5 ms·

The interesting thing about the increasing correlation between something scientifically measurable (age in this case) and autism, is that means something physic

The interesting thing about the increasing correlation between something scientifically measurable (age in this case) and autism, is that means something physical is changing. If something physical is changing from parents to children, then that means autism is at least partly genetic (it's been shown before[0]) and it might be able to be measured and predicted before birth and development, which further means that it can be treated earlier, and prevented more. I have a friend that was diagnosed with autism early, and through years of help with an awesome therapist it would be hard to tell that they're autistic. That said though, many people don't have access to that kind of help or stability, and therefore suffer significantly more throughout their life. I like making these connections because if people realize that things like autism are physical ailments contracted at birth, and not something that fucking vaccines give you, then perhaps the stigma around them will disappear and we can bring a higher quality of life to all. [0] http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_autism_causing_genetic_variant_identified http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_autis...

abandonliberty 11y ago
Not enough people know that with early detection and treatment most autistic people can live successful, independent lives. An interesting ethics situation arises whenever we have the chance to eradicate a condition: Should we? With Aspergers, a mild variant, researchers have argued that it is a "different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability, and that it should be removed from the standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, much as homosexuality was removed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_...
- jerf 11y ago
  I'm really leery of this recent push towards trying to create "acceptance" around autism. Yes, some people are only mildly autistic and can live mostly normal lives with significant extra help. If my luck holds, my autistic son will fit into that category. But autism is also the completely non-verbal 12-year-old I recently encountered at an indoor play structure, whose only verbal communication was the characteristic autistic squawk (I've heard it from my son too, and quite a few other of the autistic kids we've met through various groups), and who only narrowly avoided scratching his mother when she tried to remove his empty milk cup by virtue of her having long practice at dodging his clumsy movements. (I don't think he was deliberately trying to hurt her, but that matters little once the hands get moving.) I'll also be blunt, because I think too many people dance around this issue out of fear... even parenting a mildly autistic child is unbelievably emotionally exhausting. A great deal of those human interactions that are part of the reason to have children, or, if you find that too, ah, direct, one of the major things that helps you get through all the difficult work at 3am and during toilet training and all those other times... gone. I was actually creeped out a bit when holding another parent's baby a few months ago, because their five-month old was making eye contact with me... an experience I am not used to. (My other kid can't either, but for other reasons.) That's what I'm used to. It's hard to even express until you're in the middle of it, but it's hard. Honestly, improving autism isn't all about just the autistic person's life; they don't live isolated lives, in fact, they're drawing more than average resources, emotional and otherwise, from those around them. Those who live around the autistic person could benefit from autism being improved. And I'm grateful for what research has been done that has in fact been helpful. Never in a hundred years of parenting would I have imagined the amazing transformation that can come over my kid just by strapping 2 pounds of workout weights to his legs... I never would have made the proprioception connection without the research that has been done on the topic. So you'll forgive me if I get a bit nervous about anything that makes it even REMOTELY sound like maybe we should just shut down all the research and "accept". My son may need emotional acceptance, but he doesn't need acceptance of his autism... he needs research on how to deal with it, and parents who do not simply let him retreat into his own little world and pull the entrance in after him, something he clearly wanted to do when he was 3 and 4, thinking it's just another choice. Do not stop the research. Do not just "accept" autism. If your experience with autism leads you to the conclusion that's a valid choice, then be grateful you were only grazed by the bullet. Not everybody was, and that may even include some people around you who were only indirectly affected.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Would you draw a distinction between those with autism who cannot live a self sufficient life with those who can live a self sufficient (though not normal) life? Especially in the cases of those who don't need significant resources during childhood to live self sufficient lives. To apply this to some other disorder, do you think there is a difference (in terms of how society should respond) between someone with OCD enough to cause issues but not significantly hamper their life versus someone who is unable to leave their house?
