Autism and Invention Are Connected(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Autism and Invention Are Connected
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-autism-and-invention-are-connected-11607749260
177 comments
> as well as the related concept of Theory of Mind.
On the topic of theory of mind and ASD, I think this is quite an interesting read: "Empirical Failures of the Claim That Autistic People Lack a Theory of Mind" – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959478/
"We conclude that the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind is empirically questionable and societally harmful"
On the topic of theory of mind and ASD, I think this is quite an interesting read: "Empirical Failures of the Claim That Autistic People Lack a Theory of Mind" – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959478/
"We conclude that the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind is empirically questionable and societally harmful"
> it's often the cognitive aspect that challenges the autistic
Yes, that perfectly matches my experiences.
I have far too much affective empathy, but struggle with cognitive empathy and often unintentionally make enemies because I am too clumsy with my words and social interactions, and can't properly gauge social roles (such as when a person looks up to me and would be hurt to hear any criticism from me.)
It stings me when people repeat that I have no empathy at all, and I wish this was better understood by others. Thank you for pointing it out so eloquently.
(Only speaking for myself here, not others! All of us are very different.)
Yes, that perfectly matches my experiences.
I have far too much affective empathy, but struggle with cognitive empathy and often unintentionally make enemies because I am too clumsy with my words and social interactions, and can't properly gauge social roles (such as when a person looks up to me and would be hurt to hear any criticism from me.)
It stings me when people repeat that I have no empathy at all, and I wish this was better understood by others. Thank you for pointing it out so eloquently.
(Only speaking for myself here, not others! All of us are very different.)
Perhaps those who misunderstand you also lack the cognitive empathy towards you!?
(edit: removed the phrase "your unintentional enemies" from my sentence above)
(edit: removed the phrase "your unintentional enemies" from my sentence above)
If you are sufficiently hurt you can be angry about what someone says to you even if you nominally understand they didn't mean to.
I'm curious if the supposed Theory of Mind impairments only apply when Autistic people theorize about Neurotypical minds, which are different from their own.
My guess is that when theorizing about another Autistic person mind, which is similar to their own, they might actually do quite well because they have their own mind to use as a base to work from, just like Neurotypical people have their own mind to use as a base when theorizing about another Neurotypical persons mind.
Similarly, I'd say your average neurotypical person would have difficulties theorizing about whats going on inside an Autistic persons mind.
If I'm right, then the difference in Theory of Mind in my view would be more of a difference than an fundamental impairment.
My guess is that when theorizing about another Autistic person mind, which is similar to their own, they might actually do quite well because they have their own mind to use as a base to work from, just like Neurotypical people have their own mind to use as a base when theorizing about another Neurotypical persons mind.
Similarly, I'd say your average neurotypical person would have difficulties theorizing about whats going on inside an Autistic persons mind.
If I'm right, then the difference in Theory of Mind in my view would be more of a difference than an fundamental impairment.
A lot of the programmers I think are "on the spectrum" seem to have a real blind spot for the possibility that other people lack the knowledge they have.
If they know something, they just assume I do too.
If they know something, they just assume I do too.
I'm not sure that this is exclusive to those on the spectrum. It is common enough to have a name; The curse of knowledge [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
I mean sure there's that, and then there's colleagues you have to ask for context every single time. A previous coworker I had would frequently start talking to you about some bug he's trying to fix without first telling what bug he's even on about.
I feel like the curse of knowledge mostly applies when experts talk to non-experts. Not including trivially required context when talking to co-experts seems like something else to me.
I feel like the curse of knowledge mostly applies when experts talk to non-experts. Not including trivially required context when talking to co-experts seems like something else to me.
Well this explains why 70million voted for the other guy!
I know when I started out what I struggled with and how difficult it was to learn things. But after having learned them, I have a lot of trouble explaining how I got there. I can't remember why it was hard anymore, as it just seems easy to me now. This is a large part of why I don't enjoy writing documentation or teaching others. Point being, I know about this problem in me, it's not a blind spot, there's just not a lot I can do about it.
Exactly, most things are easy when you understand them, so even if it took a long time to "get" them, once you do, you tend to forget with time, how difficult it is.
I really struggle with this.
I think it feeds strongly into imposter syndrome too. It's easy to devalue your own contributions when you suspect anyone else could make them.
I think it feeds strongly into imposter syndrome too. It's easy to devalue your own contributions when you suspect anyone else could make them.
In my experience, non-programmers struggle with this just as much. The main difference is that as a specialized discipline, it is more likely a lot of their knowledge is not shared with other people.
The curse of knowledge (or expertise) is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
Edit: Sorry for the dupe. Vizzier posted this a minute or three before I did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
Edit: Sorry for the dupe. Vizzier posted this a minute or three before I did.
This is called ‘the double empathy problem’.
There has been an increasing amount of study on it, and research supports your guesses.
There has been an increasing amount of study on it, and research supports your guesses.
Just googled it, looks like this article has a good overview: https://network.autism.org.uk/knowledge/insight-opinion/doub...
Put more simply, there is a big difference between the capacity to care about other people's feelings, and the capacity to understand them.
Some understand but do not care, whereas some care but do not understand. It dovetails really well with creativity but it can introduce many challenges in life.
Some understand but do not care, whereas some care but do not understand. It dovetails really well with creativity but it can introduce many challenges in life.
> it's often the cognitive aspect that challenges the autistic
I strongly relate with this as a child. As I grew older my friends would often come to me for emotional advice, which I explain as having found an understanding of the patterns behind emotions. I still have no clue how my own emotions work, but I share that with everyone.
I strongly relate with this as a child. As I grew older my friends would often come to me for emotional advice, which I explain as having found an understanding of the patterns behind emotions. I still have no clue how my own emotions work, but I share that with everyone.
Sympathy vs empathy also adds another layer. If a certain event would cause me pain and that event happens to you, I can feel for you because I sympathize with your pain. This can easily pass as empathy. But if that same event would not cause me pain but it causes you pain, this can be difficult to resolve as it involves theory of mind which is often weak or missing in those with ASD.
I was reading this comment dozens of times while trying to understand its implications.
When reflecting on myself, I think I have problems with both cognitive and affective empathy. From my perspective it's hard to differ between those because I think a lot of what makes the "reactibility of a person" is intertwined and feels like a really complicated maze that needs exploration to find a potential solution.
The problem is though, that when you try to explore "this maze" in a situation; usually people get very upset for me behaving not in an appropriate manner. So I guess that it's very hard to figure out when these exploration parts are appropriate; and when they are not.
> leaving them susceptible to being tricked, or unable to pick up on, say, whether or not a person is interested in dating them.
A lot of times in life people tend to exploit your character; and even when you realize it's just friendship or a distanciated acquaintance relationship the hard part is still saying no when people ask for your help. Oh so often you help them; and when you need their help once for a little thing like helping you to move something around - years later - they're suddenly not your friends anymore.
I often think that what keeps my sanity intact is "keeping a score" subconsciously... how often I helped or made space for somebody; and how often they did. While this is the jerk part to other people; it's a necessity for me to not get exploited by others again.
When reflecting on myself, I think I have problems with both cognitive and affective empathy. From my perspective it's hard to differ between those because I think a lot of what makes the "reactibility of a person" is intertwined and feels like a really complicated maze that needs exploration to find a potential solution.
The problem is though, that when you try to explore "this maze" in a situation; usually people get very upset for me behaving not in an appropriate manner. So I guess that it's very hard to figure out when these exploration parts are appropriate; and when they are not.
> leaving them susceptible to being tricked, or unable to pick up on, say, whether or not a person is interested in dating them.
A lot of times in life people tend to exploit your character; and even when you realize it's just friendship or a distanciated acquaintance relationship the hard part is still saying no when people ask for your help. Oh so often you help them; and when you need their help once for a little thing like helping you to move something around - years later - they're suddenly not your friends anymore.
I often think that what keeps my sanity intact is "keeping a score" subconsciously... how often I helped or made space for somebody; and how often they did. While this is the jerk part to other people; it's a necessity for me to not get exploited by others again.
This rings so close to home for me too.
I'm 36, I extremely rarely feel any envy(and when I feel it is about someone not "deserving" something because of something in that person) and I am very loose with my money.
Because of this I was manipulated a lot, because even though I could see the manipulative behavior I could not figure out the MOTIVE behind it and I always attributed it to some other reasons that I could understand.
I still have to second guess it a lot "really, is this abiut money? It can't be, right?"
I’m very similar. I easily become a door mat because I tend to assume people are sincere. It makes me seem nice, but I’m not trying to be particularly nice at all, just decent I guess. I don’t realize when I’ve been taken advantage of until months or even years later. I’m quite bad at reading these things in other people.
It's interesting that you point out that the cognitive aspect is the part autistics struggle with, because my experience with autistic people (myself included) is that they tend to be adept at receiving the signal, but are unable to respond appropriately. For example, I find it obvious when someone is interested in what I'm saying, but I'm not sure what to do with that information (e.g. do I just stop? Switch subjects, which might lead to the same problem? Etc.).
Where did you find this information? I might be self-analysing wrongly, so it'd be helpful to know how one might reach the opposite conclusion.
Where did you find this information? I might be self-analysing wrongly, so it'd be helpful to know how one might reach the opposite conclusion.
I lack the affective ability, but I would say that it's not distinct from my cognitive ability.
I say to myself I can "understand it", but if I can't feel it, I didn't really understand anything.
I say to myself I can "understand it", but if I can't feel it, I didn't really understand anything.
"Empathy" in the business circles, the one we hear most about these days, means if a given person takes into account the (profit) goals of other people. It has nothing to do with emotions.
Would cognitive empathy not be prerequisite to affective empathy? How can you share in another person's emotions if you're not able to recognize them in the first place?
I guess evolved instinctive or subconscious behaviour - (INB4 someone says "mirror neurons" and then someone else replies "mirror neurons do not work that way!") but you know how watching youtube videos of people getting hurt in hilarious fashion causes us to wince? Like that.
Communication. I don't have a good script, but basically, ask questions. "What upsets you about it the most?" - that expresses understanding, compassion and offers a metaphorical shoulder to cry on. People love attention and talking about themselves, so they'll tell you.
