All the loose ends in today's psychiatric "hypothesis"
Leif
I'd summarize how I perceive the current state is. Pro-psychiatry people
can just fill in the gaps.
1. David Comings believes some 600 genes are responsible for psychiatric
"disorders". Last I heard about it, he had a list of over 100 genes.
2. Many things points to a high level of comorbidity between various
diagnosis. That too must mean we see a spectrum rather than well-defined
individual diagnosis.
3. There is definite comorbidity between autism and autoimmune
disorders, and many of those are more prevalent in European descent.
4. There is overlap between aspie criteria by Attwood and the Asperger
diagnosis.
5. There is overlap between rare temperament-groups and AS & ADHD
6. High-tech centers show increased levels of autism
7. The online autistic community largely is of European descent.
Now, lets make a list of what a theory compatible with psychiatry's idea
of autism as an disorder must explain:
1. Why are the genes present in such a large number of people?
Especially since psychiatry claims the genes are more than 50,000 years
old (because all races has similar prevalence, and that means autism
must have originated prior to Hss migration to Eurasia).
2. What evolutionary mechansim allowed deficits in social communication
to evolve & thrive?
3. How can "damage" to specific brain-functions in widely scattered
areas be caused by brain-dysfunction?
4. How can evolutionary psychology "universals" not be present?
(reciproc altruism)
5. How can ole-factory communication be either non-present or different?
I'm looking forward to references to theories that can explain this...
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nno8s2pp-8a+6mm
Suzanne
> Since we are on the subject of autism theories / hypothesis, I'd thought
> I'd summarize how I perceive the current state is. Pro-psychiatry people
> can just fill in the gaps.
What do you mean by Pro-psychiatry people? Is one a P-PP if
one believes that psychiatric medications can sometimes be
of benefit? Why would such a person be able to fill in the
gaps? (What gaps?)
> 4. There is overlap between aspie criteria by Attwood and the Asperger
> diagnosis.
Why is this surprising? Weren't the aspie criteria based on
characteristics used in diagnosis?
>
> 7. The online autistic community largely is of European descent.
The online nonautistic community is also largely of European
descent. So what?
> 2. What evolutionary mechansim allowed deficits in social communication
> to evolve & thrive?
Do they necessarily "thrive"?
>
> 3. How can "damage" to specific brain-functions in widely scattered
> areas be caused by brain-dysfunction?
Define brain-dysfunction.
> 5. How can ole-factory communication be either non-present or different?
What does this sentence mean?
Suzanne
Leif
> Leif wrote:
>
>> Since we are on the subject of autism theories /
>> hypothesis, I'd thought
>> I'd summarize how I perceive the current state is.
>> Pro-psychiatry people
>> can just fill in the gaps.
>
> What do you mean by Pro-psychiatry people? Is one a P-PP if
> one believes that psychiatric medications can sometimes be
> of benefit?
They can, but the dangerous idea here is that autism can be cured by
drugs or by other means. We should regard medications as the last
solution when every possible psychological & dietary cause has been
elimated. This is certainly not the case today.
> Why is this surprising? Weren't the aspie criteria based on
> characteristics used in diagnosis?
That's the point. The aspie-criteria cannot possibly be explained in
terms of dysfunctions.
>> 7. The online autistic community largely is of European descent.
>
> The online nonautistic community is also largely of European
> descent. So what?
Possibly, but I've also noticed that many people in the online
nonautistic community have autistic traits. I actually have a hard time
finding NTs online, appart from the sex-industy and some other rather
small areas, like sports.
>> 2. What evolutionary mechansim allowed deficits in social
>> communication
>> to evolve & thrive?
>
> Do they necessarily "thrive"?
If they didn't thrive for 50,000+ years, they would not be with us. As
simple as that. Natural selection.
>> 3. How can "damage" to specific brain-functions in widely scattered
>> areas be caused by brain-dysfunction?
>
> Define brain-dysfunction.
For me, dysfunction is a function that doesn't work as it should.
I regard each and every aspect of autism as a different function that
works exactly as it was intended to work. Whether this function fits
into our rather dysfunctional society has nothing to do with
neurological problems.
>> 5. How can ole-factory communication be either
>> non-present or different?
>
> What does this sentence mean?
Ole-factory communication is basically facial expressions, body language
and possibly social organization. That is innate and species-dependent.
Every primate has it's own ole-factory communications.
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n3osppa-mm
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
>>>
>>What do you mean by Pro-psychiatry people? Is one a P-PP if
>>one believes that psychiatric medications can sometimes be
>>of benefit?
>>
>
> They can, but the dangerous idea here is that autism can be cured by
> drugs or by other means. We should regard medications as the last
> solution when every possible psychological & dietary cause has been
> elimated. This is certainly not the case today.
I think that perhaps Pro-psychiatry means a very different
thing to you than to the average reader of your posts. In
fact, I doubt "drugs for autism" would be primary in most
people's internal definition. When using terms in
non-standard ways, it is a good idea to operationally define
them.
>
>
>>Why is this surprising? Weren't the aspie criteria based on
>>characteristics used in diagnosis?
>>
>
> That's the point. The aspie-criteria cannot possibly be explained in
> terms of dysfunctions.
I'm not "getting" your point.
>
>
>>>7. The online autistic community largely is of European descent.
>>>
>>The online nonautistic community is also largely of European
>>descent. So what?
>>
>
> Possibly, but I've also noticed that many people in the online
> nonautistic community have autistic traits. I actually have a hard time
> finding NTs online, appart from the sex-industy and some other rather
> small areas, like sports.
By NT, do you mean people that you personally grant that
status? For example, do you classify me as NT?
How does one "find" NTs online? Ask them about their status?
Make armchair diagnosis, based on your own preconceived
notions of what an NT is or isn't?
>
> For me, dysfunction is a function that doesn't work as it should.
> I regard each and every aspect of autism as a different function that
> works exactly as it was intended to work. Whether this function fits
> into our rather dysfunctional society has nothing to do with
> neurological problems.
Is all sensory hypersensitivity purely a function of
dysfunctional society?
>
>
>>>5. How can ole-factory communication be either
>>>non-present or different?
>>>
>>What does this sentence mean?
>>
>
> Ole-factory communication is basically facial expressions, body language
> and possibly social organization. That is innate and species-dependent.
> Every primate has it's own ole-factory communications.
What language does this term come from? The closest I could
come up with was olfactory, which as to do with the sense of
smell. Somehow I couldn't figure out what that had to do
with anything.
Suzanne
Gareeth
"Leif" <rdos.new...@web2news.net> wrote in message
news:3519...@web2news.com...
>>
They can, but the dangerous idea here is that autism can be cured by
> drugs or by other means. We should regard medications as the last
> solution when every possible psychological & dietary cause has been
> elimated. This is certainly not the case today.
You can use medications to control things that are made worse by autism
without thinking you are curing your autism. I have taken anti depressants
and anti-anxiety medications and no one ever suggested they would change my
autism.
Gareeth
>
Terry Jones
>"disorders". Last I heard about it, he had a list of over 100 genes.
This seems to me to be a genetic hypothesis rather than a psychiatric
one - The discredited "refrigerator mother" idea would be a
*psychiatric* hypothesis.
>3. There is definite comorbidity between autism and autoimmune
>disorders, and many of those are more prevalent in European descent.
I thought that this suggested comorbidity was essentially anecdotal?
Though yes it could well be true. There are a number of (non
diagnostic) traits which appear to be a lot more common in autistics
than within the general population. - It is after all classed as a
developmental disorder (I know you don't like the term disorder, I'm
not to keen on it myself), so when something atypical happens during a
particular stage of development, then it may well affect multiple
systems.
But I would question the European decent claim for autism until decent
studies have been done in non "Western" countries using the same
diagnostic criteria and assessment techniques as used in those
countries presently recording a higher number of diagnoses.
>4. There is overlap between aspie criteria by Attwood and the Asperger
>diagnosis.
*Of course* there is, they are essentially supposed to be describing
the same condition - What point are you trying to make with this?
>5. There is overlap between rare temperament-groups and AS & ADHD
See my response to your point (3)
Suzanne has responded to some of your other points so I won't
duplicate these. - But basically I find this post very unclear. - Are
you arguing for a genetic contribution to autism? Probably not a lot
of people here would disagree with that - although there is still
considerable debate over environmental "triggers" to a genetic
predisposition.
Terry
Lawrence Foard
Terry Jones <terry...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>>3. There is definite comorbidity between autism and autoimmune
>>disorders, and many of those are more prevalent in European descent.
>
>I thought that this suggested comorbidity was essentially anecdotal?
This one, or atleast immune differences in general does seem to have
a good deal of support.
"Familial clustering of autoimmune disorders and evaluation of medical risk
factors in autism."
Its a really big difference.
"Forty-six percent of the autism group reported having relatives with rheumatoid
diseases, as compared to 26% of the controls"
>Though yes it could well be true. There are a number of (non
>diagnostic) traits which appear to be a lot more common in autistics
>than within the general population. - It is after all classed as a
>developmental disorder (I know you don't like the term disorder, I'm
>not to keen on it myself), so when something atypical happens during a
>particular stage of development, then it may well affect multiple
>systems.
It doesn't appear to be as simple as something going wrong in development.
There are genetic differences like the GABA receptor genes they've found
which are constantly active.
>But I would question the European decent claim for autism until decent
>studies have been done in non "Western" countries using the same
>diagnostic criteria and assessment techniques as used in those
>countries presently recording a higher number of diagnoses.
Thats a major problem at this point. I haven't seen good data on
the ethnic distributions of autism. It might tend to be recognized
in wealthy countries and since wealthy countries tend to be ones
with colder climates.
--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a Temporary Autonomous Zone.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"
-Benjamin Franklin
Leif
> Leif wrote:
>
>> That's the point. The aspie-criteria cannot possibly be explained in
>> terms of dysfunctions.
>
> I'm not "getting" your point.
No? The aspie-criteria describes a personality-type which has many
merits in real life situations. Asperger criteria describes something
that is essentially a disorder. See the difference?
> By NT, do you mean people that you personally grant that
> status? For example, do you classify me as NT?
>
> How does one "find" NTs online? Ask them about their status?
> Make armchair diagnosis, based on your own preconceived
> notions of what an NT is or isn't?
You would probably call it that, yes. I have my own ways of identifying
aspie-traits that I won't go into here.
> Is all sensory hypersensitivity purely a function of
> dysfunctional society?
Basically yes. At least 99%. Hypersensitivity served an essential
function for survival in our past. We weren't overloaded by stimulu at
that time.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nnoo-sp8a+9mm
Kalen
>
> You would probably call it that, yes. I have my own ways of identifying
> aspie-traits that I won't go into here.
Having traits and actually being non-NT are rather different. If you
want to define anyone who has aspie traits as not being NT then NT is no
longer typical, but an exception.
> Basically yes. At least 99%. Hypersensitivity served an essential
> function for survival in our past. We weren't overloaded by stimulu at
> that time.
I don't think I would have been a lot better off with regards to sensory
issues in the past. e.g. In the past (even not very distant) people
spent a lot more time outdoors, which is something I find very overloading.
Kalen
Leif
> That must be all currently recognised disorders, not just ASDs.
Yes, it is
> IIRC,
> two genes have so far been linked to ASDs.
Two? Which ones?
I've already identified more than two.
> Yes - and sometimes interlinked causes, or one disorder creating the
> causes of another.
Huh?
> There is a definite link between chronic stress and immune disorders
> generally, as chronic stress screws up the immune response.
I don't think so. It works the other way. Autoimmune disorders create
chronic stress. Many autoimmune disorders have already been linked to
specific genes. My 5 cents is that autoimmune disorders are caused by
genetic incompability between HLA genes.
> This is
> the rationale behind using anti-cortisols such as Procaine HCl as an
> AIDS treatment - the AIDS immune deficiency is caused by a severe
> chronic stress response, not directly by the virus.
AIDS is certainly not comparable to autism. I'm sure the cause-effect
relationship isn't clean-cut with AIDS either. The virus probably causes
the stress, and then it's logical if anti-stress treatment works.
> The stress response is likely to be triggered chronically in ASDs
> generally, and that response will be considerably exaggerated if the
> ASDs have led to an environment where anxiety and depression problems
> were created.
Really? One of the things I surveyed was the cause of depression. My
idea was that SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) might have a lot to do
with depression. It turns out SAD must be an important factor. Only 1 of
75 has claimed depression mainly in summer. Approximately 1/3 never have
depression, 1/3 have depression mostly during winter (SAD), and 1/3 both
summer and winter (combined causes).
So, why do you think this strange chronical stress only lasts during
winter months for 1/3 and seems to be absent in another 1/3?
> There is in addition the whole issue of food intollerances, but they
> may be to some degree be caused by the chronic stress response
Not at all. Dietary issues are really primary factors that worsens
autism. If you can eliminate those, you can probably also turn some
severely autistics into Asperger's. The same thing applies to mercury
poisoning caused my dental fillings.
>(which
> also interferes with the digestive system, and if fact
> every system in
> the body) rather than necessarily being the root cause in themselves.
They ARE root causes, since here too we have genetic causes like GABA
and gluten-intolerance (celiac). BTW, celiac is also mainly a European
descent condition.
> Didn't know there was a European bias in this.
There is but it's not very obvious unless you study things in detail.
The main problem is that there is little documentation of which
autoimmune diseases are more frequent in ASDs.
> What is a rare temperament group?
INTP, ENTP, INFP and ENFP. They are rare since only 10% of the general
population have them. The majority of ADHD people have these 10%, and
INTP and aspie criteria shows many similarites.
> This has more to do with who has the technology than anything else,
> and additionally ignores the large immigrant populations in the west
> and the increasing availability of technology particular in parts of
> India and Asia generally.
Does it really? Afro-Americans has access to much the same technology as
Cauacasians in the US.
> Non-Europeans with ASDs absolutely do exist - a guy whose family
> origins are in India attends the same social skills course that I do,
> for instance.
India? Of course. No doubt that ASDs exist in India.
> Of course in much of Asia and Africa,
> diagnosing ASDs is
> not a priority.
Why isn't it? If ASDs are such a serious disorders, I'd bet this would
be high-priority everywhere.
>>Now, lets make a list of what a theory compatible with
>> psychiatry's idea
>>of autism as an disorder must explain:
>>
>>1. Why are the genes present in such a large number of people?
>>Especially since psychiatry claims the genes are more than
>> 50,000 years
>>old (because all races has similar prevalence, and that means autism
>>must have originated prior to Hss migration to Eurasia).
>
> For disorders in general, because the disorders are primarily caused
> by environment with a relatively small element of genetic
> sensitivity.
Not according to twin-studies of ASDs at least.
> Since when is 1 in 110 people thriving?
That's the problem. If 1 in 110 people wasn't thriving during 50,000
years, I'd not expect to see them around. Elementary evolutionary
theory.
> Besides, social communication is a relatively recent feature in
> humans, and certainly still evolving.
Huh?
Not according to evolutionary psychology at least. They postulate most
of our social adaptions evolved during the stone-age. They see us as
mostly stone-age humans. That's also why we have such big problems to
adapt to our modern lifestyle.
I think you confuse culture with social communications.
> Variation is a requirement for
> efficient evolution - otherwise recombination cannot produce new
> varieties and mutation (almost always bad) is available as an option.
Yes, but variation doesn't seem to be prefered anymore.
> That said, ASDs are not part of the normal variation - but in a
> still-evolving system, issues are likely to arise.
ASDs are certainly part of the normal variation. It's the norm that has
been pushed far too much towards conformity.
> Very easily.
>
> First off, the brain dysfunction may have genetic origins.
In that case, we are back to 50,000 years of selection AGAINST such
dysfunctions.
> Genes do not give a blueprint of the final form of the systems they
> create - they don't even strictly give a blueprint of the
> developmental processes that build those systems. They
> don't do simple
> jobs in neat locations - they do complex compound jobs. Evolution
> didn't design the brain - it accumulated accidental improvement, each
> of which carried a host of lesser problems many of which were
> compensated for by further adaptations.
So what? The system as a whole has selective pressures for working as a
whole. Genes that don't fulfill that purpose are selected against.