    - jerf 11y ago
      I'd draw a ton of distinctions, in fact, I'd draw one per person. Everyone's unique. But I have no idea what in my post would even remotely lead you to the conclusion that I am the one treating "autism" as an atomic condition that you either have or don't, what with all the distinctions you'll find in it if you look. My concern is that I know where this sort of "acceptance" push leads. Already I see autism researchers have to precede their perfectly acceptable and even wonderful research with "Not that autistic people aren't wonderful, but..." That's a step, no, that's several steps down the road to where soppy-headed thinkers start babbling about "autistophobia" and run the researchers out of town on a rail. (And then congratulate themselves on running the researchers out of town on a rail.) Oh, jeez, when I typed that word I really hoped it was a neologism... https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia That's not what my son needs. I don't think internalizing that one is intrinsically and inescapably a victim is good for anybody's psychology but he really wouldn't be able to deal with life if he incorporated that into his worldview. (And carefully note my claim there... it is not that people are not sometimes victims, even at scale, and it's not that sometimes they don't need this pointed out... but convincing someone that they are intrinsically and inescapably eternally a victim is a terrible thing to do to a human being.)
      - tjradcliffe 11y ago
        Thanks for this. All you have to do is look at the "Deaf Culture" folks to see where attempts to normalize a disease state leads. The lack of ability to hear is not a difference to be celebrated, and anyone who does celebrate it is a sad, pathetic individual spreading harm and--very often--hate. It is possible to gracefully accept who we are and the things about us that can't yet be fixed, while at the same time striving to fix them. Our diseases are not our identities. Deaf Culture and other similar movements start off by accepting the lie that collectivist bigots have imposed on them--that our diseases are our identities--and then simply declare that that identity is good. Accepting the identity that hostile collectivists want to impose on you is rarely a good thing. In the case of disease states it really does end in opposing any attempt to cure the disease, and if there's a purer kind of evil than that--cloaked in the brightly shining garb of rights and defense of the oppressed--I'm not sure what it is.
- alexggordon 11y ago
  I think the ethics situation can easily be answered by asking the question: Given the small chance of a genius or otherwise brilliant person arising from a cognitive disorder, would you voluntarily give that person autism? I do believe that autistic people can genuinely contribute to society and have the potential to be inordinately intelligent in certain areas, but I think given the difficulties that it gives most people, it is not our choice to give that to anyone, after weighing the overall risks and rewards.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >Given the small chance of a genius or otherwise brilliant person arising from a cognitive disorder, would you voluntarily give that person autism? If I could choose, I would never make anyone homosexual. Even in the more tolerant societies, there is still some institutional discrimination with far more non-institutional discrimination. To say nothing of some countries where they are outlawed if not killed for who they are. And even if there was no discrimination at all, the rate of homo/bisexual individuals of their preferred gender is far lower than the rate of heterosexual individuals, giving them a slight handicap in finding a SO. But I would not consider homosexuality a disorder. Now, a distinction can likely be drawn between homosexuality where it is purely discrimination causing the problems vs. autism where it is a problem even in an accepting environment, but something like Asperger's seems to be in a middle gray area that I've yet to see a way to place. While I would never choose for anyone to have Asperger's, they are able to live functional lives, though these lives do tend to have difficulties and pains that are not a part of the life of someone without Asperger's.
    - alexggordon 11y ago
      I think given the discrimination of gay people in the world, it's very hard to make claims like "the rate of homo/bisexual individuals of their preferred gender is far lower than the rate of heterosexual individuals, giving them a slight handicap in finding a SO". If discrimination of gay people is so rampant, how can we really know what the preferred bias really is? The other major issue I have is with enough science, parents have a choice in stopping autism, however sexual orientation is not genetic, and therefore should never be the choice of a parent to attempt to "choose" their child's orientation.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  What should count as a mental disorder is a very interesting and complex question. Merely being abnormal isn't enough, but even being abnormal in a way that is harmful to a person living a good life, if the harm is a result of how society reacts, isn't good enough either (consider that being a homosexual in some societies can get you killed or discriminated against/ostracized enough to cause a significant increase in the rate of mental disorders). Asperger's is an interesting one to discuss as it touches on a mental difference that is harmful enough to cause people problems, but whose harm may be how society reacts to such a difference, and which may carry some other benefits. But the one I find more interesting (if for no other reason than how emotional it makes people and the recent changes made in the DSM-V) is pedophilia. If someone were to read the DSM-V, they would find that when someone has an attraction commonly called pedophilia, but does not act on it in a harmful way nor feel significant distress, then it counts as a (and I quote the DSM-V with the next two words) 'sexual attraction' instead of a disorder. (And if you really like controversy, you should look up the original printing of the DSM-V which used 'orientation' instead of 'attraction' until it was redacted. I also wonder what the psychiatric difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual attraction is...)

