Talk:Autism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Increase in diagnoses of autism

In the last paragraph of this section it is mentioned "Due to the recent publicity surrounding autism and autistic spectrum disorders, an increasing number of adults are choosing to seek diagnoses of high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome in light of symptoms they currently experience or experienced during childhood. Since the cause of autism is thought to be at least partly genetic, a proportion of these adults seek their own diagnosis specifically as follow-up to their children's diagnoses."

This is the case with myself, although I have not sought a professional diagnosis. As part of the diagnosis of my sons condition it was remarked that some of his behaviours had not been considered by his parents and grandparents as unusual, as I had done similiar at the same age and that it was simply considered part of a family trait. The care worker assigned to my son considered it inappropriate that I should test for autism, as my "coping strategies" or whatever behaviour models I now expressed would render any result meaningless. However, other adults having a child (or that of a relative) diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder may also find a familiar pattern of behaviour in their own development. Again, this may be a subjective self assesment as they have learned to interact within society to an extent that some behaviours may have been (publicly) suppressed or unlearned - so much so that a diagnosis is not possible.LessHeard vanU 14:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that very few seem to be seeking a diagnosis of LFA!LessHeard vanU 14:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A good balance citation would be Lisa Croen's article on the increase observed in California. She demonstrated a parallel decrease in certain "mental retardation" diagnostic categories, suggesting a diagnostic shift rather than a true increase in incidence. --Dan 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone mention in the caption to that prevalence graph or near it somewhere, that the earliest year on the graph happens to coincide with the year that autism was introduced as an IDEA category? There is more data (including other "rapid increases" in categories in certain periods of time after there are introduced) on this in this report http://www.autcom.org/Epidemic.pdf which can be cited in any information about this. ("Three Reasons Not to Believe in an Autism Epidemic", Gernsbacher et al, 2005) Silentmiaow 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Autistical

The word "autistical" is valid. The base word is "autos" for self. Then the suffix "-ist" is added, to become "autist," to mark an action or skill of self, which becomes a noun. Next, the suffix "-ic" is added to signal a character of an action or skill of self, which becomes an adjective. Finally, the suffix "-al" is added to denote the relationship itself, which becomes a noun. These are all valid suffixes found in the dictionary. All base words with all possible prefix and suffix combinations are not listed in common dictionaries, which would be not pratical if an attempt was made. — Dzonatas 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It would, however, be practical to do in a digital format if that were truly the case. Which it isn't. The word does not exist. "Autistic-like" is the appropriate term. English is not Build Your Own Lexicon.

ZagrebFraggle 14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure a software program could be written to automatically combine all possible prefixes and suffixes. Consider that a dictionary lists recognized suffixes and prefixes, it assumes one knows how to combine them with root words to expand ones vocabulary beyond the dictionary itself with recognized elements of words contained within it. With the expressions used in the article, the diagnoses is austical, which makes sense. The diagnoses is not "autistic-like" because the diagnoses itself does not have such autistic property. The diagnoses isn't even "autistic," which still refers to such non-existent property. Consider the words "topic" and "topical." Another example, "topic sentences" and "topical guides" are common, but it would be quite different to find "topic guides" or a "topical sentence." Even "topic-like guides" doesn't make any sense. — Dzonatas 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is "autistic" because that is the term that used. If english made sense then I'm sure you are right that it would be "autistical", but english isn't good at sticking to rules. The correct term is the one which is used. If you were creating a new term then you would be right to build it up in the way you describe, but often people don't and you end up with something that doesn't make sense, but it is still the word, whether it makes sense or not. The diagnosis is definitely "autistic". "Autistical" isn't in the dictionary or in usage so it is not a word.

Your example is irrelevant for the simple reason that you are talking about a completely different word. It's like looking at the word "through" and "cough" and assuming that "cough" should be pronounced "coo" since the "ough" in "through" is pronounced "oo". If english made sense it would work like that (it is possible there is a good, though not very obvious, reason for the difference in this case, but there are plenty of other examples that could be chosen in any area of the language, this is just the first that came into my head), but it doesn't work like that, demonstrating that you can't just take a rule that works on one word and apply it to another, because there might be some pointless or illogical difference for the word you are applying it to. Raoul Harris 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand you disagree. However, the amount of trees killed to produce enough paper for everybody to have their own copy of a dictionary and to agree the word exists is illogical. That is the basic argument presented here why such words don't exist. There are no written rules that state that the word "autistical" can not exists. Likewise, there are no rules that state words like "autistic" can exists. Authors only wrote dictionaries, but they did not define the extent of the English language. They never have and never will be able to define such dimension of language. They can only present popular choices. If you wanted to argue that "autistic" is more of a popular word than "autistical," I would agree. That is not the case you presented however. The case presented is against "autistical" is that "we should use only popular words and not ones that are derived technically correct." I understand. It is common to derive words and not new terms. The word "autistic" is a derived word as much as "autistical." No new term was invented, which if it was your point would be valid. — Dzonatas 00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think a language is defined by usage. We'll just have to disagree on it. I won't object to you using "autistical", but I'll stick with "autistic". Raoul Harris 07:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But according to you, "usage" = "it's in the dictionary". 70.101.144.160 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

