Is It Time to Give Up on a Single Diagnostic Label for Autism?(blogs.scientificamerican.com)
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Is It Time to Give Up on a Single Diagnostic Label for Autism?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-a-single-diagnostic-label-for-autism/
66 comments
Overdiagnosis of autism seems to be a very American thing - basically getting support (financial or educational) is highly dependent on specific diagnosis, so previously someone with delayed learning would have been recognized as delayed learning, but now people have realized the most effective way to get support is to find a dr who will diagnose autism.
Which is bad for everyone - support needs for people with autism is different than for other disorders, it fuels at least part of the increase in autism diagnoses since the 80s (and so the idiot antivaxxers)
Which is bad for everyone - support needs for people with autism is different than for other disorders, it fuels at least part of the increase in autism diagnoses since the 80s (and so the idiot antivaxxers)
[deleted]
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
I've never liked that statement. Mostly because it's not true; it's just a reminder to stop letting the utterances of others affect you so much.
Having said that, there's a point where we should set aside the worries of our language possibly being used to offend others and instead to just get on with it.
Perhaps this is one of those times?
I've never liked that statement. Mostly because it's not true; it's just a reminder to stop letting the utterances of others affect you so much.
Having said that, there's a point where we should set aside the worries of our language possibly being used to offend others and instead to just get on with it.
Perhaps this is one of those times?
It’s been time to do that for a while. The problem is without a good system for measurable diagnosis among physiology or symtoms, it’s complicated.
This is also one of the biggest reasons that control groups to test anything around autism are such a challenge and why there’s such a vacuum around treatments that leaves parents researching and searching for their own.
This is also one of the biggest reasons that control groups to test anything around autism are such a challenge and why there’s such a vacuum around treatments that leaves parents researching and searching for their own.
The issue is that most doctors aren't good observers or critical thinkers, they're selected for memorization skills and not critical thinking. Of course people working on the field specifically of autism will have more experience and be able to spot the obvious cases, however I regularly come across people who have hyper- or hypo-sensitivities which are because of developmental blocks/disorder as well - and people won't even realize how much of an impact this is actually having on their whole system.
There potentially are other causes to these hyper- and hypo- sensitivities that I observe, though there are a few questions can that be asked to increase the odds that it's correct, and then there are diagnostics that can confirm.
How much an individual can be helped, if their developmental block can be unblocked, likely depends on when and how the block/disorder began - and that's where my interest lies.
There potentially are other causes to these hyper- and hypo- sensitivities that I observe, though there are a few questions can that be asked to increase the odds that it's correct, and then there are diagnostics that can confirm.
How much an individual can be helped, if their developmental block can be unblocked, likely depends on when and how the block/disorder began - and that's where my interest lies.
It was time ten years ago.
Autism is one of the most complex moving-parts mental disorders that I know of.
I'm speaking about kids mainly, because that's what I'm familiar with, but some kids have mood swings and some don't, some have cognitive tempo irregularities, some have sensory disruptive effects, some have learning disability effects, some have communication difficulties, some have spatial permanence issues, some have memory issues, there are a million different components to the autism spectrum.
The autism spectrum is often thought of as a number line, but it actually exists in several dozen dimensions, it's a very deep spectrum, with documented cases all over it.
It gets worse now that there's so much medication flowing around, there are kids who don't have attention disorders getting put on attention meds, kids with normal social skills getting out on psychotic stabilizers.
Autism has been affected strongly by how aggressively mobile the psychopharmaceutical industry has become. It's disgusting. It's completely demonic that mental illnesses are graphed and measured and these MEDICINE companies are optimizing for how much orange plastic bottles are being assigned to children!
The article is right, DSM did call for it a few years ago, but it will take time and effort to reeducate doctors, the public, the children... It will take time before parents begin to realize the extent to which they are being manipulated and profiteered upon, and the effects of all these drugs in these kids will be profound.
I feel strongly about this, but I'm so disenchanted with how America handles big pharma. It's a complete joke. Orange plastic and green paper is worth enough to violate the minds of our youth.
Edits: it's my phone keyboard!