abandonliberty 11y ago

Not enough people know that with early detection and treatment most autistic people can live successful, independent lives. An interesting ethics situation arises whenever we have the chance to eradicate a condition: Should we? With Aspergers, a mild variant, researchers have argued that it is a "different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability, and that it should be removed from the standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, much as homosexuality was removed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_...

jerf 11y ago
I'm really leery of this recent push towards trying to create "acceptance" around autism. Yes, some people are only mildly autistic and can live mostly normal lives with significant extra help. If my luck holds, my autistic son will fit into that category. But autism is also the completely non-verbal 12-year-old I recently encountered at an indoor play structure, whose only verbal communication was the characteristic autistic squawk (I've heard it from my son too, and quite a few other of the autistic kids we've met through various groups), and who only narrowly avoided scratching his mother when she tried to remove his empty milk cup by virtue of her having long practice at dodging his clumsy movements. (I don't think he was deliberately trying to hurt her, but that matters little once the hands get moving.) I'll also be blunt, because I think too many people dance around this issue out of fear... even parenting a mildly autistic child is unbelievably emotionally exhausting. A great deal of those human interactions that are part of the reason to have children, or, if you find that too, ah, direct, one of the major things that helps you get through all the difficult work at 3am and during toilet training and all those other times... gone. I was actually creeped out a bit when holding another parent's baby a few months ago, because their five-month old was making eye contact with me... an experience I am not used to. (My other kid can't either, but for other reasons.) That's what I'm used to. It's hard to even express until you're in the middle of it, but it's hard. Honestly, improving autism isn't all about just the autistic person's life; they don't live isolated lives, in fact, they're drawing more than average resources, emotional and otherwise, from those around them. Those who live around the autistic person could benefit from autism being improved. And I'm grateful for what research has been done that has in fact been helpful. Never in a hundred years of parenting would I have imagined the amazing transformation that can come over my kid just by strapping 2 pounds of workout weights to his legs... I never would have made the proprioception connection without the research that has been done on the topic. So you'll forgive me if I get a bit nervous about anything that makes it even REMOTELY sound like maybe we should just shut down all the research and "accept". My son may need emotional acceptance, but he doesn't need acceptance of his autism... he needs research on how to deal with it, and parents who do not simply let him retreat into his own little world and pull the entrance in after him, something he clearly wanted to do when he was 3 and 4, thinking it's just another choice. Do not stop the research. Do not just "accept" autism. If your experience with autism leads you to the conclusion that's a valid choice, then be grateful you were only grazed by the bullet. Not everybody was, and that may even include some people around you who were only indirectly affected.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Would you draw a distinction between those with autism who cannot live a self sufficient life with those who can live a self sufficient (though not normal) life? Especially in the cases of those who don't need significant resources during childhood to live self sufficient lives. To apply this to some other disorder, do you think there is a difference (in terms of how society should respond) between someone with OCD enough to cause issues but not significantly hamper their life versus someone who is unable to leave their house?
  - jerf 11y ago
    I'd draw a ton of distinctions, in fact, I'd draw one per person. Everyone's unique. But I have no idea what in my post would even remotely lead you to the conclusion that I am the one treating "autism" as an atomic condition that you either have or don't, what with all the distinctions you'll find in it if you look. My concern is that I know where this sort of "acceptance" push leads. Already I see autism researchers have to precede their perfectly acceptable and even wonderful research with "Not that autistic people aren't wonderful, but..." That's a step, no, that's several steps down the road to where soppy-headed thinkers start babbling about "autistophobia" and run the researchers out of town on a rail. (And then congratulate themselves on running the researchers out of town on a rail.) Oh, jeez, when I typed that word I really hoped it was a neologism... https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia That's not what my son needs. I don't think internalizing that one is intrinsically and inescapably a victim is good for anybody's psychology but he really wouldn't be able to deal with life if he incorporated that into his worldview. (And carefully note my claim there... it is not that people are not sometimes victims, even at scale, and it's not that sometimes they don't need this pointed out... but convincing someone that they are intrinsically and inescapably eternally a victim is a terrible thing to do to a human being.)
