Autism and genetics

Post Reply New Topic

Idealist, You misunderstood my last line. With threat I referred to your idea of self-fulfilling diagnoses and people thinking they have autism on the basis of cultural and societal influences. People thinking they have cancer and seeking help is similarly based on cultural and societal influences.

I don't see self-fulfilling autism processes or some kind of "diagnosis shopping" happening in any meaningful scale and thus that isn't a threat I feel should be critized or made jokes about as frequently as is unfortunately happening.

The fact that some people find their answers in autism is not threatening - on the contrary the societal and cultural autism awareness has worked wonders. To be more precise I don't agree with your statement and didn't refer to you as a threat.

...

Last edited by Idealist on 26 Dec 2015, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I thought Idealist's "big three" was unsubstantiated and inaccurate, too. There is a danger to others in confidently asserting things that may seem apparent to ourselves but have not been subjected to critical review. In another thread, a member whose posts I regularly like and appreciate asserted confidently that CBT doesn't work for ASD. On probing, it appears she meant that it hadn't been useful for her and she could cite no studies or authorities to generalize the sentiment, but she claimed she thought it was obvious it was just her own experience. But she had not stated as much, and novice readers could easily have been convinced that CBT had nothing to offer them.

If you can't support your arguments, maybe you shouldn't make them. Maybe you are fooling not only others, but yourself, about the true state of the world.

...

Last edited by Idealist on 26 Dec 2015, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I went ... I read ... and that article did not substantiate your assertion about three kinds of autism.

...

Last edited by Idealist on 26 Dec 2015, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LOL ... sir, this is laughable.

You cite an article, I read it and find it does not support your position, and you call it nitpicking?

No reply necessary, I'm done with you.

Hmm...

On closer reflection, maybe I did jump off the deep end a little too hastily there.

My apologies, to all of you.

I was going to post a response chiding our newbie friend for his unfounded assertions but it seems like he has been sufficiently chastised, so I'll leave it at that.

No. Just no.

You don't get to toss out a claim like that without actual evidence - and linking to a random autism-related article that has nothing to do with your claim is not evidence at all.. It is not a generally accepted idea. The generally accepted idea is that most autism is genetic, some is environmental, and neither kind is curable.

As for 'self-fulfilling prophecy' autism, there has been no research whatsoever on self-diagnosis, except for a very preliminary bit of survey research I did myself. Note I said preliminary, not proven.

Yes, just yes.



Actually, I do get to share information like that.



Actually, it wasn't so random. I have the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke's Website saved to my Favorites, they're a pretty good read, and a lot of what they say matches up with my own research on the subject. Speaking of which...

I've lived with Autism for 27 years, have attended a school for gifted children for 3 of those years, and special needs school for 5 of those years, together with those two, I've worked with, and been involved with, four organizations that specialize in Autism. I've met over 2000 people with Autism face to face, and gotten to know most of them pretty well, heck I went to school with a tenth of them. (Sunglasses, inside joke)

I guess the point I'm trying to make here, is that while Threads like these are great for sharing opinions, suggestions, and theories, their not all that useful to someone who has already reached a conclusion.

As a Forum Moderator had already pointed out to me, I really had no part in posting on this Thread to begin with, and that had I really wanted to contribute to the Thread, then I should have dropped the Bold, added either an "in my opinion" or "based on my research", and fleshed out the post a bit more.

She said that you'd all probably disagree with me anyway, but at least you wouldn't have been offensive or rude about it, which wouldn't have prompted me to defend myself, and I most likely wouldn't have made any followup replies in this Thread. I can handle people disagreeing with me, and in some cases I can even appreciate views that differ from my own. I am however, not appreciative of rudeness, and though I can tolerate a significant amount of it from people, especially those that have Autism themselves, I have very little tolerance for it from strangers.



From what I've read and experienced, I'm inclined to disagree with you.

Though as a Forum Moderator pointed out to me, I'm not very likely to agree with much of anything on these Forums. She was kind enough to lend me some of her precious time, and put into focus various aspects of this Forums nature. A lot of people posting on these Forums haven't actually met another person with Autism, face to face, off the Internet. While there are those that have met others with Autism, most of them have only met a few. The ones that have met a lot of people with Autism (read hundreds) are most likely middle aged people like myself and younger who attended special schooling alongside others with Autism, or those fortunate enough to live close enough to a Center run by one of the Autism Organizations out there, to make frequent use of it.