Autism is one of the most complex moving-parts mental disorders that I know of.
I'm speaking about kids mainly, because that's what I'm familiar with, but some kids have mood swings and some don't, some have cognitive tempo irregularities, some have sensory disruptive effects, some have learning disability effects, some have communication difficulties, some have spatial permanence issues, some have memory issues, there are a million different components to the autism spectrum.
The autism spectrum is often thought of as a number line, but it actually exists in several dozen dimensions, it's a very deep spectrum, with documented cases all over it.
It gets worse now that there's so much medication flowing around, there are kids who don't have attention disorders getting put on attention meds, kids with normal social skills getting out on psychotic stabilizers.
Autism has been affected strongly by how aggressively mobile the psychopharmaceutical industry has become. It's disgusting. It's completely demonic that mental illnesses are graphed and measured and these MEDICINE companies are optimizing for how much orange plastic bottles are being assigned to children!
The article is right, DSM did call for it a few years ago, but it will take time and effort to reeducate doctors, the public, the children... It will take time before parents begin to realize the extent to which they are being manipulated and profiteered upon, and the effects of all these drugs in these kids will be profound.
I feel strongly about this, but I'm so disenchanted with how America handles big pharma. It's a complete joke. Orange plastic and green paper is worth enough to violate the minds of our youth.
Edits: it's my phone keyboard!
It doesn't help that assistance in schools is based on kids getting certain diagnoses (at least where I live in the U.S.), Autism being on of them. This means that a number of kids either have other disorders or really none at all are labeled with this because it's a way of working the system.
To make matters worse, I've had arguments with teachers about what constitutes being Autistic. My son was diagnosed with Autism when he was 3/4, and with therapy he's doing quite well, but he has his quirks. I have to remind people that just because he doesn't act the way their other children did who were diagnosed in the classroom, doesn't mean that he isn't on the spectrum, and I remind that they aren't qualified to officially determine his mental health. (And if they are, then we're going to have another discussion about performing a medical procedure on a child without the consent of their parent.)
To make matters worse, I've had arguments with teachers about what constitutes being Autistic. My son was diagnosed with Autism when he was 3/4, and with therapy he's doing quite well, but he has his quirks. I have to remind people that just because he doesn't act the way their other children did who were diagnosed in the classroom, doesn't mean that he isn't on the spectrum, and I remind that they aren't qualified to officially determine his mental health. (And if they are, then we're going to have another discussion about performing a medical procedure on a child without the consent of their parent.)
Diagnoses for conditions without a known causal mechanism should be thought of as much as a reflection on the social and institutional context as on the diagnosed person. It's only fair since it's the society and institution that needed the label in order to accommodate the diagnosed person in the first place.
I agree if the people doing the labeling are qualified to do as much. I think OP is saying some of these teachers are not.
I'm curious what your background and experience is to classify the Autism spectrum as a mental disorder? I believe a better classification would be a developmental disorder - which I personally prefer to state as developmental blocks, which makes the spectrum of symptoms/behaviours and sets of behaviours as symptoms become easier to understand; and depending on when (and perhaps how) the developmental block started, will in part dictate where along natural evolution and brain development they are.
Pharma of course wants to classify it as a mental disorder so then doctors will be allowed to prescribe medications.
I'm curious too what you mean by several dozen dimensions? I wonder if you mean the same thing as I do when I say "set of behaviours?"
And yes, the industrial complex with pharma has learned how to indoctrinate the medical and educational system, and fine-tuned their marketing/advertising. I get sick to my stomach when I go to the US and put TV on, the constant flood of ads for medications that are all fluff information being presented.
Pharma of course wants to classify it as a mental disorder so then doctors will be allowed to prescribe medications.
I'm curious too what you mean by several dozen dimensions? I wonder if you mean the same thing as I do when I say "set of behaviours?"
And yes, the industrial complex with pharma has learned how to indoctrinate the medical and educational system, and fine-tuned their marketing/advertising. I get sick to my stomach when I go to the US and put TV on, the constant flood of ads for medications that are all fluff information being presented.
I didn't diagnose anything.
