Diagnosed vs un--RDOS aspie results attached

Post Reply New Topic

Diagnosed vs un--RDOS aspie results attached
Thanks in advance for any replies.

I. MY RESULTS AND RELATED QUESTIONS


Aspie score is 149
Neurotypical score is 45
One question unanswered if I recall correctly (unsure)
Environmental score is 7.3

Possibly related threads:
Are autistics part Neanderthal?
Neanderthal theory and race
Undiagnosed aspie--RDOS aspie results attached - General Autism Discussion

Are these results (diagram) very unusual for diagnosed aspies?
Are these results (diagram) very unusual for undiagnosed aspies per Neanderthal Theory (15 - 20% of Eurasians who are behaviorally neanderthal)?
Is the environmental score very unusual for someone who is diagnosed?
Is the environmental score very unusual for someone who is undiagnosed per Neanderthal Theory?



II. HYPOTHESES ON NEURODIVERSITY-RELATED PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSES

Out of the above, one can pull out (at least) the following hypotheses and potential issues:

1) Intense world (sensory issues? Sounds as genetic and environmental) ----- "bad environment"
2) Neurology of parents and relatives ----- "bad environment"
3) Admixture problems ----- genetic vulnerabilities
4) IQ and splinter skills ----- at issue



III. MY COMMENTARY AND QUESTIONS REGARDING ABOVE HYPOTHESES

I see some potential problems with some of your assumptions (most of which are probably at least partly valid to at least some extent).


A. #2) Neurology of parents and relatives

Is there such as thing as a non-arbitrary, judgemental NT? If so, perhaps how they react to neurodiversity is more important. If these don't exist, but only appear to because of the 20% mix, it looks to me that the world is in real trouble.


B. #3) Admixture problems

Could be related to #1 and #4 above I suppose. I get the impression you assume #4 to be because of #3. Is this correct? I suspect that there is the danger of assuming that a problem is an admixture problem when it is not (see below).


C. #4) IQ and splinter skills

My concern is that #4 is often not due to #3, but #2. Even if and when it is #1, it is still #2. How the parents respond is often (if not always critical), at least in some cases (which can be viewed as a genetic vulnerability itself, the need for a good environment).

I've raised the issue here --> Are autistics part Neanderthal? http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4428856.html#4428856 <--


I suspect that most cases of LFA is environmental, I can think of many reasons to think so. It isn't hard to find articles even in mainscream media claiming that physical and emotional abuse and toxic stress atrophizes the brain. I doubt very much that substances such as ethanol and risperidone have much effect. I doubt "schizophrenia" is at fault at all. Most of the environmental toxicity is social rather than chemical.


In smart people, working memory is severely affected by stress. Smart People Choke Under Pressure by Bjorn Carey http://www.livescience.com/139-smart-pe ... ssure.html



No doubt this is true not only of HFA cases, but many, if not most LFA cases. A few examples: Jacob Barnett and Michelle Dawson? (not sure if Michelle Dawson is the activist I am thinking of).


1. Example 1:

60 Minutes Sunday, 15 Jan. 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g91IQsS2spA











So what if his parents had not done the opposite of what the "experts" do (and probably tell parents to do)? What if he had heard of and pursued Ove Tedenstig's "Matter Unified" Theory? I don't think we'd have heard of him in either case.


Example 2:

I think this was Michelle Dawson. In any case I am fairly sure that it was a prominent autism rights activist. In any case, the person I am thinking of was at times judged to be low-functioning and placed in abusive institutions, while at other times she was judged to be high-functioning and placed with well-treated gifted students. At least, this is what I read. I think it was on a blog. Granted, it is possible for anyone to say anything on the web, at least what the person said made some sense, unlike most of what I read and hear in mainscream media and other prominent organizations.

What if she was consistently well-treated? Treated worse early on? How would either have affected the outcome?

Last edited by DemocraticSocialistHun on 07 Mar 2012, 4:34 pm, edited 11 times in total.

Flicker isn't allowing the image to be hot-linked.

