Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog...r-disorder

"Autism may represent the last great prejudice we, as a society, must overcome. History is riddled with examples of intolerance directed at the atypical. We can sometime fear that which diverges from the “norm”, and sometimes that fear leads us to frame those who are different as being in some way lesser beings than ourselves.

Intolerances take generations to overcome. Racism is an obvious, ugly example. Other horrifying examples are easy to find: take, for instance the intolerance faced by the gay community. Countless gay people were diagnosed with “sociopathic personality disturbance” based upon their natural sexuality. Many were criminalised and forced into institutions, the “treatments” to which they were subject akin to torture. How many believed they were sociopathic and hated themselves, wishing to be free from the label they had been given? How many wished to be “cured” so that they could live their lives in peace? The greatest crime was the damage perpetuated by the image projected upon them by those claiming to be professionals.

Autism is framed as a disability, with mainstream theories presenting autism via deficit models. Popular theory is often passed off as fact with no mention of the morphic nature of research and scientific process. Most mainstream theory is silent regarding autistic strengths and atypical ability; indeed, what is in print often presents a damning image of autism as an “epidemic”. Hurtful words such as risk, disease, disorder, impairment, deficit, pedantic, obsession are frequently utilised.

A recent genetic study involving identical and non-identical twins identified that 56-95% of the observed characteristics are genetic in origin: autism owes its existence to genetic differences known as polymorphisms. There is no patent for optimal human genetics: genetic differences between individuals, families and groups naturally vary. Species diversify via genetic change all the time; when those changes are positive they are passed to the next generation. Autism is an example of natural variation. Current estimates are that 1 in 100 people are on the autistic spectrum: that translates to around 641,000 people in Britain. If autism were truly a disease, something of detriment, why do autistic variants of genes perpetuate? Why not ask the UK security services, currently employing 10% of its staff from our “neurodivergent” population, including people on the autistic spectrum.

Much current autism research, establishing medical treatment options into drugs, cures and pre-natal screening is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Such programmes raise many questions, not least because often autistic people seek the right to be valued as equal, yet divergent, members of society, rejecting the notion of disability. Consequently there is an unease at the thought of the pharmaceutical industry, which has a vested interest in perpetuating a “disease model” of autism for eventual profit, being involved with such research. Treatments could be sold to 1% of the population, their human characteristics reduced to mere symptoms. The pitch seems easy: convince the world this group are a problem, then convince the target group.

A common misconception around autism is that it is inextricably linked to intellectual disability. However, many of the world’s great thinkers and innovators displayed autistic characteristics. “Autism and intellectual disability often occur together in clinical settings, and this has made many researchers think that the conditions must share the same genetic causes. Our research challenges this assumption,” says Dr Rosa Hoekstra, lecturer in psychology at the Open University, who led a recent study which found that the genes for autism are distinct from those for learning disabilities. Autistic people exhibit a range of intellectual ability, including exceptional intellect. An obvious cause of this discrepancy is that very intellectually able people are less likely to be diagnosed. Furthermore, some diagnosticians actively withhold diagnoses in those deemed to be coping..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was reviewing the symptoms of Asperger's last nite wondering if I met any of the criteria. I did and still do prefer not making eye contact. I have spent my life studying obscure subjects few others are interested in. But I don't dominate conversations. I don't ramble on about my field of expertise insensitive to the needs of the listener. If anything when speaking I make my point quickly and get out, identifying too much with the boredom of the listeners. In fact I don't like talking publically at all. I am asocial, but this is more due to not liking to meet strangers. I actually enjoy being with people alot. And I don't really do repetive things. I like variety in my life and taking chances. And as far as I know my voice isn't flat in tone. My conclusion is that I don't really have Asperger's so much as just an introverted and overanalytical frame of mind. I like to ponder stuff to myself, I prefer eating in private, I hate the feeling of being couped up or in a crowd, and I cringe in pain when the telephone rings. I'm just me, and that's something I'm learning to accept.

I suspect Aspergers is really the human condition to some extent or another. I had the-robot-voice and added random upsy and downsy. My mother in law (without barbs) has described it as 'mellifluous' - a less charitable description might be 'weird'. but we deal with it, we communicate and (I surprise myself here) we love.
As children of this planet we're most likely going to like it here but the bit we like might not be in (for example) Oregan. Flap your wings a bit, your parents will despair but that is what parents are for.
About 40 years ago I spent a night on a beach and thought 'this is where I want to live' - as I type, 40 years later, I hear waves breaking on a beach.
Edit
" I'm just me, and that's something I'm learning to accept. "
I think you are going to do more than accept - I think you're going to like the person that is you.

Devil's advocate: Do we tear down all prisons and mental institutions? Along the same lines as OP one could argue that criminals are predisposed to their nefarious behavior, a normal genetic variation. Is it a complete and utter waste of time to figure out why the gene is there or how to eradicate it? I could go one step further and say the people who become murder victims are born without an innate sense of danger. I mean we can go on and on. 

Back to being me: I respect life. I'm a genetic variation and I understand that. I'm OK with it. Likewise so is everybody else. It's the hand we're all dealt. I would like a world where no one has to deal with autism, or criminal behavior for that matter. If we can eliminate it then why not? Means it has to be studied and worked on. Along the way people will get upset, it's the price we pay. Nature treats us all like lab rats anyways, except these human lab rats have evolved to evolve without opting out of the natural world.

Labels are only useful if they deliver some type of benefit to you.
if your looking for self acceptance then labels have no functional process.
they just become a form of escapism to distract from the actual topic while you play out the real discussion in your own mind while talking about something else in a semi cathartic manner.