Don't take my personal opinion and make it accountable to a professional one. I'm not a doctor. But before doing finance I used to do some basic tutoring and teachers assistant stuff for a place filled with kids with "autism" and there was a very wide array of personalities there.
As per dimensionality, yes that's what I was saying. Each symptom or descriptor exists on its own spectrum, not the entire disorder/illness/whatever it is medically classified.
Anyways, yeah. I don't know what's an illness, what's a disorder, I don't particularly care what the medical industry uses to distinguish those two words, but I've spent a chunk of time working with autistic students, and its close to my heart.
Don't take my personal opinion and make it accountable to a professional one. I'm not a doctor. But before doing finance I used to do some basic tutoring and teachers assistant stuff for a place filled with kids with "autism" and there was a very wide array of personalities there.
As per dimensionality, yes that's what I was saying. Each symptom or descriptor exists on its own spectrum, not the entire disorder/illness/whatever it is medically classified.
Anyways, yeah. I don't know what's an illness, what's a disorder, I don't particularly care what the medical industry uses to distinguish those two words, but I've spent a chunk of time working with autistic students, and its close to my heart.
The wide array of personalities is why it's considered a spectrum - so either saying autism or autism spectrum is referencing the same thing. There are certainly severities of what behaviours and the level that they will present - they all fit within an evolving framework and understanding of autism though. Things can be difficult to diagnose, primarily because there can be multiple causes of symptoms. Someone with anxiety might be eating a food that makes them anxious, or they have unhealed PTS, etc.
A problem with taking the pharma approach to treatment of someone with autism is that, imaging being super hypersensitive to touch - the constant agitation from contact by clothing may make you constantly anxious right? So do you treat anxiety as a symptom of the sensitivity? It doesn't really make sense to do.
A problem with taking the pharma approach to treatment of someone with autism is that, imaging being super hypersensitive to touch - the constant agitation from contact by clothing may make you constantly anxious right? So do you treat anxiety as a symptom of the sensitivity? It doesn't really make sense to do.
[deleted]
The complexity and the number of dimensions is exactly why the APA decided to delete AS as a diagnosis and create a single diagnostic label. Do you know why, out of all the many dimensional, we ended up categorizing based on the one specific aspect? Basically, it's because it determined what triggered the initial referral - it was an artifact of how our health system is set up, not anything actually intrinsic to the condition itself. It's not even clear what an actually-meaningful diagnostic classification would look like.
[deleted]
There are no drugs for autism, so I don't understand your comment.
There are drugs that have been shown to improve specific symptoms that can manifest with ASD. These drugs are not always effective but can be part of a wholistic support program (including therapy, school district support, and lifestyle changes). Any of these drugs should only be administered under the careful supervision of a psychiatrist.
I wonder what role inhibitory control plays in the behaviors of ASD. Is it that an autistic person is unable to control their irregular behavior, or is it simply that their perception of the world is different than most neurotypical people?
Autism is not a mental illness. Please do not spread misinformation.
Please don't post shallow dismissals. A good critical comment teaches us something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I can understand why high-functional individuals or even the parents dealing with moderate cases are afraid of the stigma but the whole "it is not a desease" is very harmful for families dealing with more severe cases: it is always taxing for the family and often very debilitating for the individual.
My 5 yers old son wouldn't be able to attend a regular school without 3 years of expensive therapy and a dedicated tutor in class so the last thing I want is an excuse for my health insurance to deny assistance. The safety network a lot worse than what is available for dawn's without this PC BS.
My 5 yers old son wouldn't be able to attend a regular school without 3 years of expensive therapy and a dedicated tutor in class so the last thing I want is an excuse for my health insurance to deny assistance. The safety network a lot worse than what is available for dawn's without this PC BS.
The person you are replying to didn't say autism isn't a disease; they said it's not a mental illness.
As far as I know autism is classified as a developmental disorder.
As far as I know autism is classified as a developmental disorder.
There's not much of a useful distinction between these categories and words, though. "Disease" is a very general category that, depending on who you ask, contains all disorders. Many psychiatric developmental disorders do have clear established physical causes, so in that sense they're not much different than being born with a malformed heart, other than that the defect is in a different location.