Your profile looks similar to mine, and so are your scores (I'm undiagnosed). I'm pretty sure this profile could be present in both diagnosed and undiagnosed, with environment as the primary factor for diagnosis.

The environmental score is strongly correlated to the average score, so it is pretty usual, although I have a lower environmental score than you have.



#4 is related to Aspie talent, and so is part of neurodiversity just like all the other differences. You should have listed "neurodiversity" as one point instead.



How mixed people react to neurodiversity is a complex issue. Some of them want to be normal at all costs, and thus are unaccepting of neurodiversity. Some are really nasty, and behind some of the worst arguments about causes of ASDs, and if they are parents of children on the spectrum, might subject their children to horrible treatments. Then there are some that are accepting of neurodiversity, and quite some of them work with people on the spectrum.



Not really. #4 is related to neurodiversity, and directly map to Neanderthal heritage. #3 is caused by admixture between modern humans and Neanderthal heritage going wrong. This doesn't happen very often in Eurasia since genes that don't get along have been selected out to some extent. I anticipate it to happen more often when African ancestry is involved, and this is why African descent in the US have similar levels of LFA (LFA is often the result of #3).



Depends on what #4 is. If it is the inherit talents, then it is part of neurodiversity and the traits are inherited. If #4 is how people succeed in society then you are right, this is environmental to a great degree, being a mix of #1 and #2.



We don't have a definite answer, but I can give you a partial answer. You can avoid most of the issues in diagnoses (the bad environment component) by letting the child grow up in a supportative environment that allow it to be neurodiverse. That's probably the most important (but not the only) component in being able to use their talents.

I now realize that I am guilty of a major omission, my post should be read through the lens of at least one particular context I apparently didn't make clear. My concern was the low vs. high functioning distinction, and its causes (and possibly some related issues).

It is only a day latter and even I have some trouble figuring out what I was trying to get at. When I wrote:

B. #3) Admixture problems
"Could be related to #1 and #4 above I suppose. I get the impression you assume #4 to be because of #3. Is this correct? I suspect that there is the danger of assuming that a problem is an admixture problem when it is not (see below). "
and
C. #4) IQ and splinter skills
My concern is that #4 is often not due to #3, but #2. Even if and when it is #1, it is still #2. How the parents respond is often (if not always critical), at least in some cases (which can be viewed as a genetic vulnerability itself, the need for a good environment).


What I was thinking was that apparent admixture problems and resulting LFA could be related to the "Intense World Theory" and apparent apparent IQ and splinter skills problems. My concern is that an adverse environment that is unaccepting and unaccommodating could mess with development and produce a moron who could have been a genius. My concern is that physical and/or verbal abuse, distractions during studies, loud noises, excessive light and/or glare, lack of acceptance of aspie forms of self-directed learning, etc. could be that damaging if severe enough. In other words, the problem is really #2, the neurology of the parents and more precisely their reaction to neurodiversity.

I hope this is much clearer.

There are two points I was trying to make regarding Jacob Barnett.

One was that if he had been subjected to the usual treatment, especially today, he would probably be at the low functioning end -- at least likely anyway.

The other is that he would be marginalized had he chosen theories outside the mainstream. Perhaps it would be said that he is great at math at best, but a victim of distorted pathological thinking for pursuing theories outside the mainstream. The diagnosis would likely be used against him had he done so.

So the degree of acceptance of mixed people depends on how they feel about the neurodivergent aspects of themselves?; They can be among the worst and the best?

What about non-mixed? Or is whether or not they can be accepting (at least in the absence of very strong environmental influences perhaps, say, some weird form of pro-neurodiversity groupthink which would likely to take a form that isn't really helpful either, maybe not even then?) unanswerable at this point?

Hey, it's interesting that your graphs looks similar to mine, except that I'm probably more NT:



Aspie: 140/200
NT: 86/200

Environment: 8.2 (it seems that I'm nuts)

I've got average NT - communication (low values correlate, according to PDF, with ASD disorders).