As someone in the spectrum, how could I improve my empathy?
The first step is to look for the most obvious signs. (Sounds trivial, but many people don't it, instead they create overcomplicated hypotheses.) If someone smiles, they are probably happy. If someone screams, they are probably angry. If someone cries, they are probably sad. This is not going to be 100% perfect, e.g. sometimes people smile when they feel embarassed. But it's a good starting point that you shouldn't skip.
(Many people already have a story about how the other person feels, and either ignore the signs or try to find an explanation within the story. For example, I assume that the person is angry... but the person smiles at me... what a hypocrite!! Instead of considering that maybe I was wrong about the person being angry.)
For someone on the spectrum, probably the most difficult part is to stop doing what you are doing now, and observe the other person curiously. And make the habit to do this as often as possible. Because this is often more important than finishing the sentence (paragraphs, the entire speech) that you already started. This will be really difficult -- but the encouraging thing is that when you master this skill, you can become better at it than many neurotypicals. Because they are doing it in an instinctive half-assed way, but when you learn to focus, you will focus intensely. (Of course, a neurotypical could learn the same thing, the same way, they just have less motivation to do so, because they assume they are already perfect at it, so most won't bother.) Knowing that you don't know is a good start.
And by the way, neurotypicals also fail at empathy quite often, they just cover it better, and recover from a blunder faster. They kinda do it in a way that is more socially acceptable. For example, they sometimes misinterpret another person in a way that makes the other person go "wtf?", but all onlookers go "wow, that was an awesome example of empathy". While you, if you misinterpret someone, that person goes "wtf?" and everyone else goes "wtf?" too. Maybe the proper way to put it is that neurotypicals are very good at reading the feelings of a crowd, but it is hit-and-miss with reading the feelings of one specific person. On the spectrum, it is hit-and-miss with one person, and almost sure miss with a crowd.
Also, look at the compatibility of their words and actions. If someone says "I am okay", but they keep yelling and hitting things, they are probably not okay. But confronting them about it directly is not helpful. Maybe later, if they calm down, you could ask them "yesterday, when you said you were okay, you also..., so I am confused". Here it depends. Some people will explain. Some will get angry again; in that case, don't try this with the same person again, find someone else to talk to.
For long-term understanding of other people, focus on what they do, instead of what they say. The past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If someone keeps talking about how they are going to do this or that, but they never do it, just assume they never will. Someone keeps doing something, then says excuses and promises to never do it again, but keeps doing it, just assume that they will keep doing it. The words can provide additional information to actions (e.g. "I hit you because I was angry"), but cannot erase the action (whatever was the reason, it is a fact that the person hit you, and you should not forget that, especially if that happens repeatedly). Words are "maybe", repeated actions are "the real thing". (Repeated words do not become any more reliable. Unless you mean "reliable prediction of what the person will say the next time", of course.)
People are different. Some are liars, some are manipulators, some are confused, some are sincere. Sometimes your problems with understanding a specific person are a result of that specific person being difficult to understand. Don't worry too much about understanding one specific person; pay attention to understanding people in general. It is possible that your understanding of other people will gradually improve, and yet that one person will remain just as mysterious as before. Count that as a success, not as failure.
People are more similar to each other than it may seem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect Most people are insecure, with various degree of denial. (Major exception: psychopaths. Charming people who usually refuse to discuss what is inside them, because there is barely anything beyond emptiness and hunger.)
Like all skills, empathy improves with practice. It would probably be useful if you could find someone to observe you at social situations, and discuss with them the situations afterwards. Probably more than one person, because each person will have their own biases and projections.
Maybe try to read some books or watch videos on Rogerian therapy. Simply said, it is a way to communicate with people in a therapeutical setting without imposing your own ideas of how they feel. (If you don't know how they feel, and you know that you don't know, that should make it even easier.)
This is just a random stream of thought, I hope it is useful, and I definitely have no scientific evidence for any of that. Good luck!
(Many people already have a story about how the other person feels, and either ignore the signs or try to find an explanation within the story. For example, I assume that the person is angry... but the person smiles at me... what a hypocrite!! Instead of considering that maybe I was wrong about the person being angry.)
For someone on the spectrum, probably the most difficult part is to stop doing what you are doing now, and observe the other person curiously. And make the habit to do this as often as possible. Because this is often more important than finishing the sentence (paragraphs, the entire speech) that you already started. This will be really difficult -- but the encouraging thing is that when you master this skill, you can become better at it than many neurotypicals. Because they are doing it in an instinctive half-assed way, but when you learn to focus, you will focus intensely. (Of course, a neurotypical could learn the same thing, the same way, they just have less motivation to do so, because they assume they are already perfect at it, so most won't bother.) Knowing that you don't know is a good start.
And by the way, neurotypicals also fail at empathy quite often, they just cover it better, and recover from a blunder faster. They kinda do it in a way that is more socially acceptable. For example, they sometimes misinterpret another person in a way that makes the other person go "wtf?", but all onlookers go "wow, that was an awesome example of empathy". While you, if you misinterpret someone, that person goes "wtf?" and everyone else goes "wtf?" too. Maybe the proper way to put it is that neurotypicals are very good at reading the feelings of a crowd, but it is hit-and-miss with reading the feelings of one specific person. On the spectrum, it is hit-and-miss with one person, and almost sure miss with a crowd.
Also, look at the compatibility of their words and actions. If someone says "I am okay", but they keep yelling and hitting things, they are probably not okay. But confronting them about it directly is not helpful. Maybe later, if they calm down, you could ask them "yesterday, when you said you were okay, you also..., so I am confused". Here it depends. Some people will explain. Some will get angry again; in that case, don't try this with the same person again, find someone else to talk to.
For long-term understanding of other people, focus on what they do, instead of what they say. The past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If someone keeps talking about how they are going to do this or that, but they never do it, just assume they never will. Someone keeps doing something, then says excuses and promises to never do it again, but keeps doing it, just assume that they will keep doing it. The words can provide additional information to actions (e.g. "I hit you because I was angry"), but cannot erase the action (whatever was the reason, it is a fact that the person hit you, and you should not forget that, especially if that happens repeatedly). Words are "maybe", repeated actions are "the real thing". (Repeated words do not become any more reliable. Unless you mean "reliable prediction of what the person will say the next time", of course.)
People are different. Some are liars, some are manipulators, some are confused, some are sincere. Sometimes your problems with understanding a specific person are a result of that specific person being difficult to understand. Don't worry too much about understanding one specific person; pay attention to understanding people in general. It is possible that your understanding of other people will gradually improve, and yet that one person will remain just as mysterious as before. Count that as a success, not as failure.
People are more similar to each other than it may seem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect Most people are insecure, with various degree of denial. (Major exception: psychopaths. Charming people who usually refuse to discuss what is inside them, because there is barely anything beyond emptiness and hunger.)
Like all skills, empathy improves with practice. It would probably be useful if you could find someone to observe you at social situations, and discuss with them the situations afterwards. Probably more than one person, because each person will have their own biases and projections.
Maybe try to read some books or watch videos on Rogerian therapy. Simply said, it is a way to communicate with people in a therapeutical setting without imposing your own ideas of how they feel. (If you don't know how they feel, and you know that you don't know, that should make it even easier.)
This is just a random stream of thought, I hope it is useful, and I definitely have no scientific evidence for any of that. Good luck!
The first sentence rubs me the wrong way. The claim that you wouldn’t expect autism to be coupled with invention because it is a disability only makes sense because of the semantics of labeling autism necessarily a disability. Not to mention the slight to disabilities as a whole
One of my sons has Asperger syndrome. He's brilliant, happy, and has one of the sharpest senses of humor I've encountered. I'm not sure if his Asperger syndrome is a net positive or negative in his life, but it's certainly not a straight-up disability.
Perhaps the author was thinking about a strong form of Autism that pretty unequivocally makes life difficult?
Perhaps the author was thinking about a strong form of Autism that pretty unequivocally makes life difficult?
Yep.
I was diagnosed with Asperger's later in life. I received this diagnosis after I already had a successful career, happy marriage, and house full of kids. Not much of a hindrance, right?
On the other hand, my brother suffers a much more severe form of autism. He does hold a profession job in finance. But he otherwise requires a full-time caretaker, tons of medication and understanding, etc. No friends. He's not self-sufficient.
It's a huge spectrum.
I was diagnosed with Asperger's later in life. I received this diagnosis after I already had a successful career, happy marriage, and house full of kids. Not much of a hindrance, right?
On the other hand, my brother suffers a much more severe form of autism. He does hold a profession job in finance. But he otherwise requires a full-time caretaker, tons of medication and understanding, etc. No friends. He's not self-sufficient.
It's a huge spectrum.
I too received a probable-diagnosis later in life. (It was part of neuro-psych testing to look for ADD, so they didn't run the specific test battery used for Asperger.)
In many ways my life has been just fine: steady well-paying employment, wonderful wife and kids, etc. So as with you, being (probably) somewhere on the spectrum isn't correlated with a crappy life.
But...
I've also had some unusual personality traits for my whole life, and I've really beaten myself up regarding them. Once I had a probably Asperger diagnosis, I felt like a tremendous weight was lifted. I no longer felt like I was uniquely messed up in those way. And maybe the subconscious logic is that if I'm part of a cluster of people with these idiosynchronies, maybe there's an underlying physiological cause that's somewhat out of my control, and therefore I'm less morally culpable for my atypical social failures.
In many ways my life has been just fine: steady well-paying employment, wonderful wife and kids, etc. So as with you, being (probably) somewhere on the spectrum isn't correlated with a crappy life.
But...
I've also had some unusual personality traits for my whole life, and I've really beaten myself up regarding them. Once I had a probably Asperger diagnosis, I felt like a tremendous weight was lifted. I no longer felt like I was uniquely messed up in those way. And maybe the subconscious logic is that if I'm part of a cluster of people with these idiosynchronies, maybe there's an underlying physiological cause that's somewhat out of my control, and therefore I'm less morally culpable for my atypical social failures.
can you go into a little more detail about what results allowed them to conclude you were probably aspergers, and what the personality traits that you previously felt guilty for were?
