 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is this person nuts? |
| Voting yes anonymously |
|
27% |
[ 5 ] |
| Voting yes, but I really do mean it in a good way |
|
72% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
RainSong
Seatbelts Totally Cause Autism
Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 4451
Location: Georgia
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| pandd wrote: | | Either way it makes as much sense as the same statement with “congenital deafness”, or “Downs Syndrome”, or“diabetes”, or “being born to rich parents” replacing the subject Aspergers Syndrome. It makes as much sense as claiming “diabetes is more a personality”, or “diabetes is more a personality trait”, or the even sillier “pre diabetic states are more a personality trait, although I am not so sure about actual diabetes”. |
This. You can have people on the spectrum with completely different personalities; you'll find some who are extremely self-absorbed, as has been noted, and some who are extremely humble. You'll find ones who are more introverted and ones who are extroverted. Ones who enjoy jokes and ones who are very serious. Those are personality traits.
You may find people who are not on the spectrum who have a collection of personality traits - being quiet and studious, for instance - that may appear to be in line with others on the spectrum, but there's a difference. Someone who's quiet on the spectrum may be so because they don't know how to interact properly. Someone who's quiet because of personality may just enjoy the time to think by themselves or may just enjoy observing. It's not that someone on the spectrum cannot enjoy the same things in quietness or even be quiet because of it, but someone who's not on the spectrum isn't going to be quiet because they don't know how to interact unless they have some other disorder.
None of the spectrum disorders are defined by personality. They are defined by a list of symptoms, including some social ones. Those social symptoms may give an impression of a personality consistency, but the cause of those symptoms differs from what the cause of others' personality traits will be, and they're not always present; a person with AS doesn't have to be quiet, for instance. It's no more a personality trait than having brown hair is; if you're born with brown hair, that affects how you look, but it doesn't affect your personality.
That being said, it should be pretty obvious that I too disagree with narcissim being the opposite of the autistic spectrum.
_________________
"Nothing worth having is easy."
Empathy is when you feel the emotions of someone else despite never having been through the same or similar situation. Sympathy is when you feel the emotions and have been through the same or similar situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pandd
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 1916
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tantybi wrote: |
Now, let's look at one other possibility, and that's the disorder. |
I apologize for missing this text earlier when I responded, I was in a hurry because I was supposed to_be cooking dinner at the time.....oops
I would just like to point out that you have not posted a definition of disorder but of mental disorder or mental illness. AS is most certainly not a mental illness, nor is it a psychiatric disorder. I personally would not describe it as mental disorder, anymore than I would describe dyslexia or epilepsy as mental disorders. In my view these things are neurological disorders. | Quote: |
To me, it doesn't quite fit in that category either because I will never see it as a dysfunction, and the "distress" is always argued with "NT's do that too." |
This makes no sense if we apply the definition you supplied. The definition refers to distress that is not a normal part of development or normal within the culture. Being distressed because even though you are socially gregarious, you lack the core competencies needed for social intercourse with your age peers, is not part of normal development, nor part of normal culture.
No one is saying that people without AS will be free from distress, but rather that the distress people with AS are dealing with arises from causes that are not part of normal development, nor part of normal culture.
This “NTs’ do that too” thing is as sensible as suggesting deafness is more a personality because deafness refers to impairments that make hearing difficult (or impossible) and NTs sometimes fail to hear things too.
There is no meaning of personality that is consistent with calling AS a personality. By any definition of personality there are areas where if AS is a personality, everyone will behave the same behavior, but our behavior in such areas is as differentiated and diverse as the same behaviors among non Autistic people. The “definition” you yourself provided is not consistent with calling AS a personality. In terms of our enduring patterns of behavior, we differ from one another as much as any other group. That is why some respond to social problems by becoming angry, some by becoming defeated, some by trying harder, some by becoming alienated, etc. Such responses for any individual will pattern in common with their own responses to other forms and types of adversity. It is quite clear that so far as personality traits and measures, people with AS can be easily differentiated from each other on the basis of their enduring patterns of behavior, no less than people without AS, who clearly have more than one personality type among them.
If AS is a personality or personality_type, then everyone with AS has the same personality and personality type. Therefore we would manifest the same enduring patterns of behavior of the kind referred to in personality tests, quite aside from any behavior that the overwhelming majority of people (regardless of personality) would manifest in the face of the stimuli that constitutes AS. Very clearly we do not (manifest the same enduring patterns of behavior of the type and kind most significant to personality types), so AS cannot be sensibly described as a personality. Any and all similarities that we might share in behavior is easily explained as typical human behavior when faced with particular stimulus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Rose_in_Winter
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Sep 18, 2009
Posts: 44
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:08 pm Post subject: Re: My New Theory on the Spectrum |
|
|
| Tantybi wrote: | | I also think Spoiled Brat Syndrome needs to be added somewhere, but I'm not sure where that would fit on the spectrum (maybe the bottom of the circle, so I need an opposite for the top of the circle). |
Sorry if someone already said this and I missed it, but I think the opposite of Spoiled Brat is Martyr. I've been accused of being both, to my amusement. If a Spoiled Brat thinks s/he is automatically entitled to whatever s/he wants, and Martyr believes s/he is not entitled to anything s/he wants. A Spoiled Brat takes and a Martyr gives. Neither is a truly healthy way to be, but I think they make good opposites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tantybi
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 1053
Location: Wonderland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pandd wrote: | | Tantybi wrote: |
Now, let's look at one other possibility, and that's the disorder. |
I apologize for missing this text earlier when I responded, I was in a hurry because I was supposed to_be cooking dinner at the time.....oops
I would just like to point out that you have not posted a definition of disorder but of mental disorder or mental illness. AS is most certainly not a mental illness, nor is it a psychiatric disorder. I personally would not describe it as mental disorder, anymore than I would describe dyslexia or epilepsy as mental disorders. In my view these things are neurological disorders. | Quote: |
To me, it doesn't quite fit in that category either because I will never see it as a dysfunction, and the "distress" is always argued with "NT's do that too." |
This makes no sense if we apply the definition you supplied. The definition refers to distress that is not a normal part of development or normal within the culture. Being distressed because even though you are socially gregarious, you lack the core competencies needed for social intercourse with your age peers, is not part of normal development, nor part of normal culture.