CAN and AGRE

Somebody inserted links to CAN and the AGRE project. I would favor both of them to be removed. If people disagree, I would at least suggest that the AGRE link be moved to Causes of autism or Heritability of autism. There are also some remaining links to ABA, which I would favor to move to Autism therapies. --Rdos 07:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

DSM

Since when is the DSM not widely recognized in the US? Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing in defence of the DSM because I agree that it has huge flaws in parts, but to say it's not widely recognized in the US and is completely ignored in england is blatantly POV. I'd revert, but it's such a nice article I didn't want to just barge in there :) Sparkleyone 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I took it out. Me

Missing paragraph (maybe)

I would like to point out a single word on a line that may or may not belong to the article. Moreover appears just prior the subheading DSM definition. Could be the start of a paragraph or a stray word! I started to scroll back through the edits hoping to discover the reason why it is there but soon discovered it could take a long time for me to do that. HJKeats 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge with "Autism Mercury" article

I would be against the merging of the above article with this, as I do not believe that it adheres to NPOV policy/practice. LessHeard vanU 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the autism mercury article is absolutely ludicrously in violation of NPOV. We don't put disclaimers at the top of articles and then state the beliefs of organizations. If that theory is at all widespread, a blurb on that belief as a theory could be added. The autism mercury article should be either merged into the autism article in abbreviated and NPOV form, or deleted entirely. Caterpillar 36 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That article needs massive re-editing and then it needs to go under Controversies in autism, not here. --Bluejay Young 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Definately agree 100% with Bluejay --Zeraeph 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, didn't know about that one. Definitely agree.-Caterpillar 36 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Autism and poverty?

What is this all about? I'm about this close to removing it, but want to see what others think. This person didn't cite a source or give any sort of references to back it up. It sounds like original research, or just surmise and conjecture on the part of a single individual. I'm not saying that autistic people may have difficulties with employability and living independently. Some do and some don't. I'm just saying this person needs to check his facts and be certain they understand what belongs in a Wikipedia article and what doesn't. It almost sounds like the subtext is "we've got to cure this thing or we're going to be deluged with all these unemployable autistics being a drain on our social services." --Bluejay Young 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim that it is the fourth leading cause of poverty in the world needs to be cited, or it will be consigned to the dustbin. There is another strong relationship between poverty and autism, however, that shows up in demographic analyses. Although the relationship between environmental factors and autism is hotly disputed by opinion leaders in the medical community, where most of the emphasis is focused on an expanding array of known genetic vulnerability factors, there is little doubt that exposure to mercury and heavy metals contributes to the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders, in particular those children who do not excrete heavy metals efficiently. Sources of heavy industrial pollution, often containing high concentrations of heavy metals such as mercury and lead, tend to be concentrated to low income neighborhoods. Heavy pollution in blue collar neighborhoods, in turn, compounds other environmental risk factors for children living in poverty, which include nutritional deficits and the mercury and aluminum preservatives and adjuvants contained in vaccines. Ombudsman 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and get rid of it... until it has some decent citations it should not be reinserted. Claims like "though no studies have been done, it has been thought that rates of autism is higher in developing communities" especially need to have some authoritative references as to who is making such speculations. Sparkleyone 08:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have been even bolder and put it back there is no reason to believe poverty causes autism (WHERE ON EARTH did that come from?) but ample proof that autism causes poverty (try living with it as a parent or Autie some time) though I am going to whip out the "fourth greatest" thing now, THAT seems unlikely there aren't enough autistic per capita to even come close --Zeraeph 10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, on reading the section closely, though the contention that Autism causes poverty is correct and relevant, to coin a phrase "that was NASTY". I've pared it down to the bare relevant bones and hope there will be more to add in future to flesh it out. --Zeraeph 10:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It should not be in this article in the first place. And who says its true? I don't Simply south 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok so give me some verifiable evidence from somewhere reputable to suggest that Autism never causes poverty and it can go. --Zeraeph 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's rather fallacious. You could claim that anything from having red hair to liking cheese is a cause of poverty, by the same rhetoric, and insist on its inclusion because "you can't give me verifiable evidence to suggest that it never causes poverty."

