5 ms·

> “It could be that doctors are getting better at identifying these children, there could be a growing number of children with high intelligence [who are autist

by cbhl 13y ago

> “It could be that doctors are getting better at identifying these children, there could be a growing number of children with high intelligence [who are autistic], or it could be both,” she said. The article doesn't mention that the DSM-5 went into force last year. The criteria for diagnosing Autism has changed since the DSM-IV, and this could also explain the jump in diagnoses. (This is alluded to with the line "Milder forms, such as Asperger’s syndrome, are now considered to fall along the autism spectrum." -- The entry for "Asperger disorder" in the DSM-5 is now replaced with a pointer to see the entry for "Autism".)

knewter 13y ago
the numbers used in the report are from 2010
- cbhl 13y ago
  Ah, indeed they are, so this "jump" predates the introduction of the DSM-V. My mistake. (wozniacki links to the original report in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496264)
- fecak 13y ago
  The numbers are from children born in a specific year, as the CDC has done with the last few studies, and have increased in each of the studies by a significant margin.
Steuard 13y ago
Just came here to post the same quote. This particular article doesn't give any information that would clearly suggest an actual increase in incidence (rather than an increase in diagnosis).
userbinator 13y ago
Having seen a lot of very successful, but somewhat autistic people working in tech (probably Asperger's), it seems a little strange to be classifying it as a "disorder"...
- Wohui 13y ago
  It's asperger's. You'll know if you meet someone with full-blown autism. They would never get into employment.
  - krenoten 13y ago
    The S in ASD stands for spectrum, as there is a diverse range of symptoms that may lead to an autism diagnosis. Many of these are not at odds with analytical or creative capacity. There's a gap between where aspergers tends to stopped being diagnosed and being unemployable, and it's not unidimensional.
    - Wohui 13y ago
      I understand the spectrum to be honest, but I think in trying to get the rest of the world to understand ASD, you can't start off too deep. In the article it seems autism is now interchangeable with ASD, so we're losing even a binary terminology.
  - fecak 13y ago
    That is incorrect. While many who are significantly impaired will be unemployable beyond the most menial jobs, many with autism can be employed even in high level positions that may not require skills the person may lack due to autism. QA testing may be a good example. Autism is a spectrum. It's not just Asperger's and wholly unemployable. There is lots of room in the middle.
    - rogert 13y ago
      Yes, but there's a significant percentage of people on the autism literally can not follow instructions, or cannot the focus to listen when spoken to, or cannot comprehend language. They require life long care, employable for small tasks perhaps, but not independent.
- cbhl 13y ago
  "Disorder" was the technical term in the DSM-IV-TR, which dates back to 2000. (I believe it dates even further than that but I'm not a psychiatrist.) It really depends on the severity of the symptoms, and whether the individual has developed effective coping strategies.
mason240 13y ago
You comment hit on something that has been bothering me lately. If in order to be informed I have to trawl through multiple news aggregators to find comments with primary sources and information closer to the source, weigh the potential bias of those commentors, analyze their citations, then what roles does journalism even serve? To me they seem to be nothing more than conversation starters, leaving individuals to spend hours a day doing the the legwork. Being the gatekeeper of national dialogue is an incredibility powerful platform, and I guess to me part of the tradeoff for them wielding that power is that they (at bare minimum) do the legwork of giving accurate information and a complete picture. I'm not saying I want journalists to do my thinking and analysis for me, but if they can't even accurately report basic information, what justifies their place in our society giving them that power? With all the anti-science conspiracies floating around about the "rise" in Autism, not giving the context of the updated DSM leading to a broader scope of the disorder, this goes from being harmless negligence to actual harm.
- kenster07 13y ago
  I think it is worth pointing out that for the vast majority of people, there still a level of 'belief' required for the modern science, not unlike the religions of old. There are very few laypeople equipped to think critically about, let alone verify, most scientific theories. As a result, they have to take it on faith that the "priests" (in today's world, scientists) are correct.
  - trothoun 13y ago
    And even scientists can really only be be deeply familiar with the experimental basis for a few narrow fields of study. For all the rest, they too have to take it on faith.
- sirmeowmeow 13y ago
  I think the problem is that it is up to the consumer to be discerning and reward sources who strive towards accuracy, while punishing bad sources with less attention. Since the other consumers of whatever news source you are using aren't sufficiently sensitive or discriminating, your news source will thus suffer.
tdaltonc 13y ago
Autism isn't my field. But the Autism epidemiologists I've spoken to all think that in addition to those two trends ((1) better coverage, and (2) Shifting diagnostic baseline) there is still a underlying increase in symptom frequency and severity.
- XorNot 13y ago
  This is something I'd really want to see numbers on though, and not just a feeling, because those two issues are two of the biggest ways that humans - being poor statisticians - draw incorrect conclusions.
  - tdaltonc 13y ago
    Actually this is exactly the kind of thing that I humbly defer to experts on. A dataset and a few hours in R couldn't get you to the truth of this question. It would take me a couple of years to figure out for myself if there is an underlying increase in the rate. I'd have to talk to a lot of doctors, personally deliver the diagnostic exams, get a feel for why this or that measure might disagree, etc. If you go looking I'm sure that you could find datasets and papers that purport to prove any possible conclusion. There are people who have earnestly done those years of inquiry, and I'm inclined to trust them.
- fecak 13y ago
  It has gone from 1:150 to 1:68 over about 10 years, and another study from last year (1) had the rate at 1:50. Saying that an increase this dramatic is based on changing diagnostic criteria and awareness seems disingenuous, and intended not to alarm the public. 1 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports-1-in-50-American-Children-Diagnosed-wi.aspx http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports...
  - tdaltonc 13y ago
    The sort of academics I'm talking about don't think about whether or not they'll alarm the public. They don't think of the public as their audience. Thier audience is other academics, and all that they care about is making conservative conclusions based on data.

by cbhl 13y ago

knewter 13y ago

the numbers used in the report are from 2010

cbhl 13y ago
Ah, indeed they are, so this "jump" predates the introduction of the DSM-V. My mistake. (wozniacki links to the original report in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496264)
fecak 13y ago
The numbers are from children born in a specific year, as the CDC has done with the last few studies, and have increased in each of the studies by a significant margin.