ADHD and mild ASD can sometimes look like one or the other. TBH a good neuropsych will do both if they have any suspicion of ASD if they are also doing ADHD testing.
interesting. i was diagnosed with adhd in my freshman year of high school, but i distinctly remember about a year later my therapist conducted a cognitive performance test that showed i did worse on the meds, which i remember he was surprised and embarrassed about. so, i wonder... i have always had a faint suspicion, but i know im absolutely not qualified or objective enough to make an inferrence
There are several forms of ADD, some of which don't respond to stimulants. Check Daniel Amen's work, there is a video on youtube "healing add - see and heal the 7 types".
There can be overlap and comorbidity too.
As part of my BPD the psychiatrist gave me an ADHD test, 25% of people with BPD also have ADHD.
As part of my BPD the psychiatrist gave me an ADHD test, 25% of people with BPD also have ADHD.
would love to hear more if you'd be willing.
Not sure what more to say. Was there something specific?
I think they were talking about your atypical social tendencies in specific.
[deleted]
Good point. The author of that article, Baron-Cohen, has previously written (debated?) about whether HFA/AS is a disability OR a difference. Speaking for myself, and many who identify as having Asperger's -- and your son, from what it sounds like (who sounds really cool!) -- it is indeed a difference, and by no means a disability.
I should be clear in stating that my life hasn't been a bowl of cherries. Asperger's is at the core of a looooong list of problems I've had with interpersonal relationships, whether it's family, friends, co-workers, roommates, etc. I'm sort of intolerant of being treated unjustly or being taken advantage of, and I react rather nastily to those who cross me. (And before you judge me, know that people with Asperger's have a knack for finding these situations. Exploited by coworkers? It really happens. Undesirable roommates who've physically threatened me? Been there more than once. Physical altercations as a kid, refusing to back down from bullies? Too many times to count. Screwed up relatives? I have many.)
But I don't care to use the word disabled in describing myself. Being unable to keep my mouth shut in the face of something I don't agree with doesn't qualify as a disability. My sensory issues aren't anything I ask for accommodations for. That I prefer to spend more time away from people than the average bear is not a disability. And in the context of autism, it's hard to use the word disabled and not have people place limitations on what one can/can't do. So, I don't use the word. And just consider myself different.
I recognize that there are people deeply offended by people like me, who are at the higher-functioning end of the spectrum and refuse to consider themselves disabled. (They see us as impostors.) There are also many people who take offense to the term lower/lesser functioning, and resent the use of terms like "severe autism". They consider this language to be demeaning. Autistic twitter is quite the landmine for semantic wars of this sort.
But I don't care to use the word disabled in describing myself. Being unable to keep my mouth shut in the face of something I don't agree with doesn't qualify as a disability. My sensory issues aren't anything I ask for accommodations for. That I prefer to spend more time away from people than the average bear is not a disability. And in the context of autism, it's hard to use the word disabled and not have people place limitations on what one can/can't do. So, I don't use the word. And just consider myself different.
I recognize that there are people deeply offended by people like me, who are at the higher-functioning end of the spectrum and refuse to consider themselves disabled. (They see us as impostors.) There are also many people who take offense to the term lower/lesser functioning, and resent the use of terms like "severe autism". They consider this language to be demeaning. Autistic twitter is quite the landmine for semantic wars of this sort.
Disabled against the context of "normality".
You can function obviously, but not as society expects you to or even in way they can understand. For that reason, you receive the label of "has a disability".
The term "disability" is unfortunately as much a reflection of societal norms as it is genuine medical diagnosis.
You can function obviously, but not as society expects you to or even in way they can understand. For that reason, you receive the label of "has a disability".
The term "disability" is unfortunately as much a reflection of societal norms as it is genuine medical diagnosis.
Exactly. Luckily society seems to be slowly becoming more accommodating and understanding, but there is a long was to go before society truly understands how to value the contribution of people who are different. Seeing 'disability' in this way, it can even apply to traits like introversion (depending on the culture you live in).
> There are also many people who take offense to the term lower/lesser functioning
As I understand it, the problem with using the expressions "lower / higher functioning" is that it evokes the idea that problems of people with "lower functioning" are a strict superset of problems of people with "higher functioning".
In reality, it's more like there is a set of symptoms, and some people have a larger random selection, and some people have a smaller random selection, so it is possible to be "higher functioning" but fail at X, or be "lower functioning" and fail at everything but X. So the "higher/lower" is more about how much your specific set of symptoms disrupts your life, but it doesn't imply which symptoms are present or absent.
But people who see the "lower / higher functioning" as two sets of symptoms will judge you by presence or absence of one specific symptom.
(Also, with some symptoms, how much they disrupt your life depends on what environment you live in.)
> Autistic twitter is quite the landmine for semantic wars of this sort.
Twitter seems to evoke the worst in people in general. The explanation I wrote here would almost certainly be also considered highly offensive by someone.
As I understand it, the problem with using the expressions "lower / higher functioning" is that it evokes the idea that problems of people with "lower functioning" are a strict superset of problems of people with "higher functioning".
In reality, it's more like there is a set of symptoms, and some people have a larger random selection, and some people have a smaller random selection, so it is possible to be "higher functioning" but fail at X, or be "lower functioning" and fail at everything but X. So the "higher/lower" is more about how much your specific set of symptoms disrupts your life, but it doesn't imply which symptoms are present or absent.
But people who see the "lower / higher functioning" as two sets of symptoms will judge you by presence or absence of one specific symptom.
(Also, with some symptoms, how much they disrupt your life depends on what environment you live in.)
> Autistic twitter is quite the landmine for semantic wars of this sort.
Twitter seems to evoke the worst in people in general. The explanation I wrote here would almost certainly be also considered highly offensive by someone.
Low end ASD can make dating really hard for men, and their often inflexible nature makes them hard people to live with at times. I think from that perspective alone it's a disability.
For a large part of my life I was somewhat jealous of my brother, who had Asperger's, for his natural wit, and his incredible creativity (in art, in music, in writing). So I can't possibly see it as a disability. It certainly makes some aspects of life more difficult for him, but my experience is that he generally figures things out in the end, even if it's many years later than his peers. On the other hand, some things 'normal' people struggle with come very easily to him. Really, I think 'difference' is the best way to put it. Some 'good', some 'bad', but I think they play a very important role in society.
As an aside, I'm really disappointed it's all under the umbrella term of ASD now. People are generally more aware of the differences now but no thanks to that.
As an aside, I'm really disappointed it's all under the umbrella term of ASD now. People are generally more aware of the differences now but no thanks to that.
I'm not quite sure if your brothers ASD [0] is responsible for his IQ and his artistic ability. I knew a kid in high school who had aspergers and he tried to be a witty comedian, but it was just bad and grating. He had a hard time dating, a hunchback, bad hygiene and from my impression, average academics and below average physical ability, I really felt sorry for him. ASD does not give you an IQ boost, maybe at most an obsessiveness which can help you have the will to practice more.
0. I like ASD better because aspergers sounds like ass-burgers TBH and once explained it makes people understand immediately that you have various degrees of it.
0. I like ASD better because aspergers sounds like ass-burgers TBH and once explained it makes people understand immediately that you have various degrees of it.
Asperger's does not give one a natural wit, usually it's very much the opposite.
I respect and agree with what you are saying. Even on the "higher-end", my relationships with the opposite sex were often unorthodox, shallow, or outright dysfunctional. And most of them were before my diagnosis.
I'm probably guilty of not viewing this as disabling because I'm treating the term too concretely, as if a disability has to be something "physical" that might require special accommodations. But yeah, I suppose my challenges in understanding the game of love are disabling.
I'm probably guilty of not viewing this as disabling because I'm treating the term too concretely, as if a disability has to be something "physical" that might require special accommodations. But yeah, I suppose my challenges in understanding the game of love are disabling.
By low-end ASD I mean mild ASD. I think strong ASD is pretty well recognized to be definitely disabling.
Conversely, that is also true of ugly or inconsiderate people regardless. When the problems are caused entirely by incompatibility with other people, I think its reasonable to say that maybe you aren't working with a disability.
[deleted]
[deleted]
So many of the traits that are bundled into the label autistic are on par with lactose intolerance.
Lactose intolerance in adults is something that the majority of our species lives with. It's only the Indo-European minority that can keep drinking cow's milk after puberty.
So, for example: Eye contact aversion. Prevalent among autistics. But only a disability in cultures that equate it with dishonesty.
Lactose intolerance in adults is something that the majority of our species lives with. It's only the Indo-European minority that can keep drinking cow's milk after puberty.
So, for example: Eye contact aversion. Prevalent among autistics. But only a disability in cultures that equate it with dishonesty.
Inability to tolerate fluorescent lighting. Those damned things did not exist until what, 60 years ago? How is it a pathology to be averse to them.I understand that sentiment, but I reckon it's better overall to emphasise the disadvantages, because that puts the focus on "things to improve", so to speak. Otherwise, if the focus lies 'too much' with the advantages (such as the ability to focus, which is not present in all individuals) it can be overlooked that autism has real (sometimes quite debilitating) disadvantages.
I think their intention was to capture the attention of their target audience. Their target audience typically thinks of autism as something that mostly hinders someone, rather than elevate / enable them.
The idea that it's a disability is as stupid as the idea that being 7 foot tall is a disability.
Not to nit-pick, but exceptionally tall people often have spine issues, and in sports, career-ending foot injuries are common in basketball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao_Ming
Also disable sound and search for "Kevin Durant injury: A look at the NBA's history with foot injuries"
As well, some of the "tall genes" are associated with connective tissue and other health problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfan_syndrome
I'm average height for the West, but when I'm in Asia, I often hit my head on gates, taxi doorways, etc. I imagine that would also happen for 7 footers in the West.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao_Ming
Also disable sound and search for "Kevin Durant injury: A look at the NBA's history with foot injuries"
As well, some of the "tall genes" are associated with connective tissue and other health problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfan_syndrome
I'm average height for the West, but when I'm in Asia, I often hit my head on gates, taxi doorways, etc. I imagine that would also happen for 7 footers in the West.
Yes, that was the point I was making. It seems that it flew over peoples heads.