No one is saying that people without AS will be free from distress, but rather that the distress people with AS are dealing with arises from causes that are not part of normal development, nor part of normal culture.
This “NTs’ do that too” thing is as sensible as suggesting deafness is more a personality because deafness refers to impairments that make hearing difficult (or impossible) and NTs sometimes fail to hear things too.
There is no meaning of personality that is consistent with calling AS a personality. By any definition of personality there are areas where if AS is a personality, everyone will behave the same behavior, but our behavior in such areas is as differentiated and diverse as the same behaviors among non Autistic people. The “definition” you yourself provided is not consistent with calling AS a personality. In terms of our enduring patterns of behavior, we differ from one another as much as any other group. That is why some respond to social problems by becoming angry, some by becoming defeated, some by trying harder, some by becoming alienated, etc. Such responses for any individual will pattern in common with their own responses to other forms and types of adversity. It is quite clear that so far as personality traits and measures, people with AS can be easily differentiated from each other on the basis of their enduring patterns of behavior, no less than people without AS, who clearly have more than one personality type among them.
If AS is a personality or personality_type, then everyone with AS has the same personality and personality type. Therefore we would manifest the same enduring patterns of behavior of the kind referred to in personality tests, quite aside from any behavior that the overwhelming majority of people (regardless of personality) would manifest in the face of the stimuli that constitutes AS. Very clearly we do not (manifest the same enduring patterns of behavior of the type and kind most significant to personality types), so AS cannot be sensibly described as a personality. Any and all similarities that we might share in behavior is easily explained as typical human behavior when faced with particular stimulus. |
I'm understanding what you are saying better now, but....
One, even with personality, people will respond differently in that group. For instance, some introverts love parties and some do not. Some extroverts love walks in the park and some do not.
Two, I've already said it once, but I'll say it again, nobody knows enough about autism to really state any facts as to what it truly is. So, right now, all we got is theory and opinion. You are so entitled to your opinion, and it is so totally allowed to contradict mine. In fact, it is good because it makes us both think. Either way, it's still all opinion. With that disclaimer being said....
I still don't see how anyone can say that mild autism is different from a personality because it matches the components. Regularlity of behavior, a psychological construct influenced by biological processes, influences how we move and respond in our environment, causes certain behaviors, can be seen in our feelings and relationships and social interactions, genetically based, etc. Now if you want to tell me that it does match many components of a personality but it goes beyond that into something else, then I'd be more apt to buy.
To me, Personality is what makes us different from each other, not the same. My personality makes me unique from the rest of the world; without it, we would all be uniform. The components of each individual's personality might show similarities, but the combined whole is different. That's why extroverts might write poetry and introverts might party all the time. It's like a finger print. It's made up of the same lines and grooves, and a palm reader might be able to see a million similarities between fingerprints and therefore create certain conclusions about it, but each print as a whole is still unique from the next.
As of now, they treat AS as if it's a disease. They offer cures and they want to defeat it. Many people on the WP are insulted by these claims to rid the world of autism because they are happy that their autsim has made them unique. Some people on the WP are frustrated with their autism because they find it disabling, but I don't think it's their autism that has disabled them as much as their will and attitude.
Either way, we are not handicapped, and autism doesn't cause early deaths. It's not unhealthy to be autistic. It just makes us different. A disease is unhealthy. A mental disorder is unhealthy. Personality creates diversity, and while a very reaching argument could suggest that parts of our personality can be unhealthy or a disabling feature of every human, it still in a medical sense is not considered as such, and I think AS fits right in there better than the other options.
_________________
"In the room the women come and go talking of Michelangelo." J. Alfred Prufrock |
|
| Back to top |
|
pandd
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 1916
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tantybi wrote: |
I'm understanding what you are saying better now, but....
One, even with personality, people will respond differently in that group. For instance, some introverts love parties and some do not. Some extroverts love walks in the park and some do not. |
Certainly, but the point is that if one person is introverted and another is extroverted, then they certainly do not have a personality in common. Since some people with AS are introverted, and some people with AS are extroverted, then we can conclude that people with AS do not have a personality in common, but do have AS in common. From this we can conclude that whatever AS is, it is not a personality.
| Quote: |
Two, I've already said it once, but I'll say it again, nobody knows enough about autism to really state any facts as to what it truly is. |
This is quite untrue. We know enough to make accurate statements describing truths about ASDs. Many of these truths are less than specific, or give rise to other pertinent questions, but that neither of these facts changes the underlying nature of the things being considered, nor is sensibly interpreted as a reason to ignore what is known in order to invent confusing notions that actually risk undoing the limited achievements in getting our needs taken seriously.
| Quote: |
So, right now, all we got is theory and opinion. You are so entitled to your opinion, and it is so totally allowed to contradict mine. In fact, it is good because it makes us both think. Either way, it's still all opinion. With that disclaimer being said.... |
In many places because AS is not seen as a “real disability”, adults cannot get diagnosis, and children are often not diagnosed by hap hazard public health services either. Services are limited, insufficient, poorly coordinated, and delivered in an ad hoc manner if at all. Nonsense and entirely arbitrary age restrictions apply to accessing services or even understanding (from service providers and the wider community). We are even routinely told that we have no place to comment or represent ourselves within the Autistic community because we are not really Autistic, not really disabled and are more people with “eccentric personalities” than “real Autistics”.
If your view comes to predominate, we will forever be excluded, unaccommodated and denied the most basic of health care services and occupational accommodations. We will never achieve equality and basic human rights. It’s not merely academic.
| Quote: |
I still don't see how anyone can say that mild autism is different from a personality because it matches the components. |
No it does not. The components of personality include things such as whether one is extroverted or introverted. Different models of personality might describe these aspects differently, but they still do include what is described by these terms as stable enduring aspects of personality. People with AS differ from each other in these aspects.
Personality is not any enduring pattern of behavior. Sneezing in response to nasal passage irritation is an enduring pattern of behavior. It’s not a personality though. The traits of dyslexia can be described as an enduring pattern of behavior. Is dyslexia more a personality than a learning disorder in your opinion? In your view, rather than doing their best with their working materials, are dyslexic people having issues picking up literacy because of their personality? Their problems in other words are volitional, just like ours, because personality is the sum of one’s volition.