The only real consensus is that "disease" does not describe traumatic injuries, e.g. if you break your ankle in a bike accident that isn't a disease. Note that many people conflate "disease" with "infectious disease", but the actual general category "disease" is quite broad and encompasses much more.
Anyway, it's arguing over semantics, like the perennial argument over whether Java parameters are passed by reference, or if their references are passed by value, or if they're passed by value, etc. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16896150
The only real consensus is that "disease" does not describe traumatic injuries, e.g. if you break your ankle in a bike accident that isn't a disease. Note that many people conflate "disease" with "infectious disease", but the actual general category "disease" is quite broad and encompasses much more.
Anyway, it's arguing over semantics, like the perennial argument over whether Java parameters are passed by reference, or if their references are passed by value, or if they're passed by value, etc. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16896150
Its a general term people use to mean "not normal". What else should we call it? Everyone loves to play semantics and politics when it comes to categorising mental abnormalities. No one wants their affliction to be considered an "illness"
Basically you're unleashing a horde of loaded words in an effort to explain why the first loaded word choice was appropriate.
For a significant portion of those with autism, the way their brain works is different than the median human but they are still basically fully functional human beings. My handy dictionary defines abnormal as "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying." They match the first part of the definition, but the second part is very much open to question. Being different is not necessarily undesirable, nor worrying, nor an affliction, nor an illness.
For a significant portion of those with autism, the way their brain works is different than the median human but they are still basically fully functional human beings. My handy dictionary defines abnormal as "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying." They match the first part of the definition, but the second part is very much open to question. Being different is not necessarily undesirable, nor worrying, nor an affliction, nor an illness.
People like you are one of the biggest reasons autism is too broad of a term.
Maybe these words seem loaded to self-diagnosed, asperger glorifying, "neurodivergent," ever-woke social justice armchair linguists like yourself.
I'd love for all of you to be squarely outside of the same diagnosis my little brother has.
I can't stress how much your "fully functioning" "open to question" "non-illness difference" version of autism deeply offends those who have been touched by real autism. Not, got me a job at Google savante autism. Not, I'm a nerd who remembers every episode of Naruto and no one likes me because I never shower so my excuse is my neurodivergence autism.
I long for the day when my brother's socially crippling mood swings and severe learning disability is no longer trapped under the same umbrella as a group of people who want to remove disability, retardation, or illness from a definition that has literally destroyed the lives of many individuals and families across the world.
I am disgusted by this optimistic view on autism. Championed by the most privileged of those with the disorder. You all fight a "stigma" for a mental disorder that you find has some "perks" as if the child thrashing his head against a wall and screaming at the top of his lungs because his brain registers every other sensation as pain and pain as pleasure doesn't even exist.
I have no sympathy for your entire assessment yet we agree on one thing, me maybe more so than you. The sooner we redefine autism into a multitude of different mental disorders, the better.
Maybe these words seem loaded to self-diagnosed, asperger glorifying, "neurodivergent," ever-woke social justice armchair linguists like yourself.
I'd love for all of you to be squarely outside of the same diagnosis my little brother has.
I can't stress how much your "fully functioning" "open to question" "non-illness difference" version of autism deeply offends those who have been touched by real autism. Not, got me a job at Google savante autism. Not, I'm a nerd who remembers every episode of Naruto and no one likes me because I never shower so my excuse is my neurodivergence autism.
I long for the day when my brother's socially crippling mood swings and severe learning disability is no longer trapped under the same umbrella as a group of people who want to remove disability, retardation, or illness from a definition that has literally destroyed the lives of many individuals and families across the world.
I am disgusted by this optimistic view on autism. Championed by the most privileged of those with the disorder. You all fight a "stigma" for a mental disorder that you find has some "perks" as if the child thrashing his head against a wall and screaming at the top of his lungs because his brain registers every other sensation as pain and pain as pleasure doesn't even exist.
I have no sympathy for your entire assessment yet we agree on one thing, me maybe more so than you. The sooner we redefine autism into a multitude of different mental disorders, the better.