> Genes mostly trigger certain chemicals to be released. Cells in
> various parts of the body react to the overall chemical environment
> that they are in.
True.
> Many parts of the brain which happen to be
> developing at a specific point in time will be affected by a single
> gene becoming active or staying inactive at a particular time.
This is part of the whole system I described above.
> Second, the brain dysfunction may have environmental
> origins. If there
> is a hormonal or viral condition during pregnancy, it will have
> widespread affects on the developing brain.
Who knows that cause-effect relationship here? We do know that birth
complications are more frequent with ASDs, but we essentially have no
idea if this too is comorbidity, or if the birth complications cause
autism. I'd say it's comorbidity.
> Even problems caused by
> physical trauma such as an accident are unlikely to be surgically
> precise.
Yes, but it doesn't cause autism.
> Finally, there are complex dependencies in brain systems. Damage one
> are and many others may be unable to access part of the information
> they process, or the results may not be sent to everywhere they are
> expected.
Have you studied what happens to infants (fetuses) that has acquired
real brain damage? In most cases, this will heal perfectly well. Infants
can handle this far better than adults.
> Like genes, the brain itself (mainly at detailed
> levels, esp
> connections between neurons) is not a precisely designed machine.
No, but evolution has made it a perfectly functional system.
> These universals only exist because there is a
> sophisticated system to
> implement them in the brain.
They are not sophisticated at all. Basically all mammals have one or the
other "implementation" of them. I've not yet seen any other mammal with
this high level of dysfunctions in basic, social behaviors. The only
time we see this, is in hybrids between species, where social behaviors
become disrupted.
> Disrupt the system, and some of those
> 'universals' may be disrupted too.
Hardly. They are like algorithms in computer-programs. Computer hardware
can malfunction, but an algorithm does things like it's programmed to.
This actually is a very good analogy. We essentially have different
algorithms that are perfectly functional for their designed function.
Even if our hardware malfunctioned, the algorithms would either work or
not, but could never do something else.
> There is a myth that says that a sufficiently sophisticated computer
> would suddenly develop human traits.
I think this will be possible in the future.
> Besides, altruism is not generally absent in ASDs to my knowledge.
> True altruism can even be exaggerated (NTs have much more to lose by
> taking that risk). And 'reciprocal altruism' presumably refers to
> helping in the expectation of recieving help later in
> return - a trade
> where people with ASDs consistently lose out (due to unintentionally
> upsetting the NTs in some way), so can eventually learn not to bother
> so much. Though even then IMO the initial help is still often given.
The problem is that all the basic requirements for reciproc altruism can
be missing.
1. Many lack ability to recognize people (faceblindness)
2. We generally don't record people based on debt & favors.
3. Many lack the fraud-detection function.
> ASDs are well know as vulnerable to being taken advantage
> of - ie they
> give help when the apparent need was an illusion created by
> manipulators, and when there is no chance of recieving later help in
> return. They very rarely recieve help from NTs when they need it.
Yes, and that's based on our lack of reciproc altruism.
> Same as any sensory communication - neural links may be missing or
> connected differently, such that the olfactory sense triggers
> different responses and such that different mental and
> physical states
> result in different pheromones being released. Olfactory
> communication
> is a social thing in all animals so, even though it is more ancient
> than the recently evolved forms of social communication in humans,
> some of the same brain systems are involved.
How do you explain our lack (or less) facial expressions? I explain it
by looking at Tourette, and hypothesising a different set of facial
expressions that NTs can't handle. IMO, apes would consider NTs facial
expressions & body language as grimacing and stereotype, repetive motor
movements.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn7o8s-p+2aa0mm
Leif
>>They can, but the dangerous idea here is that autism can be cured by
>>drugs or by other means. We should regard medications as the last
>>solution when every possible psychological & dietary cause has been
>>elimated. This is certainly not the case today.
>
Have any proof? As an example, why don't we screen all autistic for
hemochromatosis, that can potentially cause many severe problems? Why
don't we screen for gluten-sensitivity?
> You may find dietary correlations, and adjusting diet may
> help, but as
> I mentioned elsewhere chronic stress disrupts many systems
> in the body
> - autism may still be the underlying cause even if you can
> successfully reduce many of the symptoms.
That's your theory, but it has many fundamental flaws. For one, I'm
extremely tolerant to stress, many times more so than NTs I know.
> ASDs are not caused by psychological causes at all
Which part of ASDs? Isn't ASDs diagnosed on psychological evaluations?
> - though there may
> be comorbid psychological conditions caused by the social environment
> that ASDs tend to create.
Certainly. I think at least 50% of the diagnostic criteria are socially
/ psychologically induced.
> Treatments targetting these issues may be beneficial, but the only
> treatment for the stress and suffering in ASDs is an appropriate
> environment which does not create stress and suffering.
How would this environment look like?
> Even if pills
> could magically repair an part of the brain which missed its
> developmental stage, it certainly can't substitute for all the
> developmental stuff that was missed between times.
Missed? If anything is missed, it's because people believe in the
stereotypes of everybody's developmental stages. I happen to think we
should multiply an ASDs chronological age by 0.55 to get an maturation
age. This is because we are predisposed to hibernation during 45% of the
year. If we don't "cool down", we will suffer from SAD.
This also means that when we believe everything is "lost", that's the
time when considerable progress can be done (between 20 and 30).
> Yes they can. It just isn't quite so simple as the case where a
> dysfunctional leg bone creates a walking disorder.
No, I agree for a change.
> You could similarly claim that if the genes for arthritis did not
> thrive there would be no arthritis - yet there is, and often in
> surprisingly young people.
Wait just a minute. Arthritis cannot be selected against since it
develops AFTER your reproductive period. Nothing that develops after
your reproductive period can be selected against. ASD, however, severely
affects your abilities to reproduce, and that would create strong
selection against it.
> Besides, social communication isn't an ancient capability from
> millions of years ago - or at least a lot of it isn't. A
> great deal of
> it evolved very recently and is still evolving. Evolution isn't a
> perfect system.
Not true. We are essentially stone-age humans all of us, and it
frequently creates lots of trouble for us.
> You assume that cognitive skills tie neatly to specific groups of
> neurons, and that specific neurons tie to specific genes. The
> relationships are far more complex and subtle (actually, sometimes
> downright chaotic) than that.
I don't have to assume anything. My hypothesis is that whatever genes we
inherited from Neanderthals, we inherited them as a "package". Thus they
would be fully functional, unless disrupted by NT genes.
> However, there is an issue which you are skirting around which I am
> somewhat sympathetic with. NTs social instincts evolved to handle an
> environment and lifestyle that no longer exists. Intertribal warfare
> was, for instance, a key part of that as one of the defining parts of
> early homo sapiens sapiens lifestyles was a coastal lifestyle with
> limited territory to spread out into (this is why humans
> spread around
> the coast of Africa via Asia, eventually to Australia, so early - and
> why when they did leave the coasts they largely went via large river
> valleys such as the Nile) and thus warfare was essential to
> maintaining territory. Hence the sense of tribal identification that
> can be seen in NTs to this day.
Exactly, and this is quite dysfunctional in our nuclear age.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn3o8s-1paa0m
Leif
> 1. David Comings believes some 600 genes are responsible
> for psychiatric
> "disorders". Last I heard about it, he had a list of over 100 genes.
Multiple genes would be expected to be introduced by hybridization.
> 2. Many things points to a high level of comorbidity between various
> diagnosis. That too must mean we see a spectrum rather
> than well-defined
> individual diagnosis.
This is because different "disorders" are caused by different sets of
genes.
> 3. There is definite comorbidity between autism and autoimmune
> disorders, and many of those are more prevalent in European descent.
Since Neanderthals mainly lived in Europe
> 4. There is overlap between aspie criteria by Attwood and
> the Asperger
> diagnosis.
Because aspie & Asperger is basically a very different personality
introduced from another species. Aspie is the positive aspects, while
Asperger is the negative.
> 5. There is overlap between rare temperament-groups and AS & ADHD
Same as above. ASDs are personality types, and therefore we would expect
correlation to temperaments.
> 6. High-tech centers show increased levels of autism
Because of the good traits.
> 7. The online autistic community largely is of European descent.
Because autism is largely an European descent condition.
> 1. Why are the genes present in such a large number of people?
Because the positive aspects of autism by far outweighted the negative
aspects during most of our evolutionary time.
> 2. What evolutionary mechansim allowed deficits in social
> communication
> to evolve & thrive?
The unique, positive aspects.
> 4. How can evolutionary psychology "universals" not be present?
> (reciproc altruism)
Because Neanderthals had another set of "universals".
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn1o+3s-p5aamm
Janna Hoskin
>
> Which part of ASDs? Isn't ASDs diagnosed on psychological evaluations?
ASDs are currently diagnosed by psychologists, but the diagnosis is based on
a series of observations of behaviour, *not* on actual psychological state
of mind.
If you still think that autism and related disorders have a psychological
basis, you definitely haven't been keeping up with the research, which shows
that it is actually a neurological disorder and has nothing whatsoever to do
with psychoanalytic type causes (such as the 'refridgerator mother' idea and
other 'lack of bonding with parents' theories).
Psychological causes would indicate that probably autism could be cured by
intense counseling-type therapy. This is definitely not the case, so it's
not really a psychological disorder.
Unfortunately, we don't really know enough about the brain structure and how
the autistic brain differs from the NT brain and how to really tell someone
has autism via a medical diagnosis, so we are left with behavioural
observation and parent questionnaires.
-Janna (would post more, but must leave for bus as band concert for Lynn
Valley Day will begin in an hour and must be there half an hour early)
--
Autistic Spectrum Code v.1.0
AC> d- s+: a- c+ p+ t f S+ !p e++>+++ h>+ r->* n++ i P>++ m->++ M+>++
ABA Therapist, North Vancouver, BC, Canada
BMus, BAPsych
***************************************************************************
"Home is not a place. It is wherever your passion takes you." - President
John Sheridan, Babylon 5 (Objects At Rest, Production #522)
"Nobody else is stronger than I am, today I moved a mountain! I'd like to
be your hero, I am a mighty little man!" - Steve Burns, "Mighty Little Man"
(Songs For Dustmites, unreleased)
http://crosswinds.net/~jlhasd/index.htm
***************************************************************************
Leif
> Erm - aspie is a shorthand for Asperger syndrome.
>
> I have a copy of Attwood which you refer to elsewhere.
http://www.tonyattwood.com/paper4.htm
> He lists four sets of criteria in an appendix - none written by
> himself. He also has a little test of his own in an early chapter
> (which he does not refer to, as far as I can see, as aspie-criteria)
> which is intended to indicate Asperger syndrome (and is based on real
> AS symptoms) but not to provide an official diagnosis.
I wonder if we refer to the same criteria in that case. I'm pretty sure
he wrote this with Carol Gray.
> Really. So how do you explain the fact that even the humble sea slug
> has both sensitisation (an exagerated awareness of senses when some
> threat is percieved) and, more significant here, habituation (reduced
> awareness of sensory stimuli which have repeatedly proved
> insignificant).
I don't get the point.
> In humans, sensitisation and habituation seem to occur primarily in
> the brain stem (though there are elements of specialist habituation
> and sensitisation throughout the brain). A key point of
> the brain stem
> fails to develop correctly if you have an abnormal variant of one of
> the two genes that has been directly linked to autism. Hence both
> inappropriate sensitisation (autistic sensitivities) and
> inappropriate
> habituation (failure to become aware of important stimuli such as
> someone speaking to you when you happen to be thinking
> about something
> else).
Ah, now I get what you talk about. CAPD, right?
Well, as with most things, I have an explaination for that too. There is
not really anything inappropriate with CAPD. A very possible
explaination is that we are adapted to pay attention to different sound
frequencies & possibly also interpreting speech differently. Remember
that Neanderthals had deeper voices. Dyslexia seems to indicate we also
have differences in innate language abilities / preferences.
> The brain has quite sophisticated mechanisms for regulating stress.
> Sensitisation is just one of the ways in which the brain operates
> beyond its sustainable limits during stress. If this didn't happen
> routinely throughout our evolution, the mechanisms simply wouldn't
> exist.
I see no problem with our sensitisation in a virtually silent world of
the last ice-age.
> The stress response isn't something that just happens in sufficiently
> sophisticated systems. If you provide a computer with too much input
> it doesn't explode, as in the films - it simply fails to process all
> the input.
Yes, I know. We have the wrong algorithms for handling NT planning,
while NTs have the wrong algorithms for fast handling of stimulu.
> Brains operate differently because they have evolved to
> operate differently because of real evolutionary needs.
True, but social communications always tend to be relatively stable.
For obvious reasons, since differences here severely affect the ability
to reproduce & communicate with strangers.
> Rather like an
> overclocked CPU, they can run beyond their limits for a while - but
> less reliably, and with excess wear and tear and possible permanant
> damage.
I agree. We should avoid such situations.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn+7osp-pa0m
Leif
> ASDs are currently diagnosed by psychologists, but the
> diagnosis is based on
> a series of observations of behaviour, *not* on actual
> psychological state
> of mind.
>
> If you still think that autism and related disorders have
> a psychological
> basis, you definitely haven't been keeping up with the
> research, which shows
> that it is actually a neurological disorder and has
> nothing whatsoever to do
> with psychoanalytic type causes (such as the
> 'refridgerator mother' idea and
> other 'lack of bonding with parents' theories).
No, I don't beleive in psychoanalyric causes, nor in the 'refridgerator
mother' hyopthesis. However, I believe we are emotionally sensitive
human beings, and as such we get psychological problems from NT society.
> Psychological causes would indicate that probably autism
> could be cured by
> intense counseling-type therapy.
It can't be cured, but appropriate "therapy" (maybe rather just
relations with other ASDs), can make a very big difference for our
well-being.
> This is definitely not
> the case, so it's
> not really a psychological disorder.
It's not any other type of disorder either.
> Unfortunately, we don't really know enough about the brain
> structure and how
> the autistic brain differs from the NT brain and how to
> really tell someone
> has autism via a medical diagnosis, so we are left with behavioural
> observation and parent questionnaires.
Yep, but the autistic community can figure this out in a fraction of
time it would take autism researchers to figure this out. Just let's
start doing this!
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn+8oo-spamm
Lawrence Foard
>I wrote:
>
>> 2. What evolutionary mechansim allowed deficits in social
>> communication
>> to evolve & thrive?
>
>The unique, positive aspects.
Not to mention this deficit is often greatly reduced amongst
groups of autistics.
I reminded of cats vs. dogs here. People see cats as asocial, but
they are actually social with other cats. But you rarely see groups
of cats all interacting, generally cats interact one on one, and
commonly cuddle up together to sleep. Recently saw a kitten and adult
cats together, the adults eventhough not related to the kitten
participate in training exercises for the kitten. This consists
of non claws out play fighting, the adults could easily eat the
kitten for lunch, but instead willingly play in a way that doesn't
hurt it. The adults tail tips seem to end up being the imaginary mice
for the kitten :)
When I look at cat socialization it looks alot like autistic socialization.
Usually one on one, there is no hierachy in the sense dogs have it, there
may be dominant cats, but dominance doesn't get a cat followed or worshipped
it just gets them the highest seat in the house. Socialization also seems
to include alot of grooming for cats, likewise the small sample I have of
autistics who arn't totally turned off by touch seem to be very sensual
in a way thats independant of sexuality.
>> 4. How can evolutionary psychology "universals" not be present?
>> (reciproc altruism)
>
>Because Neanderthals had another set of "universals".
Maybe just plain non reciproc altruism? I don't help people
because I expect something in return, I do it because I want
to help people.
Leif
> Not to mention this deficit is often greatly reduced amongst
> groups of autistics.
Exactly. That wouldn't be the case if we had genuine deficits in social
behaviors.
> I reminded of cats vs. dogs here. People see cats as asocial, but
> they are actually social with other cats. But you rarely see groups
> of cats all interacting, generally cats interact one on one, and
> commonly cuddle up together to sleep. Recently saw a kitten and adult
> cats together, the adults eventhough not related to the kitten
> participate in training exercises for the kitten. This consists
> of non claws out play fighting, the adults could easily eat the
> kitten for lunch, but instead willingly play in a way that doesn't
> hurt it. The adults tail tips seem to end up being the
> imaginary mice
> for the kitten :)
I've seen this too. Once my mother had two cats, and they teamed-up and
raised the kitten together. This kind of social content is actually
quite rare in humans.