It’s not my personality to fail to communicate with my peers, or to fail to know how to do so. On the contrary, I am intensely interested in other people and always have been. I have always been socially gregarious and there is no way in hell failing to socialize with my peers at an age appropriate level is consistent with my personality traits. I know as a matter of fact that my personality is not AS and AS inhibits my ability to do what a person with my personality would otherwise do.
| Quote: |
Regularlity of behavior, a psychological construct influenced by biological processes, influences how we move and respond in our environment, causes certain behaviors, can be seen in our feelings and relationships and social interactions, genetically based, etc. Now if you want to tell me that it does match many components of a personality but it goes beyond that into something else, then I'd be more apt to buy. |
Pain is a psychological construct influenced by biological processes. Responses to pain are actually more uniform and encompass a much greater proportion of the whole population than responses to “AS stimulus” (the symptoms of AS) are. Nearly universally, people will jerk away from the source of a painful stimuli before they can even think to do so. But doing so is not a personality trait, nor under the influence of personality. At the same time, it’s more common for people with an ASD to fail to consistently manifest this behavior than it is for those among the general population. This is because irregularities of the nervous system are not actually personality traits, although the nervous system can be an influence in the development of personality, just like being born to rich parents can be the same. | Quote: |
To me, Personality is what makes us different from each other, not the same. |
Whereas AS is a condition that describes a cluster of traits/features in otherwise very diverse and different people.
| Quote: |
As of now, they treat AS as if it's a disease. They offer cures and they want to defeat it. |
If by “they” you mean the same kind of people who offer snake oil to cure cancer or congenital blindness, then “they” will pull “their” collective crap no matter what. AS is not medically defined as a disease though, and no health practitioner I have encountered has ever claimed that AS can be cured. On the contrary, every health practitioner I have discussed AS with has been very strident and clear in their claims that AS cannot be cured. My public health system makes no provision to deliver even assessment services to adults. AS in adults seems to be seen more as an eccentric personality by the bulk of the public health sector in my country, and this is very much to the detriment of people like me. In one instance earlier this year, this failure to recognize our condition as a disability that must be accommodated in the public health sector was the direct cause of a young 18-year-old with AS being locked up in a prison cell rather than admitted to a health care facility. It took the intervention of the Prime Minister to have this person admitted to a health care facility. This kind of thing happens (to be quite blunt) because of views that AS is not a real disability, and not because people think AS is a disease.
| Quote: |
Many people on the WP are insulted by these claims to rid the world of autism because they are happy that their autsim has made them unique. |
Many congenitally deaf people feel the same way about cures for congenital deafness. Many refuse such procedures for themselves and their children. Others in the same position want these cures and would use them for their children. These different reactions indicate rather different personalities exist among those characterized by congenital deafness.
| Quote: |
Some people on the WP are frustrated with their autism because they find it disabling, but I don't think it's their autism that has disabled them as much as their will and attitude. |
Right, so it was my “will” demonstrated by my persistent attempts to socialize in the face of physically painful failure, and my attitude that if I just kept trying I’d eventually figure it out and be able to get through a day at school without being physically assaulted that was the problem, and not actual impairments beyond my will and outside the influence of my attitude?
[sarcasm]Nice to know all that pain and misery and the broken nose along with the daily bruisings were in fact all the fault of my will and attitude rather than some innate impairment that I tried very hard to overcome. I’m so pleased to be told yet again that all the struggles that I have striven so very hard against, were in fact just the result of my will and attitude. I am certain this is the kind of thing every vulnerable young child with AS needs shoved down their throat. Much better than the understanding and accommodations and attempts to help them understand themselves that goes along with the current recognition that AS is a real disability entailing impairments not within the voluntary control of those effected. Thank you so much for pointing out that people like me are not struggling with real impairments, but just have will and attitude problems. Or do you mean that the problem was that I lacked the will and attitude to enjoy being ostracized and routinely physically assaulted, (including have my nose broken) by my peers. Perhaps if I’d had the right will and attitude I would simply have chosen to find it all rather kinky or something?[/sarcasm]
Funny how such things are usually a matter of personality, yet those with AS can respond so differently in these respects.
| Quote: |
Either way, we are not handicapped, and autism doesn't cause early deaths. |
You do realize that AS describes a very broad range of manifestations, and that many people with AS cannot even live independently without support and assistance? How exactly is not being able to live independently not a “handi cap”?
The DSM is very clear on this point. If you do not suffer clinically significant levels of impairment or distress because of the traits described by the AS criteria, then you necessarily do not have AS. Whatever you personally think of the issue, according to the conventional clinical view, an atypical condition of being that causes clinically significant levels of impairment or distress, constitutes a disorder. It’s that simple.
As for not causing early deaths, well AS can be a factor in early death, but that’s actually neither here nor there. I have no idea why you think causing an early death is even relevant. Does being congenitally blind usually cause an early deaf, or is being congenitally blind more a personality?
| Quote: |
It's not unhealthy to be autistic. It just makes us different. A disease is unhealthy. A mental disorder is unhealthy. |
Being congenitally blind is not unhealthy either. I have no idea why you keep raising the issue of disease. It seems somewhat dishonest if you have understood my earlier statements that AS is not a disease.
Equally, if mental disorders are only things that are unhealthy, then AS is not a mental disorder, just as dyslexia is not a mental disorder according to such a definition (nor a disease, nor something that makes someone unhealthy, nor commonly a cause of early death, nor something that only occurs when someone is unhealthy). Dyslexia is also not appropriately defined as a personality or a personality trait by any conventional definition of personality.
| Quote: |
Personality creates diversity |
,
Whereas AS creates clusters of similarity in observable behaviors in otherwise very diverse people.
| Quote: | | and while a very reaching argument could suggest that parts of our personality can be unhealthy or a disabling feature of every human, it still in a medical sense is not considered as such, and I think AS fits right in there better than the other options. |
This premise is entirely backwards. Whereas one could decide to construe behavior arising from biologically given constraints on neurological function as being a personality or personality traits, it makes no sense to do so when the features described are outside typical human functioning, are impairing, are not amenable to the same interventions that tend to work when the behavior is volitional and personality driven, and occurs regardless of the personality traits that can be inferred from behavior not directly influenced by the neurological constraints, and where personality is observably influencing even the reactions to the neurological constraints, it is not sensible, and certainly not fair to do so.