> People like you [...] I am disgusted [...] I have no sympathy
There's obviously deep personal experience behind your comment, and that commands respect, but you can't attack other users here, no matter how wrong they are. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
I know it's not easy when one's struggles and wounds get suckerpunched by another comment. But we all need to remember that in a forum like this, where relational bandwidth is extremely limited, someone else's comment is constructed at least 50% out of our own interpretation of their words. Maybe a lot more than 50%. More here if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13102115.
There's obviously deep personal experience behind your comment, and that commands respect, but you can't attack other users here, no matter how wrong they are. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
I know it's not easy when one's struggles and wounds get suckerpunched by another comment. But we all need to remember that in a forum like this, where relational bandwidth is extremely limited, someone else's comment is constructed at least 50% out of our own interpretation of their words. Maybe a lot more than 50%. More here if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13102115.
I am also the older brother to an autistic sibling. Thank you for writing this, I have the same thoughts and fury.
To be glib, I wish there was a specific category of disorder for those people who reflect the tale of the Princess and the Pea when it comes to their 'neurodifferences'.
To be glib, I wish there was a specific category of disorder for those people who reflect the tale of the Princess and the Pea when it comes to their 'neurodifferences'.
There used to be a distinction between aspergers and autism in the DSMV, although the eventually removed it on the grounds that the two groups were just different magnitudes of the same symptoms. I think that we should keep the term aspergers around for social reasons, maybe not in our medical lexicon but surely in our cultural one.
Calling people who have autism to not have "real autism" is a misinterpretation of the many behaviors associated with autism and why it may be considered neurodivergence or a developmental illness instead.
There are people who are non-verbal but sign or write perfectly well, what are they considered?
There are people who are very vocal but speak with an awkward cadence and have mood swings, are they "really autistic"?
There are people who are verbally eloquent but constantly participate in stim behavior and need constant observation to make sure they clothe, bathe, and feed themselves appropriately, do they have "real autism"?
There are people who may be able to hold down a part time job but cannot have a full time position because they have no capacity towards basic organizational skills necessary to have regular hours, do they have "real autism"?
There are people who are nonverbal and constantly stim and have severe learning disabilities but have enough organizational ability to hold full-time hours in, say, construction, because they're highly organized and don't have sensory problems with the work. Do they have "real autism"?
Autism is complicated because it is more a set of descriptions of related symptoms, in which each individual may have more or less of each symptom. From what I understand, autism can't be viewed as a "rating" of better or worse autism. Instead it should be viewed as a gradient of behaviors, individually are considered more or less functional.
I should also note that your language is highly dehumanizing to your bother, emphasizing on the impact of his autism on the people around him, and defining "real autism" not by symptoms but by how it affects non-autistic people. I don't believe this is much different than trying to direct a conversation about autism to making it a conversation about how hard it is to be a non-autistic and live with autistic people.
EDIT: Of note, I agree that it may be more pertinent to create different categories of autism based on the group of symptoms, but I'm not sure (and I don't know if there are studies) if they can be so easily teased apart as implied here.
There are people who are non-verbal but sign or write perfectly well, what are they considered?
There are people who are very vocal but speak with an awkward cadence and have mood swings, are they "really autistic"?
There are people who are verbally eloquent but constantly participate in stim behavior and need constant observation to make sure they clothe, bathe, and feed themselves appropriately, do they have "real autism"?
There are people who may be able to hold down a part time job but cannot have a full time position because they have no capacity towards basic organizational skills necessary to have regular hours, do they have "real autism"?
There are people who are nonverbal and constantly stim and have severe learning disabilities but have enough organizational ability to hold full-time hours in, say, construction, because they're highly organized and don't have sensory problems with the work. Do they have "real autism"?
Autism is complicated because it is more a set of descriptions of related symptoms, in which each individual may have more or less of each symptom. From what I understand, autism can't be viewed as a "rating" of better or worse autism. Instead it should be viewed as a gradient of behaviors, individually are considered more or less functional.
I should also note that your language is highly dehumanizing to your bother, emphasizing on the impact of his autism on the people around him, and defining "real autism" not by symptoms but by how it affects non-autistic people. I don't believe this is much different than trying to direct a conversation about autism to making it a conversation about how hard it is to be a non-autistic and live with autistic people.