    - tjradcliffe 11y ago
      Thanks for this. All you have to do is look at the "Deaf Culture" folks to see where attempts to normalize a disease state leads. The lack of ability to hear is not a difference to be celebrated, and anyone who does celebrate it is a sad, pathetic individual spreading harm and--very often--hate. It is possible to gracefully accept who we are and the things about us that can't yet be fixed, while at the same time striving to fix them. Our diseases are not our identities. Deaf Culture and other similar movements start off by accepting the lie that collectivist bigots have imposed on them--that our diseases are our identities--and then simply declare that that identity is good. Accepting the identity that hostile collectivists want to impose on you is rarely a good thing. In the case of disease states it really does end in opposing any attempt to cure the disease, and if there's a purer kind of evil than that--cloaked in the brightly shining garb of rights and defense of the oppressed--I'm not sure what it is.
alexggordon 11y ago
I think the ethics situation can easily be answered by asking the question: Given the small chance of a genius or otherwise brilliant person arising from a cognitive disorder, would you voluntarily give that person autism? I do believe that autistic people can genuinely contribute to society and have the potential to be inordinately intelligent in certain areas, but I think given the difficulties that it gives most people, it is not our choice to give that to anyone, after weighing the overall risks and rewards.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Given the small chance of a genius or otherwise brilliant person arising from a cognitive disorder, would you voluntarily give that person autism? If I could choose, I would never make anyone homosexual. Even in the more tolerant societies, there is still some institutional discrimination with far more non-institutional discrimination. To say nothing of some countries where they are outlawed if not killed for who they are. And even if there was no discrimination at all, the rate of homo/bisexual individuals of their preferred gender is far lower than the rate of heterosexual individuals, giving them a slight handicap in finding a SO. But I would not consider homosexuality a disorder. Now, a distinction can likely be drawn between homosexuality where it is purely discrimination causing the problems vs. autism where it is a problem even in an accepting environment, but something like Asperger's seems to be in a middle gray area that I've yet to see a way to place. While I would never choose for anyone to have Asperger's, they are able to live functional lives, though these lives do tend to have difficulties and pains that are not a part of the life of someone without Asperger's.
  - alexggordon 11y ago
    I think given the discrimination of gay people in the world, it's very hard to make claims like "the rate of homo/bisexual individuals of their preferred gender is far lower than the rate of heterosexual individuals, giving them a slight handicap in finding a SO". If discrimination of gay people is so rampant, how can we really know what the preferred bias really is? The other major issue I have is with enough science, parents have a choice in stopping autism, however sexual orientation is not genetic, and therefore should never be the choice of a parent to attempt to "choose" their child's orientation.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
What should count as a mental disorder is a very interesting and complex question. Merely being abnormal isn't enough, but even being abnormal in a way that is harmful to a person living a good life, if the harm is a result of how society reacts, isn't good enough either (consider that being a homosexual in some societies can get you killed or discriminated against/ostracized enough to cause a significant increase in the rate of mental disorders). Asperger's is an interesting one to discuss as it touches on a mental difference that is harmful enough to cause people problems, but whose harm may be how society reacts to such a difference, and which may carry some other benefits. But the one I find more interesting (if for no other reason than how emotional it makes people and the recent changes made in the DSM-V) is pedophilia. If someone were to read the DSM-V, they would find that when someone has an attraction commonly called pedophilia, but does not act on it in a harmful way nor feel significant distress, then it counts as a (and I quote the DSM-V with the next two words) 'sexual attraction' instead of a disorder. (And if you really like controversy, you should look up the original printing of the DSM-V which used 'orientation' instead of 'attraction' until it was redacted. I also wonder what the psychiatric difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual attraction is...)