As for the “other options” I have myself clearly stated AS is not a disease and so far as I know, no respected source of information claims differently. In respect of disorder, you have limited the analysis to particular kinds of disorder that AS is clearly not, and anyone could play the same game with congenital blindness, dyslexia or congenital deafness and make exactly as much sense.
Evidently, being “more a personality” does not make something either not a disorder or not a mental illness.
Personality disorders are more personality than anything else, are disorders, and unlike Asperger Syndrome are classed as mental illnesses/psychiatric disorders/unhealthy. If your purpose is to distance us from mental illness then you have failed to understand the implication of AS being a personality rather than a neurological disorder.
As a neurological disorder, AS is no more a mental illness than epilepsy, as a personality, it meets the definition for a personality disorder and therefore is in a mental illness. An implication of arguing that the traits described by AS constitute a personality is that AS is a personality disorder, just like Borderline Personality Disorder or Histrionic-Personality-Disorder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Inventor
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 3540
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Starting from It's Genetic!
Then there should be some consistancy of output.
Recent genetic research is agreeing with rdos, there is a minority with other DNA.
The INTP ENTP corner taking up about 10% is way over represented on WP.
But even a study of them does not turn up, does not make eye contact, or any other symptom of AS, but AS does show up more than in the general population.
So there might be genetics that lead to personality types, and perhaps 10% AS.
AS still shows up in other personality types, so until we trace generations, we can never know.
Your grandmother was a Neanderthal might be the problem, and as rdos says, AS is normal Neanderthal behavior.
The whole idea behind The Human Genome Project was it was one. That does not seem to be true, up to 10% are being labeled "other". The latest I read says new genes from 10,000 years ago? We are not supposed to get new, the other can be explained by a Neanderthal mix, but who mated with what 10,000 years ago? Where did it come from?
It is a long way from mapping genes to figuring out what they do, and while identical twin studies show some common output, they also vary considerably.
Each personality type also has a range. All INTP are alike, till you get a hundred of them together, then you see, none are alike. There is the group in the corners, most likely AS, and it is just not easy to get real subjects to live up to words and concepts.
Not even AS will stick to the script, they have been tested and approved, yet with the same bad social skills, will reach much different results.
Those who only meet one or two of the criteria, are not AS, are forever excluded from the club, can be more impaired and disabled that Certified AS Brand models.
As Broader Autism Phenotype reaches 10%, perhaps more, there is no way to treat them other than public education.
I think we need a lot more genetic research. We need a multi generation study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pandd
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 1916
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Inventor wrote: |
Your grandmother was a Neanderthal might be the problem, and as rdos says, AS is normal Neanderthal behavior. |
Or your grandmother could be a cat, because some have said that AS is just normal-cat behavior, or a mouse whose mother over dosed on valporate since both humans and mice have been shown to develop ASD/symptoms of ASD due to pre natal exposure to valporate. As I know both my Grandmothers however, I can confidently say neither was a cat, a mouse or a Neanderthal.
| Quote: | | The latest I read says new genes from 10,000 years ago? We are not supposed to get new, |
Er, why-ever not? Our ancestors have been “getting new” since they were single cell organisms. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about_getting new genes.
| Quote: |
Those who only meet one or two of the criteria, are not AS, are forever excluded from the club, can be more impaired and disabled that Certified AS Brand models. |
Why so? What is so special about AS among the ASDs such that PDD NOS (the category that the person you describe would fit into according to the current DSM’s organization) people ought to be excluded from some club we allegedly form? I am not convinced this is a club I want in on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Inventor
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 3540
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
As the result of genetics, just lableing the problem children does not show the rest who are getting other results from the same gene cluster.
My point is even one trait can be strong and disabling, and three can be minor and mild. It exists, and some may be getting a double dose.
It may have a half dozen genetic causes, and the rest is the result of how those mix.
The DSM groups are for disability, and most fall outside of those lines, yet their condition is just as real.
There is a lot more than Psychology accounts for. There are also other conditions that mimic autism. Leaving genetic, chemical, and impact autism.
More knowledge is needed.
Saying PDD NOS is the same as saying I dont know.
Psychology can make up classes, make money, but the core issue is sevear autism, grading out to ASDs, then to BAP, which does point to genetics.
10% of the population is genetic other, something you cannot tell from looking at them.
10% is BAP.
Autism rates are higher for northern Europeans, genetic other is higher, other groups have autism in the same proportion they have Northern European genes.
It would not come as a suprise to find that 5% of people were connected to 95% of autism.
Only a good genetic study can show the truth.
The study is going on and early results look like rdos was right.
Northern Europe has produced some great art, technology, knowledge in many fields, so it is not a defect, but a source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pandd
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 1916
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Inventor wrote: | | As the result of genetics, just lableing the problem children does not show the rest who are getting other results from the same gene cluster. |
The most obvious conclusion to deduce from finding gene clusters associated with AS but not present in a majority of instances studied in relevant research (and this is what I understand the case is at the moment), and also found in large numbers of non Autistic people, is that these gene clusters are neither sufficient nor necessary in causing Autism.
| Quote: |
My point is even one trait can be strong and disabling, and three can be minor and mild. It exists, and some may be getting a double dose.
It may have a half dozen genetic causes, and the rest is the result of how those mix.
The DSM groups are for disability, and most fall outside of those lines, yet their condition is just as real. |
Apparently there is some chance that this will change with the next iteration of the DSM as the inclusion of sub clinical conditions is currently one of the “discussion points” being reviewed ahead of the next publication.
| Quote: | | There is a lot more than Psychology accounts for. There are also other conditions that mimic autism. Leaving genetic, chemical, and impact autism. |
If a condition “mimics” Autism in certain particulars then it is Autism.
| Quote: | | More knowledge is needed. |
Always.
| Quote: | | Saying PDD NOS is the same as saying I dont know. |
Er no. Under the DSM my friend’s daughter is PDD NOS but her diagnosis was sufficiently clear about her particular problems to be predictive and very individual when compared to others with differing PDD NOS diagnoses. Sometimes PDD NOS is given to individuals who do not “fit” any of the other DSM categories, nor are known to “fit” any other recognized and widely used diagnosis. But in many instances PDD NOS is simply how specific conditions that are widely recognized and widely diagnosed are designated within the DSM’s schemata. For instance my God Daughter has a specific diagnosis that is described as “PDD NOS” when DSM terminology is appropriate, but which is more usually described and addressed under the more specific non DSM diagnosis that the diagnosing clinician specified at the time of diagnosis.