More to the point, why is it all right to make the case for an autism/poverty connection with no verifiable evidence, but demand verifiable evidence from anyone who seeks to disprove it?

Your point is valid in a sense. Disabilities *in general,* of any kind, are correlated with poverty because many people are unable to obtain adequate services; not all disabled people can work in conventional job environments, and many who can are unable to find a job which guarantees a living wage. It's just not specific to autism.

Also, there are a number of autistic people who have difficulty obtaining a diagnosis *because* they are seen as 'too successful' or 'too functional' to be autistic. There are people who fit the criteria for autism or Asperger's but go unrecognized their whole lives, because they're successful in their chosen line of work and so are seen as just being 'eccentric' or 'strange.' --Sethrenn 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Make that, anything can cause poverty really. I'm just surprised and shocked at the figure you're giving Simply south 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

HELL NO!! That "fourth greatest" thing is GONE...that was just silly --Zeraeph 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Before getting into the debate over the subject matter, I would first ask why it has been included in the Other pervasive developmental disorders section anyway (and in the middle. too)?

As for the premise that it propounds... even if there were cited references and sources I would still regard it as a sweeping statement that could not be true for a large percentage (perhaps a majority) of cases. Whilst there is an argument that profoundly autistic individuals may not have the financial/economic opportunities of many neurotypicals, this would be true of anyone affected by a debiliating disability. Since the autistic spectrum covers a variety of conditions, behaviour models, communication abilities, and the like, then it is difficult for any one statement to be deemed to be true for all cases. Even the diagnosis (and existence of) autism is a matter of dispute within the medical profession!

I'm sorry, but I see no reason why such a comment is relevant within the autism article. In the cases where it is true, then it is no more a hinderance to financial security than other physical, mental, psychological or other condition. It is not peculiar enough to justify inclusion in this article. LessHeard vanU 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely an aspect doesn't have to be peculiar to justify inclusion?

With only 12% of people with Asperger's Syndrome able to sustain full time employment (the figures for High Function Autistics must be similar, and lower function autistics will be even less), I'd say it's pretty obvious that poverty is guaranteed for the vast majority of adult autistics. In addition, as yet, there is no country in the world making adequate public provision for child autistics and the overwhelming cost of making up that deficit from private resources guarantees relative or actual poverty for most families that include an autistic.--Zeraeph 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world are you getting these statistics from? Can you at least cite a source? --Sethrenn 02:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnard et al 2001 [1] and I was slightly wrong as it states all HFA (including AS) are 12% in full time employment, the figure for low function is 2% - shocked the heck out of me too, I thought the score was higher than that. The lack of public provision of resources for Autistic children is widely documented and the fact that the money to make up this deficit from private resources doesn't grow on trees is common knowledge. --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's statistics for diagnosed autistics in the UK-- as stated above, my experience is that a great many *undiagnosed* autistics are in employment, people who can pass enough to be seen as just "odd" or "eccentric." --Sethrenn 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that Sethrenn, but there a probably at least as many homeless and/or indigent, mis-diagnosed and permanently resident in mental hospitals or prisons, trouble is you can't quantify that invisible figure until it becomes visible. If the right resources are made available I have no doubt the majority of autistics would be more than capable of supporting themselves in comfort, but the right resources aren't available yet.--Zeraeph 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What "resources"? (I hate to stick in a sentence in the middle of text but that seems to be how this section is made from.) Skinnyweed 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't peculiar, then that should be stated. As is, the section appears to indicate autism as being a peculiar, rather than a particular, barrier to to employment and financial reward, or a financial burden upon the individuals carers. To stretch the argument, a precociously gifted child may impinge upon the finances of carers where state or commerce will not contribute.

I don't get your point, Autism is an established barrier to employment and financial reward as well as an established considerable ongoing expense to families that cannot alkl afford it, ergo it is a cause of poverty. --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Asperger's, and thus the peculiar obstacles to gaining entry to the workplace, but I am familiar with the difficulty that those on the Autistic Spectrum may face. As I have argued elsewhere, there may indeed be a high percentage of individuals who may have otherwise been diagnosed as higher functioning autistic within the spectrum whose coping stategies and behaviour suppression have allowed them to participate in society to such a degree that the diagnosis has not been sort or considered. On that basis I would contest the assumption that HFA individuals would return the same figures for those with Asperger's with regard to employment.LessHeard vanU 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't realise they are on the Autistic Spectrum then you REALLY don't have any knowledge of Asperger's...see above, I was wrong, the figure actually included Asperger's with HFA at 12% in full employment.

