Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Does television/the modern world cause autism?

Page 3 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

14 Dec 2011, 2:13 am

I am saying your guess isn't particularly educated. Perhaps I should have called it a "guess" instead of a "theory," but my point is that "hypothesis" is not appropriate.

The refrigerator mother theory wasn't about abuse, but about lack of parental availability (often a lack of emotional availability). You actually harkened back to that theory when you said:

Quote:
If society in general is engaging is less direct, face to face interaction due to a number of factors (parents are too busy working to engage their children socially, TV/Video games/computer is always on, etc...) some people are going to be dramatically effected.


There isn't actually any evidence of a rise in autism rates, and actually evidence that the rate has been consistent all along - that what has changed is diagnostic criteria. For example, in the 1980s, the first DSM with diagnostic criteria for autism was published (DSM-III) and in the 1990s, the PDD category was expanded to include Asperger's Syndrome. This research was done to counter claims that autism rates were increasing due to vaccines, but the results remain the same.

Also, there are many reasons why autistic children who stay indoors for any reason are more likely to be diagnosed. For example, parents are possibly more likely to notice autistic behaviors and have their children assessed. After all, a lot of autistic people have slipped through the diagnostic cracks over the years, and over time, clinicians are getting better at diagnosing them, and parents and teachers generally know more about what to look for in order to have their children assessed - not just for autism, but also ADHD.

So what that study may be looking at is an underdiagnosis of autism in some areas, rather than an increased rate in other areas.

Oh, and for what it's worth: I've learned a lot about socialization online that I probably would not have learned otherwise.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

14 Dec 2011, 2:33 am

An interesting response to that study:

http://laurafreberg.com/blog/?p=49

Quote:
In spite of the best efforts of statistics faculty everywhere, people constantly want to infer causality from correlations. Even though we can point to ridiculous examples, such as the strong positive correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate (both increase in warm weather), some people just don’t get it.

Now we have what may be one of the worst contributions to our understanding of autism, a paper entitled “Does Television Cause Autism?” Good grief. The authors claim that autism rates are rising at the same time access to cable TV is increasing.

Where do I start?

First of all, the authors are professors of management and economics at Cornell with no expertise whatsoever in mental health. The lead author told Slate magazine, “I asked around and found that medical researchers were not working on this, so accepted that I should research it myself.” You know, sometimes there are very good reasons why medical researchers are NOT working on something. For instance, they know something about autism, the timing of its onset (most people assume it is present in many cases from birth), its symptoms, and some of its more likely causes. TV is not on this list for some very sound scientific reasons.

Second, most researchers believe that recent increases in autism rates have more to do with a loosening of diagnostic criteria than with a real increase in prevalence. The jury is still out on this one, as some environmental factors, such as mercury emissions, are suspected as having a possible role.

I am not a fan of network television, and I think that parking young children in front of the TV is a huge mistake. TV can have lots of negative effects on kids, but most relate to TV time being used as a substitute for things children SHOULD be doing, like playing, exploring, and interacting with parents, siblings and peers. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting children’s television exposure to 1-2 hours per day as a maximum.

We still have more questions than answers about autism. Lots of parents are desperate for answers. I think it’s highly unlikely that the answer will be in the amount of television children watch.



1234567890
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 1

09 Jan 2013, 1:06 pm

It's obvious that interaction has been broken for a
long time. If we observe a conversation from younger
generations, the point is to not ever say anything. If
we observe a group of students sitting in a computer lab,
chances are none of them will acknowledge one another.
Two people on a date will spend more time on Facebook
than being with one another. Communication entails the
exchange of information between two or more parties.
While systems like the English language, iPhones, and
mass transit allow us to quickly and easily communicate
messages like ideas and emotions, there has been an
increasingly inverse relationship between the rise in
technological and mechanical connectivity between any
two people groups and the depreciating merrit behind the
those inertactions.



Magnanimous
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 292
Location: London

09 Jan 2013, 1:40 pm

I came in here expecting a sh!tstorm...
There seems a lack thereof, but I'm seeing some potential for such a thing on this page.



Verdandi wrote:
You don't have a hypothesis, you have a theory, the difference between the two being that the first one is an "educated guess," and your guess is, er, not very educated.

Nah... the OP got you beat on that one. Theory is practically law... but there is nothing to suggest that hypothesis need even be grounded in sanity.



Chloe33
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 845

09 Jan 2013, 2:06 pm

Ohiophile wrote:
If people are spending increasing amounts of time in front of television and computers, how can they be expected to develop socially? Is it possible all of society is becoming less social and those who are less socially adept are crossing into what we call autism? I'm just curious about what people think about this theory. Before people had cable television, the internet, and video games they spent a great deal of time sitting around and talking without all of the noise and distractions. All of this practice would mean that even people who were not born socially adept would develop enough social skills to get by. Could it be that being able to socialize and relate to others is a skill just like any other and people in modern countries are simply not getting nearly enough practice? People 100 years ago were so much more articulate and better at expressing themselves than we are today. Even look at movie dialogues and books written. They were much more drawn out, descriptive, wordy, etc... Is it possible that television could confuse the young mind as well making it difficult to understand what to do when a real person speaks to you rather than sitting back passively and watching others interact on TV?