Keep in mind the DSM is not produced by Autism experts, but rather by psychiatrists. Diagnosing ASDs/PDDs is not a normal task of general psychiatry and gaining relevant expertise and qualifications to clinically practice in the area of ASD/PDD diagnosis does not require that one be a psychiatrist. How specific would you expect the DSM to be about the Autistic Spectrum given it is only tangentially related to the usual tasks and occupations of the professional group that is producing it?
| Quote: |
Psychology can make up classes, make money, but the core issue is sevear autism, grading out to ASDs, then to BAP, which does point to genetics. |
Hans Asperger was a paediatrician I believe.
Psychiatry and psychology are not the same thing. The DSM is produced by psychiatrists, whereas diagnostic clinicians with expertise in diagnosing ASDs/PDDs tend to either be psychologists, or psychologists in addition to psychiatrists, or have even come from educational/occupational/or child special needs services. Additionally a number of neuro psychologists and neuro practitioners of other descriptions can also offer assessment/diagnostic services for ASDs/PDDs.
| Quote: |
10% of the population is genetic other, something you cannot tell from looking at them. |
I find it implausible that 90% of the population are “all in common” in some relevant and meaningful sense, so that 10% could be contrasted as “other” in any meaningful sense.
Evidently some researchers are reporting very promising results in developing software that can use digital imaging to diagnose a range of conditions including at least some of the ASDs/PDDs. Related research has found that those with an ASD/PDD can on the basis of physical markers, be divided into two groups. One where developmental anomalies initially arise pre natally, and one where developmental anomalies appear to first arise sometime in the first two years of life. Clearly in some instances, we can tell “by looking”, or at least we can train computers to do this for us.
| Quote: | 10% is BAP.
Autism rates are higher for northern Europeans, genetic other is higher, other groups have autism in the same proportion they have Northern European genes. |
Evidence?
| Quote: |
It would not come as a suprise to find that 5% of people were connected to 95% of autism.
Only a good genetic study can show the truth.
The study is going on and early results look like rdos was right. |
Evidence?
| Quote: | | Northern Europe has produced some great art, technology, knowledge in many fields, so it is not a defect, but a source. |
Good grief! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tantybi
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 1053
Location: Wonderland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Saying PDD NOS is the same as saying I dont know |
LOL only cause it's true.
Some people lumped into that category are also what I call, Aspergers with a speech delay. Some are, "you fit somewhere on the autistic spectrum, but you are missing some technicalities in all other diagnostic criteria, so we'll put you here in PDD NOS."
To try to argue otherwise...let's go with this... PDD... NON SPECIFIC. NON SPECIFIC means we really don't know exactly, but shoot if you look autistic to me. My husband calls it the SWAG treatment...Scientific Wild Ass Guess
Schizophrenia used to be (and still somewhat is) a similar SWAG category.
_________________
"In the room the women come and go talking of Michelangelo." J. Alfred Prufrock |
|
| Back to top |
|
pandd
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 1916
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tantybi wrote: |
To try to argue otherwise...let's go with this... PDD... NON SPECIFIC. NON SPECIFIC means we really don't know exactly, but shoot if you look autistic to me. My husband calls it the SWAG treatment...Scientific Wild Ass Guess
|
PDD NOS does not mean PDD non specified. It means PDD Not Otherwise Specified, and the otherwise refers not to the world at large but to the categories within the DSM, That the DSM does not specifically describe a particular condition other than as a PDD that the DSM does not further specify does not eliminate all the information about the diagnosis that exists outside the DSM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tantybi
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 1053
Location: Wonderland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pandd wrote: |
Certainly, but the point is that if one person is introverted and another is extroverted, then they certainly do not have a personality in common. Since some people with AS are introverted, and some people with AS are extroverted, then we can conclude that people with AS do not have a personality in common, but do have AS in common. From this we can conclude that whatever AS is, it is not a personality. |
There's more to personality than being introverted and extroverted. There are other personality type models that do not include introversion and extroversion. Some sensing people are introverted and some intuitive people are introverted...does that discount the rest of the Myers Briggs?
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Two, I've already said it once, but I'll say it again, nobody knows enough about autism to really state any facts as to what it truly is. |
This is quite untrue. We know enough to make accurate statements describing truths about ASDs. Many of these truths are less than specific, or give rise to other pertinent questions, but that neither of these facts changes the underlying nature of the things being considered, nor is sensibly interpreted as a reason to ignore what is known in order to invent confusing notions that actually risk undoing the limited achievements in getting our needs taken seriously. |
No it is not quite untrue. We can only describe ASD in symptoms and we are almost positive it's genetic. We are also almost positive that it's not one gene but a complicated group of genes (all being different for different people) mixed with some environmental factors. People have thrown in a bunch of theory on the matter, but all that's speculation yet.
| Quote: | | In many places because AS is not seen as a “real disability”, adults cannot get diagnosis, and children are often not diagnosed by hap hazard public health services either. Services are limited, insufficient, poorly coordinated, and delivered in an ad hoc manner if at all. Nonsense and entirely arbitrary age restrictions apply to accessing services or even understanding (from service providers and the wider community). We are even routinely told that we have no place to comment or represent ourselves within the Autistic community because we are not really Autistic, not really disabled and are more people with “eccentric personalities” than “real Autistics”. |
In many places, AS is seen as a "real disability" and people are still getting misdiagnosed, children are often not diagnosed by hap hazard public health services, the services are limited, insufficient, and poorly coordinated, and even when they are in great order, the main documented improvement is speech therapy. The reason these services are not working is because people don't know enough about it to do anything to help solve it. The speech therapy is no different for people with PDD NOS than it is for anyone with a speech problem. So you can't even attribute that improvement to someone understanding what AS is and how to help people with it. Instead of trying to help us become like everyone else, it would be much easier and pose more a solution for people with AS to get accepted by society as opposed to be seeing as an outcast more so than they already are. To claim it a disability only sets one back further as an outcast which defeats the whole purpose of "helping" one with AS fit into society.
| Quote: | | If your view comes to predominate, we will forever be excluded, unaccommodated and denied the most basic of health care services and occupational accommodations. We will never achieve equality and basic human rights. It’s not merely academic. |
That's a stretch. Are you saying if we don't count AS as a disability, then we can't get health insurance, medicaid, and use of the county clinic?