My son has ASD, not Asperger's, and there is not yet a definative finding in where he falls in functionality (since he tests severe, moderate and mild across differing catagories and some are still in flux). Therefore, I have not concerned myself with the unique aspects of Asperger's. I am aware that Asperger's is on the spectrum, it was a case of my not writing "...those others on the Autistic Spectrum..." by omission.LessHeard vanU 12:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that autism is not a barrier to financially rewarding employment opportunity nor a means of financial burden for the family in many cases, only that it has not, is not, nor is it likely to be true for all those so diagnosed (which do not make up the all of those who are liable to be affected by the condition). LessHeard vanU 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all, just the vast majority...of course it shouldn't be, and doesn't need to be, but to implement that potential would require CHANGE. Until that change happens Autism causes poverty. --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a less general rewording is required - as well as an appropriate place within the article.LessHeard vanU 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that's bothering me is the un-backed-up assertion that "autistics are (or can be) vulnerable to any form of deception". That must be backed up. By itself it's just the writer's opinion. Maybe an educated or considered opinion, perhaps from personal experience, but you'll have to cite something that shows that gullibility is an intrinsic feature of autism. A lot of my problem as an autistic is that because of my personal presentation, people throughout my life have assumed that I was a patsy who would fall for anything, and have spent a great deal of energy warning me against those who would "take advantage" of me. In fact, I have always been deeply suspicious of other people's motives, largely because of the way I was treated by my father. He believed that I would neither notice or remember, because he thought I did not perceive reality; that I was "in my own world" as he said. (One reason I detest that phrase as applied to autism.) --Bluejay Young 02:40, 6 June 2006

My edit, that was a mellowing of a rather peculiar previous assertion, in preference to total removal, not a big deal, retained for discussion and expansion into something fuller and more accurate. It's very true that where Autistics can be more gullable in some ways they can be less gullable in others. As far as I can see they can be almost immune to many common forms of emotional manipulation simply because their literality of thinking prevents their knee from jerking on cue. --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Profoundly autistic persons may be as capable of observation and critical thinking as you are, but have the same difficulties with people who either seek to warn them of danger as if they didn't know it existed, or who actually try to defraud or con them. A.M. Baggs, who is about twenty-five and profoundly autistic, writes about being approached on the street with the whole "want some candy, little girl?" line. You can't judge an autistic's ability to comprehend and think critically based on whether or not they can talk, move, or otherwise conduct themselves as a non-autistic would. My guess is that autistics who are that gullible are ones who have been made overly dependent on others on the assumption that they cannot learn to function independently; who are actually taught not to think for themselves. --Bluejay Young 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have made a big relevant point there (one that sets my teeth on edge reliably too "learned cluelessness" ).

So how else would you define the special vulnerabilities of autistics? --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The special vulnerabilities of autistics have a great deal to do with how we are perceived by others, many of whom presume to speak for us and decide for us what we need or want. Unrealistic expectations are foisted upon autistics from a very early age, and it all has to do with the fact that we perceive, behave, learn, and acquire language differently from non-autistic people. The language thing in particular is a major issue. I think that many of us are made to be more disabled than we need to be by programs that are based on a presumption to help us, but approach us from the perspective of disorder. The idea that autism requires "treatment and intervention" implies that autism is sickness rather than difference. We may internalize that message and come to believe ourselves to be broken and in need of fixing. Compounding the problem is the assumption by other people that we are broken, that we cannot speak or think for ourselves. This is what has to change. --Bluejay Young 12:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To include in this article a separate section entitled "Autism and Poverty" is to suggest that there exists an established connection between autism and poverty. The discussion above supports no such established connection. While it may not be unreasonable to suggest that some with autism may suffer a financial disadvantage, without an established connection it is POV. To draw an analogy, we might just as well add a section entitled "Autism and Celebrity," inasmuch as some people with autism garner special attention. Clearly this would be POV, and so is this section on "Autism and Poverty." It should be deleted.--Leftymn 09:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now read the source given by Zeraeph [2]. I regret that I find the specifics unreliable, since the data is sourced from interest groups with no indication of independant analysis. Moreover, the examples are from respondees to a questionnaire - only 38% of questionnaires were returned, which would indicate that the majority did not believe that their concerns were being addressed and/or that the respondees were particularly motivated. As such the survey is not representative. Plus, the National Autistic Society - whilst an admirable group, who have been very useful in regard to my son - is a charitable rather than a statutory organisation (meaning that its members are those who identify that they have a need for its services, and do not represent all of those with, or care for those with, an ASD) with an advocacy policy. Wonderful people who do a great deal of good, but not independant enough for encyclopediac consideration. Lastly, this survey was UK specific and as autism is a medical condition then social/economic considerations should not form (a major) part of the article unless it can be shown that the same is true cross-culturally (I imagine it could be very much worse in some societies, yet less so in others).