EDIT: Of note, I agree that it may be more pertinent to create different categories of autism based on the group of symptoms, but I'm not sure (and I don't know if there are studies) if they can be so easily teased apart as implied here.
> I should also note that your language is highly dehumanizing to your brother
No, please don't do that here. It's patronizing and, given the story we just heard, crosses into personal attack.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No, please don't do that here. It's patronizing and, given the story we just heard, crosses into personal attack.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> From what I understand, autism can't be viewed as a "rating" of better or worse autism.
For the sake of making a pedantic and spurious semantic argument, you are willing to ignore the life-altering severity of jklinger410's brother's symptoms.
> I don't believe this is much different than trying to direct a conversation about autism to making it a conversation about how hard it is to be a non-autistic and live with autistic people.
Here you are not only ignoring the very severe consequences that autism has for jklinger410's brother, you try to dismiss jklinger410's evident distress and concern as self-serving.
For the sake of making a pedantic and spurious semantic argument, you are willing to ignore the life-altering severity of jklinger410's brother's symptoms.
> I don't believe this is much different than trying to direct a conversation about autism to making it a conversation about how hard it is to be a non-autistic and live with autistic people.
Here you are not only ignoring the very severe consequences that autism has for jklinger410's brother, you try to dismiss jklinger410's evident distress and concern as self-serving.
He isn’t speaking for his brother; he is only speaking for his own pain in expressing frustration of how he has been impacted by “real autism”.
You should give consideration to the distinct possibility that the pain and frustration arises from his love for his brother.
[deleted]
> Autism is complicated because it is more a set of descriptions of related symptoms, in which each individual may have more or less of each symptom. From what I understand, autism can't be viewed as a "rating" of better or worse autism. Instead it should be viewed as a gradient of behaviors, individually are considered more or less functional.
I guess that's what the article is about, but it doesn't communicate the range as well as your post does. I wonder though, what's the purpose of having such an amorphous definition? The word becomes completely useless the more symptoms it describes. And the more symptoms it describes, the more unlikely it is that they're even at all related in terms of root cause and treatment. And I would think that results in a reduction in research progress.
> I agree that it may be more pertinent to create different categories of autism based on the group of symptoms
I know little about this topic, but this seems destined to fail and unnecessary. What's wrong with simply describing the actual symptoms? They're clear enough on their own. And boxing them up into a convenient single word diagnosis doesn't seem helpful at this stage of understanding.
For example:
> There are people who are non-verbal but sign or write perfectly well, what are they considered?
I would consider these as people who communicate well via non-verbal methods only.
> There are people who are very vocal but speak with an awkward cadence and have mood swings, are they "really autistic"?
Drop the autistic binary and just call them people with mood swings. Perhaps clarify that the mood swings can be disruptive and uncontrollable, or if that isn't the case, don't mention it at all because everybody has non-disruptive mood swings and deals with it. The awkward cadence doesn't even require mentioning if they can communicate effectively.
> There are people who are verbally eloquent but constantly participate in stim behavior and need constant observation to make sure they clothe, bathe, and feed themselves appropriately, do they have "real autism"?
The description stands on its own perfectly well without trying to determine if it's "autism". How does it help to make that distinction?
I guess that's what the article is about, but it doesn't communicate the range as well as your post does. I wonder though, what's the purpose of having such an amorphous definition? The word becomes completely useless the more symptoms it describes. And the more symptoms it describes, the more unlikely it is that they're even at all related in terms of root cause and treatment. And I would think that results in a reduction in research progress.
> I agree that it may be more pertinent to create different categories of autism based on the group of symptoms
I know little about this topic, but this seems destined to fail and unnecessary. What's wrong with simply describing the actual symptoms? They're clear enough on their own. And boxing them up into a convenient single word diagnosis doesn't seem helpful at this stage of understanding.
For example:
> There are people who are non-verbal but sign or write perfectly well, what are they considered?
I would consider these as people who communicate well via non-verbal methods only.