Being on the spectrum without learning how to work around neurotypicals is the issue, the same way that being 7 foot tall without the physical modifications needed to support that body is also an issue.
I am very much on the spectrum but have developed a large number of coping strategies [0]. Had I been diagnosed and treated as a child I would have never had the ability to become anywhere near as successful and fulfilled as I am today. Instead I would have been drugged into being an office drone and probably been looking at suicide about now.
[0] One of the odder ones that no one neurotypical understands is an algebra of social relations I use to model office politics. It lets me evaluate the social graph analytically several jumps further than any person can keep in their head.
Being on the spectrum without learning how to work around neurotypicals is the issue, the same way that being 7 foot tall without the physical modifications needed to support that body is also an issue.
I am very much on the spectrum but have developed a large number of coping strategies [0]. Had I been diagnosed and treated as a child I would have never had the ability to become anywhere near as successful and fulfilled as I am today. Instead I would have been drugged into being an office drone and probably been looking at suicide about now.
[0] One of the odder ones that no one neurotypical understands is an algebra of social relations I use to model office politics. It lets me evaluate the social graph analytically several jumps further than any person can keep in their head.
Most (like 90% or more) autistic people are low functioning. But they are completely invisible to people like you. When you hear the word you think of the border line cases that fall under the label "high functioning autism".
But the author is not limiting himself to just these borderline cases.
Do you have any data for this distribution? This is the first time I've heard someone suggest any particular shape to this distribution, much less that it's shaped as you suggest.
I published this paper recently (1) in Biological Psychiatry. I bring it up only because unlike most neuroimaging research, we are able to image children at all levels of disability (since we image them while asleep). We argue that the idea that there is early brain overgrowth in autism followed by a period of regression or normalization of brain volume does not appear to be true, and the apparent differences in cross-sectional research are due to biases in most studies against including harder to image individuals with autism. In any case, intellectual disability is not 90% but it is quite substantial.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25462145
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25462145
I don't know about these precise numbers, but ~57% of autistic people have an <85 IQ (cf. 16% in general population), and somewhere between 25% to 50% are nonverbal. So 90% may be too high, but it seems very likely that a solid majority has profound difficulties in life.
edit: my source is the CDC(https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html) for IQ and this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3727194/ for proportion of nonverbal autism.
edit: my source is the CDC(https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html) for IQ and this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3727194/ for proportion of nonverbal autism.
Note that these numbers are for autism diagnoses, not autism cases. Someone with profound difficulties in life is far more likely to wind up with an autism diagnosis than higher-functioning autistics that are more likely to figure out successful adaptations.
[deleted]
I wonder how much this is autism and how much it is people with low trait agreeableness being diagnosed with autism for being "bad with people". Refusing to do rituals without a good explanation makes people think you are autistic, but it could just as well be that they are disagreeable by nature and don't do things just because people tell them to. And refusing to do things the way everyone else does them obviously helps you find new ways to do things.
I have trait agreeableness in the bottom 1st percentile.
I'm also diagnosed with ADHD which is often co-morbid with ASD.
I very much refuse to go along with a looooot of things just for the sake it. Anything steeped in tradition without a whole lot of logic to it gets met with mostly flat rejection. This has steadily increased as I've gotten older.
My mum used to be a special needs teacher and she kind of suspected I might be on the spectrum when I was a teenager. I've met people diagnosed with ASD whom I share a bunch of lived experience in common with. My step brother has a son whose diagnosed with ASD and he sort of indicated I show some signs of it. So, there are hints that maybe I am somewhere possibly the invisible end of the spectrum? Or maybe it's just my personality?
I read through Asperger's The Complete Guide. There are a few puzzle pieces which fit like ding ding ding. But there just aren't enough of them. And I watch things like Love On The Spectrum etc and I have had my share of difficulties perhaps but nowhere near what those people experience.
I've kinda tossed up getting a professional opinion about it multiple times. I just mostly feel like this is me and it's who I enjoy being. Perhaps my 20s were just one big development of coping mechanisms? My social skills just haven't really troubled me until this year. Mostly it's either workmates, long term friends who share my interests, or special interest groups where I have stuff in common with people. This year I had to take my son to a school thing where there were other parents and the only shared context was our children. It was very anxiety inducing and I just felt like I had nothing. My son wanted to stay longer but I panicked and I said we had to go home.
So... At this point I don't really know.
I'm also diagnosed with ADHD which is often co-morbid with ASD.
I very much refuse to go along with a looooot of things just for the sake it. Anything steeped in tradition without a whole lot of logic to it gets met with mostly flat rejection. This has steadily increased as I've gotten older.
My mum used to be a special needs teacher and she kind of suspected I might be on the spectrum when I was a teenager. I've met people diagnosed with ASD whom I share a bunch of lived experience in common with. My step brother has a son whose diagnosed with ASD and he sort of indicated I show some signs of it. So, there are hints that maybe I am somewhere possibly the invisible end of the spectrum? Or maybe it's just my personality?
I read through Asperger's The Complete Guide. There are a few puzzle pieces which fit like ding ding ding. But there just aren't enough of them. And I watch things like Love On The Spectrum etc and I have had my share of difficulties perhaps but nowhere near what those people experience.
I've kinda tossed up getting a professional opinion about it multiple times. I just mostly feel like this is me and it's who I enjoy being. Perhaps my 20s were just one big development of coping mechanisms? My social skills just haven't really troubled me until this year. Mostly it's either workmates, long term friends who share my interests, or special interest groups where I have stuff in common with people. This year I had to take my son to a school thing where there were other parents and the only shared context was our children. It was very anxiety inducing and I just felt like I had nothing. My son wanted to stay longer but I panicked and I said we had to go home.
So... At this point I don't really know.
Why not go then. It's good to know for self knowledge alone I would think, especially if you have a tech worker income and health insurance. And if you do, then a bunch of resources and books will be more applicable to you.
"I am acting like this because of my ASD" vs. "I am acting like this because I'm not very agreeable" I think is valuable self knowledge alone.
"I am acting like this because of my ASD" vs. "I am acting like this because I'm not very agreeable" I think is valuable self knowledge alone.
It's a spectrum and you already know you're somewhere on that spectrum or nearby. IMHO, you have all the information a professional could reasonably supply.
I tell my own ASD child, it's such a broad spectrum of otherwise loosely-associated characteristics that whatever diagnostic standards are deployed by professionals almost certainly will be reassessed as erroneous in my child's lifetime, which means all authoritative guidance you can receive now on the subject is 'wrong'. ASD is a bucket of 'different'. Those doing the judging can't even be consistent in expressing how ASDers are 'different'. That is all.
I tell my own ASD child, it's such a broad spectrum of otherwise loosely-associated characteristics that whatever diagnostic standards are deployed by professionals almost certainly will be reassessed as erroneous in my child's lifetime, which means all authoritative guidance you can receive now on the subject is 'wrong'. ASD is a bucket of 'different'. Those doing the judging can't even be consistent in expressing how ASDers are 'different'. That is all.
Spectrum diseases like schizophrenia and autism seem ripe for splitting. In particular, I'm holding out hope for improved diagnoses (and treatments) once we learn more about genetics and neuroscience.
The opposite happened with ASD. It was Autism and High Functioning Autism and Asperger's and it all got merged into ASD.
Autism is a spectrum disorder, defined by just a list of traits, one of which you describe. So it is, by definition, autism.
All of the traits of ASD also occur in people who don't have ASD – people with other disorders, people with broad autism phenotype (BAP), and just "neurotypical" people in general.
Kamp-Becker I, Albertowski K, Becker J, Ghahreman M, Langmann A, Mingebach T, Poustka L, Weber L, Schmidt H, Smidt J, Stehr T, Roessner V, Kucharczyk K, Wolff N, Stroth S. Diagnostic accuracy of the ADOS and ADOS-2 in clinical practice. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;27(9):1193-1207. doi: 10.1007/s00787-018-1143-y. Epub 2018 Mar 20. PMID: 29560529:
> There is an obvious symptom overlap between ASD and emotional and anxiety disorders documented by several studies [24, 52–56]. Both disorders involve profound social interaction and communication defcits, problems in emotion recognition, insistence on sameness, infexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns or verbal/non-verbal behaviour. 30% of children with an anxiety disorder (but no known diagnosis of ASD) were above the cutof of the ADI-R in at least one domain [57]. Other disorders are likewise associated with “autistic traits” of profound amount, such as ADHD, conduct disorders, intellectual impairment, and language disorders (see above)
Since none of the traits of ASD is unique to ASD, none of those traits can be said to be "by definition, autism". One only should be diagnosed with ASD if one has enough of a broad enough cross-section of those traits, and those traits cause clinically significant dysfunction. (A person with a broad cross-section of those traits but without clinically significant dysfunction doesn't have ASD, they have BAP, but the boundary between ASD and BAP is unclear and varies from clinician to clinician.)
Kamp-Becker I, Albertowski K, Becker J, Ghahreman M, Langmann A, Mingebach T, Poustka L, Weber L, Schmidt H, Smidt J, Stehr T, Roessner V, Kucharczyk K, Wolff N, Stroth S. Diagnostic accuracy of the ADOS and ADOS-2 in clinical practice. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;27(9):1193-1207. doi: 10.1007/s00787-018-1143-y. Epub 2018 Mar 20. PMID: 29560529:
> There is an obvious symptom overlap between ASD and emotional and anxiety disorders documented by several studies [24, 52–56]. Both disorders involve profound social interaction and communication defcits, problems in emotion recognition, insistence on sameness, infexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns or verbal/non-verbal behaviour. 30% of children with an anxiety disorder (but no known diagnosis of ASD) were above the cutof of the ADI-R in at least one domain [57]. Other disorders are likewise associated with “autistic traits” of profound amount, such as ADHD, conduct disorders, intellectual impairment, and language disorders (see above)
Since none of the traits of ASD is unique to ASD, none of those traits can be said to be "by definition, autism". One only should be diagnosed with ASD if one has enough of a broad enough cross-section of those traits, and those traits cause clinically significant dysfunction. (A person with a broad cross-section of those traits but without clinically significant dysfunction doesn't have ASD, they have BAP, but the boundary between ASD and BAP is unclear and varies from clinician to clinician.)