Are you defining equality as separating a group of people out from the majority claiming they need additional health care services than the majority?
| Quote: | | Quote: |
I still don't see how anyone can say that mild autism is different from a personality because it matches the components. |
No it does not. The components of personality include things such as whether one is extroverted or introverted. Different models of personality might describe these aspects differently, but they still do include what is described by these terms as stable enduring aspects of personality. People with AS differ from each other in these aspects.
Personality is not any enduring pattern of behavior. Sneezing in response to nasal passage irritation is an enduring pattern of behavior. It’s not a personality though. The traits of dyslexia can be described as an enduring pattern of behavior. Is dyslexia more a personality than a learning disorder in your opinion? In your view, rather than doing their best with their working materials, are dyslexic people having issues picking up literacy because of their personality? Their problems in other words are volitional, just like ours, because personality is the sum of one’s volition.
It’s not my personality to fail to communicate with my peers, or to fail to know how to do so. On the contrary, I am intensely interested in other people and always have been. I have always been socially gregarious and there is no way in hell failing to socialize with my peers at an age appropriate level is consistent with my personality traits. I know as a matter of fact that my personality is not AS and AS inhibits my ability to do what a person with my personality would otherwise do. |
First... on the personality, you quoted the components of the personality for your next response. So again...
Regularlity of behavior, a psychological construct influenced by biological processes, influences how we move and respond in our environment, causes certain behaviors, can be seen in our feelings and relationships and social interactions, genetically based, etc. .... Are you going to tell me that AS does not have regularity of behavior? It is not a psychological construct? It's not influenced by biological processes? It doesn't influence how we respond in our environment? It doesn't cause certain behaviors? It cannot be seen in our feelings and relationships and social interactions? It is not genetically based? Because you did just say all those things when you said, "No it does not ... [fit into the components of personality]. Again, if you tell me it's more than that...then I'll bite. But to tell me it doesn't fit into personality at all........
Second....
I never defined personality as only an enduring pattern of behavior.
Third...
A valid argument is to state that your AS prohibits you from doing the things you want to do, including the things your personality makes you want to do. That's very true that many people with AS have a very hard time doing what they want to do because of their AS. I think we can agree that "shyness" is a personality trait. It better be because I've let a lot of people get the point on Scattegories with that. A shy person may really want to talk to a group of people, but for whatever reason, they don't because of their shy personality.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Regularlity of behavior, a psychological construct influenced by biological processes, influences how we move and respond in our environment, causes certain behaviors, can be seen in our feelings and relationships and social interactions, genetically based, etc. Now if you want to tell me that it does match many components of a personality but it goes beyond that into something else, then I'd be more apt to buy. |
Pain is a psychological construct influenced by biological processes. Responses to pain are actually more uniform and encompass a much greater proportion of the whole population than responses to “AS stimulus” (the symptoms of AS) are. Nearly universally, people will jerk away from the source of a painful stimuli before they can even think to do so. But doing so is not a personality trait, nor under the influence of personality. At the same time, it’s more common for people with an ASD to fail to consistently manifest this behavior than it is for those among the general population. This is because irregularities of the nervous system are not actually personality traits, although the nervous system can be an influence in the development of personality, just like being born to rich parents can be the same. |
The problem with the pain example is that I don't remember it being part of the diagnostic criteria for AS.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
To me, Personality is what makes us different from each other, not the same. |
Whereas AS is a condition that describes a cluster of traits/features in otherwise very diverse and different people. |
Here, you took me out of context. Personality, as a whole, makes us different. I never claimed AS defines a person's personality as a whole. In fact, I've stated otherwise several times.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
As of now, they treat AS as if it's a disease. They offer cures and they want to defeat it. |
If by “they” you mean the same kind of people who offer snake oil to cure cancer or congenital blindness, then “they” will pull “their” collective crap no matter what. AS is not medically defined as a disease though, and no health practitioner I have encountered has ever claimed that AS can be cured. On the contrary, every health practitioner I have discussed AS with has been very strident and clear in their claims that AS cannot be cured. My public health system makes no provision to deliver even assessment services to adults. AS in adults seems to be seen more as an eccentric personality by the bulk of the public health sector in my country, and this is very much to the detriment of people like me. In one instance earlier this year, this failure to recognize our condition as a disability that must be accommodated in the public health sector was the direct cause of a young 18-year-old with AS being locked up in a prison cell rather than admitted to a health care facility. It took the intervention of the Prime Minister to have this person admitted to a health care facility. This kind of thing happens (to be quite blunt) because of views that AS is not a real disability, and not because people think AS is a disease. |
I was actually referring to the idiots that would offer snake oil to cure cancer. There are two truths in this world. One, reality. Two, the norm. In the states, it seems to be the norm that autism is a "disease" or treated as such whether they want to claim it is or not because of people like "Defeat Autism Now" and "Autism Speaks." All our media propaganda is based on those claims. All the medical professionals who claim there is no cure don't usually speak up on network television with masses of people sitting on the edge of their seat paying attention. Toni Braxton would have to speak for them.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Many people on the WP are insulted by these claims to rid the world of autism because they are happy that their autsim has made them unique. |
Many congenitally deaf people feel the same way about cures for congenital deafness. Many refuse such procedures for themselves and their children. Others in the same position want these cures and would use them for their children. These different reactions indicate rather different personalities exist among those characterized by congenital deafness. |
Hearing is a sense listed in the five senses. If you want to add social skills as a sense, then it would be a great comparison for AS. AS do seem to have heightened senses, but that's really only comparable to someone who has less than perfect senses as opposed to complete loss of a sense (or the start of it leading to an inevitable complete loss).