> When I look at cat socialization it looks alot like
> autistic socialization.
Maybe that is the reason why autistics are so fond of cats? Despite the
possiblity that we have more innate talents for socializing with dogs,
more autistics have cats than dogs. Another explaination might be that
dogs require a lot more work than cats, and therefore autistics would be
less likely to have dogs.
> Usually one on one, there is no hierachy in the sense dogs
> have it, there
> may be dominant cats, but dominance doesn't get a cat
> followed or worshipped
> it just gets them the highest seat in the house.
Yes, that is rather similar. Hierarchy is actually a quite unique trait
in NTs, not found in ASDs nor in other primates. Primates usually use
dominance rather than hierarchy. A fair guess is that ASDs would also
use dominance. At least females ;-)
> Socialization also seems
> to include alot of grooming for cats, likewise the small
> sample I have of
> autistics who arn't totally turned off by touch seem to be
> very sensual
> in a way thats independant of sexuality.
I'm amused at that finding. Let me tell you that our aspie-daughter
frequently grooms me. I mean it literally! She says she is removing
unwanted animals from my hair :-)
BTW, this might very well be our alternative for "small-talk". It's
other primates alternative, so why not?
> Maybe just plain non reciproc altruism?
Yes, I think so. What I meant by another set is that we probably have
yet undescovered adaptive behaviors that NTs lack.
> I don't help people
> because I expect something in return, I do it because I want
> to help people.
That's me too. I don't expect things in return, but after being fooled a
couple of times by somebody, I get very angry nowadays.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn-3ospp+a1mm
Kalen
>
> No, I don't beleive in psychoanalyric causes, nor in the 'refridgerator
> mother' hyopthesis. However, I believe we are emotionally sensitive
> human beings, and as such we get psychological problems from NT society.
If 'we' means 'aspie' then I think you'll have to rethink that one. I am
definitely *not* an emotionally sensitive human being (compared to
average and when not under the influence of abnormal hormones), nor are
most (not all) of the autistic people I know. Emotional sensitivity
seems to have about the average range in autistics, if a bit 'polar' at
both high and low sensitivities.
>>Unfortunately, we don't really know enough about the brain
>>structure and how
>>the autistic brain differs from the NT brain and how to
>>really tell someone
>>has autism via a medical diagnosis, so we are left with behavioural
>>observation and parent questionnaires.
>
> Yep, but the autistic community can figure this out in a fraction of
> time it would take autism researchers to figure this out.
Why would that be? As far as I know, the 'autistic community', if there
exists such a thing (sounds like an oxymoron to me), doesn't have access
to an unusual amount of resources in the form of academic training,
medical equipment such as MRI machines, or research subjects. Autism
researchers have all of those. Both are lacking in research funds, but
the researchers are well ahead of the 'autistic community' there too,
both in what they have and in what they can convince others to give them.
--
Kalen
Autistic Spectrum Code
AA! d---(pu) s-:++ a- c++ p(+) t+++ f- S--(++)@ p++ e+ h+ r+(--) n* i++
p+ m+ M+>++
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=top-poster-1-122%40bigsky.antelope.net
Lawrence Foard
>Lawrence Foard wrote:
>
>> Socialization also seems
>> to include alot of grooming for cats, likewise the small
>> sample I have of
>> autistics who arn't totally turned off by touch seem to be
>> very sensual
>> in a way thats independant of sexuality.
>
>I'm amused at that finding. Let me tell you that our aspie-daughter
>frequently grooms me. I mean it literally! She says she is removing
>unwanted animals from my hair :-)
Wow thats very funny. What do the animals look like to her?
>BTW, this might very well be our alternative for "small-talk". It's
>other primates alternative, so why not?
I was going to mention that as well. Cuddling seems to take the place
of small talk for me with people that its possible with.
Lawrence Foard
Kalen <ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Leif wrote:
>>
>> No, I don't beleive in psychoanalyric causes, nor in the 'refridgerator
>> mother' hyopthesis. However, I believe we are emotionally sensitive
>> human beings, and as such we get psychological problems from NT society.
>
>If 'we' means 'aspie' then I think you'll have to rethink that one. I am
>definitely *not* an emotionally sensitive human being (compared to
>average and when not under the influence of abnormal hormones), nor are
>most (not all) of the autistic people I know. Emotional sensitivity
>seems to have about the average range in autistics, if a bit 'polar' at
>both high and low sensitivities.
I guess polar might be the rule. As a child the shrink said I was the
most sensitive person he had ever met. Now this isn't someone picking
from average person, this is a person dealing with a good sampling of
every mental condition out there.
Kalen
>
> I guess polar might be the rule.
It is with many autistic things, I've found.
> As a child the shrink said I was the
> most sensitive person he had ever met. Now this isn't someone picking
> from average person, this is a person dealing with a good sampling of
> every mental condition out there.
As a kid an allergist said I was the most sensitive child he'd seen. (He
wasn't referring to my emotions.) ;-) As a teenager, an endocrinologist
said I was the most insensitive (to thyroid treatment) he'd seen.
Shrinks have never had cause to comment on my sensitivity, but they have
consistently remarked on my lack of affect.
Leif
> On Sat, 31 May 2003 18:36:27 +0200, "Leif"
> <rdos.new...@web2news.net> wrote:
> Fine - I don't keep track that closely. First, there was the HOXR1
> (IIRC) gene which I first read about in a scientific
> american article.
You mean HOXA1? Why would that gene be linked with ASDs? It's just some
people speculating about HOXA1 being related to speech, but I don't
think an accidental mutational error can explain speech.
> For example the social difficulties in autism can lead to bullying,
> social rejection and failure to form positive peer relationships,
> which are the recognised causes of avoidant personality disorder
> whether they occur in the context of autism or not.
That is not a disorder either, it's just a natural cause of things.
>>> There is a definite link between chronic stress and
>>> immune disorders
>>> generally, as chronic stress screws up the immune response.
>>
>>I don't think so.
>
> Then you are wrong. It is a simple textbook fact in biology, which
> gets extensive coverage in neurology.
OK, I do believe that stress can cause immunological problems, but this
far you have certainly failed to prove that stress is a causative factor
for autism. Also, I wasn't refering to immunological conditions, rather
to autoimmune disease, which very often has genetic causes.
> Is that a potentially indirect correlation link or a
> definitely direct
> causation link?
I don't think anybody knows that yet.
> Doesn't matter either way - I don't deny that immune disorders can
> create stress, I merely point out that frequently the original cause
> is the stress.
You have no proof to back that up, and even less to back up stress as a
cause for autism.
> Actually, neurology has pretty much figured out the major cause of
> depression - a sustained stress response (ie the mind and
> body running
> beyond their sustainable limits) leading to a burnout. Depression
> combines the inherent results of the stress burnout with a
> strategy to
> minimise exposure to stress.
Well, I can agree to that.
> SAD is something of a special case. Insufficient exposure to daylight
> leads to a messed up body clock, disrupting melatonin production.
No, no and no.
SAD is not at all a messed up body clock! Decreasing daylight is causing
melatonin production to change. This seasonal clock is part of all
hibernating (and many seasonal) animals. The function is quite obviously
to force the person to largely stay inactive during winter-time. This
provided a survival advantage for a cold-adapted species.
> Melatonin has a close relationship with serotonin. That said, the
> messed up body clock also produces sustained stress.
It does not. The expectation of the NTs for year-around activity is
causing the sustained stress. We are simply violating one of our
adaptions, and this leads to stress and depression.
> Excess cortisol
> levels have been detected in people who have even one night of
> disrupted sleep - and cortisol is the main stress messenger to the
> entire body including the brain.
Yes, but you fail to understand the origin of the stress reaction.
While we are at it, let's refute the "serotonin dysfunction" ideas too.
Serotonin in virtually all mammals (and other animals as well), are
related to status. Therefore, our low serotonin levels are no deficits,
rather the consequence of NT society's treatment of us.
> You assert this, and I don't deny that food intollerances and mercury
> may cause some cases of autism
They don't cause it. They are factors determining severity. Nothing
else.
> just as many other
> environmental causes
> may (such as rubella during pregnancy,
No evidence
> exposure to thalidomide in
> pregnancy and others)
No evidence
> and it is absolutely certain that environmental
> factors as well as genetics are needed for ASDs to develop.
Depends on how you define ASDs, I suppose. ASD behavior is not created
by anything else than genetics, but environmental factors can determine
severity.
> However, how do you account for the fact that, taking two identical
> twins both treated identically and with identical diets, one may
> develop an ASD but the other not?
Again this depends on your definition of ASD. It's perfectly possible
they have different severity, but I very much doubt they have any
differences in primary factors. Since ASD diagnosis are related to
severity, it's perfectly possible one would qualify for dx but not the
other.
> Answer - food intollerances are not the be-all-and-end-all of autism,
> neither is any single environmental factor, and neither is
> genetics on
> its own. It simply isn't a simple picture.
Genetics is the core of ASD. Everything else is more or less avoidable
and only affects severity.
> However, denying the simple textbook fact that stress can cause
> digestion problems and immune problems is absurd, and denying that
> this may be a major factor for people who have ASDs due to other
> causes is equally absurd.
I don't deny the first, but the second is really absurd.
> It's hardly a major priority here, and in the West the NTs have the
> resources that they can afford to be sympathetic.
Are they really sympathetic? I very much doubt that.
> If your talking about hundreds of genes, then you are talking about
> disorders in general. The 'common cold' of abnormal psychology is
> anxiety and depression - with environmental causes.
Yes, definitely, and both are avoidable in ASDs.
> Elementary misunderstanding, more like. You assume that flicking a
> simple genetic switch can turn off all ASDs.
I do not. Autism emergies when a certain amount of these genes are
present. However, it also matters which genes and in what combination.
> The interaction between
> genetics and neurology is nowhere near that simple. 1 in
> 110 is really
> not exceptional for a condition which combines genetic and
> environmental causes.
Doesn't matter. Evolution had millions of years to adapt to that. We
don't see 1 in 110 having severely dysfunctional social behaviors in
other species.
> (1) you think that human social communiction is not significantly
> more sophisticated than our close relatives?
It's not. A simple organism like the honey-bee has enormously more
efficient & sophisticated social communications than we have.
> (2) you think that social communication has reached an optimum point
> of complete perfection in NTs where further evolution has no value?
Certainly not. NTs social behavior is extremely crude.
> (3) you think humans are some kind of pinnacle of
> achievement that no
> longer evolves irrespective of the fact that birth and death,
> recombination and mutation, still continue all the time?
At least we don't evolve very fast. Evolution for humans require
100,000s of years.
> The 'stone age' ended a few thousand years ago. The
> changes since then
> are difficult to see because of the tiny timescale involved.
There is basically no change at all. Any human from 5,000 years ago
could have been brought up with us and functioned just as well as us.
> But the
> 'stone age' wasn't a short period like the 'iron age' or the 'bronze
> age'. It lasted hundreds of thousands of years.
Yes. That's why we have widely different social communications. We
evolved in isolation for hundreds of thousands, if not 1.5 million
years.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn5osp-pa+1m
Kalen
> Stephen Horne wrote:
>
>>Erm - aspie is a shorthand for Asperger syndrome.
>>
>>I have a copy of Attwood which you refer to elsewhere.
>
> http://www.tonyattwood.com/paper4.htm
>
>>He lists four sets of criteria in an appendix - none written by
>>himself. He also has a little test of his own in an early chapter
>>(which he does not refer to, as far as I can see, as aspie-criteria)
>>which is intended to indicate Asperger syndrome (and is based on real
>>AS symptoms) but not to provide an official diagnosis.
>
> I wonder if we refer to the same criteria in that case. I'm pretty sure
> he wrote this with Carol Gray.
They're not *serious* criteria. Can you not tell that?
Leif
> Wow thats very funny. What do the animals look like to her?
;-)
I used that description since I didn't know the English word, and didn't
have a dictionary nearby. Anyway, she claims it louse :-)
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn9o3s-4p+5aam
Kalen
>
> My view is that greater understanding will leader to a much more
> inclusive spectrum. ADD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and many others seem to
> have links to ASDs that may be almost as strong as the links to
> face-blindness and other core ASD features.
Face blindness isn't a core ASD feature.
> Some day, I hope, ASDs will be diagnosed as 'special needs (for the
> moment) of x, y and z' or something similar, with a much more 'these
> symptoms relate to these problems, where these interventions can help'
> kind of approach.
And for the many problems no known interventions can help?
Leif
> Besides, I once thought that I was extremely tolerant to
> stress. Turns
> out I was riding on the energy from all that suppressed anger that I
> wasn't even aware of any more. The burnouts may go through phases of
> being the exception rather than the rule, but in my case they
> certainly told a story.
Well, I've never had depression, neither have I been burnt-out. I think
this is quite unusual, especially since I work as a computer-programmer,
and we have had cases of very obvious burn-out very recently at work
(with NTs). I'm also 41, and have worked since 1987.
> No problem there. As I said, the original neurological problem can
> cause problems which cause problems. But Leif was claming that all
> sensitivities are entirely caused by social environment - a very
> different claim.
Nah, I claim that sensitivities are natural adaptions, while many of our
differences causes psychological problems in a NT society.
> I think you're taking this wrong. I'm not saying that development has
> a precise script - but if you think that neurons in my brain can
> magically develop in the way that they presumably should have done
> when I was in the womb or in infancy you're wrong.
I think it's pretty much out of the question you developed wrong when
you were in the womb or in infancy.
> Development is a fuzzy thing. That doesn't that developmental stages
> don't exist. In terms of cell development and the 'wiring' of the
> brain, they are a simple fact.
The current findings of brain-development in NTs are a fact for ASDs?
That too is pretty much out of the question.
> Not a surprising result if Happé is right.
That has nothing to do with Happé. It's related to our ancestors
becoming mature at age 36 or something like that.
> It normally develops after the reproductive period, but (1) parents
> and grandparents can aid genetic survival by caring for children and
> (2) NOT ALWAYS - try looking into infantile arthritis.
That's exactly what I said. Infantile arthritis can certainly occur, but
not in 1 of 110.
> As for ASDs, there is strong selection against it, of course, though
> not absolute.
Now you contradicting yourself again. There cannot have been strong
selection against ASDs, especially not if they are 50,000 years or more
old.
> The point is that the selection has limited affect in
> the long term. We already know that the genetic element of ASDs
> involves combinations of genes, even though we don't know
> the details.
So does many other things, and that doesn't make them immune to
evolutionary pressures.
> People therefore carry the problem genes without having
> any symptoms -
That is actually both true and false. There are many successful people
with ASD genes, but they have symptoms.
> until recombination puts them back into the mix with other problem
> genes. And even then, selection only applies of
> environmental problems
> occur as well.
Not really. The answer is rather that ASDs only very recently has been
selected against.
> True - but because of timescales, not because of an end to evolution.
> We continue to evolve.
Of course, but we won't be around to see the results.
> Short of perfect cloning, evolution is a simple fact of life. The
> differences between now and 30,000 years ago may not be measurable by
> easy observation, but the genetic differences have been a
> key issue in
> the study of our ancestry.
Not true. Useless mutations have been used to study our ancestry.
> There are people who have traced new genetic abilities which had
> evolved in the last few centuries - immunities, for instance. Such
> studies often have immense value in medicine.
Yes, the immune system is under strong selection & evolution, but other
parts of our genome are not.
> Funny how many partnerings are between ACs and NTs.
I don't see many partnerings between ACs and NTs. I do see many
partnerings between ACs and denying ACs though. In fact, I don't know a
single partnering between an AC and a NT, but I know several between
ACs, my own family included.
> Lets assume a
> conservative 5 generations per century over the 30,000 years since
> Neanderthals disappeared.
That's reasonable.
> Thats 1500 generations of mostly pure-bread
> AC to avoid massive dilution of the ASD genes.
But dilution has happened. It very obviously has happened. The answer to
why some people still has lots of ASD genes lies in social behavior.