> There are people who are very vocal but speak with an awkward cadence and have mood swings, are they "really autistic"?
Drop the autistic binary and just call them people with mood swings. Perhaps clarify that the mood swings can be disruptive and uncontrollable, or if that isn't the case, don't mention it at all because everybody has non-disruptive mood swings and deals with it. The awkward cadence doesn't even require mentioning if they can communicate effectively.
> There are people who are verbally eloquent but constantly participate in stim behavior and need constant observation to make sure they clothe, bathe, and feed themselves appropriately, do they have "real autism"?
The description stands on its own perfectly well without trying to determine if it's "autism". How does it help to make that distinction?
I should note in the parent it is making a distinction between people who have autism and people who have “real autism”.
>> if the child thrashing his head against a wall and screaming at the top of his lungs because his brain registers every other sensation as pain and pain as pleasure
This is sad. Is this the right way for me to speak about it? Your just jerking your internet boner to someone who is in pain.
This is sad. Is this the right way for me to speak about it? Your just jerking your internet boner to someone who is in pain.
It's not ok to attack someone else like this regardless of how wrong they are. We ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again.
Instead, read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow this simple heuristic: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
Instead, read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow this simple heuristic: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
Apologies I'll simply report next time.
Moderation guidelines on 'Depression' posts here are consistent and progressive[0].
Other disorders are filled with comments that routinely disgrace medical research. I'd still like to see these threads as impartial as Depression.
Looking around this post, you addressed most of the issues, so I appreciate that.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16491986
Moderation guidelines on 'Depression' posts here are consistent and progressive[0].
Other disorders are filled with comments that routinely disgrace medical research. I'd still like to see these threads as impartial as Depression.
Looking around this post, you addressed most of the issues, so I appreciate that.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16491986
This response, describing autism as being merely different, is exactly why the single diagnostic label was a mistake, and should be immediately reversed. I know an autistic person whose ability to use language is so impaired that only his parents and siblings can communicate in any meaningful way with him. Effective use of language is a signature feature of being human, and to dismiss an inability to do so as being merely 'different' is a cruel dismissal of some very serious problems that have come to define the life of this family - most of all, of course, for the victim himself (and yes, he is a victim of circumstance.)
You're absolutely right, but in the scientific autismverse, this is a very hot topic, and there are often flame wars and arguments. This is the equivalent of a psychologist using tabs instead of spaces.
We all know what you and I meant, but the lingo in the academic side of all this has very distinct connotations, etc.
It's an unsolved issue, really.
We all know what you and I meant, but the lingo in the academic side of all this has very distinct connotations, etc.
It's an unsolved issue, really.
[deleted]
I don't know why this post has been voted down. Autism most definitely is not a mental illness. It's a disability.
What's the difference? Would you prefer "condition"?
The difference is that autism cannot be eliminated via psychiatric methods. It's a neurological condition.
Developmental disorder is more widely used, and more correct.
> autism spectrum js
These js frameworks are getting weirder by the day.
These js frameworks are getting weirder by the day.
I have one of those """smart" "" keyboards on my phone
It even fucked that up
It even fucked that up
For me, my autism is neither a disability nor a mental illness. Although it can be overwhelming to a degree, it seems to be a considerably different way of perceiving the world. I don't believe I'd be able to cope with too much more of it, either.
Is any mental illness mental illness under this term? Depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, are all different ways of perceiving the world.
To me, and I'm not a professional anything, illness is when a bodily function is not preforming as intended. I believe I'm functioning as intended, just that society is not geared for how I function. For me it's ok, I get by, for others I'm sure reality must feel like insanity. I'm grateful for what I am, and I'm sad for people who do not get to experience being grateful for what they are.
I have a close friend who is autistic and he teaches me something every time I spend time with him, and I really enjoy his company. Enough so that I always grab drinks with him when I head back home for the holidays. I want to tell you that you likely have the same effect on those around you.
Probably also for depression and attention deficit disorder as well.
In the UK they moved to a single diagnosis in 2013. Before this it was autism and Asperger's. They found however that diagnosing people with the less extreme condition meant that they received less help from schools and local government.
