm loosely an adherent of the social model of disability[1]. > It's a label for those perceived by others in a certain light First, you later agreed with this statement later when you said "You diagnose all disorders based on observable phenomena" so this criticism is incoherent and I'm not convinced you even disagree with me so much as misunderstand me. Scientifically I'd point out the DSM-V-TR defines autism observationally[2] and the CDC's research on autism uses said definitions[9]. That is evidence supporting what I say. > defined in such a way that two with the same label can have remarkably little overlap in terms of observed behaviour I'll again point to the DSM-V-TR[1] where two individuals can satisfy section B of the criteria with no overlap whatsoever. The only necessary behavioural commonality are various social deficits. I'll also point out there are three categories of autistics depending on support needs. More blithely and common-sense like, I'll just point out most people do not see all that much common in the behaviour of Elon Musk and some autistic in a full time care home who cannot dress or bathe themselves. The Autistic Spectrum also literally used to be split into 3 separate diagnosis's diagnosed based partially on behaviour, and how was that ever even possible or contemplated if people never believed there was a significant difference in autistic's behaviours? --- >Any biological markers for autism are politically suspect - What is this lysenkoism I have not scientifically researched this specific point, but some historical background: Autism genetics research projects have been cancelled by patient backlash [3] where autism genetics projects were scuttled upon popular backlash. "Autistic psychopaths" in the past were subject to Euthanasia, forced sterilisation, and encouraged to voluntarily sterilised themselves by the Nazi regime[4] which raises obvious questions as to the utility of biological testing to enable a future eugenics regime which may also include new technologies like pre-natal testing. While not biological testing, we can see that there is political backlash against cognitive testing[5] to determine social supports for autism. We have also seen the rise of self-diagnosis[6] with it defended as being more accessible than physician diagnosis and based on the lack of evidence that it's LESS accurate than physician diagnosis which historically has been subjected to multiple definitional changes[7] and bias in terms of access to diagnosis itself[8]. Ergo, unless this serves as a method of diagnosis more accurate than physician diagnosis, it will be subject to the same criticism. > as it would imply those without those markers are invalid - Are you saying that in your view biology has some ability to mark people as valid or invalid? I'm making a claim about others belief if biology should be used to establish the validity or invalidity of autism. It's my belief that the recognition of biological markers of autism would be vigorously protested by patients and advocacy groups because of what I just brought up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability [2] (please forgive the source - DSM-V-TR is under copyright) https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_new_diagnostic_criteria_for_autism/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_n... [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-profile-autism-genetics-project-paused-amid-backlash/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-profile-auti... [4] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36236157-asperger-s-children https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36236157-asperger-s-chil... [5] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/direct-family-support-children-funding-autistic-kids-1.7174288 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/direct-family-sup... [6] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neurodiverse-age/201912/is-psychiatric-self-diagnosis-valid https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neurodiverse-age/201... [7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9365987/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9365987/ [8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924013/ [9] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

zer00eyz 2y ago

>> defined in such a way that two with the same label can have remarkably little overlap in terms of observed behaviour > This is untrue and unsupported by evidence Here is the diagnostic criteria for ASD: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html ... It literally lays out a path that can generate a non overlapping diagnosis. It sort of has to because we lummped what were previously two disorders together because people are sensitive to nazi's having existed. Now go to the UK where there is strong advocacy for a whole other set of diagnostic criteria for women. The DSM begins to look barbaric and/or sexist if not misinformed. The moment there is a biological underpinning to something like ASD it gets interesting because what do you do with all the folks with a diagnosis who DONT fit that label. They have something that looks the same but isnt... and the whole psychiatry/psychology community looks like quacks. DO note that im not opposed to these fields but they need to get their shit together on reproducibility.