I initially came to Wikipedia via this article and, whilst not a major contributor, wish it to remain a resource of rigorously accredited information. I feel that the section regarding poverty and autism is not up to standard.LessHeard vanU 10:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If only 12% of HFAs are in full-time employment, isn't it logical deduction to say that most are in poverty? Or have they got other means of obtaining money? Skinnyweed 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...unless they all have "rainman" type abilities which I somehow doubt...currently independent adult autism is a ticket straight into poverty unless you are very, very lucky. It shouldn't be, and with the right resources and understanding it WOULDN'T be, but currently it IS, and as that is possibly the single most significant factor in the real lives of most independent autistic adults it has to be mentioned. Wikipedia is also about "keeping it real".

However, I also agree that as a section it is currently abysmal (if not worse). I just took out the inappropriate stuff and gave it a quick polish, and that was all that was left. It needs expanding to explain the reasons for the connection between Autism and poverty properly...and LessHeard...until it rains again I have a LOAD of outdoor work on my hands and no time to do that alone - yet. --Zeraeph 13:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just realised I could do the above by adding the poverty to the Autistic adults and doing a little overdue tweaking and polishing...I think it makes the same point, if anything more effectively, as poverty is an integral PART of autistic life, not seperate from it.

For the record, I fully belive that it shouldn't be that way and it doesn't HAVE to be that way, but without greater understanding and better resources, it will go on being that way. --Zeraeph 13:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like there aren't enough hard statistics to warrant including this bit about autism and poverty in the article then. Maybe it should go in "Controversies about autism". --Bluejay Young 12:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I seriously doubt it's a 'controversy'. Skinnyweed 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This (http://www.sdlp.ie/prlewsleyspeechtoautismsociety.shtm) says something along the lines of "We have seen figures of 32,000 children in Northern Ireland in severe poverty and poverty is not just about finance." Skinnyweed 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This (http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/008_2006-04-24/han008_1310-E.htm) says ' In our country thousands of families are going into poverty because their children have autism. The provinces simply do not have the resources to provide the therapy that is required to assist children with autism.' Skinnyweed 19:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank heavens you found other sources, this point is SO important.--Zeraeph 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Increase in diagnoses

There is a very strange statement that appears suddenly in this section, and is never mentioned later.

There is little public research on the effects of in vitro fertilization on the number of incidences of autism.

Well, why should there be? What about eating bananas and autism - has anyone investigated that?

Since this doesn't seem to be related in any way to the rest of the article, and there's no argument why it's relevant, it just looks like someone pushing an anti in-vitro campaign. Getting ready to delete it... Deuar 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Adult child?"

This term, under the "Autistic adults" subheading, comes across as derogatory, suggesting that autistic people never grow up; that autistic adults are characteristically immature. Rephrasing... --GregE 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It may not have meant it the way you think; it may have meant child as in son of rather than little person. Regardless, 'adult child' (little person) is an accurate description of an autistic person. Skinnyweed 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... before you commit to that, you might want to have a look at this... --Bluejay Young 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. the eternal child myth, which is applied wrongly to both autistic people and other disabled people, especially cognitively disabled people of all sorts. It comes in part from the assignment of "developmental ages" to people whose development is different from the norm, such that, for instance, someone could try to claim that I had the developmental age of a small child in terms of self-care skills. Which is more about comparing a skill to a particular norm than about anything else. Unfortunately, that is how we are portrayed and viewed by most people, and we are treated as if we are children, even though we are not. "Adult child" was probably used in terms that it would be used even for non-disabled people, but to suggest that the other interpretation (of 'little person') would be okay, is kind of like saying that a high quad is really an infant because they require constant physical assistance for most things. It's just an abstract analogy gone really bad, and used to justify all kinds of awful policies. Silentmiaow 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Celebrating Autism"(npr)