This is 99% the answer. Politics (government funding, and also private insurance funding) is the tail wagging the dog. Medical community is assigning labels not based on relevant scientific taxonomy, but based on what opens purse strings. Until politics starts to respect science and constituents, doctors and parents and teachers have no choice but twist the scientific language in order to obtain the funding they need to care for their kids.
It is partly what "opens the purse strings" but also what makes a given diagnostic and treatment protocol available.
30 years ago you could be what is called autistic now, and you would have probably been diagnosed Asperger's, or "mentally retarded" actual words of the diagnosis.
For the Asperger's you would probably have been sent on your way, with an 80% chance of divorce, a 20-80% depending on who you trust higher chance of suicide than your neurotypical peers, and zero help. If you were "retarded" you would go on disability and into a group home if your parents couldn't take care of you until you died.
With an autism diagnosis you get treatment, and if you get enough early enough, a 50% chance of being indistinguishable from your neurotypical peers by adulthood.
So, you are right. It is much more about money than scientific taxonomy.
But we made the rules.
If doctors are following them to get best outcomes for their patients, aren't they doing their jobs?
So it comes down to our medical system being a mess.
30 years ago you could be what is called autistic now, and you would have probably been diagnosed Asperger's, or "mentally retarded" actual words of the diagnosis.
For the Asperger's you would probably have been sent on your way, with an 80% chance of divorce, a 20-80% depending on who you trust higher chance of suicide than your neurotypical peers, and zero help. If you were "retarded" you would go on disability and into a group home if your parents couldn't take care of you until you died.
With an autism diagnosis you get treatment, and if you get enough early enough, a 50% chance of being indistinguishable from your neurotypical peers by adulthood.
So, you are right. It is much more about money than scientific taxonomy.
But we made the rules.
If doctors are following them to get best outcomes for their patients, aren't they doing their jobs?
So it comes down to our medical system being a mess.
Curious, where are you pulling that "80% chance of divorce" statistic from?
Autism skyrocketed, we had 1 in 59 kids in 2014 in the us.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
I don't want to even think about the present.
Unfortunately autism cause research is governed by scientific dogma that prevents acknowledgement of the source of such rapid disastrous increase, this shows how scientific progress is controlled by corporations and government through funding and politics.
Just like the church controlled it in the middle ages.
I don't want to even think about the present.
Unfortunately autism cause research is governed by scientific dogma that prevents acknowledgement of the source of such rapid disastrous increase, this shows how scientific progress is controlled by corporations and government through funding and politics.
Just like the church controlled it in the middle ages.
Autism diagnoses skyrocketed - an important distinction.
In US schools, frequently to get help for a child like in a 504 plan, or IEP, you generally need to get a diagnosis. The Autism spectrum as it is defined at the moment is so wide and vast that you can take a couple traits that could be normal neurodiversity but apply an ASD diagnosis to it. This leads to further institutionalization, medications and therapists being shoved down kids throats, by pharmaceutical companies promising to solve symptoms and "save" parents kids.
In US schools, frequently to get help for a child like in a 504 plan, or IEP, you generally need to get a diagnosis. The Autism spectrum as it is defined at the moment is so wide and vast that you can take a couple traits that could be normal neurodiversity but apply an ASD diagnosis to it. This leads to further institutionalization, medications and therapists being shoved down kids throats, by pharmaceutical companies promising to solve symptoms and "save" parents kids.
What the article also didn't consider a widely used definition of the term high-functioning autism. It is often defined in terms of capacity to live autonomously at a level close to someone without autism with minimal support.
If we think of the condition in these terms I believe it's usefulness as a diagnosis becomes far more apparent. It would also allow for explicit recognition that the way people experience autism can significantly change when they are given support that nurtures independence and effective strategies to live.
I personally think that the people coming up with diagnostic frameworks could learn a lot from the The Capability Approach to well-being that has gained some prominence in recent philosophical discussions of the topic. Reading articles on diagnostics that do not seem to take into account the existence of such positions is frustrating because they seem to be missing an obvious way of being more effective in helping people as well as more descriptive.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/