Autism diagnosis does not really focus on social interactions. Difficulties in social interaction are a side effect but it is not how they diagnose the condition.
Can you cite a reference to a diagnostic tool for autism which doesn't "focus on social interactions"? The DSM-5 certainly seems to indicate that social interactions are important diagnostically (excerpt below):
https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-diagnosis-criteria-dsm-5
"""Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history...
Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity...
Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction...
Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships... """
https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-diagnosis-criteria-dsm-5
"""Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history...
Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity...
Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction...
Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships... """
DSM-5 criteria for ASD have as criterion A "Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts". So if one doesn't have persistent deficits in social interaction, one doesn't meet the criteria for ASD. So this is a core part of the diagnosis of the condition, it is a mandatory requirement for diagnosis.
I have gone through the autism diagnosis process myself, it is very flexible so as long as you have the stereotypical problems with social situations they will give you a diagnosis if you want it. I didn't want it so they didn't give me a diagnosis. I guess if there were parents involved who wanted something to blame they would have pushed for the diagnosis though.
Some autistic nitpicking :
> our ancestors started inventing things 70,000 to 100,000 years ago.
Erm, and what about the other 200k-230k years of homo sapiens?
Not to mention that Homo erectus invented the handaxe and domesticated fire about 1700k years ago, both of which were a pretty big deal!
https://tauromachy.org/2018/07/18/the-handaxe-the-thundersto...
> our ancestors started inventing things 70,000 to 100,000 years ago.
Erm, and what about the other 200k-230k years of homo sapiens?
Not to mention that Homo erectus invented the handaxe and domesticated fire about 1700k years ago, both of which were a pretty big deal!
https://tauromachy.org/2018/07/18/the-handaxe-the-thundersto...
I have no opinion on this, but some think the hand axe was genetically transmitted rather than culturally: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5066817/
And that modern humans had some kind of creativity explosion substantially after they were anatomically modern.
And that modern humans had some kind of creativity explosion substantially after they were anatomically modern.
Sadly I didn't have the time to read it all, but I note that your authors also talk of a cultural-based "shift in speed of artifact change 300‐200 ka" and maybe (or maybe not) also another (?) cognition-upgrade based shift 100-45 ka, which would be that "creativity explosion" that you are talking about ?
They also talk about individual learning as a third mode, which somewhat ironically seems to be what the autism article is talking about... except the conditions for it are genetically based ! (But I guess so is the transition to mostly social learning?)
EDIT : Hmm, and since autism is "anti-social" (and also probably generally anti-survival and anti-reproduction), may it be that it was only once that large, stable, strong social groups were put in place starting with 300-200 kya, that the conditions for "autistic specializations" could emerge starting with 100-45 kya, and this is what in turn turbocharged inventions leading to the "creativity explosion" ? The autism article would make a lot of sense under this light !
Anyway, perhaps we can't cleanly separate nature and nurture, see also recent discoveries somewhat rehabilitating Lamarckian inheritance.
Also, my author in a parallel article says :
https://loukeep.substack.com/p/vagaries
> The first modern human bones are in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, 300 kya. H. rhodiensis - the African variant of heidelbergensis - disappears at around this same time. There are just-about-simultaneously collections found in the Rift Valley, Kenya, that point to incredibly “modern” behavior[1], including pigment production and obsidian distant enough to suggest trade networks. Once, I think, it could be maintained that some kind of “great leap forward” in human behavior took place some 60,000 years ago or so. I don’t particularly understand how one can keep that up now.
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/90
They also talk about individual learning as a third mode, which somewhat ironically seems to be what the autism article is talking about... except the conditions for it are genetically based ! (But I guess so is the transition to mostly social learning?)
EDIT : Hmm, and since autism is "anti-social" (and also probably generally anti-survival and anti-reproduction), may it be that it was only once that large, stable, strong social groups were put in place starting with 300-200 kya, that the conditions for "autistic specializations" could emerge starting with 100-45 kya, and this is what in turn turbocharged inventions leading to the "creativity explosion" ? The autism article would make a lot of sense under this light !
Anyway, perhaps we can't cleanly separate nature and nurture, see also recent discoveries somewhat rehabilitating Lamarckian inheritance.
Also, my author in a parallel article says :
https://loukeep.substack.com/p/vagaries
> The first modern human bones are in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, 300 kya. H. rhodiensis - the African variant of heidelbergensis - disappears at around this same time. There are just-about-simultaneously collections found in the Rift Valley, Kenya, that point to incredibly “modern” behavior[1], including pigment production and obsidian distant enough to suggest trade networks. Once, I think, it could be maintained that some kind of “great leap forward” in human behavior took place some 60,000 years ago or so. I don’t particularly understand how one can keep that up now.
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/90
Anti-social people are actually very social - they just do anti-social things to others.
Asocial people on other side are not social, but they don't do any anti-social things - because that would mean that they have to socialize and that is opposite to being asocial.
Autistic people are not anti-survivalists, as by definition they have hightened fight-flight response, so they want to survive, however they have to really depend on society(humans by definition are social animals) to provide them survivable environment, so they could invent. Hardly any invention can happen, if there is no fertile ground, as being among morons requires different goals and skills to survive and adapt - with creativity.
Autistic people also are no anti-reproduction either - modern society is in general against reproduction, as there is overpopulation on this planet.
There are no problems to reproduce, if female is autistic, as she has much higher chances to find a partner and produce autistic offsprings, but it is more complicated for autistic males to find a partner and without a partner there is no reproduction even if males are pro-reproduction.
Asocial people on other side are not social, but they don't do any anti-social things - because that would mean that they have to socialize and that is opposite to being asocial.
Autistic people are not anti-survivalists, as by definition they have hightened fight-flight response, so they want to survive, however they have to really depend on society(humans by definition are social animals) to provide them survivable environment, so they could invent. Hardly any invention can happen, if there is no fertile ground, as being among morons requires different goals and skills to survive and adapt - with creativity.
Autistic people also are no anti-reproduction either - modern society is in general against reproduction, as there is overpopulation on this planet.
There are no problems to reproduce, if female is autistic, as she has much higher chances to find a partner and produce autistic offsprings, but it is more complicated for autistic males to find a partner and without a partner there is no reproduction even if males are pro-reproduction.
I guess we mostly agree, my phrasing was just clumsy.
> There are no problems to reproduce, if female is autistic, as she has much higher chances to find a partner and produce autistic offsprings
Not only she has to birth children, in the absence of a strong (extra-)familial community she also has to be able to care well for them. Don't you think that autism, especially if in strong form, might make this a problem?
> There are no problems to reproduce, if female is autistic, as she has much higher chances to find a partner and produce autistic offsprings
Not only she has to birth children, in the absence of a strong (extra-)familial community she also has to be able to care well for them. Don't you think that autism, especially if in strong form, might make this a problem?
Note that the author is reporting primarily on his own research, not all of which is uncontroversial. Cohen's assertions have mostly been anecdote-based, without a lot of support from formal studies, even to quantifying what this "Invention" faculty even is.
Cohen has tended to be a bit of a firebrand, and although he is given to overstating associations, it has usually pushed the field forward in crucial ways.
papa bless
Bless you people. I am amazed at how many pay-walled articles are posted on HN. Are most people here really well off enough that they can afford the dozens of subscriptions that are often linked to here?
Different countries have different purchase power so subscriptions may be different expensive depending where you live. That said, paying for news is essential for our democracy. Paying for news allows news sites to pay journalist to research and write news stories.
If we do not pay for news, news has to be financed through online advertising which is basically selling personal data for profit. Without paying revenue local news sites cannot afford to hire journalist. If there is not local journalist, there will not be controls, checks and writings on what elected officials do. Local news papers feed national news feed with articles and national news.
So its essential for our democracy that we are willing to pay for news services which pays journalists.
If we do not pay for news, news has to be financed through online advertising which is basically selling personal data for profit. Without paying revenue local news sites cannot afford to hire journalist. If there is not local journalist, there will not be controls, checks and writings on what elected officials do. Local news papers feed national news feed with articles and national news.
So its essential for our democracy that we are willing to pay for news services which pays journalists.
Part of that concept is the implied outcome that once media is paid for by readers it will no longer engage in undesirable practices for revenue, like advertorials and shock content; but this is somewhat of a myth. Those shady practices were common before the Internet, and they'll be common even if media returns to a subscription service model.
What you need is a well-funded, and non-profit public news media. It's not without its faults, but it certainly shines where private news media consistently fails to.
What you need is a well-funded, and non-profit public news media. It's not without its faults, but it certainly shines where private news media consistently fails to.
Hmm, any examples of journalist-owned media engaging in such practices? I can think of at least 6 of them who don't (and don't have ads either).
I'd give examples of independent journalists, particularly vloggers, who produce shock content of questionable merit, or who regularly publish promoted content; but I think you can identify them yourself.
Right, I didn't think about individuals... though b/vloggers that aren't already journalists generally don't have the pretension of following journalistic norms ?
> If we do not pay for news, news has to be financed through online advertising
Agreed.
> which is basically selling personal data for profit
Not necessarily. Mostly untargeted display ads don't. They could profit from personal data as much as TV or newspaper ads. They also yield a lot worse; my point is that it's possible to run ads that don't actually use personal data.
My bigger concern with ad-funded journalism is it encourages stories and headlines that get clicks, not stories that are important. Journalism isn't supposed to be entertainment.
Agreed.
> which is basically selling personal data for profit
Not necessarily. Mostly untargeted display ads don't. They could profit from personal data as much as TV or newspaper ads. They also yield a lot worse; my point is that it's possible to run ads that don't actually use personal data.
My bigger concern with ad-funded journalism is it encourages stories and headlines that get clicks, not stories that are important. Journalism isn't supposed to be entertainment.
Simpler explanation: People don't read the article. Why do you think people complain about titles so much even though they really don't matter
The worst issue with this is that titles are generally picked by different people than those writing the article, and are sometimes only tangentially related to its content.
On the other hand: Most articles are pretty fluffy and don't bring much to the table, and so are just an invitation to discuss the topic at hand in the comments at what is usually a far greater depth than the original story.