Steuard 13y ago

Just came here to post the same quote. This particular article doesn't give any information that would clearly suggest an actual increase in incidence (rather than an increase in diagnosis).

userbinator 13y ago

Having seen a lot of very successful, but somewhat autistic people working in tech (probably Asperger's), it seems a little strange to be classifying it as a "disorder"...

Wohui 13y ago
It's asperger's. You'll know if you meet someone with full-blown autism. They would never get into employment.
- krenoten 13y ago
  The S in ASD stands for spectrum, as there is a diverse range of symptoms that may lead to an autism diagnosis. Many of these are not at odds with analytical or creative capacity. There's a gap between where aspergers tends to stopped being diagnosed and being unemployable, and it's not unidimensional.
  - Wohui 13y ago
    I understand the spectrum to be honest, but I think in trying to get the rest of the world to understand ASD, you can't start off too deep. In the article it seems autism is now interchangeable with ASD, so we're losing even a binary terminology.
- fecak 13y ago
  That is incorrect. While many who are significantly impaired will be unemployable beyond the most menial jobs, many with autism can be employed even in high level positions that may not require skills the person may lack due to autism. QA testing may be a good example. Autism is a spectrum. It's not just Asperger's and wholly unemployable. There is lots of room in the middle.
  - rogert 13y ago
    Yes, but there's a significant percentage of people on the autism literally can not follow instructions, or cannot the focus to listen when spoken to, or cannot comprehend language. They require life long care, employable for small tasks perhaps, but not independent.
cbhl 13y ago
"Disorder" was the technical term in the DSM-IV-TR, which dates back to 2000. (I believe it dates even further than that but I'm not a psychiatrist.) It really depends on the severity of the symptoms, and whether the individual has developed effective coping strategies.

mason240 13y ago

You comment hit on something that has been bothering me lately. If in order to be informed I have to trawl through multiple news aggregators to find comments with primary sources and information closer to the source, weigh the potential bias of those commentors, analyze their citations, then what roles does journalism even serve? To me they seem to be nothing more than conversation starters, leaving individuals to spend hours a day doing the the legwork. Being the gatekeeper of national dialogue is an incredibility powerful platform, and I guess to me part of the tradeoff for them wielding that power is that they (at bare minimum) do the legwork of giving accurate information and a complete picture. I'm not saying I want journalists to do my thinking and analysis for me, but if they can't even accurately report basic information, what justifies their place in our society giving them that power? With all the anti-science conspiracies floating around about the "rise" in Autism, not giving the context of the updated DSM leading to a broader scope of the disorder, this goes from being harmless negligence to actual harm.

kenster07 13y ago
I think it is worth pointing out that for the vast majority of people, there still a level of 'belief' required for the modern science, not unlike the religions of old. There are very few laypeople equipped to think critically about, let alone verify, most scientific theories. As a result, they have to take it on faith that the "priests" (in today's world, scientists) are correct.
- trothoun 13y ago
  And even scientists can really only be be deeply familiar with the experimental basis for a few narrow fields of study. For all the rest, they too have to take it on faith.
sirmeowmeow 13y ago
I think the problem is that it is up to the consumer to be discerning and reward sources who strive towards accuracy, while punishing bad sources with less attention. Since the other consumers of whatever news source you are using aren't sufficiently sensitive or discriminating, your news source will thus suffer.

tdaltonc 13y ago

Autism isn't my field. But the Autism epidemiologists I've spoken to all think that in addition to those two trends ((1) better coverage, and (2) Shifting diagnostic baseline) there is still a underlying increase in symptom frequency and severity.

XorNot 13y ago
This is something I'd really want to see numbers on though, and not just a feeling, because those two issues are two of the biggest ways that humans - being poor statisticians - draw incorrect conclusions.
- tdaltonc 13y ago
  Actually this is exactly the kind of thing that I humbly defer to experts on. A dataset and a few hours in R couldn't get you to the truth of this question. It would take me a couple of years to figure out for myself if there is an underlying increase in the rate. I'd have to talk to a lot of doctors, personally deliver the diagnostic exams, get a feel for why this or that measure might disagree, etc. If you go looking I'm sure that you could find datasets and papers that purport to prove any possible conclusion. There are people who have earnestly done those years of inquiry, and I'm inclined to trust them.
fecak 13y ago
It has gone from 1:150 to 1:68 over about 10 years, and another study from last year (1) had the rate at 1:50. Saying that an increase this dramatic is based on changing diagnostic criteria and awareness seems disingenuous, and intended not to alarm the public. 1 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports-1-in-50-American-Children-Diagnosed-wi.aspx http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports...
- tdaltonc 13y ago
  The sort of academics I'm talking about don't think about whether or not they'll alarm the public. They don't think of the public as their audience. Thier audience is other academics, and all that they care about is making conservative conclusions based on data.