I'm not saying the link doesn't belong, just that the story is disturbingly delusional. Its an uncritical puff piece about self delusion, aspergers and autism is something to be proud of? Thats just absurd, having social deficits making navigation through society and life much harder is not something to be proud of or to shield from treatments. you can't put a positive spin on just anything. (comment added by User:71.141.107.4 11:12 29 June 2006)

I'm autistic and I would gladly kill anyone who attempted to "cure" me.--Ensrifraff 03:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a journalistic piece, rather than a debate, so it is always likely to be mildly biased. It is also using a very small example of individuals. I am surprised about the title, as one persons celebration of his condition is just one paragraph in the piece - but that is a question for the journalist.LessHeard vanU 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.141.107.4 must be autistic as he thinks he knows how autistics should feel about themselves. And he further seems to think that shame and not pride is the appropriate feeling. There's a reason why the vast majority of autistics you find on the internet are anti-cure. And people who want to learn about autism would do well to listen to autistics. They instead prefer to take in the unsubstantiated interpretations of outsiders looking in. Neurodivergent 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I do not see how this adds to the debate. Who decides what is "appropriate"?LessHeard vanU 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Use whatever term you prefer. The question is: Psychologically, is it preferable for an autistic to feel pride or shame? These are the kinds of questions psychology professionals should ask, but suprisingly, they don't. Neurodivergent 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From Mike D. - I don't believe in both sides: pro-cure or anti-cure, because autism is a major part of my personality, but wish to be treated efficiently to react "neurotypically". In fact, autism is 100% UNCURABLE and this seems fatalistic for many people to accept, then I can be wrong and most medical diseases or disorders are probably curable right now or later. I don't think ever in my lifetime or my children's (I don't have any) there's a discovery of a cure or measure to end autistic behavior. This is why we need acceptance of autistic people/persons with autism by society, just like we've learned over 40 or 50 years to become tolerant of homosexuality, multi-culturalism (opposed to cultural uniformity), women outside gender roles, and now older people live more like younger adults. Society is always changing its' mind on ideas of what's normal or morally right, thus the social definition of autism as a "illness" is not P-C to say, but not an educated opinion. Any of you remember 20 or 30 years ago when any autistic child was institutionalized or abandoned at the street? And how come my French-born father told me autistic people were treated harsher in France (not just when he was growing up, but as recently in the 1980s). Everyone in his family, like my mom divorced him when I was 7, now believes he has a degree of ASD (16 out of 24 associated traits) and he learned at a later age on this possiblity while he functioned like a "normal" adult through his life. I don't wanna get personal or discuss family problems, but autism is definitely inherited and ran in families and most cases of autistic children are in these families with a long history of relatives had neurobehavioral/ developmental disorders. My nephew who's age 6 is learning disabled, so is my brother (his dad) and for sure my half-sister exhibits mental illness and learning problems, proof positive of our father passed on genes linked to autism, mental disorders, learning difficulties and the like. I never knew why his parents or family history didn't want to deal or talk of these issues, either had to do with the times (mid 20th century) or the attitudes back in Europe, but I knew my mother's side and American society (late 20th century) encourage parents to really check on children's mental/behavioral condition. I don't wanna sound negative or assume certain people refuse/ignore the issue on family-inherited autism, but we must pay close attention on our children today and wherever you are, examine how the culture on childrearing and social development has on affected children. If everyone decides not to negatively react on autism, maybe the worldwide situation on autism will catch up with the times for the better. + 207.200.116.65 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Autism and sexuality

On this person's talk page it says I've heard many describe slower maturation in Aspies, perhaps not being fully mature until their mid-30s. It would be a logical consequence of this slower maturation if males also were attracted to much younger girls. Is there any truth in this? Or is it just one of Rdos's crackpot theories? Skinnyweed 01:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

DEFINATELY one of Rdos's crackpot theories!

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest slower sexual maturation, in some cases the contrary applies. There is sometimes a problen with parents trying to delay maturation.

The only thing I will say is that, just as aspies are more likely to be able to relate emotionally, successfully to (aka "get it on with") someone from a different culture (because in such a case diversity and difference is a positive expectation in both parties, not a source of alienation), it is probable that a relationship with someone much older or younger would also stand a similar chance of success for similar reasons. --Zeraeph 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah! You should see what some of the crackpots out there are proposing as a "cure" for autistic children -- and some parents are taking it seriously. Their idea is that autistics mature sexually way too early, not late, due to excessive testosterone. Based on Baron-Cohen's (questionable) "extreme male brain" idea, these men are proposing that autistic girls and boys are prone to experience puberty at a very early age (I'm talking three or four) and need injections of Lupron to reverse it and cure the autism. You think I'm kidding, check out some of the stuff that woman's linked to. --Bluejay Young 04:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. I'm an aspie, and I matured sexually neither early nor late. Perhaps some do mature late or early (but not that early), but the same is true of some neurotypical people and needn't be taken as a characteristic of autism. Noneofyourbusiness 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OR? Uncited and illogical - what should it say?