When I was young (born 1954) the cure-all was a good slap - cured asthma, autism, attention deficit disorder and a lot of other things. We were also a mucky lot. Bath night on Fridays, no biological washing powders, wet-wipes and all the other stuff that keeps a 'modern' home clean. The human race can't have changed so quickly that the modern child suffers from so many allergies and other conditions as a result of anything other than environment.

"To become competent at anything takes about 10,000 hours of study [work]" - my sister, probably not original. For most of us just lying in bed waiting to become rich or 'interesting' or even 'normal' isn't going to work. Where's that rant section in the forum? How long could it possibly take Stryder to set up ...?

When I was young (paleolithic times) autism was a tremendously debilitating major psychosis that typically meant an almost total inability to live an independent life.

But over the last couple of decades or so, it's been expanded into a 'autism spectrum disorder'. Today anyone who is shy, solitary and a bit withdrawn can be diagnosed as mildly autistic. I'm hugely skeptical about that and don't think that burdening these people with the stigma of mental illness does anyone any good.

(Feb 7, 2017 12:07 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]When I was young (born 1954) the cure-all was a good slap - cured asthma, autism, attention deficit disorder and a lot of other things. We were also a mucky lot. Bath night on Fridays, no biological washing powders, wet-wipes and all the other stuff that keeps a 'modern' home clean. The human race can't have changed so quickly that the modern child suffers from so many allergies and other conditions as a result of anything other than environment.

"To become competent at anything takes about 10,000 hours of study [work]" - my sister, probably not original. For most of us just lying in bed waiting to become rich or 'interesting' or even 'normal' isn't going to work. Where's that rant section in the forum? How long could it possibly take Stryder to set up ...?

sounds awesome, can we just walk up to politicans and give them a slap in the face for being rude ?
what about police and other public servants ?
there is a fair few business people who surely deserve far more than that ?

do you think the sub prime mortgage scam bankers & CEO's should face the death penalty ?

Interesting that we have the option of either accepting disability traits as evolutionary or that a loving creator made us this way. Opting for the latter presents a somewhat unusual conundrum and to some extent a little doubt about the god's intentions. Evolution on the other hand has no such quandary. What evolution presents seems more of a moral/ethical question because we are more and more becoming able to construct our own offspring, so to speak. Hell we already do it in barnyards, kennels, stables, greenhouse, etc. for other organisms.

(Feb 7, 2017 01:31 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(Feb 7, 2017 12:07 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]When I was young (born 1954) the cure-all was a good slap - cured asthma, autism, attention deficit disorder and a lot of other things. We were also a mucky lot. Bath night on Fridays, no biological washing powders, wet-wipes and all the other stuff that keeps a 'modern' home clean. The human race can't have changed so quickly that the modern child suffers from so many allergies and other conditions as a result of anything other than environment.

"To become competent at anything takes about 10,000 hours of study [work]" - my sister, probably not original. For most of us just lying in bed waiting to become rich or 'interesting' or even 'normal' isn't going to work. Where's that rant section in the forum? How long could it possibly take Stryder to set up ...?

sounds awesome, can we just walk up to politicans and give them a slap in the face for being rude ?
what about police and other public servants ?
there is a fair few business people who surely deserve far more than that ?

do you think the sub prime mortgage scam bankers & CEO's should face the death penalty ?

Slapping as therapy (guidance towards 'normal' behaviour) is (possibly) on topic. You may favour the use of drugs and/or incarceration as better therapies. Crime and punishment in general probably merits a new thread.

(Feb 7, 2017 02:00 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting that we have the option of either accepting disability traits as evolutionary or that a loving creator made us this way. Opting for the latter presents a somewhat unusual conundrum and to some extent a little doubt about the god's intentions. Evolution on the other hand has no such quandary. What evolution presents seems more of a moral/ethical question because we are more and more becoming able to construct our own offspring, so to speak. Hell we already do it in barnyards, kennels, stables, greenhouse, etc. for other organisms.

We've been doing that for millennia. Those barnyards, kennels and greenhouses are our own homes. Our villages, our towns, our states, and our nations.  
Our children are sponges... they learn, and they learn fast... and semi-permanently. They absorb from available data - which is what we provide for them, in the earliest and most important stages. They learn such a complex thing as language within a couple of years. That, in itself, is... not unbelievable, but how can one express a profound admiration for the human mind? 

The parents are the primary source of information. As far as the children are concerned, we are God. 

I find it particularly difficult to watch those news broadcasts in which one can discern the children, amongst the protesters, holding up placards they neither wrote nor understand, but carry in order to please those they believe in. I can only feel something akin to horror, whether or not I agree with what those placards say.

There is very little difference, in the long run, between teaching a dog to sit and stay, fetch and beg, than there is in the things we teach our own children - other than in the complexity of those teachings. 

It is a fine line to tread, in teaching them how  to think, how  to question, how  to come to their own conclusions... and then not be angry or disappointed when the conclusions they reach do not gel with our own. Teaching them to be strong cannot only be a matter of standing by their beliefs. It should be a matter of, firstly and foremost, how to come by those beliefs, how to achieve that, and then how to defend them when the time comes... while remaining open to counterargument. 

I have no children of my own. 
But I think the finest thing I could ever achieve, as a parent, would be to raise a child who knew enough to be able to ask a question one day that would force me to question myself. One who could make me  think as a result of confrontation.
Obviously, I have an extremely high opinion of myself. But I do like to think there is a basis for that belief.

---

Oh, and btw...

With regard to the OP, no, it doesn't have to be.

Related to what I said above, Autism can be extremely useful, when taught and applied correctly.
We only need to learn enough to know how to do that.