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Some people on the WP are frustrated with their autism because they find it disabling, but I don't think it's their autism that has disabled them as much as their will and attitude. |
Right, so it was my “will” demonstrated by my persistent attempts to socialize in the face of physically painful failure, and my attitude that if I just kept trying I’d eventually figure it out and be able to get through a day at school without being physically assaulted that was the problem, and not actual impairments beyond my will and outside the influence of my attitude?
[sarcasm]Nice to know all that pain and misery and the broken nose along with the daily bruisings were in fact all the fault of my will and attitude rather than some innate impairment that I tried very hard to overcome. I’m so pleased to be told yet again that all the struggles that I have striven so very hard against, were in fact just the result of my will and attitude. I am certain this is the kind of thing every vulnerable young child with AS needs shoved down their throat. Much better than the understanding and accommodations and attempts to help them understand themselves that goes along with the current recognition that AS is a real disability entailing impairments not within the voluntary control of those effected. Thank you so much for pointing out that people like me are not struggling with real impairments, but just have will and attitude problems. Or do you mean that the problem was that I lacked the will and attitude to enjoy being ostracized and routinely physically assaulted, (including have my nose broken) by my peers. Perhaps if I’d had the right will and attitude I would simply have chosen to find it all rather kinky or something?[/sarcasm] |
When I say will and attitude... Everybody on this planet (there are no exceptions) has strengths and flaws. We all suck at something. Anyone who allows their weaknesses to defeat them...yeah, we are then in the realm of will and attitude. Now someone who doesn't have legs cannot walk, and that's a different story, but even then, I've seen people in really awful circumstances such as that come out on top. Either way, AS isn't trying to live without legs or total blindness. We just suck at certain things and they are things we can eventually overcome. But we also seem to take things very personal and seem to hold grudges for a long time, and that's why we take things to a level it really doesn't have to go. At some point in your life, you have to let go of all the bad things that happen to you in your past. You can't expect to go through life without enduring some bad moments. AS is the reason some things happen they way they do, but it should never become an excuse.
I never said you should "enjoy being ostracized and routinely physically assaulted," but couldn't you have fought back? Whether it was physically or something afterwards with parents and teachers.... The whole point it you had a bully, and you deal with a bully as if they are a bully instead of excusing their behavior because you have AS.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Either way, we are not handicapped, and autism doesn't cause early deaths. |
You do realize that AS describes a very broad range of manifestations, and that many people with AS cannot even live independently without support and assistance? How exactly is not being able to live independently not a “handi cap”?
The DSM is very clear on this point. If you do not suffer clinically significant levels of impairment or distress because of the traits described by the AS criteria, then you necessarily do not have AS. Whatever you personally think of the issue, according to the conventional clinical view, an atypical condition of being that causes clinically significant levels of impairment or distress, constitutes a disorder. It’s that simple.
As for not causing early deaths, well AS can be a factor in early death, but that’s actually neither here nor there. I have no idea why you think causing an early death is even relevant. Does being congenitally blind usually cause an early deaf, or is being congenitally blind more a personality? |
Sorry, i didn't think I needed to repeat myself again on this. I'm not talking severe autism. I'm talking mild autism.
Distress is different than a handicap.
It's not really fair to blind and deaf people to say that their problems are comparable to a bunch of people complaining about making friends. Yes, making friends is very important in this world, but not to the level of requiring the use of sight and hearing.
I never said if it doesn't kill you then it's not a disorder. I said that AS doesn't kill you like many diseases. AS is not a handicap. Again, I mean mild autism...not severe. I think you have totally missed my point for convenience of your argument.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
It's not unhealthy to be autistic. It just makes us different. A disease is unhealthy. A mental disorder is unhealthy. |
Being congenitally blind is not unhealthy either. I have no idea why you keep raising the issue of disease. It seems somewhat dishonest if you have understood my earlier statements that AS is not a disease.
Equally, if mental disorders are only things that are unhealthy, then AS is not a mental disorder, just as dyslexia is not a mental disorder according to such a definition (nor a disease, nor something that makes someone unhealthy, nor commonly a cause of early death, nor something that only occurs when someone is unhealthy). Dyslexia is also not appropriately defined as a personality or a personality trait by any conventional definition of personality. |
I don't feel like repeating myself anymore, but on disease, you can see above.
On being blind, you are taking me out of context. I'm saying AS isn't going to cause an early death (like cancer), nor is it a handicap (like blindness), nor does it make us unhealthy (like malnutrition).
Mental Disorders are unhealthy (not learning disabilities, but disorders). I mean things like BiPolar, Depression...etc. They are unhealthy when people have suicidal thoughts as a result of the disorder. They are unhealthy when people do very unhealthy things as a result of the disorder. AS only seems to affect what... repetitive behaviors and social problems. If you want to talk about social health...okay I'll give you that.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Personality creates diversity |
,
Whereas AS creates clusters of similarity in observable behaviors in otherwise very diverse people. |
You are right. I've never heard of an AS person claiming they are too different.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | and while a very reaching argument could suggest that parts of our personality can be unhealthy or a disabling feature of every human, it still in a medical sense is not considered as such, and I think AS fits right in there better than the other options. |
This premise is entirely backwards. Whereas one could decide to construe behavior arising from biologically given constraints on neurological function as being a personality or personality traits, it makes no sense to do so when the features described are outside typical human functioning, are impairing, are not amenable to the same interventions that tend to work when the behavior is volitional and personality driven, and occurs regardless of the personality traits that can be inferred from behavior not directly influenced by the neurological constraints, and where personality is observably influencing even the reactions to the neurological constraints, it is not sensible, and certainly not fair to do so. |
I'm going to assume you are still misunderstanding personality when you said this.
Everything else I pretty much hit on already in this post.
| Quote: |
As for the “other options” I have myself clearly stated AS is not a disease and so far as I know, no respected source of information claims differently. |
Depending on your definition of "respected." While I don't respect the sources that claim differently, many people unfortunately do, some of which are sources you would respect by their title (that is until you hear their opinion on the subject).
| Quote: | In respect of disorder, you have limited the analysis to particular kinds of disorder that AS is clearly not, and anyone could play the same game with congenital blindness, dyslexia or congenital deafness and make exactly as much sense.
Evidently, being “more a personality” does not make something either not a disorder or not a mental illness.