Yeah, I often don't feel the need to click the link after reading the comments, but sometimes I do and I am frequently disappointed to find only a few paragraphs of content or a superficial introduction to the subject.
There are some services that allow you to subscribe to a single service for ~$10 per month and you get access to a wide range of national papers like the WSJ.
What is this service you are talking about?
Sounds like Apple News. I am not a subscriber but this is what I understand the offering to be with regard to the WSJ. I think it is not comprehensive, but it includes a good deal of WSJ content. I think it can also be purchased even more cheaply as part of Apple's recently announced bundles.
My ISP has/used to have one, and it was even given for free for some months. I would have preferred that they didn't, as this can easily turn into a conflict of interest.
apple news
Huh, I don't have an iPhone but the offer sounds very good.
I pay much more than $10 for only WSJ subscription. Sounds like I'm getting the shaft.
I pay much more than $10 for only WSJ subscription. Sounds like I'm getting the shaft.
Generally I don't get locked out of articles. The combination of uBlock, privacy badger, and auto deleting cookies seems to take care of 99% of cases. The rest are handled by outline.com and archive. But I'll be honest in those cases I'll read the comments first to see if it's worth reading.
It's like the often-proposed micropayments, except without the "micro".
if you are using firefox then there is a great extension here which gets rid of many paywalls. works like a charm https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
Another very useful add-on is Unpaywall which searches for free reprints of paywalled scholarly papers.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/unpaywall
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/unpaywall
I keep trimread[1] bookmarked. I works on most paywalled sites...
[1] https://beta.trimread.com/
[1] https://beta.trimread.com/
For something with such a large spectrum, it doesn't make sense to assign broad generalizations. The lack of empathy in particular is almost too close to implying criminality as a common occurrence. Code perhaps?
Some people play the social games more than others and if you're not interested in playing along, you're labelled as the 'other'. Then all of the negative stuff builds from there and it tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Positive generalizations are harmful too, like it being a super power or you're going to be a wealthy inventor.
Autism would be just one factor among many for all of these things.
Some people play the social games more than others and if you're not interested in playing along, you're labelled as the 'other'. Then all of the negative stuff builds from there and it tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Positive generalizations are harmful too, like it being a super power or you're going to be a wealthy inventor.
Autism would be just one factor among many for all of these things.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but there is a 3-to-1 male-to-female ratio in autism prevalence. Does this mean that males invent more things than females? Or is the percentage of people with autism too small to have an effect here?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28545751/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28545751/
> there is a 3-to-1 male-to-female ratio in autism prevalence
There is a 3-to-1 ratio in diagnostic prevalence. From the article you linked: "There appears to be a diagnostic gender bias, meaning that girls who meet criteria for ASD are at disproportionate risk of not receiving a clinical diagnosis."
There are multiple theories for this difference: genetics, environment, ...; but also gender bias in diagnosis. eg. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/14/thousands-of...
There is a 3-to-1 ratio in diagnostic prevalence. From the article you linked: "There appears to be a diagnostic gender bias, meaning that girls who meet criteria for ASD are at disproportionate risk of not receiving a clinical diagnosis."
There are multiple theories for this difference: genetics, environment, ...; but also gender bias in diagnosis. eg. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/14/thousands-of...
I know that there is at least some speculation that autism in women is under diagnosed v men. Does this paper account for that?
Edit: yeah, that’s the conclusion of the analysis. I wonder if there is still more to be found there (ie if it is still closer to 1:1).
Edit: yeah, that’s the conclusion of the analysis. I wonder if there is still more to be found there (ie if it is still closer to 1:1).
My unresearched pet theory is that, at least in mammals, males are risk-takers, do stupid things, and are where the genome gets to try new things, because they're more "disposable" when propagating a species.
It's not just mammals and I wouldn't frame it as them being disposable when propagating the species.
There's a bigger payout at the right tail of the distribution for male genes. Male genes can sometimes have 1000 offspring. Female genes generally can't. Male genes are generally more likely to have 0 offspring. So male genes have less to lose and more to gain by taking risks, behavioral and biological risks. See also male variance hypothesis.
This varies by species and the pattern is likely stronger in more polygynous species and weaker in more monogamous species. See also sexual dimorphism. Human males take more behavioral risks on average and have higher mortality rates throughout life (not only from behavior).
I warn you though, this is a controversial subject because of some of its possible implications.
Also I should disclose that I'm not an expert, just a layperson interested in this and some related topics.
There's a bigger payout at the right tail of the distribution for male genes. Male genes can sometimes have 1000 offspring. Female genes generally can't. Male genes are generally more likely to have 0 offspring. So male genes have less to lose and more to gain by taking risks, behavioral and biological risks. See also male variance hypothesis.
This varies by species and the pattern is likely stronger in more polygynous species and weaker in more monogamous species. See also sexual dimorphism. Human males take more behavioral risks on average and have higher mortality rates throughout life (not only from behavior).
I warn you though, this is a controversial subject because of some of its possible implications.
Also I should disclose that I'm not an expert, just a layperson interested in this and some related topics.
> I warn you though, this is a controversial subject because of some of its possible implications
I can imagine some of the implications people could come up with, but I'm curious which ones come to mind for you.
I can imagine some of the implications people could come up with, but I'm curious which ones come to mind for you.
It gets into James Damore territory pretty quickly.
>I warn you though, this is a controversial subject because of some of its possible implications.
This is a really sad state of science we are living through.
This is a really sad state of science we are living through.
There was a time when society relegated women to pursuits that frequently deprived them of many opportunities to invent. Fortunately, society has changed.
This is definitely a large part of the picture but it's also possibly partly genetic when it comes to the science and tech fields. I'm talking about interest and not competence. Women tend to self select out of science and tech in richer societies where they have the freedom to do so, and self select into disciplines that serve the empathic personality better. There are persuasive studies on that topic.
A significant factor seems to be that the way (not only STEM) academia is currently organized means that women have to pick between a career or having any children (at ages favorable to childbearing):
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4522
And I kind of have the impression that the situation here actually got worse during the last decades?
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4522
And I kind of have the impression that the situation here actually got worse during the last decades?
I'm also talking about regular career choices (not academia) that only involve a three or four year undergraduate degree. Women self select out of technical pursuits (CS) and self select into more verbal or empathic areas (Law or Medicine, and an even more extreme example being liberal arts) even though such areas might entail even more study than CS. This self selection is magnified when women have more choice and freedom. Women in software is more common the more poor a country is.
I mean it's not only career choices where such gender differences manifest, we also see it in the choices that young children make. The burden of proof is on the camp that proposes that it's entirely sociological since the extant empirical evidence, along multiple independent lines, contradicts it.
I mean it's not only career choices where such gender differences manifest, we also see it in the choices that young children make. The burden of proof is on the camp that proposes that it's entirely sociological since the extant empirical evidence, along multiple independent lines, contradicts it.
Yes, I'm specifically talking of women loss after undergraduate level.
Agree that this is an issue
This theory doesn’t any hold scrutiny: some academic or academic-like fields are dominated by women despite having the same formal organization as the STEM ones.
I would guess that they were already dominated by women at the undergraduate level, perhaps even more so ?
We're still a society that treats women very differently.
For instance, women have to be just the right level of assertive. Too little, and you're not respected nor listened to, you're passed for promotions... Too much, and you're viewed as aggressive.
You have all those articles about women leaving tech - they must have had the interest to get there, the opportunities, and yet they're leaving.
For instance, women have to be just the right level of assertive. Too little, and you're not respected nor listened to, you're passed for promotions... Too much, and you're viewed as aggressive.
You have all those articles about women leaving tech - they must have had the interest to get there, the opportunities, and yet they're leaving.
We agree in full that women face these problems across tech and also in other industries.
However, this is not evidence of a uniquely bad problem in tech which can explain why tech has a gender disparity (which occurs primarily because women are self-selecting out of it before college) and other areas do not. Tech workers are far less blokey and much more aware/introspective of the issues than finance workers for example, actually the contrast is rather extreme speaking as someone who's worked in both industries, but it has less women proportionately than in finance which is contra to what your hypothesis would predict.
We also have to contend with the fact that women are underrepresented in tech (again due mostly to less women entering technical fields in college, even though they can easily do so if they wanted) across every developed country. Are we to say that chauvinism is such an extensive problem in tech across every single country, and that it's consistently more of a problem than in Law, Finance and almost every other field, and that we can't find a single exception to this in Scandinavia or one miscellaneous country?
I find that dubious and think a genetic explanation (i.e. genetics influencing group means in interests/passions) is a far better fit to the available data, especially since such differences show up at a very young age, across cultures, before significant socialization. Not to mention that these results fit with fairly mainstream science (evolutionary psychology).
This is not an attempt at a value judgement, prescription, or to diminish the very real issues that women face in the workplace (including the tech workplace). I'm just trying to get a descriptive answer to the question "what's the biggest factor behind tech having so few women?".
> they must have had the interest to get there, the opportunities, and yet they're leaving.
I see these as anecdotes. They're interesting and worthy of attention, but it's not good data that compares how many women and how many men are leaving tech when compared to other industries.
-
I would really like to see a survey of 18 year old women who are enrolling into college, and straight up ask them why they didn't choose tech. My money is on them saying they have no interest, and not that they read some article about tech-unique chauvinism. I will await such results keenly.
However, this is not evidence of a uniquely bad problem in tech which can explain why tech has a gender disparity (which occurs primarily because women are self-selecting out of it before college) and other areas do not. Tech workers are far less blokey and much more aware/introspective of the issues than finance workers for example, actually the contrast is rather extreme speaking as someone who's worked in both industries, but it has less women proportionately than in finance which is contra to what your hypothesis would predict.
We also have to contend with the fact that women are underrepresented in tech (again due mostly to less women entering technical fields in college, even though they can easily do so if they wanted) across every developed country. Are we to say that chauvinism is such an extensive problem in tech across every single country, and that it's consistently more of a problem than in Law, Finance and almost every other field, and that we can't find a single exception to this in Scandinavia or one miscellaneous country?
I find that dubious and think a genetic explanation (i.e. genetics influencing group means in interests/passions) is a far better fit to the available data, especially since such differences show up at a very young age, across cultures, before significant socialization. Not to mention that these results fit with fairly mainstream science (evolutionary psychology).