There is a very strong bias for us to mate with people we are compatible
with, and very strong forces against mixing, since that frequently leads
to disaster.
> And that's
> probably too
> conservative as it looks like Neanderthals and modern humans didn't
> interbreed, so we should be talking in terms of the a much
> longer time
> scale since the two species split.
Why is that?
> It seems unlikely to me. Much more likely is the idea the
> recombination can recreate (a tendency towards) autism over and over
> again by mixing genes which are a bad mix, but which are beneficial
> when kept separate.
I can agree that "bad mixes" are a problem, but I tend to attribute that
two severely autistics rather than to Asperger's.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n+9osp-1p7a1m
Gareeth
>
> Which part of ASDs? Isn't ASDs diagnosed on psychological evaluations?
>
ASD's are sometimes diagnosed by pshychologists but that is because the
current criterai are largely behavioural. It does not mean they have a
psychological origin other than that they happen in the brain and affect
behaviour. It has been a long time since anyone thought that.
Gareeth
Gareeth
> It's not any other type of disorder either.
Try neurological or neurodevelopmental.
Gareeth
Leif
> They're not *serious* criteria. Can you not tell that?
Depends. They are not serious in the sense that they are used
to diagnos anything, but they have a rather high co-occurrence
with people diagnosed with Aspergers.
BTW, while we are at it, why not try this test:
http://isnt.autistics.org/ntscreening.html
I got 9 out of 10, and was successfully diagnosed as on the autistic
spectrum. :-)
Or study the site about "the study of NT":
BTW, why don't you study this pages about neurotypical personality
disorder by a friend of mine:
http://www.creative-minds.info/~pangloss/nt.html
I think this should illustrate that the concept of disorder is based on
whom decides what's disorder.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n5osp-pa+m
Leif
> Face blindness isn't a core ASD feature.
I guess it depends on what is core ASD. At least it's a primary
property, and not something caused by society or other environmental
factors.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nn-7osp3p+8amm
Leif
> My view is that greater understanding will leader to a much more
> inclusive spectrum. ADD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and many others seem to
> have links to ASDs that may be almost as strong as the links to
> face-blindness and other core ASD features.
I'm sure this will happen. However, in my dreams I also envision that
people who have our good traits will help change the view on ASDs
completely to something better for all of us.
> Some day, I hope, ASDs will be diagnosed as 'special needs (for the
> moment) of x, y and z' or something similar, with a much more 'these
> symptoms relate to these problems, where these
> interventions can help'
> kind of approach.
I don't think we can keep the diagnosis concept at all. It stigmatizes
us. Instead we need a general understanding in society at large, but
especially in school and kindergarten. We also need to introduce custom
education methods, especially for dyslectic ASDs.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove noo-s6pa+1mm
Janna Hoskin
> he wrote this with Carol Gray.
What you are apparently missing in your discussion of the so-called
'difference' between aspie and Asperger Syndrome is that they are, in fact,
the exact same thing. "Aspie" is the commonly-used short form of
"Asperger".
The criteria you are talking about (yes, written with Carol Gray) are merely
an attempt to make the characteristics more positive. They are the same
characteristics. He makes this very clear when he says, in the
introduction. "What if Asperger's Syndrome was defined by its strengths?
What changes might occur?"
For interest's sake, since you're apparently hung up on this whole Aspie vs.
Aspergers, here's a comparison of the two criteria lists.
Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Criteria:
299.80 Asperger's Disorder
(A) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least
two of the following:
*marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as
eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate
social interaction
*failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental
level
*a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or
achievements with other people(e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or
pointing out objects of interest to other people)
*lack of social or emotional reciprocity.
(B) Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests,
and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
*encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and
restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or
focus
*apparently inflexible adherence to specific, non-functional routines
or rituals
*stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger
flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
*persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
(C) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social,
occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
(D) There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g.,
single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)
(E) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in
the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior
(other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in
childhood.
(F) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental
Disorder or Schizophrenia.
Aspie Discovery Criteria:
A. A qualitative advantage in social interaction, as manifested by a
majority of the following:
*peer relationships characterized by absolute loyalty and impeccable
dependability
*free of sexist, "age-ist", or culturalist biases; ability to regard
others at "face value"
*speaking one's mind irrespective of social context or adherence to
personal beliefs
*ability to pursue personal theory or perspective despite conflicting
evidence
*seeking an audience or friends capable of: enthusiasm for unique
interests and topics;
*consideration of details; spending time discussing a topic that may
not be of primary interest
*listening without continual judgement or assumption
*interested primarily in significant contributions to conversation;
preferring to avoid "ritualistic small talk" or socially trivial statements
and superficial conversation
*seeking sincere, positive, genuine friends with an unassuming sense
of humour
B. Fluent in "Aspergerese", a social language characterized by at least
three of the following:
*a determination to seek the truth
*conversation free of hidden meaning or agenda
*advanced vocabulary and interest in words
*fascination with word-based humour, such as puns
*advanced use of pictorial metaphor
C. Cognitive skills characterized by at least four of the following:
*strong preference for detail over gestalt
*original, often unique perspective in problem solving
*exceptional memory and/or recall of details often forgotten or
disregarded by others, for example: names, dates, schedules, routines
*avid perseverance in gathering and cataloguing information on a
topic of interest
*persistence of thought
*encyclopaedic or "CD ROM" knowledge of one or more topics
*knowledge of routines and a focused desire to maintain order and
accuracy
*clarity of values/decision making unaltered by political or
financial factors
D. Additional possible features:
*acute sensitivity to specific sensory experiences and stimuli, for
example: hearing, touch, vision, and/or smell
*strength in individual sports and games, particularly those
involving endurance or visual accuracy, including rowing, swimming, bowling,
chess
*"social unsung hero" with trusting optimism: frequent victim of
social weaknesses of others, while steadfast in the belief of the
possibility of genuine friendship
*increased probability over general population of attending
university after high school often take care of others outside the range of
typical development
Compare these two carefully, and you will see that they are really the exact
same thing. If you need a detailed analysis of how they are identical, I
can do that, but I won't right now cuz this is alreayd kind of long, and I
do have some other things I should do today.
-Janna
Leif
> I certainly accept that the modern world poses greater problems with
> sound sensitivities in particular, for many NTs as well as ACs -
> though our ancestors have existed in nomadic tribal communities for a
> very long time. Imagine all the screaming kids!
We have not. Only Hss evolved in nomadic, tribal communities. Hsn
evolved in territorial, isolated groups, possibly involved in seasonal
migrations.
>>True, but social communications always tend to be relatively stable.
>
> Really. Have you noticed how new dialects and the new
> languages evolve
> on almost a generation-by-generation basis.
Yes, but the language predisposition in itself doesn't evolve. Only the
particular vocabulary evolve.
>>For obvious reasons, since differences here severely
>> affect the ability
>>to reproduce & communicate with strangers.
>
> I tend to think of the battle of the sexes creating a kind of arms
> race in social ability, at least in the sense of hiding vs. detecting
> manipulation and deceit in the mating game. Without such an arms-race
> explanation, I'd find it impossible to explain the bizarre
> contortions
> in NT communication and social behaviour that are described in social
> psychology textbooks.
I'm sure you're right about that.
However, I think Neanderthals sex arms-race was very different. For one,
I think they were a matriarchial species, and that would explain a lot
of things about our specific mating game.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove no1sppa+mm
Janna Hoskin
"Leif" wrote:
> No, I don't beleive in psychoanalyric causes, nor in the 'refridgerator
> mother' hyopthesis. However, I believe we are emotionally sensitive
> human beings, and as such we get psychological problems from NT society.
But that doesn't mean that autism is a psychological problem. The
psychological problems that result from mistreatment or lack of
understanding from NT peers are not autism.
> > This is definitely not
> > the case, so it's
> > not really a psychological disorder.
>
> It's not any other type of disorder either.
K, you're preaching to the choir here, but you're talking about something
that is currently identified in the general community as being a disorder.
I fail to see the point in saying that autism isn't any other type of
disorder, when my post is specifically dealing with your claims regarding
the psychological community and autism.
> > Unfortunately, we don't really know enough about the brain
> > structure and how
> > the autistic brain differs from the NT brain and how to
> > really tell someone
> > has autism via a medical diagnosis, so we are left with behavioural
> > observation and parent questionnaires.
>
> Yep, but the autistic community can figure this out in a fraction of
> time it would take autism researchers to figure this out. Just let's
> start doing this!
Only if the people in the community are interested in brain structure. And
I think we have to wait for technology more than anything else, so you're
being illogical in this point.
Have a good day.
-Janna
Leif
> What you are apparently missing in your discussion of the so-called
> 'difference' between aspie and Asperger Syndrome is that
> they are, in fact,
> the exact same thing. "Aspie" is the commonly-used short form of
> "Asperger".
Maybe it's just me being extra sensitive, but I really see a huge
difference when I see AS described as a disorder, and when I see it
described as something useful. I'd also bet this affects ASDs too. In
fact, there is no reason to describe AS like in the DSM diagnosis,
without any evidence of the disorder perspective.
As they say about race, AS is a social construct from a society not
wanting AS people to participate.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nno1s+pp-a2mm
Leif
> But that doesn't mean that autism is a psychological problem. The
> psychological problems that result from mistreatment or lack of
> understanding from NT peers are not autism.
They are certainly not.
> K, you're preaching to the choir here, but you're talking
> about something
> that is currently identified in the general community as
> being a disorder.
Yes but for what reason? I have a feeling this is not because of
empathy, rather it's a way of neutralizing us.
> Only if the people in the community are interested in
> brain structure.
I think they are. The community consist of excellent researchers in
fact.
> And
> I think we have to wait for technology more than anything
> else, so you're
> being illogical in this point.
I don't think technology is the problem at all, rather a focus on the
wrong things. The intersting studies are actually easy to do, and don't
require much techology. The most advanced study I'd like to do would
only require a PCR sequencing machine.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nnoo+sp-0a2mm
Kalen
> Kalen wrote:
>
>> They're not *serious* criteria. Can you not tell that?
>
>
> Depends. They are not serious in the sense that they are used to
> diagnos anything, but they have a rather high co-occurrence with
> people diagnosed with Aspergers.
>
> BTW, while we are at it, why not try this test:
>
> http://isnt.autistics.org/ntscreening.html
I've seen it. I was around when they first announced that website's
opening and I've seen it mentioned hundreds of times since. I'm sick to
death of it (nothing to do with the site itself. It was mildly
entertaining the first time.)
> BTW, why don't you study this pages about neurotypical personality
> disorder by a friend of mine:
Why should I?
> I think this should illustrate that the concept of disorder is based
> on whom decides what's disorder.
Part of the way my ASD presents is difficulty reading. I'm not going to
put in the effort unless it's something I really care about and believe
might have some value. But these arguments that autism isn't a disorder
are all things I've read before and written by people who obviously
haven't got the foggiest idea of how difficult my autism makes my life.
Janna Hoskin
> > 'difference' between aspie and Asperger Syndrome is that
> > they are, in fact,
> > the exact same thing. "Aspie" is the commonly-used short form of
> > "Asperger".
>
> Maybe it's just me being extra sensitive, but I really see a huge
> difference when I see AS described as a disorder, and when I see it
> described as something useful. I'd also bet this affects ASDs too. In
> fact, there is no reason to describe AS like in the DSM diagnosis,
> without any evidence of the disorder perspective.
Actually, there is a very good reason to describe AS in that way: it gives
both diagnosticians and future carers/teachers/whatever ideas regarding what
sorts of things the person will need help with. The problem I see with
switching to the 'discovery criteria' would be in refusing to accept the
fact that most people on the spectrum (talking now about autism as well)
require some kind of education regarding how to deal with life in an NT
society. Heck, some people need education and daily assistance in 'simple'
things like getting dressed and eating.
> As they say about race, AS is a social construct from a society not
> wanting AS people to participate.
You're assuming here that AS people would be *able* to participate fully in
society without help. I would argue that this is not a likely situation.
Even myself, if given the opportunity, would stay home all day and refuse to
interact with anyone except via email. If I had to go out, it would be
under duress. Once in a while I would probably get out of the house, but I
would most likely do it away from people. How is this participating in
society?
I applaud the efforts to view AS as being a good thing, as being normal,
etc. But I think it is overly simplistic to say that it isn't real (as you
appear to do above) or that there is no reason to consider it a disorder in
any way, shape, or form.
And this is speaking as one who would really prefer to toss *all* diagnostic
labels and simply have needs-based assessments, education, and assistance.
Kalen
>
> http://www.creative-minds.info/~pangloss/nt.html
>
> I think this should illustrate that the concept of disorder is based on
> whom decides what's disorder.
Ok, I looked at it after all and as it wasn't too long I read a little
(the criteria bit because I find lists easier to read). According to it,
I have a rather severe case of Neurotypical Personality Disorder, as do
many of my definitely autistic friends. I find the results amusing
considering I also fit Attwood's 'aspie' criteria to a 'T' and my
neurology is definitely not typical (except typical autistic, perhaps).
Janna Hoskin
> > about something
> > that is currently identified in the general community as
> > being a disorder.
>
> Yes but for what reason? I have a feeling this is not because of
> empathy, rather it's a way of neutralizing us.
Explain in more detail, please.
> > Only if the people in the community are interested in
> > brain structure.
>
> I think they are. The community consist of excellent researchers in
> fact.
Yeah, but how many actually care about brain structure? I don't, and I work
with autistic kids. My focus is on assessment and educational/communication
techniques, not the whole brain thing. If we were to consider a.s.a a
proper cross-section of the autistic population (which I would suggest we
are not, as anyone who doesn't like computer is probably not here), how many
members do you honestly believe are interested in brain structure? Just
because it is something you are interested in does not automatically make it
something others like you will find interesting.
> > And
> > I think we have to wait for technology more than anything
> > else, so you're
> > being illogical in this point.
>
> I don't think technology is the problem at all, rather a focus on the
> wrong things. The intersting studies are actually easy to do, and don't
> require much techology. The most advanced study I'd like to do would
> only require a PCR sequencing machine.
As I said above, I'm not interested in brain structure. As such, I have no
clue what a PCR sequencing machine is, nor do I care to learn.
Mike Stanton
<intent...@blank.co.uk> wrote
>>I wonder if we refer to the same criteria in that case. I'm pretty sure
>>he wrote this with Carol Gray.
>
>I've heard of Carol Gray, but that's all. Tony Attwood wrote
>'Asperger's Syndrome - A Guide for Parents and Professionals' which I
>tend to see around a lot. I assumed you meant that.
He means this
http://www.tonyattwood.com/paper4.htm
--
Mike
Serving neither God nor Mammon
on the Lonely Planet
Kalen
> On Sat, 31 May 2003 21:48:45 +0100, Kalen
> <ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Face blindness isn't a core ASD feature.
>
What sense did you mean?
>>>Some day, I hope, ASDs will be diagnosed as 'special needs (for the
>>>moment) of x, y and z' or something similar, with a much more 'these
>>>symptoms relate to these problems, where these interventions can help'
>>>kind of approach.
>>
>>And for the many problems no known interventions can help?
>
> Well, understanding and tolerance might be useful interventions ;-)
How will understanding and tolerance be useful interventions for my
severe executive function deficit? How will they help me communicate
more effectively? Would I be more able to understand large blocks of
text if people were more understanding of me? How would they change my
sensory perceptions? Those are the kinds of problems I was thinking of,
especially the EF as it is the single most disabling and most resistant
to intervention area of my life.
> I don't believe in the perfect cure - only in the more helpful
> approach and hopefully a more positive life.
That much I definitely agree with. :)
Kalen
>
> I don't think we can keep the diagnosis concept at all. It stigmatizes
> us. Instead we need a general understanding in society at large, but
> especially in school and kindergarten.
Without a diagnosable problem, society is never going to be willing to
support those of us who need unusual amounts of financial or practical
help to survive.
> We also need to introduce custom
> education methods, especially for dyslectic ASDs.
Why specifically the dyslexic ones?
Lawrence Foard
>Janna Hoskin wrote:
>
>> K, you're preaching to the choir here, but you're talking
>> about something
>> that is currently identified in the general community as
>> being a disorder.