Article: "As a consequence, many "high-functioning" autistic persons, and autistic people with a relatively high IQ, are underdiagnosed"

That has enough things wrong with it that I can't see how one would fix it... Is there anything citeable and possible to replace it with? Midgley 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's something obvious that might nevertheless be OR. Clearly, autism will be missed more often among those with high IQ than among those with low IQ. Neurodivergent 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when it's missed among people with "low IQ", it's usually been missed in favor of a straight-out diagnosis of mental retardation, or deafness, or childhood psychosis. When it's missed among people with "high IQ", it's missed in different ways. I know that I actually have seen scholarly papers on this kind of thing that could be cited, I'd just have to find them. Silentmiaow 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

autistic beautiful ????

I find this here and there.That autistics are on average concidered more beautiful.It suposed to be a consequence of the litel expresivness of the face ,or something like that.Has somebody ,sources on this ,and maybe some sort of beter explanation.--87.65.156.247 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[3] (Unsigned)

It's purely anecdotal though. Neurodivergent 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"The children often shared a haunting, numinous beauty..." Rolling Stone, "The Kids with the Faraway Eyes", 8 March 1979. Couldn't prove it by me. --Bluejay Young 05:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

DSM definition

A recent edit in this section proclaims "These are rules of thumb and may not necessarily apply to all diagnosed autistics." I was originally inclined to strike this comment out as not germaine to the section, which is only concerned with the definition, but hesitated since I am not familiar with the DSM. Is this a particularly US publication, or a western one? Is it an authorative text? Can this distinction be made within the article, and an indication whether the definition is then the legal/medical basis of the diagnosis. I apologise if the distinction(s) is made elsewhere in the article.LessHeard vanU 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Individual autistics vary greatly from one other, so it's important to note that the DMS definition isn't perfect. Noneofyourbusiness 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The DSM is intended to be an authoritative, consensus statement of the medical community about how to diagnose various conditions in mental health. Many underlying conditions produce a variety of symptoms, but not every person with the underlying condition will experience all the symptoms. For mental conditions where the underlying cause is not known, diagnosis requires looking at symptoms and comparing the results with the "rules of thumb" in the DSM. -- Beland 17:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, on the basis of the above the edit I mentioned appears germaine.LessHeard vanU 21:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) i dont think this is fair because not ALL people with autism are/is beautiful

Merge from Autism and blindness

I added the merge tag to this article due to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism and blindness. If you feel there's anything useful on the article in question that can be merged here, please do so and then change that article to a redirect here. Thanks. - Bobet 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is valid to have a seperate article. Much like Deafblindness, people on the ASD with congential blindness have a distinct set of issues not common to either ASD or VI on its own. 82.25.23.38 23:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Having a "distinct" set of issues is not a valid reason to have a whole new article. "Autism and blindness" would fit in perfectly as its own subsection, say after "autistic adults" in the sociology section. You could easily say that being an autistic adult has a distinct set of issues that are not common to either ASD or "being an adult" as well. Treesus 10:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I decided to perform the merge. After looking at Autism spectrum disorders with visual impairments (the main article for Autism and blindness), I saw that it had a lot of non-distinguishing information. In other words, most of it simply described features of autism and didn't discuss about how blind+autism was unique. I stripped that stuff out and created a subsection for it in the main article. Does anyone have some other thoughts on this? -- Tim D 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Liberal vs. Conservatives in Curing autism

This is the guy who keeps one putting references on the anti-cure group with liberalism with those with the pro-cure group with Conservativism. Well I am here to bring out you to some sources that may prove my statement. They'll come as soon as I can find them. The truth is curing autism is just as controversial as gay marriage, abortion, the elimination of poverty, and even evolution.

This is the view that Liberals are anti-cure [4] This is the view that Conservatives are pro-cure [5] -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.200.24 (talk • contribs).