This is not an attempt at a value judgement, prescription, or to diminish the very real issues that women face in the workplace (including the tech workplace). I'm just trying to get a descriptive answer to the question "what's the biggest factor behind tech having so few women?".
> they must have had the interest to get there, the opportunities, and yet they're leaving.
I see these as anecdotes. They're interesting and worthy of attention, but it's not good data that compares how many women and how many men are leaving tech when compared to other industries.
-
I would really like to see a survey of 18 year old women who are enrolling into college, and straight up ask them why they didn't choose tech. My money is on them saying they have no interest, and not that they read some article about tech-unique chauvinism. I will await such results keenly.
I'm not denying the gender equality paradox, that in societies where women have the choice, they chose STEM less often.
I'm not denying a genetic factor either, because I can't disprove it.
What I'm arguing against is this "tabula rasa" at age 18. Women grow up with less female role models in STEM. A Barbie doll used to say "math is hard", which speaks volumes to how prevalent this message is. Sure, 18yo haven't seen the workplace yet, but they've seen how women are treated, how higher the bar is for them, how more criticism they get when they take a risk and fail, how often they'd be the only woman in the room... Going into STEM for a boy is being safe in a group of similar peers, going into STEM for a girl is harder, because all your life, you have to prove you're good despite being a girl, and because it's lonely.
My personal view is that both genetics and society matter here. I don't have a problem with genetics, but I do have one with society.
I'm not denying a genetic factor either, because I can't disprove it.
What I'm arguing against is this "tabula rasa" at age 18. Women grow up with less female role models in STEM. A Barbie doll used to say "math is hard", which speaks volumes to how prevalent this message is. Sure, 18yo haven't seen the workplace yet, but they've seen how women are treated, how higher the bar is for them, how more criticism they get when they take a risk and fail, how often they'd be the only woman in the room... Going into STEM for a boy is being safe in a group of similar peers, going into STEM for a girl is harder, because all your life, you have to prove you're good despite being a girl, and because it's lonely.
My personal view is that both genetics and society matter here. I don't have a problem with genetics, but I do have one with society.
I think we are mostly in agreement. I agree that there are societal factors as well and that these are not good and we should work to address them.
Yeah, "fortunately" it's changed so now they can't have children and still don't invent things.
[deleted]
Men get far more patents - but as men also get far more engineering degrees, I don't think you need autism as an explanation.
You don't think that traits people associate with autism has anything to do with whether they choose to get an engineering degree?
It's true, but it can not be discussed and researched further because it is very upsetting to a lot of people. Also explains why men are better in chess. (I don't mean this from a misogynistic viewpoint: The majority of men will never invent anything or become good at chess, just like the majority of women)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
Hmmm ... written by Borat's cousin (seriously) ... not a good or bad thing, just an interesting one
While I was reading the ‘The Patterns Seekers’, managed to put together a basic concept of crowdsourcing patterns. I suppose this will look interesting eventually into a graph later. Here is a preview: https://why.social/default.aspx
Reminds me of Peter Thiel's view that autism is useful because it leads to less herd-like thinking/peer-pressure succumb-tion/mimesis. This aspect might be more important than the one this article puts forward i.e. that autists thinking itself lends itself better to being inventive.
+ I'm wary of these things being pop culture memes, and having weird expectations of people. 'Rain Man' all over again.
+ I wonder if people with these 'differences' really at the end of the day just have 'different viewpoints'.
If 'everyone' were autistic a person that we might consider to be 'normal' ... would literally be an 'empath' - someone with uncanny magical powers to read emotions. That person would probably seem 'innovative' for having such a worldview.
+ I wonder if people with these 'differences' really at the end of the day just have 'different viewpoints'.
If 'everyone' were autistic a person that we might consider to be 'normal' ... would literally be an 'empath' - someone with uncanny magical powers to read emotions. That person would probably seem 'innovative' for having such a worldview.
This gives more data points to the whole tongue in cheek, Autism causes Vaccines. (more poignant now more than ever)
[deleted]
The research study behind the book is about autistic traits and not necessarily clinically diagnosed autism.
Yes it is a spectrum and yes you can be "high functioning" and have "milder symptoms" but it is way more than that.
Autism has a wide range of clinical subtypes and there are extremely debilitating ones.
At its worst, you have kids who are non-verbal and can't communicate. If they don't get therapy they can be become aggressive and violent as they get older. A screaming hitting 5 year old is far different than a screaming hitting 15 year old.
Spinning in circles, flapping, repetition, sensory issues, the requirement of definite routines. It's a whole different world and exhausting.
You can identify signs of autism as early as 18 months. At age 2 or 3 it can be reliably diagnosed. I've personally seen autistic non-verable young kids go through intensive therapy and develop into kids who can attend kindergarten or 1st grade.
What is really sad is that for the kids that don't get early intervention and where schools and states are not able to identify these kids. These kids end up with behavioral IEPs, might get kicked out of school and have no friends. Not that the kids necessarily want to play with other kids.
Also the UK is seriously behind in autism therapy services and while it is good to focus on positive traits that might be associated with autism it is not helpful to those who really need the help. And in many cases you need a lot of help. But if you invest when the kids are young you can really make a difference.
In the US, Obamacare really opened up services in the US and even then its hit or miss. For example, federal employees have no early intervention/autism coverage. And before that you had to go to specific states or school districts or be really rich to get any type of help. Even then it takes 6 months to get your kid in somewhere and the wait lists are huge as demand is so high.
Kids with autism basically need 1:1 therapy 8 hours a day with positive reinforcement either ABA, AVB etc... I am a fan of center based programs but you do need to find a good program.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/signs-autism
Also I am not sure what Baron-Cohen is suggesting here but saying that there is a "scientific rationale" behind the kid flipping the light on and off or staring at the fireplace or a ceiling fan wondering how it is just nonsense. I mean maybe its true but did the kid tell you that? The kid is presumably not able to ask someone as to why the light turns on when he flicks the switch or if told, integrate the response. I think it is more consistent with the need for stimulation. Also his comment on a savant with autism is really not helpful. Savant syndrome is probably co-morbid with autism, development delay, and intellectual disability... but to say that's an autistic trait is just irresponsible.
His book is basically a generalization based on autistic traits focused on systematizing and pattern matching and guess what the major confounding variable is ... we are all humans. Humans are pattern matchers + more. We also all respond to stimulus/response. And even animals are pattern matchers.
Yes it is a spectrum and yes you can be "high functioning" and have "milder symptoms" but it is way more than that.
Autism has a wide range of clinical subtypes and there are extremely debilitating ones.
At its worst, you have kids who are non-verbal and can't communicate. If they don't get therapy they can be become aggressive and violent as they get older. A screaming hitting 5 year old is far different than a screaming hitting 15 year old.
Spinning in circles, flapping, repetition, sensory issues, the requirement of definite routines. It's a whole different world and exhausting.
You can identify signs of autism as early as 18 months. At age 2 or 3 it can be reliably diagnosed. I've personally seen autistic non-verable young kids go through intensive therapy and develop into kids who can attend kindergarten or 1st grade.
What is really sad is that for the kids that don't get early intervention and where schools and states are not able to identify these kids. These kids end up with behavioral IEPs, might get kicked out of school and have no friends. Not that the kids necessarily want to play with other kids.
Also the UK is seriously behind in autism therapy services and while it is good to focus on positive traits that might be associated with autism it is not helpful to those who really need the help. And in many cases you need a lot of help. But if you invest when the kids are young you can really make a difference.
In the US, Obamacare really opened up services in the US and even then its hit or miss. For example, federal employees have no early intervention/autism coverage. And before that you had to go to specific states or school districts or be really rich to get any type of help. Even then it takes 6 months to get your kid in somewhere and the wait lists are huge as demand is so high.
Kids with autism basically need 1:1 therapy 8 hours a day with positive reinforcement either ABA, AVB etc... I am a fan of center based programs but you do need to find a good program.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/signs-autism
Also I am not sure what Baron-Cohen is suggesting here but saying that there is a "scientific rationale" behind the kid flipping the light on and off or staring at the fireplace or a ceiling fan wondering how it is just nonsense. I mean maybe its true but did the kid tell you that? The kid is presumably not able to ask someone as to why the light turns on when he flicks the switch or if told, integrate the response. I think it is more consistent with the need for stimulation. Also his comment on a savant with autism is really not helpful. Savant syndrome is probably co-morbid with autism, development delay, and intellectual disability... but to say that's an autistic trait is just irresponsible.
His book is basically a generalization based on autistic traits focused on systematizing and pattern matching and guess what the major confounding variable is ... we are all humans. Humans are pattern matchers + more. We also all respond to stimulus/response. And even animals are pattern matchers.
ABA is... quite controversial, to put it mildly. It is essentially an "aversion therapy", which is a codeword for "I will keep hurting you until you learn to behave properly". (The same idea as behind many cures for homosexuality.)
And yes, you can make kids stop performing some specific behaviors using ABA, so they will count it as big success. It does not make them less autist, only more terrified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis#Cont...
> applied behavior analysis ... used aversives such as electric shocks to modify undesirable behavior in their initial use in the 1970s, as well as slapping and shouting ... aversives have continued to be used in some ABA programs. In comments made in 2014 to the FDA, a clinician who previously worked at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center claimed that "all textbooks used for thorough training of applied behavior analysts include an overview of the principles of punishment, including the use of electrical stimulation." In 2020, the FDA banned the use of electrical stimulation devices used for self-injurious or aggressive behavior and asserted that "Evidence indicates a number of significant psychological and physical risks are associated with the use of these devices, including worsening of underlying symptoms, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, pain, burns and tissue damage."
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Rotenberg_Educational_Ce...
And yes, you can make kids stop performing some specific behaviors using ABA, so they will count it as big success. It does not make them less autist, only more terrified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis#Cont...