>
>Yes but for what reason? I have a feeling this is not because of
>empathy, rather it's a way of neutralizing us.
Its also due to its history. Originally severely impaired autistics
where recognized. Then later less impaired. But they seem to have
ignored that many manage to make it through life with this feeling
of not fitting in being the biggest issue. Sensory sensitivity being
a close second place, but the not fitting in was the one that told me
something was definitly going on.
>> And
>> I think we have to wait for technology more than anything
>> else, so you're
>> being illogical in this point.
>
>I don't think technology is the problem at all, rather a focus on the
>wrong things. The intersting studies are actually easy to do, and don't
>require much techology. The most advanced study I'd like to do would
>only require a PCR sequencing machine.
Yes. 7q31-7q35 I wonder just how much getting that little area sequenced
would be. There are so many 'candidate' genes that fall in to that area.
Lawrence Foard
>> > brain structure.
>>
>> I think they are. The community consist of excellent researchers in
>> fact.
>
>Yeah, but how many actually care about brain structure? I don't, and I work
>with autistic kids. My focus is on assessment and educational/communication
>techniques, not the whole brain thing. If we were to consider a.s.a a
>proper cross-section of the autistic population (which I would suggest we
>are not, as anyone who doesn't like computer is probably not here), how many
>members do you honestly believe are interested in brain structure? Just
>because it is something you are interested in does not automatically make it
>something others like you will find interesting.
You can't say that it would have no impact on educational technics. Lets
imagine for a minute that gene research proves Leif correct, we don't have
a simple condition, but that we are to varying degrees members of a sub
species which is different than those around us. Knowing the properties of
this sub species should significantly impact education.
Lawrence Foard
Kalen <ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Stephen Horne wrote:
>>
>> My view is that greater understanding will leader to a much more
>> inclusive spectrum. ADD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and many others seem to
>> have links to ASDs that may be almost as strong as the links to
>> face-blindness and other core ASD features.
>
>Face blindness isn't a core ASD feature.
Face blindness and impairement are very common. Often not realized,
I didn't realize I was 'face impaired' until I met someone who was
face blind. Same with CAPD I had always thought it was residual hearing
damage from childhood ear infections.
>> Some day, I hope, ASDs will be diagnosed as 'special needs (for the
>> moment) of x, y and z' or something similar, with a much more 'these
>> symptoms relate to these problems, where these interventions can help'
>> kind of approach.
>
>And for the many problems no known interventions can help?
Many do have work arounds. For example face blind people pick up on
other attributes.
Robin May
news:3530...@web2news.com
> Kalen wrote:
>> Face blindness isn't a core ASD feature.
>
> I guess it depends on what is core ASD. At least it's a primary
> property, and not something caused by society or other environmental
> factors.
But there are quite a lot of people with AS who are not face blind.
--
message by Robin May, living the life of an international loverman
"Where English is spoken you will find all kinds of perversion."
~*~*~Why do people put this crap around their sigs?~*~*~
Janna Hoskin
> >> > brain structure.
> >>
> >> I think they are. The community consist of excellent researchers in
> >> fact.
> >
> >Yeah, but how many actually care about brain structure? I don't, and I
work
> >with autistic kids. My focus is on assessment and
educational/communication
> >techniques, not the whole brain thing. If we were to consider a.s.a a
> >proper cross-section of the autistic population (which I would suggest we
> >are not, as anyone who doesn't like computer is probably not here), how
many
> >members do you honestly believe are interested in brain structure? Just
> >because it is something you are interested in does not automatically make
it
> >something others like you will find interesting.
>
> You can't say that it would have no impact on educational technics. Lets
> imagine for a minute that gene research proves Leif correct, we don't have
> a simple condition, but that we are to varying degrees members of a sub
> species which is different than those around us. Knowing the properties of
> this sub species should significantly impact education.
I would say that, while it would impact educational techniques, it would
probably not be necessary to understand the whole of the reasons for the
changes, merely that "this is how we do it now" with a basic explanation of
why. I definitely need to know why something is being changed, but I don't
necessarily need to understand that why.
-Janna (not sure if that makes sense, but I'm trying)
Kalen
>
> Well, I've never had depression, neither have I been burnt-out. I think
> this is quite unusual,
Not really. Burn out and depression are the exception, not the rule.
> especially since I work as a computer-programmer,
> and we have had cases of very obvious burn-out very recently at work
> (with NTs). I'm also 41, and have worked since 1987.
But some (many) AS people do get depressed or burn out, more
(proportionally) than NTs.
> I think it's pretty much out of the question you developed wrong when
> you were in the womb or in infancy.
Why?
>>It normally develops after the reproductive period, but (1) parents
>>and grandparents can aid genetic survival by caring for children and
>>(2) NOT ALWAYS - try looking into infantile arthritis.
>
> That's exactly what I said. Infantile arthritis can certainly occur, but
> not in 1 of 110.
>
>>As for ASDs, there is strong selection against it, of course, though
>>not absolute.
>
> Now you contradicting yourself again. There cannot have been strong
> selection against ASDs, especially not if they are 50,000 years or more
> old.
But schizophrenia is 1 in 100 and is onset before reproductive age. It's
quite obvious from a large number of conditions that even with strong
selection against them, they continue to exist - even if they have no
adaptive value whatsoever.
> I don't see many partnerings between ACs and NTs. I do see many
> partnerings between ACs and denying ACs though. In fact, I don't know a
> single partnering between an AC and a NT, but I know several between
> ACs, my own family included.
At least half of the relationships on my partners list are between ACs
and undoubtedly NTs. Attwood, whom you obviously consider credible, has
studied AS relationships. He says AS people *often* get into
relationships with those who are the extreme opposite of themselves, who
can offset their AS deficits - extremely socially skilled NTs. I see it
a lot. It's not a naturally harmonious pairing, but it's quite common
nonetheless.
Robin May
news:3ED93893...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk
> Leif wrote:
>> I don't see many partnerings between ACs and NTs. I do see many
>> partnerings between ACs and denying ACs though. In fact, I don't
>> know a single partnering between an AC and a NT, but I know
>> several between ACs, my own family included.
>
> At least half of the relationships on my partners list are between
> ACs and undoubtedly NTs.
And as it happens, I'm in a relationship with an NT.
growi...@hotmail.com
> Ok, I looked at it after all and as it wasn't too long I read a little
> (the criteria bit because I find lists easier to read). According to it,
> I have a rather severe case of Neurotypical Personality Disorder, as do
> many of my definitely autistic friends. I find the results amusing
> considering I also fit Attwood's 'aspie' criteria to a 'T' and my
> neurology is definitely not typical (except typical autistic, perhaps).
I thought the same thing - I was reading it and thought, oops, I must
also have that. :)
--
Joel
growi...@hotmail.com
> Face blindness isn't a core ASD feature.
True, but if I meet someone who is faceblind, and they were born that
way (rather then having aquired brain damage or stroke), then I think
there is a VERY high chance they are autistic. I don't know of any
faceblind people diagnosed as anything but neurotypical or autistic.
I'm using "neurotypical" in the "no diagnosis other then faceblindness"
sense, not the "not autistic" sense.
So, yes, I do think faceblindness can be a very strong indication of
autism. Not an absolute one, just one that would make me look very
strongly towards autism if I was someone qualified to diagnose...
--
Joel
Gareeth
>
> I don't think we can keep the diagnosis concept at all. It stigmatizes
> us. Instead we need a general understanding in society at large, but
> especially in school and kindergarten. We also need to introduce custom
> education methods, especially for dyslectic ASDs.
Without a diagnosis how do you know who is ASD or not. How does society know
that extra help is needed? A diagnosis does not have to be stigmitizing.
There is a lot less stigma to it already than there was when I was born.
Gareeth
Gareeth
"> > K, you're preaching to the choir here, but you're talking
> > about something
> > that is currently identified in the general community as
> > being a disorder.
>
> Yes but for what reason? I have a feeling this is not because of
> empathy, rather it's a way of neutralizing us.
>
Because it is a disorder. You need to be impaired by it to warrant a
diagnosis. There is no point in sticking your head in the sand and thinking
it isn't a disorder or it wouldn't be if society was different. Autism is
disabling.
Gareeth
Gareeth
"Lawrence Foard" <ent...@farviolet.com> wrote in message
news:bbb7mp$s84$1...@farviolet.com...
>
But they seem to have
> ignored that many manage to make it through life with this feeling
> of not fitting in being the biggest issue. Sensory sensitivity being
> a close second place, but the not fitting in was the one that told me
> something was definitly going on.
You are very lucky if feeling you don't fit in is the biggest issue that
goes with your autism.
Gareeth
Leif
>> I think it's pretty much out of the question you
>> developed wrong when
>> you were in the womb or in infancy.
>
> Why?
Because the autistic phenotype, which is higly specific to certain
functions, cannot develop like that.
> But schizophrenia is 1 in 100 and is onset before
> reproductive age.
Yes, and schizphrenia has definite links to many of the
same conditions as do autism.
> It's
> quite obvious from a large number of conditions that even
> with strong
> selection against them, they continue to exist - even if
> they have no
> adaptive value whatsoever.
It's not at all obvious. The only thing that is obvious is that
researchers are ignoring superior aspects of many psychiatric
"disorders".
> At least half of the relationships on my partners list are
> between ACs
> and undoubtedly NTs.
That is strange. My bet is that this is because many high-functioning
ACs are so possesed with being "right", that they look extremely social.
However, this is usually fake if you analyze primary properties rather
than the things DSM looks at. Just check if they remember faces, have
natural facial expressions and have normal tone of voice. Things like
that is extremely hard (if not impossible) to hide from an experienced
observer.
> Attwood, whom you obviously consider
> credible, has
> studied AS relationships. He says AS people *often* get into
> relationships with those who are the extreme opposite of
> themselves, who
> can offset their AS deficits - extremely socially skilled
> NTs.
I have experience with that. It simply doesn't work. They can never
offset anything, especially not when they don't understand it.
> I see it
> a lot. It's not a naturally harmonious pairing, but it's
> quite common
> nonetheless.
That's not my experience at all.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n+7o2sp6aa-m
Leif
> HOXA1 is linked to the brain stem abnormalities I mentioned before,
> which are not (directly, at least) linked to speach problems. IIRC,
> the key speach centers are things like Brocas area of the cerebral
> cortex.
It might very well be that we have differences in the Brocas area, as
well as another version of HOXA1, but it doesn't prove this is
pathological. I'd even expect differences here, since speech is a rather
new thing that has evolved in "recent" time.
> The article was from the feb 2000 issue of scientific
> american, and is
> available from their digital service - at a price, unfortunately.
> However, there is a copy freely available...
>
> http://www.unc.edu/~cory/autism-info/orgautsa.html
I don't particularily like these kind of speculations, but shouldn't
you really check-out the comorbid conditions mentioned there:
Phenylketonuria == European descent genetic disease
> Melatonin seems more closely linked to the daily cycle than the
> seasonal cycle, though maybe I'm being naive. For
> instance, I sometime
> take some to reset my sleeping cycle after a few days of sleeping
> problems (only works if the stress is off, of course).
I think this should make you reconsider this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=
11735838&dopt=Abstract
The length of the daily cycle changes between seasons in individuals
with SAD, but not in others.
> We aren't a cold-adapted species.
NTs aren't but WE are. That's why we have the seasonal clock, while
NTs don't.
> Our main advantage over the
> neanderthals in Europe was flexibility in a period of
> climate change -
I hardly think so. Hss STOLE things from Hsn, just like NTs still steal
things from aspie artists & scientists.
> most notably the end of pervasive forest due to increasing
> temperatures as the ice age approached its end.
FYI, the ice-age ended with an extremely cold period. This is also a
major cause for the loss of diversity in Cro-Magnon we see in Europe.
> We're
> actually adapted
> to much more sunshine than we recieve (sunshine rather than heat is
> key to SAD
Yes, and that's why this is a cold-adaption. A species from Africa would
never evolve a seasonal clock triggered by day-length. This can only
happen at higher latitudes. If it did in fact evolve in Hss after their
migration to higher latitudes, I'd expect some reason for this, since
modern humans lack ability to hibernate.
Another thing that fits into this reasoning is ADHD & activity level.
Large variation in activity level can very well have connections with
SAD. Inactivity would then be triggered during winter-time. However,
once more, NTs lack this trait.
> You don't think that perhaps low status might be a source of stress?
Of course it is.
> We are not talking slight variations - we are talking one full-blown
> NT and one full-blown autism
I don't think so. Show me a reference.
> Ah-ha - then an unfortunate recombination can create recreate autism
> at any time, while the fact of recombination also ensures (along with
> selection pressures) that autism within a family line
> cannot last huge
> numbers of generations without being diluted out of existence!
Well, I think we can conclude that it really doesn't matter if ASDs were
introduced through hybridization or was present prior to the OoA
(Out-of-Africa) migration. The problem is exactly the same one. The only
other solution to the problem is that ASDs are recent, and in that case,
there MUST be racial variation. IOW, we must reconsider something if we
want things to be consistent.
>>We
>>don't see 1 in 110 having severely dysfunctional social behaviors in
>>other species.
>
> They don't have such sophisticated social behaviours to disrupt - the
> more complex the machine, the easier it is to stuff up the works.
Wrong. We are no more complex than other primates. We share 98% of the
chimp genes.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove no+-6s6ppamm
Leif
> Actually, there is a very good reason to describe AS in
> that way: it gives
> both diagnosticians and future carers/teachers/whatever
> ideas regarding what
> sorts of things the person will need help with.
It does not, since a diagnosis is more or less irrelevant to carers and
teachers. The diagnosis doesn't tell you anything about the underlying
causes, and without that information, you can only do guesswork.
> The
> problem I see with
> switching to the 'discovery criteria' would be in refusing
> to accept the
> fact that most people on the spectrum (talking now about
> autism as well)
> require some kind of education regarding how to deal with
> life in an NT
> society.
I actually happen to think this notion is very wrong. The majority of
ASDs today DON'T WANT DIAGNOSIS, but would benefit from society
understanding ASD better.
> Heck, some people need education and daily
> assistance in 'simple'
> things like getting dressed and eating.
A very small percentage.
>> As they say about race, AS is a social construct from a society not
>> wanting AS people to participate.
>
> You're assuming here that AS people would be *able* to
> participate fully in
> society without help.
Yes, especially if they got together and created their own society
online.
> I would argue that this is not a
> likely situation.
Why not? Because NTs don't want them to?
> Even myself, if given the opportunity, would stay home all
> day and refuse to
> interact with anyone except via email.
Why then is that bad?
> If I had to go
> out, it would be
> under duress. Once in a while I would probably get out of
> the house, but I
> would most likely do it away from people. How is this
> participating in
> society?
You don't need to meet people in person to participate. That is a NT
fallacy.
> I applaud the efforts to view AS as being a good thing, as
> being normal,
> etc. But I think it is overly simplistic to say that it
> isn't real (as you
> appear to do above) or that there is no reason to consider
> it a disorder in
> any way, shape, or form.
There isn't. There is only reason to see it as a very special
personality type which occassionally do need help.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n+-3o0sp0aamm
Leif
>> Yes but for what reason? I have a feeling this is not because of
>> empathy, rather it's a way of neutralizing us.
>
> Explain in more detail, please.
In the same way that Europeans wanted to neutralize Africans by claiming
THEY were not fully human or in fact disordered. To desginate people as
disordered or mentally ill has a very long history of POLITICAL
incitaments.
To be really direct on this matter, the same kind of people that was
responsible for the colonization of Africa is now behind the
marginalization of people with Asperger-type traits. I'm pretty sure the
driving forces behind this is quite similar, and can be deduced by
studying history.
> Just
> because it is something you are interested in does not
> automatically make it
> something others like you will find interesting.
I think most autistics are interested in how they work. This is
essential for finding your true identity. We don't need any fancy
knowledge about brain-structure to figure out how we function. It's a
matter of self-knowledge.
> I have no
> clue what a PCR sequencing machine is, nor do I care to learn.