ants_everywhere 2y ago
Thanks I'm thoroughly familiar with the DSM criteria, the ICD criteria, and the research literature. > It literally lays out a path that can generate a non overlapping diagnosis. It does not. If you believe there are exist two autistic people who have no overlapping symptoms please present an example. > The moment there is a biological underpinning to something like ASD it gets interesting because what do you do with all the folks with a diagnosis who DONT fit that label. Compare this to, "The moment there is a biological underpinning to something like cancer it gets interesting because what do you do with all the folks with a diagnosis who DONT fit that label." To which the answer is "that's a red herring, the current understanding of cancer doesn't require all cancers share the same biological origins, so why should finding one marker call that into question?" Or "The moment you locate the code line with a buffer overflow it gets interesting because some programs that seem like they have a buffer overflow don't have that line of code."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

mahatofu 2y ago

Thanks for introducing me to quite a few different topics.

faeriechangling 2y ago

Responding to all the "This is untrue and unsupported by evidence" statements. In the context of this thread, which is addressing a scientific article. > Autism is a socioculturally bound diagnosis I'm making a normative claim here, so your criticism is correct, as this is not a scientifically testable claim at all. I'm loosely an adherent of the social model of disability[1]. > It's a label for those perceived by others in a certain light First, you later agreed with this statement later when you said "You diagnose all disorders based on observable phenomena" so this criticism is incoherent and I'm not convinced you even disagree with me so much as misunderstand me. Scientifically I'd point out the DSM-V-TR defines autism observationally[2] and the CDC's research on autism uses said definitions[9]. That is evidence supporting what I say. > defined in such a way that two with the same label can have remarkably little overlap in terms of observed behaviour I'll again point to the DSM-V-TR[1] where two individuals can satisfy section B of the criteria with no overlap whatsoever. The only necessary behavioural commonality are various social deficits. I'll also point out there are three categories of autistics depending on support needs. More blithely and common-sense like, I'll just point out most people do not see all that much common in the behaviour of Elon Musk and some autistic in a full time care home who cannot dress or bathe themselves. The Autistic Spectrum also literally used to be split into 3 separate diagnosis's diagnosed based partially on behaviour, and how was that ever even possible or contemplated if people never believed there was a significant difference in autistic's behaviours? --- >Any biological markers for autism are politically suspect - What is this lysenkoism I have not scientifically researched this specific point, but some historical background: Autism genetics research projects have been cancelled by patient backlash [3] where autism genetics projects were scuttled upon popular backlash. "Autistic psychopaths" in the past were subject to Euthanasia, forced sterilisation, and encouraged to voluntarily sterilised themselves by the Nazi regime[4] which raises obvious questions as to the utility of biological testing to enable a future eugenics regime which may also include new technologies like pre-natal testing. While not biological testing, we can see that there is political backlash against cognitive testing[5] to determine social supports for autism. We have also seen the rise of self-diagnosis[6] with it defended as being more accessible than physician diagnosis and based on the lack of evidence that it's LESS accurate than physician diagnosis which historically has been subjected to multiple definitional changes[7] and bias in terms of access to diagnosis itself[8]. Ergo, unless this serves as a method of diagnosis more accurate than physician diagnosis, it will be subject to the same criticism. > as it would imply those without those markers are invalid - Are you saying that in your view biology has some ability to mark people as valid or invalid? I'm making a claim about others belief if biology should be used to establish the validity or invalidity of autism. It's my belief that the recognition of biological markers of autism would be vigorously protested by patients and advocacy groups because of what I just brought up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability [2] (please forgive the source - DSM-V-TR is under copyright) https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_new_diagnostic_criteria_for_autism/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_n... [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-profile-autism-genetics-project-paused-amid-backlash/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-profile-auti... [4] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36236157-asperger-s-children https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36236157-asperger-s-chil... [5] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/direct-family-support-children-funding-autistic-kids-1.7174288 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/direct-family-sup... [6] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neurodiverse-age/201912/is-psychiatric-self-diagnosis-valid https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neurodiverse-age/201... [7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9365987/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9365987/ [8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924013/ [9] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html