Personality disorders are more personality than anything else, are disorders, and unlike Asperger Syndrome are classed as mental illnesses/psychiatric disorders/unhealthy. If your purpose is to distance us from mental illness then you have failed to understand the implication of AS being a personality rather than a neurological disorder.
As a neurological disorder, AS is no more a mental illness than epilepsy, as a personality, it meets the definition for a personality disorder and therefore is in a mental illness. An implication of arguing that the traits described by AS constitute a personality is that AS is a personality disorder, just like Borderline Personality Disorder or Histrionic-Personality-Disorder. |
I've actually won your argument for you on this. The problem is that I keep defining "mental disorder" by the norm and not the APA. The reason this term seems to have a diverse amount of definition is because it really isn't defined. It's a word people seem to use without any regard to a common definition, which defeats the purpose of words to begin with, and it's highly annoying and stupid that the APA just can't define it and change the way they word things to meet that definition. You would think they'd be creating more order than disorder (pun intended). Either way, here's a link describing it...
http://www.sntp.net/references/dsm_definition.htm
So yeah, by that definition (as vague as it is), AS would fit into that. Then again, so would Athlete's foot, the effects of caffeine, and just about anything else that exists for that matter because "there's no definition for the word." The f-word seems to have more definition, so all you people out there who think it's stupid to use the f-word because it isn't concise and use mental disorder are hypocrites.
I still think it falls under personality more so than mental disorder by common context of the terms; however, I need to further examine "learning disability" (which I don't see commonly categorized with mental disorder by nonprofessionals) because that seems to be a better fit to me from the get go than personality (or maybe a mixture). I'm sorry if I'm not making sense here, but I do to me. I guess my problem is that I think psychology is more like astrology at times (some truth and a lot of fiction), and in order to make it appear that they are making sense, they have managed to confuse many simple concepts (such as the definition of a word). Like with just the word mental disorder, you got psychologists using it one way, the DSM another, Psychological sources yet another way, and then you got everybody else who has even more ways to define it. They should stick to the dictionary for now because they obviously cannot handle the responsibility of creating new terms.
Anyway, you are right on this last part not only by DSM definition, but also, I wasn't thinking on the lines of personality disorder.
_________________
"In the room the women come and go talking of Michelangelo." J. Alfred Prufrock |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tantybi
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 1053
Location: Wonderland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pandd wrote: | | Tantybi wrote: |
To try to argue otherwise...let's go with this... PDD... NON SPECIFIC. NON SPECIFIC means we really don't know exactly, but shoot if you look autistic to me. My husband calls it the SWAG treatment...Scientific Wild Ass Guess
|
PDD NOS does not mean PDD non specified. It means PDD Not Otherwise Specified, and the otherwise refers not to the world at large but to the categories within the DSM, That the DSM does not specifically describe a particular condition other than as a PDD that the DSM does not further specify does not eliminate all the information about the diagnosis that exists outside the DSM. |
Still sounds like the SWAG treatment to me
_________________
"In the room the women come and go talking of Michelangelo." J. Alfred Prufrock |
|
| Back to top |
|
Inventor
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 3540
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Psychology views the world of output, they see something and name it, but mostly have twenty classes of three things. One of their longer held thoughts was females do not have autism, they have some female problem.
Genetics looks at root causes, which are not a roadmap that Psychology can understand, because, same genes, different results. There will be no clear genetic marker for AS, for people who think it does not happen to females.
Hard Science confounds Psychology.
That there are gene clusters showing differance of ancestory, is what it all shows, but when using defect thinking on the data, it does not play out.
The results I mention are from the incomplete Neanderthal Genome Project, the closest species to us. Some 5-10% of modern humans have Neanderthal DNA.
The mix came about 35,000 years ago, in Northern European populations. Human mother, Neanderthal father.
The study is not complete, lack of Neanderthal material, but results so far show a differance in basic Neurology.
Psychology being Human Psychology would see these people as defective if they were humans.
The answers lie in Neurology and Genetics, Hard Science, and they are coming soon.
Historically this is the group that painted the caves, and built Stonehenge 8,000 years ago, before any other group was anything but apes with pointed sticks and fire.
rdos Aspie Quiz shows a clear watershed between thought processes, and the Markrams Intense World Syndrome shows the same in behaviors. Now Genetics are confirming the split.
There is still a lot of work to do, but sub species do exist.
One group has been making a DNA study of autistic children, with intent of following it up long term. The United States Department of Defense.
Their only business is keeping up with advanced Science and Technology. There is not much other reason for them to be funding a large study.
All Autists, 1 in 100
All inventors, 1 in 5,000, and a strange group.
Science, Invention, Engineering, Art, does come from a small percent of the population.
All of autism problems could be explained by incompatable genetic mixes.
Psychology claims the less functional, but no one explains the broader group that does not have problems. Same traits, different results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pandd
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 1916
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Inventor wrote: | | Psychology views the world of output, they see something and name it, but mostly have twenty classes of three things. One of their longer held thoughts was females do not have autism, they have some female problem. |
I presume we are all expected to conveniently ignore the fact that females were among the exemplar cases described by Leo Kanner in his paper that introduced the concept (of Autism) to the English speaking world and have been receiving diagnoses ever since?
| Quote: |
That there are gene clusters showing differance of ancestory, is what it all shows, but when using defect thinking on the data, it does not play out. |
What?
| Quote: | | The results I mention are from the incomplete Neanderthal Genome Project, the closest species to us. Some 5-10% of modern humans have Neanderthal DNA. |
Er, so by that you mean the work on MtDNA derived from a 38,000 year old bone, that “firms up” earlier conclusions that the last common ancestor of anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals appears to have lived around 660,000 years ago, give or take 140,000 or so years, and that human and Neanderthal ancestors since have not interbred sufficiently to leave a mark in either genome?
| Quote: | | The mix came about 35,000 years ago, in Northern European populations. Human mother, Neanderthal father. |
We can tell this from a 38,000 year old bone? Wow science is truly a marvel!
| Quote: | | Same traits, different results. |
Like normal cell division of time limited cells, and rampant cell division of invasive immortal cell lines, the difference in essence between a healthy and necessary trait and a deadly one? Some differences of quantity also constitute differences of quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