A PCR sequencer is a machine for sequencing DNA (genes) ;-)
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n3ospp+a-6mm
Anna Hayward
t> writes
>I actually happen to think this notion is very wrong. The majority of
>ASDs today DON'T WANT DIAGNOSIS, but would benefit from society
>understanding ASD better.
The majority of autistics are unable to express an opinion on such
things since the majority are either severely learning disabled (aka
"mentally retarded") or non-verbal or both.
Society's attitudes would help a lot, as with any disability, but
society's attitudes don't provide the care that the majority of
autistics need - the majority require 24/7 care and have a limited
capacity for independent living.
Besides, how would you know what the majority of ACs want? Have you done
a survey?
--
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
mailto: alienv...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
Anna's Pregnancy, Parenting and Autism page:
http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/anna/
Leif
> You can't say that it would have no impact on educational
> technics. Lets
> imagine for a minute that gene research proves Leif
> correct, we don't have
> a simple condition, but that we are to varying degrees
> members of a sub
> species which is different than those around us. Knowing
> the properties of
> this sub species should significantly impact education.
I would think this would require major revisions of the whole system.
1. It would follow that aspies should "rehabilitate" severely autistics.
2. Building ASD communities would be a chioce over having isolated
institutions with many NTs as carers.
3. Late onset autoimmune disease would be given special care in ASDs,
since this would no longer be possible to ignore.
4. Many other diseases would be surveyed for possible connections to
ASDs.
5. Education methods for ASDs would be developed, and diagnosis would no
longer be required for admission. This means everybody needing this
would be qualified.
6. Maturation times & learning "slots" would be reevalutated for ASDs.
Who would actual not benefit from this? Largely, the current care-givers
as well as children of NTs that would once again have to compete against
ASDs.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n1o+sp9pa-6m
Kalen
>
> Compare these two carefully, and you will see that they are really the exact
> same thing. If you need a detailed analysis of how they are identical, I
> can do that, but I won't right now cuz this is alreayd kind of long, and I
> do have some other things I should do today.
I don't think they're the same thing. They may both be true for many
people with Asperger Syndrome, but they don't describe both sides of the
same characteristics. Also, some people very clearly meet the DSM and
other descriptions of AS, but would not fit the 'aspie criteria'. e.g.
(this is as far as I went):
DSM criteria
A 2: *failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental
level
A 3 *a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or
achievements with other people(e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or
pointing out objects of interest to other people)
These, or certain expressions of various others, could mean that an AS
person who meets them has no friends and is not very socially motivated.
Aspie Discovery Criteria:
A. A qualitative advantage in social interaction, as manifested by a
majority of the following:
*peer relationships characterized by absolute loyalty and impeccable
dependability
If they have no peer relationships, they don't meet this one. So I'll
count that as -1 (trying to add up to at least +1 to be 'a majority')
*free of sexist, "age-ist", or culturalist biases; ability to regard
others at "face value"
This is not inconsistent with having no friends and being unsocial, so
I'll give it +1 (score: 0)
*speaking one's mind irrespective of social context or adherence to
personal beliefs
As for previous (score: +1)
*ability to pursue personal theory or perspective despite conflicting
evidence
As for previous (score: 2)
*seeking an audience or friends capable of: enthusiasm for unique
interests and topics;
Those who don't seek an audience of any kind (DSM A 3) don't get this
one (score: 1)
*consideration of details; spending time discussing a topic that may not
be of primary interest
Discussing any topic requires someone to discuss with an motivation to
discuss anything with anyone (score: 0)
*listening without continual judgement or assumption
Requires someone to listen to (score: -1)
*interested primarily in significant contributions to conversation;
preferring to avoid "ritualistic small talk" or socially trivial
statements and superficial conversation
Requires some conversational ability, someone to talk to, and motivation
to talk to people (score: -2)
*seeking sincere, positive, genuine friends with an unassuming sense of
humour
Requires social interest to be seeking any friends (score: -3)
That's quite heavily *not* a majority of the above. And even if someone
disagrees with some of my assessments, they would have to disagree (in
the right direction) with at least 4 of them.
So not only are the DSM and 'Disocovery' criteria not exactly the same
thing, they're not even necessarily compatible.
There is also not the correlation between the 'Discovery' criteria and
non-AS forms of autism (most of the Discovery criteria would not even
come close to describing someone with autism who is very aloof,
uncommunicative, dependent on others, and perhaps with additional
learning problems), which are clear in the DSM (they use identical
criteria for similar traits in AS and Autistic Disorder).
Leif
> I would say that, while it would impact educational
> techniques, it would
> probably not be necessary to understand the whole of the
> reasons for the
> changes, merely that "this is how we do it now" with a
> basic explanation of
> why.
That might be true. The problem is the time-perspective. I know there is
increasing awereness of this in Sweden. Some people actually are
starting to reevaluate the "truths of yesterday". As a lecturer said,
"it's likely we have to forget everything we know about autism". Many of
the NT care-givers seemed rather shocked by that conclusion. The
beautiful thing was that the lecturer was a NT.
BTW, we also had a "summer-camp" with only autistics here in August last
year (with another this year). Although I did not attend, the meeting of
60+ autistics during one week was a huge success according to those who
did attend. I think this proved once and for all that autistics are not
socially disordered among themselves.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove no-5s4pp+a6m
Kalen
>
> I actually happen to think this notion is very wrong. The majority of
> ASDs today DON'T WANT DIAGNOSIS, but would benefit from society
> understanding ASD better.
Where do you get that particular statistic from? The majority of ASDs
can't express an opinion one way or the other, and of those I know who
can, most do want, or have but used to want, a diagnosis. I need a heck
of a lot more from society than 'understanding' and those things I need
are not available to people who don't have a recognised disability.
>>Heck, some people need education and daily
>>assistance in 'simple'
>>things like getting dressed and eating.
>
> A very small percentage.
Considering the whole spectrum, that percentage is not small. I have
been consistently described as 'very high functioning' yet I need help
with those things.
> There isn't. There is only reason to see it as a very special
> personality type which occassionally do need help.
The government doesn't provide financial support, special accommodations
in work and education, and 20 hrs week home support for 'personality
types'. It doesn't provide supported housing, special schools, and
respite care for 'personality types'. Someone who needs these kinds of
extensive extraordinary supports has something that can more accurately
be described as a disorder than a personality type. If the government
started to offer any of those things to people who were 'just different'
and not disabled, they would go bankrupt (or be overturned by
revolution) within a week.
Leif
We don't deny we are lucky. I don't think there is any conflict in
interest between us "lucky autistics" and severely autistics. The
conflict is only artifical, and it's politically & socially motivated.
The reason for that is that any knowledge gathered by studying us will
be applicable to severely autistic, where it's immensively more
differcult to prove it's usefulness. By focusing research effort on
severely autistics, and exotic brain-damage theories, these simple
remedies will never get any attention.
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n1osp+-pamm
Kalen
>
> True - I'm fortunate to not have severe levels of most of these
> problems.
I am on groups for aspies where the majority - or the dominant minority
perhaps - experience primarily social difficulties which would be easily
alleviated by better understanding and acceptance of difference in
society. They are frequently surprised to find that there are people
like me who have significant other problems as part of their ASD. Part
of their surprise is that they thought these kinds of needs were
reserved for people not 'high functioning' like themselves.
I can't even relate to people whose greatest difficulties in life seem
to be getting out of party invitations and coping with colleagues at
work. I am working on taking my medication every day (was doing great
for a while, but lost it :( ), making sure I have clean clothes to wear
and wear them, and completing my course (where I am apparently the most
academically able student they've seen in a while, but at serious risk
of not completing it). Regular food and exercise are also high
priorities that my worker should be helping with, but making sure we
don't die of food poisoning or attract vermin from the state of our
kitchen is more important (especially now that it's hot), as well as
getting rid of the lice my daughter brought home to share with the family.
I do have social problems and I can't work out how to make two very
friendly acquaintances (or very 'light' friends) into proper friends.
But those things are almost always a very low priority in my life
because I have survival and health issues that have to come first.
I often think I must have 'some other kind of AS' from those who think
it's more good than bad and a little tolerance would cure all. That is
just not my experience and most autistic people (whole spectrum) have
*more* problems than I do.
Kalen
> In article <3ED9152D...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk>,
> Kalen <ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Face blindness isn't a core ASD feature.
>
> Face blindness and impairement are very common.
Yes, quite. I didn't say otherwise.
>>And for the many problems no known interventions can help?
>
> Many do have work arounds. For example face blind people pick up on
> other attributes.
What are the work arounds for executive dysfunction? I would love to
know. It can involve other people if necessary as we have a home support
worker and I have learning support at college.
I would also like to know real applicable work arounds for my difficulty
communicating my needs. Sensory issues and low tolerance for activity in
my near environment (not sure if that's sensory or not) are also things
I'd like to work around.
Leif
> The majority of autistics are unable to express an opinion on such
> things since the majority are either severely learning disabled (aka
> "mentally retarded") or non-verbal or both.
Not true. Average IQ for ASDs are probably above normal, provided you
don't muddy the test by including social competence and alike.
As for learning disabilities, those are too largely not diablities,
rather INAPROPRIATE LEARNING METHODS. Still being slightly dyslectic, I
can certainly see how wrong the teeching methods of yesterday was for
me. Seeing how my children are forced to special education, I can also
see this has been considerably worsened today. Should we just stand by
passively watching this accelerate?
As for non-verbal, very few autistics are non-verbal. Even individuals
who don't speak, many times can express themselves in writing.
> Society's attitudes would help a lot, as with any disability, but
> society's attitudes don't provide the care that the majority of
> autistics need - the majority require 24/7 care and have a limited
> capacity for independent living.
The necesity for care of severely autistics is so obvious that this
cannot be ignored regardless of the attitude towards AS.
> Besides, how would you know what the majority of ACs want?
I know many ACs that don't want to admit to it.
> Have you done
> a survey?
Not on that aspect.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nno1s+8ppam
Kalen
> Kalen <ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Face blindness isn't a core ASD feature.
>
> So, yes, I do think faceblindness can be a very strong indication of
> autism. Not an absolute one, just one that would make me look very
> strongly towards autism if I was someone qualified to diagnose...
I would have thought of 'core feature' the other way around. Implying
not that most faceblind people (without a clear alternate explanation)
are autistic, but that all autistic people are faceblind. In the way
that social deficits are a core feature - every single autistic person
has them.
I'm not good at recognising people by their faces because I don't look
at faces very often and humans aren't a high priority for my memory. I
doubt there's much more to it than that. I'm even worse with names.
Leif
> What are the work arounds for executive dysfunction?
Before we can present that, you need to be more specific. Executive
dysfunction is such a terrible term, and it says virtually nothing. It's
one of those terms used by psychiatry that makes absolutely no sense,
and in fact is nothing else than pure ignorance.
A fair guess would be that they mean unability to plan. The solution to
that is not to plan, and largely ignore the pressure put on you to plan.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n-9o1s+3p4aa6mm
Kalen
> Kalen wrote:
>
>>>I think it's pretty much out of the question you
>>>developed wrong when
>>>you were in the womb or in infancy.
>>
>>Why?
>
> Because the autistic phenotype, which is higly specific to certain
> functions, cannot develop like that.
Yes it can.
>>But schizophrenia is 1 in 100 and is onset before
>>reproductive age.
>
> Yes, and schizphrenia has definite links to many of the
> same conditions as do autism.
So? The point was that it has managed to survive all this time, at a
high frequency, while not being an adaptive characteristic.
>>It's
>>quite obvious from a large number of conditions that even
>>with strong
>>selection against them, they continue to exist - even if
>>they have no
>>adaptive value whatsoever.
>
> It's not at all obvious. The only thing that is obvious is that
> researchers are ignoring superior aspects of many psychiatric
> "disorders".
I was not referring only to psychiatric disorders. But pray tell, what
*is* the adaptive value of schizophrenia? And haemophilia, cystic
fibrosis, and all those other conditions that continue to survive
despite having no redeeming characteristics whatsoever?
>>At least half of the relationships on my partners list are
>>between ACs
>>and undoubtedly NTs.
>
> That is strange.
Considering NTs outnumber ASDs in the population 99 to 1, I don't think
it's strange at all.
> Just check if they remember faces, have
> natural facial expressions and have normal tone of voice.
Yes, they do. They are also very successfully intuitive about other
people and generally highly socially skilled. But there's a lot more to
autism than non-verbal communication and facial recognition and they
don't have those characteristics either. Many of them seem to have even
fewere autistic characteristics than average for NTs.
> Things like
> that is extremely hard (if not impossible) to hide from an experienced
> observer.
Especially if said observer believes most of the population is autistic,
has redefined autism in his own peculiar way, and is determined to see
these traits whether they exist or not.
>>Attwood, whom you obviously consider credible, has
>>studied AS relationships. He says AS people *often* get into
>>relationships with those who are the extreme opposite of
>>themselves, who
>>can offset their AS deficits - extremely socially skilled
>>NTs.
>
> I have experience with that. It simply doesn't work. They can never
> offset anything, especially not when they don't understand it.
I didn't say it *worked*. I just said it's common. Well, more to the
point *Attwood* said it's common.
>>I see it
>>a lot. It's not a naturally harmonious pairing, but it's
>>quite common nonetheless.
>
> That's not my experience at all.
So be it. But I suspect your experience in this is more limited than
mine, and I am not basing this on only my experience, as you appear to
be doing.
Kalen
>
> Besides, how would you know what the majority of ACs want? Have you done
> a survey?
No, silly, it's a clear case of MAG. You know, the Magical Autistic
Generalisation: "It's true of me and I'm autistic, therefore it's true
of all autistics. And even if it wasn't true before, it is now because
I'm autistic and I said so." Works for TG and various others, so it
ought to work for Leif.
Kalen
> Gareeth wrote:
>
>>You are very lucky if feeling you don't fit in is the
>>biggest issue that goes with your autism.
>
> We don't deny we are lucky. I don't think there is any conflict in
> interest between us "lucky autistics" and severely autistics.
There are a lot of autistics who fit in neither of those categories. And
there is a conflict of interest when you go around saying autism is only
a personality type, something a little acceptance would fix. If people
actually *believed* you then the vast majority of autistic people who
have much more difficulty than just 'feeling they don't fit in' will
have problems getting the help and support they need - which is a lot
more than any 'just different' person would require.
Kalen
> Anna Hayward wrote:
>
>>The majority of autistics are unable to express an opinion on such
>>things since the majority are either severely learning disabled (aka
>>"mentally retarded") or non-verbal or both.
>
> Not true. Average IQ for ASDs are probably above normal, provided you
> don't muddy the test by including social competence and alike.
Again, where are you getting this statistic from?
> As for learning disabilities, those are too largely not diablities,
> rather INAPROPRIATE LEARNING METHODS.
She was using 'learning disabilities' in the UK meaning - that is, low
(apparent) IQ.
> As for non-verbal, very few autistics are non-verbal. Even individuals
> who don't speak, many times can express themselves in writing.
Very few autistic people who don't speak can express themselves in
writing. A few more can express themselves with sign language or
alternative methods. Very often, no matter what method is used, autistic
people are significantly impaired in their ability to express themselves.
>>Society's attitudes would help a lot, as with any disability, but
>>society's attitudes don't provide the care that the majority of
>>autistics need - the majority require 24/7 care and have a limited
>>capacity for independent living.
>
> The necesity for care of severely autistics is so obvious that this
> cannot be ignored regardless of the attitude towards AS.
And those who are not severely autistic who nonetheless need significant
support? What happens to us if your attitude becomes the norm?
>>Besides, how would you know what the majority of ACs want?
>
> I know many ACs that don't want to admit to it.
That is not an answer to the question.
Kalen
> Kalen wrote:
>
>>What are the work arounds for executive dysfunction?
>
> Before we can present that, you need to be more specific.
> A fair guess would be that they mean unability to plan. The solution to
> that is not to plan, and largely ignore the pressure put on you to plan.
I can plan just fine. (That's not strictly true, it depends on the
context.) I can plan all day. I would be happy to just write plans about
everything I ever have to do and do none of it. If I ignore the pressure
to plan then I will fail my course. I don't think that's a good outcome.