The point she was trying to make clear to me, is that the majority of you here have experience in dealing with thousands of people with Autism online, from many different cultures and countries. Where as my experience comes from direct face to face contact with thousands of people with Autism, but all of them are from one culture, one country.



You left out the people who don't actually have Autism, but say that they do, though some really do believe they have it. Other than that, I would agree with what you said.

I guess it depends on where you stand in acknowledging the third group.



I disagree, I actually know people who've had the environmental kind of Autism, they went for treatment, and now they are cured.

Again, I guess it depends on where or not you consider therapy a cure or not.

Genetic Autism however is incurable, though it can be nullified, again with therapy.



I have no idea where you pulled the quote "self-fulfilling prophecy" from, but I can assure you that I never said it, and to my knowledge no one else in Thread did either. Of course, if the others were alluding to it, that I don't know about.

-

Also, the Forum Moderator I've been conversing with on this matter, feels it appropriate that I state that she is not affiliated with this Forum or Website, and that her reasons for helping me in this are completely biased.

I think where you got the most flak, Idealist, is being supercilious in offering your opinion (as fact), then providing a citation that did not in fact support your position, then being further snide when confronted with that failure.

You're going to continue to get flak at WrongPlanet to the extent that you continue to consider yourself superior to others posting here. And I don't see any cure for that.

Calling me "supercilious".
Calling me "snide".
Calling me "failure".
Implying that I can't/need to be "cured".

BeaArthur, you are what we on the Internet call a "troll" or "s**t stirrer", and you got me to take you seriously before, but I now see you for what you are, you'll get no rise out of me.

You know, despite what you said about "I'm done with you." the Forum Moderator said you would reply, and that you would do so in an aggressive manner, "a troll can never leave well enough alone" she said. I, actually disagreed with her, that you had given you word, and that despite everything you had said to me, that you wouldn't break your word.

I suppose that's why I'm an Idealist, and she's a Forum Moderator...

On that note, perhaps we have hijacked this Thread long enough?

To no one in particular:

A person's good reputation will prevail based on the totality of their actions over time and place.

I think it's possible for people to get better while having autism.

I think it's possible for some people to life normal lives while having autism.

I think people can work their away around the world while having autism.

I think people can succeed while having autism.

The autism mindset is a lifelong thing, though....and cannot be totally cured--neither can herpes simplex!

We have to attempt to live with it the best we can. And never, ever give in to it.

Our task is to embrace the positive aspects of it, while treating the negative aspects of it.

Quoting this since the thread seemed to get off topic for a bit.
I have read (previously cited I believe) article noting that there are about 300 possible genetic causes to ASD, and up to 600 or more as they are finding new ones constantly. How many are presented, and which ones, can determine the expression and symptoms.
Finding a 'cure' seems..... pointless right now. To find a cure, don't they have to understand the 'disease' process? As Autism is not fully understood neither scientifically nor in symptoms, a cure seems a bit premature.
As far as comorbidities, anxiety and depression seem to be correlative to the multiple social dysfunction issues in general, and BPD etc seems to be commonly misdiagnosed by professionals lacking understanding. This is not to say that true comorbid occurrence of these psychiatric disorders does not happen, but merely wondering at how often they are simply misunderstood, or caused by ASD itself.
As far as twins go, their genetic structure (in fraternal) is not identical, so they would be similar only about as much as any siblings (slightly more because of the shared gestation). Identical, while supposedly genetically identical, occasionally have variances in appearance, behavior, and other things. Which seems to say that genetics must not be as identical as thought?


Personally, I wonder if Autism is going to become a diagnostic category with hundreds of sub diagnosis such as 'Cancer' has multiple sub-diagnosis that, while similar, have vastly different symptoms and expressions. (I think it may even be better, as high/low functioning is not sufficient to express all of the possible expressions of ASD, such as Stage 1, 2, 3, 4 Cancer does not differentiate between different cancer diagnosis).

Does that make sense at all?