I am not saying that TV and computers are the only causes, but simply making a massive contribution to the epidemic. The increasing numbers of autism really coincide with the first generation that grew up with cable television in America.


This is a really good topic, i have always wondered how all this television and computer use will affect future generations and communication.
No one hardly uses snail mail postal mail anymore. A handwritten letter is very personal and can be really great for someone who likes them or is an older generation.

Kids might be getting outside less as they are in front of the screens (TV, Video games, PC) more. I remember playing outdoors as a child.
A lot of younger children here play outside, yet we are in a poorer area so they likely don't all have access to technology.

Also the instant gratification of the internet can be worrisome, supposedly according to article it has been making people impatient.
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Hyp ... fects.aspx

My mother monitored my tv watching as a child, and i was never big on tv. I hardly watch it, we don't have cable. If we like a show, we'll download it.

I do fear the effects of all this communication via technology on future generations.

For 1st generation (this is the 80s ones right?) growing up with cable tv.. all i can say is several years ago when i was in my mid 20s i would go over a friend's house and she'd always have the cable tv on and what she would watch was the most absurd shows. I had trouble following what was going on, i would think commericals were part of the show, etc, so i can see how it could easily confuse young children growing up with it.



Murderface
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 154
Location: Park co Colorado

09 Jan 2013, 2:41 pm

NO didn't have to much TV. Spent most of my time on my bike or making something. Things I did alone.


_________________
Death solves all problems no man no problem
Your Aspie score: 148 of 200
AQ 38/50
You are very likely an Aspie


Murderface
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 154
Location: Park co Colorado

09 Jan 2013, 3:12 pm

Ohiophile wrote:
^^^^ First of all a theory is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena" according to dictionary.com. A hypothesis is a proposition or guess that you want to test to form a theory, so the term hypothesis is correct in this instance. It appears that you are the one who is not very educated.

Secondly, this is not the refrigerator mother theory because I am not saying that mean or abusive parents cause autism. I am saying that people need PRACTICE to develop any SKILL. Socializing and the ability to relate to others is something that takes practice; more for some than for others (in autism MUCH more). There are a number of environmental factors that exist in the modern world that make people socialize less than they used to in person, hence the rise in people with extreme difficulty socializing.

Here is a link:
TV might cause autism

In fact the article DOES mention that early environment can effect brain development. I'm not saying that these environmental factors can make someone who would otherwise be extremely outgoing and social autistic. I'm saying that they are making someone who would be just social enough to get by not quite social enough to get by and considered autistic.

That link was crap it was more like pseudoscience then any science :x . The time frames were also the time when they were coming up with better DX. Was the TV responsible for the better DX?( rhetorical question) The "rise" of cases of ASD was because of of geater understanding. The reference to the Amish yeah they are up to date. :joker: This is what I like to call a turd sandwich.



Baryonyx
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 15
Location: Germany

09 Jan 2013, 4:17 pm

Verdandi wrote:
There is no evidence that the occurrence of autism in the population is increasing. What has happened is that more people are being diagnosed because the number of people considered autistic has expanded.


This.

It may be possible that this lessens social skills, however the outcome is different. NTs spending the whole day in front of the TV are not developing Aspergers-behaviour.

And since we (i.e. humans) are getting more and more, the chance of getting into contact with some is rising and therefore one can't be alone all day and fail do develop some social skills. :P


_________________
"If I were you, I'd like to be ME!"
"We are all slaves of our genes. Blame them, not the individuals or the mass."

75% NT, 25% Aspie.


CWA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 669

09 Jan 2013, 5:09 pm

My personal opinion, and that is all it is is an opion and an idea I have ZERO evidence to really support this is that autism is genetic (ok there is evidence to support that part, the rest is just what I've beent hinking about lately)... and it has been increasing in prevalence. Particularly in advanced countries. My thought is that really it has only been the past 100-200 years where CHOOSING your spouse is the norm. Prior to that, marriages were arranged. It didn't matter if you had anything in common. It didn't matter what your job was, your habits, your preferences. It boiled down to who could afford what spouse monetarily and social status wise. End of story. Nowadays we pick. And who do we pick? In many cases we choose someone we get along with, someone we have interests in common with and someone we are at least moderately attracted to. What does this lead to? Smart people getting with smart people. Quirky people getting with quirky people. A person with aspie traits getting together with another person with mild aspie traits. I think it happens a lot. And I think this is the real reason why we are seeing a huge increase in diagnosis. PEople say it is over diagnosed. In talking to professionals they tell me that no, this 1 in 88 people being diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, the people clearly have it. They aren't "on the edge". Or questionable. If anything, they say there are yet many more that go undiagnosed because their symptoms are mild. So I personally think that over a few generations of free mate selection the genes are just starting to congeal together, and combine that with a couple of environmental factors like some environmental toxin, or radiation from your cell phone or something.

Just my idea for which I have close to zero evidence, just something I have thought about because I wonder about this quite frequently.