Some specific problems I have relating to executive function:
- forgetting to take my medication
- eating junk food instead of good food
- my kids staying up too late
- wearing dirty clothes
- having lice
- stinking
- never getting anything done
- being at risk of not completing my college course
- eating food that's gone off
- burning food I try to cook
- can't work out an alternative if something goes wrong (e.g. miss the bus)
- getting benefits cancelled -> stress, starvation, threatened housing, etc.
- taking hours to do grocery shopping
- forgetting laundry in the washer until it is permanently ruined
- missing appointments
- getting utilities cancelled for non-payment
There are many, many more examples, but those should get you started.
Kalen
>
> I would think this would require major revisions of the whole system.
>
> 1. It would follow that aspies should "rehabilitate" severely autistics.
Most of the aspies I know (one notable exception) aren't known for their
patient teaching. One thing I have learned from my course is that I do
*not* want to be a teacher. Besides, a lot of the characteristics of
severe autism are not very amenable to intervention.
> 2. Building ASD communities would be a chioce over having isolated
> institutions with many NTs as carers.
What would an ASD community be? Who would live there?
> 5. Education methods for ASDs would be developed, and diagnosis would no
> longer be required for admission. This means everybody needing this
> would be qualified.
They would need to have some kind of assessment leading to some kind of
designation ('diagnosis') in order to know that kind of education is
what they need.
> Who would actual not benefit from this? Largely, the current care-givers
> as well as children of NTs that would once again have to compete against
> ASDs.
But a certain proportion of those children of NTs would *be* ASD.
I think my family and many others would lose out big time in such a
structure.
Also, who would provide the practical support most ASD people need?
Kalen
> I think this proved once and for all that autistics are not
> socially disordered among themselves.
One small structured meeting can't prove anything 'once and for all'.
Gareeth
>
> A fair guess would be that they mean unability to plan. The solution to
> that is not to plan, and largely ignore the pressure put on you to plan.
>
Leaving aside that htere is more to executive function than that. People
with executive function problems have problem with day to day life skills.
Take remembering to eat for instance and all the steps that go into making
sure you do eat. Surely ignoring the pressure to do this would result in no
good outcome. I once had to have staff come in for every meal and stay with
me while I ate to make sure I just didn't forget that's what I was doing. My
place is a total diasater because I can't string together the steps to get
it clean and stay on task for any length of time. The last time I tired in
earnest to get it cleaned up I wound up with a super tidy drawwer that no
one ever sees.
It isn't pressure from society that makes these problems it is the effects
on health and well being. I don't get a lot of pressure from others since I
am single my housekeeping is not affecting the health of any children so I
am left alone without pressure in that regard.
I think you need to at least consider that there are deficits that are not a
result of a lack of understanding on the part of society. That there are
core deficits that are very disabling and that has to be acknowledged.
Lately more annoying than any lack of consideration on society's part about
my autism the more annoying thing has been all the people who want to say
all it would take is understanding and I wouldn't really be disabled. To me
that makes light of the situations of myself and several other posters here.
Gareeth
Kalen
>
> People
> with executive function problems have problem with day to day life skills.
> Take remembering to eat for instance and all the steps that go into making
> sure you do eat. Surely ignoring the pressure to do this would result in no
> good outcome. I once had to have staff come in for every meal and stay with
> me while I ate to make sure I just didn't forget that's what I was doing. My
> place is a total diasater because I can't string together the steps to get
> it clean and stay on task for any length of time. The last time I tired in
> earnest to get it cleaned up I wound up with a super tidy drawwer that no
> one ever sees.
That was a good explanation. And it's in so many areas - not just eating
and tidiness - it causes serious problems in practically everything.
> Lately more annoying than any lack of consideration on society's part about
> my autism the more annoying thing has been all the people who want to say
> all it would take is understanding and I wouldn't really be disabled. To me
> that makes light of the situations of myself and several other posters here.
Except that it's not just lately, I agree.
Gareeth
> Gareeth wrote:
> We don't deny we are lucky. I don't think there is any conflict in
> interest between us "lucky autistics" and severely autistics. The
> conflict is only artifical, and it's politically & socially motivated.
>
No with I don't have a conflict of interest with someone who say can't speak
and has mental retardation on top of autism I do have a conflict where
people who would minimize the effect of autism is concerned. I don't think
people who really think autism is more of a personality thing and that
understanding on the part of society would make everything peachy are
playing on the same field as the rest of us. I have more in common with
those who wind up institutionalized because of their autism than I do with
people who can believe those things. I view thoughts like that as a bit of a
threat too because minimizing the very real problems of autism can only hurt
people who are already viewed as too smart to have the sort of problems we
do. No one would call me severe but compared to a lot of people on email
groups and I suppose even here I guess I would be. But not severe by any
usual use of the word. You probably can't see what problems it could create
if people took your views seriously. How it would create problems getting
the help a lot of us need. Thankfully since most of your assumptions about
how things are for most people with ASD's are not well founded in reality
probably you are harmless enough. But before you throw out more ideas that
might get consumed by people who make decisions about the supports for
adults with ASD's you should at least look into what the actual reality is
for most of them. I don't want to be denied help because some person in a
position of power came across too many ideas like yours.
Gareeth
Leif
> Leif wrote:
>> I think this proved once and for all that autistics are not
>> socially disordered among themselves.
>
> One small structured meeting can't prove anything 'once and for all'.
Structured? It wasn't a structured meeting. No NTs were there to
structure things, and ASDs don't structure on their own.
As for the proof, it does prove that autistics are not disordered among
themselves. You cannot possibly prove it any better than that.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nno7spp-a+mm
Kalen
> Kalen wrote:
>
>>Leif wrote:
>>
>>>I think this proved once and for all that autistics are not
>>>socially disordered among themselves.
>>
>>One small structured meeting can't prove anything 'once and for all'.
>
> Structured? It wasn't a structured meeting. No NTs were there to
> structure things, and ASDs don't structure on their own.
I thought you said it was a camp. Explain how there can be a summer camp
with no structure. If that were actually true (I seriously doubt it) it
sounds like hell on earth to me! And I would argue that autistic people
do structure things on their own sometimes - see
http://ani.autistics.org/ for their plans for 'autreat'.
> As for the proof, it does prove that autistics are not disordered among
> themselves. You cannot possibly prove it any better than that.
It demonstrates only that *those* autistics got along reasonably well in
*that* (very limited) setting. Nothing more, nothing less.
To see just how disordered autistics can be amongst themselves, you
might try some of the e-mail lists for autistics. Or my house for 5
minutes. Or my friend's where they're all arguably on or near the
spectrum (one mathematician, two aspies, one autistic, one dyslexic),
but are far from peacefully co-existing.
Leif
> Most of the aspies I know (one notable exception) aren't
> known for their
> patient teaching.
They don't need to. Their main role is to avoid additional,
psychological damage inflicted by NTs. Also by understanding the basics
of autism from self-experience, they would not do all the wrong things
NTs continously do.
Besides, it also seems to be true that there are already autistic
persons in those roles, and they do very well. I know one in
Kindergarten with obvious autistic traits. She was very popular with
both NTs and not-so-much NTs.
> One thing I have learned from my course
> is that I do
> *not* want to be a teacher.
Neither do I, but I might be interested in helping severely autistics.
By friends of our children, I also know I can relate to autistic
children in ways I can't with NT children.
> Besides, a lot of the characteristics of
> severe autism are not very amenable to intervention.
The intervention is preventive. It's main purpose is not to inflict
additional damage.
> What would an ASD community be? Who would live there?
There are several solutions. One is to focus on the already present
online community. Another is to create real physical communities. I
think for now the first option is most appropriate. That also means we
should strive to connect autistics to the Internet.
>> 5. Education methods for ASDs would be developed, and
>> diagnosis would no
>> longer be required for admission. This means everybody needing this
>> would be qualified.
>
> They would need to have some kind of assessment leading to
> some kind of
> designation ('diagnosis') in order to know that kind of education is
> what they need.
No way. This kind of education is beneficial for a much broader range of
children than pure ASDs. What's more, it probably doesn't cost more
either. The major cost seems to be the loss of prestige for people
deciding how children learn best.
> Also, who would provide the practical support most ASD people need?
Again, most don't need practical support. Those who do, will still need
a dx.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nno+-8s8ppa6mm
sggaB the Slug
> How does one "find" NTs online? Ask them about their status?
> Make armchair diagnosis, based on your own preconceived
> notions of what an NT is or isn't?
For that matter, how does one take the cultural/racial/whatever
demographic of people -- autistic or otherwise -- online, without asking
all of them?
--
sggaB
Autistic Spectrum Code, v1.0
AA! dpu s-:+ a-- c+(++) p(+) t--- f--- S--(++)@ p?@ e-(+)@ h- r--@ n--
i++ P m--(++)@ M
sggaB the Slug
> > BTW, while we are at it, why not try this test:
> > http://isnt.autistics.org/ntscreening.html
> I've seen it. I was around when they first announced that website's
> opening and I've seen it mentioned hundreds of times since. I'm sick to
> death of it (nothing to do with the site itself. It was mildly
> entertaining the first time.)
Not only that, but that test in particular was never meant to be taken
very seriously. I remember grumbling about the typewriter part (one of my
perseverations is typewriters, and the test designer called it an "NT
trait") and being told that the test was not meant to be taken either
seriously or literally. In fact, at that same time, many clearly NT
people were taking it and coming out autistic.
sggaB the Slug
>>http://www.tonyattwood.com/paper4.htm
> OTOH, I do worry that this puts down those ACs who've yet to find a
> way to reveal their particular talents.
Or those who've been abused into compliance, or those who just don't have
that particular personality type described.
sggaB the Slug
growi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I thought the same thing - I was reading it and thought, oops, I must
> also have that. :)
Hmm.
1. Conformity: (at least three of the following)
1. Strong fear of cultivating own ideas and personal interests. Primary
adherence to the group's common point of wiev
Only after psychiatrization.
2. Consider peers and friends more important than the closest family
Yes, because of not adhering to the societal criterion that deems family
to automatically mean closeness.
3. Strong fear of "sticking out" and "distinguishing"
Only after abuse.
4. Strong fixation with the latest trends in music, toys, fashion,
looks, diet and other areas
Nope.
5. On multiple occations caught up in mass hysteria, scanned
catchwords, performed "the wave", ended up in bad company or in
other ways annihilated the own self
Don't know.
6. In the most extreme case engaged in sub cultures and referres to
him/herself as a "punker", "hip hoper" or something similar
Nope.
2. Speech and language impairment: (at least three of the following)
1. Use of group language, i.e. conformity to local jargons to "fit in"
with peers and friends
To be understood, sometimes.
2. Severe inability to pertinent and correct speech; makes constant use
of metaphores and idiomes, often as a part of the group jargon
As part of echolalia, sure.
3. Severe inability to formulate true intention - says one thing
meaning something totally different
As part of language problems, sure.
4. Fixation on ritual conversation and / or superficial topics (i.e the
wheather, the television schedule or the passed weekend's social
occations)
Don't know.
5. Sloppy and inexact speech
When my speech exists, it's way more sloppy and inexact than any NT could
get.
3. Rigid fixation with social relations: (at least one of the following)
1. that exclude other activities
Nope.
2. that interfers with the person's daily life (i.e. studies, work or
likewise)
Nope.
3. Strong fear of loneliness: self realization, self esteem and
identity maintained through the group
Nope.
3. Fixation with non verbal communication: (at least two of the following)
1. Is more observant to gestures, eye contact, smiles and body
language, than to what is verbally stated
Have trouble with *both*, but prefer interacting without words a lot of
the time.
2. Draws conclusions about the ideas, thoughts and feelings of others,
from gesture, gaze, smile and other non verbal clues
Sometimes.
3. Misconceptions: often believes in knowing what others are thinking
and feeling
Don't know.
4. Anti-social behavior: (at least one of the following)
1. Lies regularily (at least three ocassions / day; the behavior has
been apparent for at least three months)
No.
2. "Goes behind others backs", teases, mobs, gossips, intrigues or
tries in other ways to increase the person's own status at the
expense of others
Not that I know of.
3. Frequently accepts boundbreaking behaviors and intentionally breaks
"written rules", for group acceptance (i.e. scrawls, smokes,
consumes alcohol, shoplifts, drives mopeds, opposes authorities
(parents, teachers or likewise))
I oppose authority a lot.
5. Cognitive difficulties: (at least four of the following)
1. Inability to perceieve details
Sometimes.
2. Subjective reality experience, and a selective perception;
interprets hidden messages in pertinent information
Subjective reality experience is true of everyone. The concept some
autistics have that they're completely objective is a myth that needs to
die one of these days.
3. Common use of psychological defence mechanisms such as repression
and denial; unwilling to face true facts
I find that a lot of people are unwilling to face true facts and engage in
denial to some extent. Autistic or not. I'm sure I've done it.
4. Limited long term and rote memory
Don't know.
5. Strong impairment in focusing, and entering deeply into interests
and activities
Sometimes.
6. Seeks changes in the daily life as an end in itself
Sometimes.
sggaB the Slug
wrote:
> You're assuming here that AS people would be *able* to participate fully in
> society without help. I would argue that this is not a likely situation.
I'm actually not sure that anyone participates fully in society without
help. It's just that the help autistic people get is not considered
normal, whereas the help NTs get is.
> I applaud the efforts to view AS as being a good thing, as being normal,
> etc. But I think it is overly simplistic to say that it isn't real (as you
> appear to do above) or that there is no reason to consider it a disorder in
> any way, shape, or form.
I still think the whole question "Is AS a disorder or isn't it?" in
itself, fundamentally misses the point.
Leif
> I don't think
> people who really think autism is more of a personality
> thing and that
> understanding on the part of society would make everything peachy are
> playing on the same field as the rest of us.
That is a huge misinterpretation. Did I ever say that we could live in
peace with NTs? Haven't I instead written that this is basically
impossible since we are from another species?
> I have more
> in common with
> those who wind up institutionalized because of their
> autism than I do with
> people who can believe those things.
That is possible, but why do you think the current policy is beneficial
to you? Do you actually enjoy being labeled as disordered, and put at
the mercy of society?
> I view thoughts like
> that as a bit of a
> threat too because minimizing the very real problems of
> autism can only hurt
> people who are already viewed as too smart to have the
> sort of problems we
> do.
I'm not minimizing anything. I'm explaining them in a context of our
past.
> You probably can't see what
> problems it could create
> if people took your views seriously.
It would not. I'm not saying we should deny the existence of autism. I'm
saying we must integrate autistics in all aspects of society on equal
terms. We do a lousy job at this right know, and it's getting worse.
> How it would create
> problems getting
> the help a lot of us need.
I think what most want is not help, rather a way to live independently
in society. That can be moving far from people and becoming an eremite,
or it can be to get a job which matches your strengths.
> Thankfully since most of your
> assumptions about
> how things are for most people with ASD's are not well
> founded in reality
> probably you are harmless enough.
I think they are. I've met with quite a few, and chatted with far more.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n3o+0s-paa7m
Kalen
> Kalen wrote:
>
>>Most of the aspies I know (one notable exception) aren't
>>known for their
>>patient teaching.
>
> They don't need to. Their main role is to avoid additional,
> psychological damage inflicted by NTs. Also by understanding the basics
> of autism from self-experience, they would not do all the wrong things
> NTs continously do.
Then why did you say 'rehabilitate'? I don't even know who would *care*
for severe autistics in such a structure, let alone teach and help them.
> Besides, it also seems to be true that there are already autistic
> persons in those roles, and they do very well.
A few.
> I know one in
> Kindergarten with obvious autistic traits.
Traits are not autism.
>>Besides, a lot of the characteristics of
>>severe autism are not very amenable to intervention.
>
> The intervention is preventive. It's main purpose is not to inflict
> additional damage.
That's not rehabilitation.
>>What would an ASD community be? Who would live there?
>
> There are several solutions. One is to focus on the already present
> online community. Another is to create real physical communities. I
> think for now the first option is most appropriate. That also means we
> should strive to connect autistics to the Internet.
My partner and I are working on this. Unfortunately, our EF deficits
have prevented us being very productive so far. Actually, I'd forgotten
about it. I should ask our (NT) support worker if she can help.