> applied behavior analysis ... used aversives such as electric shocks to modify undesirable behavior in their initial use in the 1970s, as well as slapping and shouting ... aversives have continued to be used in some ABA programs. In comments made in 2014 to the FDA, a clinician who previously worked at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center claimed that "all textbooks used for thorough training of applied behavior analysts include an overview of the principles of punishment, including the use of electrical stimulation." In 2020, the FDA banned the use of electrical stimulation devices used for self-injurious or aggressive behavior and asserted that "Evidence indicates a number of significant psychological and physical risks are associated with the use of these devices, including worsening of underlying symptoms, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, pain, burns and tissue damage."
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Rotenberg_Educational_Ce...
>ABA is... quite controversial, to put it mildly. It is essentially an "aversion therapy", which is a codeword for "I will keep hurting you until you learn to behave properly".
This is not true. Modern ABA has no punishment as negative feedback component. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you find that a facility engages in said techniques they should be reported.
This is not true. Modern ABA has no punishment as negative feedback component. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you find that a facility engages in said techniques they should be reported.
> Modern ABA has no punishment as negative feedback component.
Modern ABA is good at finding things that are extremely unpleasant to autists, but seem okay to normies, and use those as a punishment. Perfectly legal. (And even this improvement only came after the alternatives were made illegal.)
I am curious what would be your example of ABA without punishment. Could you perhaps send me a link to a video? Maybe we make different conclusions from watching the same thing.
Modern ABA is good at finding things that are extremely unpleasant to autists, but seem okay to normies, and use those as a punishment. Perfectly legal. (And even this improvement only came after the alternatives were made illegal.)
I am curious what would be your example of ABA without punishment. Could you perhaps send me a link to a video? Maybe we make different conclusions from watching the same thing.
Erk. This seems like it was ran through google translate twice. I hope the original article isn't this badly written.
I never felt Richard Stallman was treated fairly.
Mental disabilities are mostly adaptations that have huge upside. Technology is exacerbating that upside. You can’t have a majority autistic society, but you want some of them around
> Mental disabilities are mostly adaptations that have huge upside.
There is extremely scant evidence to support this claim, and conversely, an enormous amount of evidence to disprove it.
The first part is questionable in its very premise. Mental disabilities as an adaptation? By what metric do you measure this? And having huge upsides? There aren't many upsides to someone being born severely mentally retarded. There aren't really even many upsides to severe autism.
For every "House, M.D." you're thinking of, there's another totally non-functional person who requires an enormous amount of caretaking.
There is extremely scant evidence to support this claim, and conversely, an enormous amount of evidence to disprove it.
The first part is questionable in its very premise. Mental disabilities as an adaptation? By what metric do you measure this? And having huge upsides? There aren't many upsides to someone being born severely mentally retarded. There aren't really even many upsides to severe autism.
For every "House, M.D." you're thinking of, there's another totally non-functional person who requires an enormous amount of caretaking.
I think a big problem of this is that we don't actually represent these people and the way we talk about mental illnesses and disabilities is just strange. Like a lot of people were confused by Robin Williams and Chris Farley, but I don't think anyone that's ever suffered from depression was surprised at all. We think of depression as sadness instead of the existential emptiness or mundane that many experience. Autism is represented by geniuses like House or Sheldon Copper and no one understands the sensory overload aspect that is so common. It's also trendy in some circles to have illnesses because it represents struggle and overcoming obstacles. But the challenge is that many mental illnesses are extreme versions of the human condition and if you dilute it enough everyone has an anxiety disorder and depression and multiple personalities. I don't blame people for not knowing but maybe we should cool the jets on how woke we are because it seems like we're perpetuating misnomers more than recognizing nuances.
> if you dilute it enough everyone has an anxiety disorder and depression and multiple personalities. I don't blame people for not knowing but maybe we should cool the jets on how woke we are because it seems like we're perpetuating misnomers more than recognizing nuances.
My God, this is so well said. Thank you for this comment.
I could not agree with you more.
My God, this is so well said. Thank you for this comment.
I could not agree with you more.
This is on the one hand a good point but on the other it is a good example of exactly what you’re pointing out. Your implicit dismissal of the idea that there is a spectrum invalidates the ones with the milder form, the highly functionals who feel extremely liberated when a diagnosys is made and why they want to share it that with the world.
> Your implicit dismissal of the idea that there is a spectrum
This was really not my intent. Would you care letting me know where I implicitly said that so I cannot make the same error in the future?
This was really not my intent. Would you care letting me know where I implicitly said that so I cannot make the same error in the future?
That's an interesting take. I have seen the disability-as-adaptation idea in the past but nothing regarding Technology exacerbated upside. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis and https://slate.com/technology/2016/06/the-monkeys-of-south-am... .
There's an entire field (although a small one) dedicated to this called Evolutionary Psychopathology. The idea is that mental illnesses are failure modes of adaptive phenotypes. For example high functioning autistic couple could produce a severely autistic child.
You could believe this if you have only ever saw mental disabilities in movies. Pay a visit to an actual mental ward and I can guarantee it will change your perspective.
My family has multiple people who have spent extended periods of time in mental hospitals, I know what goes on there. But I still stick by my point
I think what you might be getting at is that having a minority of people with mental disabilities increases the overall diversity of thought within our species, which can sometimes prove beneficial. However, any given mental disability may not be beneficial for the individual.
So one explanation is that natural selection has found a balance that yields benefits for the group.
So one explanation is that natural selection has found a balance that yields benefits for the group.
Where one is on a spectrum is key here. When you have high functioning autism or ADHD, sure, you think outside a box and provide a unique perspective, and there's a workplace you can bring that to. When you're too low functioning to hold a job, it's hard to see an upside.
Just world fallacy
How much of autism diagnosis is just people misunderstanding people with high IQ?
Obviously autism != intelligence, but I'd wager a fair amount of people are thought to be "on the spectrum" when really they just have an incredibly high IQ compared to their peers.
Obviously not coming at this from a medical background.
Obviously autism != intelligence, but I'd wager a fair amount of people are thought to be "on the spectrum" when really they just have an incredibly high IQ compared to their peers.
Obviously not coming at this from a medical background.
Autism diagnoses should be inversely correlated with IQ at the same level of symptoms. For what it's worth, this correlation should hold for every mental health diagnosis.
Pretty much all diagnosis criteria include some form of "and these things cause some sort of problems in the patient's life". Even if it doesn't, if someone's school/life/career is going OK, they don't seek out a mental health diagnosis. And IQ is one thing that is positively correlated with all sorts of desirable life outcomes.
Like, one notable anecdotal example of this is Bill Gross, the "Bond King". He found out that he was on the spectrum when he was in his seventies. Basically a psych was talking about Asperger's at a dinner, Bill was like "that sounds like me", and his wife was like "of course, dear".
Pretty much all diagnosis criteria include some form of "and these things cause some sort of problems in the patient's life". Even if it doesn't, if someone's school/life/career is going OK, they don't seek out a mental health diagnosis. And IQ is one thing that is positively correlated with all sorts of desirable life outcomes.
Like, one notable anecdotal example of this is Bill Gross, the "Bond King". He found out that he was on the spectrum when he was in his seventies. Basically a psych was talking about Asperger's at a dinner, Bill was like "that sounds like me", and his wife was like "of course, dear".
Why not both?
For the longest time people viewed high IQ (as much as it is an actual distinct thing) as a pure blessing. But more and more is coming out saying like everything else high IQ is a trade off and by increasing IQ you decrease other factors so it would not be at all surprising if major issues are strongly correlated with high IQ.
That said I believe autism specifically occurs up and down the range of IQs and there are generally more people with autism on the low end of the spectrum (it could be equally likely that this is because of the diagnosis bias from the above).
For the longest time people viewed high IQ (as much as it is an actual distinct thing) as a pure blessing. But more and more is coming out saying like everything else high IQ is a trade off and by increasing IQ you decrease other factors so it would not be at all surprising if major issues are strongly correlated with high IQ.
That said I believe autism specifically occurs up and down the range of IQs and there are generally more people with autism on the low end of the spectrum (it could be equally likely that this is because of the diagnosis bias from the above).
Of course they do. Most mental/developmental conditions are nothing more than glorified personality quizzes created by PhDs. Unless you have the most boring personality in the world you're guaranteed to meet the diagnostic criteria for a whole slew of stuff they came up with. The only escape hatch to maintain some kind of legitimacy is to add a criterion of maladaptiveness - if you're doing well in every area of life you cannot be "diagnosed". That and you only consider "diagnoses" made by "professionals" to be valid.
This way anybody proving how ridiculous these conditions are is wrong by default.
This way anybody proving how ridiculous these conditions are is wrong by default.
^this*100
it's also not lost on those "professionals" that if you can diagnose enough kids with various unfalsifiable "medical conditions", you're set for life with a steady supply of paying customers in the form of easy-street "patients" you can "treat" without ever having to provide any "cure"
and anybody who questions the validity of a science not based on logical reasoning is obviously autistic themselves and thus doesn't count - real people have this emotional intelligence that you simply cannot understand, silly; you're just thinking too logically and thus you're wrong and if you don't shut up and obey we might have to put you in an asylum (for your own good, of course!) because we're so caring and understanding that I'm almost fainting just from thinking about just how good of a person I am
it's also not lost on those "professionals" that if you can diagnose enough kids with various unfalsifiable "medical conditions", you're set for life with a steady supply of paying customers in the form of easy-street "patients" you can "treat" without ever having to provide any "cure"
and anybody who questions the validity of a science not based on logical reasoning is obviously autistic themselves and thus doesn't count - real people have this emotional intelligence that you simply cannot understand, silly; you're just thinking too logically and thus you're wrong and if you don't shut up and obey we might have to put you in an asylum (for your own good, of course!) because we're so caring and understanding that I'm almost fainting just from thinking about just how good of a person I am
Minor point of clarification: It's noted that many autistic folks struggle with empathy. There are two dimensions to empathy, cognitive and affective. Cognitive is more about perspective taking, or reading the feelings / intentions of others, while affective is the ability to share/understand the emotions of others, and respond appropriately.
Putting aside that the two may overlap, it's often the cognitive aspect that challenges the autistic, leaving them susceptible to being tricked, or unable to pick up on, say, whether or not a person is interested in dating them.
I point this out b/c it's important that this deficiency isn't construed as simply a predisposition to acting like an unfeeling jerk. There are many layers to empathy, as well as the related concept of Theory of Mind.