>>They would need to have some kind of assessment leading to
>>some kind of
>>designation ('diagnosis') in order to know that kind of education is
>>what they need.
>
> No way. This kind of education is beneficial for a much broader range of
> children than pure ASDs.
I didn't say that it was only for pure ASDs. But how would you know
which children would benefit from that educational style as opposed to
others without doing some kind of assessment which would lead to some
kind of label (even if that label is "likely best suited to education
type G", it's still a label, which is all diagnosis is).
> What's more, it probably doesn't cost more either.
> The major cost seems to be the loss of prestige for people
> deciding how children learn best.
Nor did I say anything about cost.
>>Also, who would provide the practical support most ASD people need?
>
> Again, most don't need practical support.
Again, that is simply not true. As several of us have explained. Just
for example, some of the posters here:
- Amanda receives an average of 3 hrs/day home support without which she
could not function (i.e. would starve)
- Tim Bruening lives with his mother
- Joel, requires home support but doesn't get it (and is probably not
100% sure he would want it - but needs help to remember to eat and to
keep his home safe and hygienic as I understand what he has written)
- Gareeth desperately requires home support
- I get 20 hrs/week home support and could use more (except that I
couldn't tolerate it) as well as learning support at college
- Terry I think needs practical and psychological support
- Larry needs practical/home and some community support.
- Anna gets some home support and needs more
- Catriona needs home support but doesn't seem to get any
I don't know about mchlrnbrg, sammi, Chris, Alice, Arak, or Nick. I
don't think El Habanero feels the need for more support than he has, and
obviously you would fit in that category as well.
But in any case, just given those of us here - the very highest
functioning of the spectrum, for the most part - the proportion needing
practical help is substantial. If you add financial assistance to that,
I think it would be even higher. Then there's the rest of the spectrum,
almost all of whom need practical support of varying degrees from a few
hours home support for independent living to full 24 hr care.
> Those who do, will still need a dx.
Finally we're getting *somewhere*.
Leif
>> Because the autistic phenotype, which is higly specific to certain
>> functions, cannot develop like that.
>
> Yes it can.
No way. Prove it then.
In fact, it's just as likely that 1 in 100 would lack their little toe,
piece of their ear and be bald.
>> Yes, and schizphrenia has definite links to many of the
>> same conditions as do autism.
>
> So? The point was that it has managed to survive all this time, at a
> high frequency, while not being an adaptive characteristic.
You obviously don't understand. Schizophrenia and autism can survive in
1 in 100 prevalence since there are good traits associated with them.
These good traits cannot survive if autism & schizophrenia don't
survive. IOW, when autism no longer exist, there will be no more
Einsten's, Tesla's or Galileo's.
> I was not referring only to psychiatric disorders. But
> pray tell, what
> *is* the adaptive value of schizophrenia?
Hint: take a look at it's comorbidities and at famous people with the
condition.
> And haemophilia, cystic
> fibrosis, and all those other conditions that continue to survive
> despite having no redeeming characteristics whatsoever?
CF once had an adaptive value. It's not prevalent in 1 in 100
proportions either (rather 3 in 10,000).
I've also written what the reason for those genetic disorders are. CF is
also an European descent genetic disease. It's caused by disrupted genes
from Neanderthals. CF had some major role as infective protection.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nno1spp0a+7mm
sggaB the Slug
> I can't even relate to people whose greatest difficulties in life seem
> to be getting out of party invitations and coping with colleagues at
> work. I am working on taking my medication every day (was doing great
> for a while, but lost it :( ), making sure I have clean clothes to wear
> and wear them, and completing my course (where I am apparently the most
> academically able student they've seen in a while, but at serious risk
> of not completing it). Regular food and exercise are also high
> priorities that my worker should be helping with, but making sure we
> don't die of food poisoning or attract vermin from the state of our
> kitchen is more important (especially now that it's hot), as well as
> getting rid of the lice my daughter brought home to share with the family.
Most of those, of course, *also* being things that could be dealt with by
environmental modifications. Just a lot more complex ones.
sggaB the Slug
>> I would think this would require major revisions of the whole system.
>> 1. It would follow that aspies should "rehabilitate" severely autistics.
> Most of the aspies I know (one notable exception) aren't known for their
> patient teaching. One thing I have learned from my course is that I do
> *not* want to be a teacher. Besides, a lot of the characteristics of
> severe autism are not very amenable to intervention.
I know several who are patient teachers. But I don't like the idea of
people arbitrarily being "rehabilitated".
sggaB the Slug
> Some specific problems I have relating to executive function:
> - forgetting to take my medication
If it's *only* forgetting, then reminders would work. If it's more than
forgetting, having someone assist you would work.
> - eating junk food instead of good food
Organizing things so that there is not as much junk food around.
Depending on what the exact problem is, it might involve getting
assistance with shopping.
> - my kids staying up too late
> - wearing dirty clothes
Prompting of some kind to change.
> - having lice
Getting medical treatment for lice, including as much assistance as
necessary to actually follow the treatment regimen.
> - stinking
Assistance with bathing and deodorant, however much assistance is needed.
> - never getting anything done
> - being at risk of not completing my college course
Not specific enough to comment.
> - eating food that's gone off
Having someone throw out the old food.
> - burning food I try to cook
Having someone cook.
> - can't work out an alternative if something goes wrong (e.g. miss the bus)
List of contingency plans for most common things going wrong, person to
call if unsure otherwise, coins or cell phone in order to make the call.
> - getting benefits cancelled -> stress, starvation, threatened housing, etc.
Don't know why they're being canceled.
> - taking hours to do grocery shopping
Someone else goes with you or someone else goes themselves.
> - forgetting laundry in the washer until it is permanently ruined
Someone monitoring the laundry situation and/or helping out on laundry
days.
> - missing appointments
Depends on why. If it's forgetting, reminders. If it's more than
forgetting, whatever kind of prodding is necessary beforehand.
> - getting utilities cancelled for non-payment
Someone helping out with sitting down and watching you do the payments on
a regular basis.
> There are many, many more examples, but those should get you started.
Few to none of those seem anywhere close to impossible with the right
assistance.
Anna Hayward
>> The majority of autistics are unable to express an opinion on such
>> things since the majority are either severely learning disabled (aka
>> "mentally retarded") or non-verbal or both.
>
>Not true. Average IQ for ASDs are probably above normal, provided you
>don't muddy the test by including social competence and alike.
That's not the conclusion of the National Autistic Society or any other
major autism organisation. And it certainly isn't the experience of most
of the parents of autistics I know.
>
>As for learning disabilities, those are too largely not diablities,
>rather INAPROPRIATE LEARNING METHODS.
Learning Disability is the British way of saying "mentally retarded".
The majority of autistics have IQs way below normal. They may well be
more able than the IQ test results suggest, but there is no doubt they
are significantly less able than most people, at most things.
>Still being slightly dyslectic, I
>can certainly see how wrong the teeching methods of yesterday was for
>me. Seeing how my children are forced to special education, I can also
>see this has been considerably worsened today. Should we just stand by
>passively watching this accelerate?
I have an autistic/LD child in a special school. He was not forced there
- I fought to get him a place, due to their excellent reputation with
teaching autistics. He was in mainstream pre-school but it didn't work
out - they couldn't cope and neither could my son. He has done
spectacularly well since being in a special school. I also have an
Asperger's daughter who is doing well in mainstream.
>As for non-verbal, very few autistics are non-verbal. Even individuals
>who don't speak, many times can express themselves in writing.
You obviously know very autistics to the ones I know.
>> Besides, how would you know what the majority of ACs want?
>
>I know many ACs that don't want to admit to it.
>
>> Have you done
>> a survey?
>
>Not on that aspect.
So it's just your uninformed opinion then.
--
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
mailto: alienv...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
Anna's Pregnancy, Parenting and Autism page:
http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/anna/
Alwyn
> Leif wrote:
>
>> Those who do, will still need a dx.
>
> Finally we're getting *somewhere*.
I think that's an illusion.
Alwyn
Leif
> Some specific problems I have relating to executive function:
> - forgetting to take my medication
Everybody does
> - eating junk food instead of good food
Same thing
> - my kids staying up too late
Here we go to sleep when we are tired, and not when other's think we
should.
> - wearing dirty clothes
So what. So do I. It's my personal right.
> - having lice
> - stinking
Same thing as above.
> - never getting anything done
That's probably avoidable.
> - being at risk of not completing my college course
Why do you attend college, if you're mentally retarded, lack speech and
are learning disabilited? BTW, I draw this conclusion from the majority
being such, and you being below the mean.
> - eating food that's gone off
So what? Is there any harm?
> - burning food I try to cook
So do we occassionaly
> - can't work out an alternative if something goes wrong
> (e.g. miss the bus)
Sounds very familiar around here too.
> - getting benefits cancelled -> stress, starvation,
> threatened housing, etc.
That's society, and not you.
> - taking hours to do grocery shopping
That's also common in both ASDs and NTs
> - forgetting laundry in the washer until it is permanently ruined
Nothing unique either.
> - missing appointments
I do that too.
> - getting utilities cancelled for non-payment
Same. I have frequent reminders and sometimes worse.
> There are many, many more examples, but those should get you started.
It didn't. It just confirmed my belief that your "executive
dysfunctions" are related NT society. IOW, they would be non-existent in
a autistic society.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove n7o8sp1aa+-m
Nick Argall
>>3. There is definite comorbidity between autism and autoimmune
>>disorders, and many of those are more prevalent in European descent.
>
> I thought that this suggested comorbidity was essentially anecdotal?
Tony Attwood notes a correlation between AS and immune deficiency in his
book.
--
Nick the Taoism enthusiast
Autistic Spectrum Code v1.0:
AS?d-s+:+a-c+++p+t+f S+p+e++h+r++n+i P--m+M+
Kalen
sggaB the Slug wrote:
>
> 1. Conformity: (at least three of the following)
>
> b. Consider peers and friends more important than the closest family
I have that one in spades.
> c. Strong fear of "sticking out" and "distinguishing"
I have always had that one. I have a great fear of attracting attention.
> d. Strong fixation with the latest trends in music, toys, fashion,
> looks, diet and other areas
I don't usually, but I sure know some aspie kids who are *intensely*
fixated on the latest toys (e.g. Pokemon (now over), Power Puff Girls,
etc.). I also know a couple of female autistics who are just as
intensely focused on fashion, diet, etc. I know one whose diet fixation
causes repeated episodes of anorexia. So I wouldn't take that as a
general un-aspie trait.
> e. On multiple occations caught up in mass hysteria, scanned
> catchwords, performed "the wave", ended up in bad company or in
> other ways annihilated the own self
I have, but I don't know about multiple occasions.
> f. In the most extreme case engaged in sub cultures and referres to
> him/herself as a "punker", "hip hoper" or something similar
Yes. 'Geek', 'nerd', 'autistic'.
> 2. Speech and language impairment: (at least three of the following)
>
> a. Use of group language, i.e. conformity to local jargons to "fit in"
> with peers and friends
Have done. I have even acquired local language which is foreign to me.
> b. Severe inability to pertinent and correct speech; makes constant use
> of metaphores and idiomes, often as a part of the group jargon
I don't often have that, but some of my AS friends use metaphores and
idioms excessively.
> c. Severe inability to formulate true intention - says one thing
> meaning something totally different
Yes, frequently.
> d. Fixation on ritual conversation and / or superficial topics (i.e the
> wheather, the television schedule or the passed weekend's social
> occations)
Yes. I love schedules of all kinds and get very upset when they change
around my TV shows, so it comes up in conversation. One of my friends is
frequently obsessed with TV shows, so she monologues at me about that
while I say "uh huh". I consider that superficial ritualistic conversation.
> 3. Rigid fixation with social relations: (at least one of the following)
>
> a. that exclude other activities
>
> b. that interfers with the person's daily life (i.e. studies, work or
> likewise)
Yes to both of those. I am often spending all my time here at my
computer relating socially while neglecting my family, my other life
requirements (errands, etc.) as well as my own physical needs.
> 3. Fixation with non verbal communication: (at least two of the following)
>
> a. Is more observant to gestures, eye contact, smiles and body
> language, than to what is verbally stated
Sometimes. Otherwise I would not understand my child who has extremely
limited verbal communication and extremely clear non-verbal communication.
> b. Draws conclusions about the ideas, thoughts and feelings of others,
> from gesture, gaze, smile and other non verbal clues
Yes.
> c. Misconceptions: often believes in knowing what others are thinking
> and feeling
Yes. Common autistic trait that one.
> 4. Anti-social behavior: (at least one of the following)
>
> b. "Goes behind others backs", teases, mobs, gossips, intrigues or
> tries in other ways to increase the person's own status at the
> expense of others
Sometimes talk about other people, but the implied motives there are wrong.
> c. Frequently accepts boundbreaking behaviors and intentionally breaks
> "written rules", for group acceptance (i.e. scrawls, smokes,
> consumes alcohol, shoplifts, drives mopeds, opposes authorities
> (parents, teachers or likewise))
Yes.
> 5. Cognitive difficulties: (at least four of the following)
>
> a. Inability to perceieve details
Yes.
> b. Subjective reality experience, and a selective perception;
> interprets hidden messages in pertinent information
Yes to the first half. Don't know about the second. Agree with Amanda's
comment.
> c. Common use of psychological defence mechanisms such as repression
> and denial; unwilling to face true facts
Yes, absolutely. I had a severe psychological condition involving
repression and denial of extreme trauma.
> d. Limited long term and rote memory
For certain things.
> e. Strong impairment in focusing, and entering deeply into interests
> and activities
Yes.
> f. Seeks changes in the daily life as an end in itself
Have been known to.
SUMMARY
Criterion 1:
Definite: b, c and f (which is only for 'extreme cases').
Possible: d, e
Required: 3
Criterion met? Yes
Criterion 2:
Definite: a, c and d
Possible: b
Required: 3
Criterion met? Yes
Criterion 3:
Definite: a and b
Required: 1
Criterion met? Yes
Criterion 3: (didn't we just do criterion 3? So much for Mr. Precision)
Definite: b and c
Possible: a
Required: 2
Criterion met? Yes.
Criterion 4:
Definite: b and c
Required: 1
Criterion met? Yes.
Criterion 5:
Definite: a,b,c,d,and e
Possible: f
Required: 4
Criterion met? Yes.
Leif
> How would not planning and ignoring the pressure to plan help at all?
It does. We have NO planning here whatsoever, and it works pretty well.
> Leaving aside that htere is more to executive function
> than that.
It has? I doubt it's anything else than deviance from NT expectancy.
> People
> with executive function problems have problem with day to
> day life skills.
Yes, they can have, but what is the reason for that? It's because
society is organised like it is.
> Take remembering to eat for instance and all the steps
> that go into making
> sure you do eat.
There is no need for any of that. We do have adaptions that allows us to
stay without food much longer than NTs.
> My
> place is a total diasater because I can't string together
> the steps to get
> it clean and stay on task for any length of time.
No wonder. We didn't evolve in a tropical climate where you must keep
bacteria under control. We evolved in ice-age Europe, and there didn't
exist any reason to keep neither yourself nor anything else clean.
> It isn't pressure from society that makes these problems
> it is the effects
> on health and well being.
No it's not. There is no effect on health by going around dirty.
Possibly the reverse, since there is evidence that cleanliness induces
allergy.
> I think you need to at least consider that there are
> deficits that are not a
> result of a lack of understanding on the part of society.
Why would I? Besides, it's not just a lack of understanding. The problem
is more something like the culture that are forced upon us, which we do
pretty bad in.
> That there are
> core deficits that are very disabling and that has to be
> acknowledged.
You can acknowledge the disabling effect IN A SPECIFIC CULTURE without
acknowlegding any deficits. The difference is that deficits cannot be
cured, while culture can be changed.
> Lately more annoying than any lack of consideration on
> society's part about
> my autism the more annoying thing has been all the people
> who want to say
> all it would take is understanding and I wouldn't really
> be disabled.
I don't even think understanding is a way, since it's basically
impossible to achieve. NTs have no ability to understand other species.
Leif
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?alt.support.autism
To contact in private, remove nno-4spp+am