One "liberal" blog doesn't prove that anti-cure is a particularly liberal position.
One possibly "conservative" parents' organization's website doesn't prove that pro-cure is a particularly conservative position.
Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary sets of references, and an absence of references to the contrary. -- ArglebargleIV 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What the guy is doing looks very similar to vandalism to me. He put John Kerry, for example, in the list of autism rights advocates. (I think it was the same guy who did that under a user name Falconleaf). Anecdotally I can tell you that anti-cure advocates can be liberal in their views about civil rights, disability rights, tolerance, scientific skepticism and so on. Curebies, particularly the mercury militia, seem to generally be religious conservatives who are anti-science or scientifically illiterate. An example is John Best Jr., owner of the Hating Autism blog, who says homosexuality is a perversion, calls women "dumb broads" and others "smart for a girl", believes the Illuminati rules the world, and thinks his autistic son would be better off dead because he'll go the heaven. In any case, this is all generalization, and does not qualify for Wikipedia under its rules. Neurodivergent 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are also some curebies who are social liberals and subscribe to New Age thinking. They unfortunately believe that a cure for autism will be found in alternative medicine such as cranial-sacral therapy. While I don't believe for a minute that such things cure autism any more than ABA will, I do know that improvements in physical health or lessening of discomfort (e.g., through discontinuing foods to which I am allergic, or having my back pain relieved through chiropractic) enable me to better process sensory input and organize my thoughts for communication, causing me at least superficially to appear to be "less autistic".

Unfortunately reaction to the alternative-medicine curebies has resulted in recruiting anti-cure, autistic activists into the ranks of so-called skeptics who generally refer to all alternative medicine, even when used responsibly or reasonably, as "quackery". --Bluejay Young 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i would like to know more about Autism.

hello, im a student at shenandoah high and im researching autism for a school project. this year i even helped out at the celebrity golf tournament to rais money for the people that have autism. i was wondering if anyone could e-mail me more information about it and how i can help. my e-mail address is highschool_rockon@yahoo.com Thankyou for your time and effort.

     p.s. please fill out the subject as "autism" so i dont throw it away by mistake

                                   thankyou again :) 

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.166.19.32 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology / Person-first

Is there any other source other than a single state's autism society that shows a preference for "autistic" over "person with autism" or something similar? Like a national organization, perhaps? If not, the statement should probably be removed or adjusted. Tim 04:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Sinclair is perhaps the most well-known autistic self-advocate, and he wrote this essay on the subject: [6]. Autistics.org, likely the autism self-advocacy website with most traffic, also opposes person-first language, as indicated here: [7]. I am aware of no autistic who has said they prefer person-first language. Neurodivergent 14:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then let's get some other/different sources up there. What's linked to now isn't exactly convincing evidence for a representation of the majority of the autism community. Tim 04:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like "people-first language". First of all, it's bad writing: It sounds awkward, especially when used in phrases like "people with autism community" for "autistic community". Second, as the cited essays illustrate, a good percentage of those with conditions meant to be described with people-first language don't like it. It was created by government bureaucrats in the U.S., and doesn't solve whatever problems it was intended to solve. I'm not autistic, so I'm not coming from the "autistic rights" perspective. I'm just a linguistics major and grammar fanatic with an opinion. szyslak (t, c, e) 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting situation. As far as I know, most national organizations of people with disabilities (I know, forgive me) prefer person-first language. There are some exceptions - like the blind, for instance - but I think that many people won't necessarily respect the wishes of the autism community because it is a cognitive disorder (i.e., "they can't properly speak for themselves"). It's a little ironic, but that's gray area for you. Basically, for those who want their disability/handicap/etc. to be transparent, person-first language is where it's at (regardless of how linguistically awkward it gets); for those who want to embrace it as part of their identity and culture, then a good old fashioned label is the right way to go. Tim 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

autistics.org

Ballastexistenz Actually, you could write to her and ask her for references showing that "autistic person" is preferred. For the record I couldn't care less if someone wants to call me a person with arthritis, but calling me a person with autism is like calling me a person with Cherokee. --Bluejay Young 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite for bullying and poverty

The cite given by Falconleaf (btw, a much shorter URL would have been http://www.unlockingautism.org/testimonies/index.asp?action=14 ) for bullying and poverty doesn't mention bullying, and barely mentions poverty, so I removed it. Probably the sentence shold be changed as well. -- ArglebargleIV 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The citation (#15) "for autism can be a poverty trap for adult and young autistics" does not provide evidence of poverty among people with autism. It is a quote asking if autism should be covered by Canadian health insurance. Since I do not have better information, I did not edit the article. Perhaps someone else may have this information. Jmr3 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory wording

When given the chance to converse with other autistics, they comfortably do so in "parallel monologue"—taking turns expressing views and information.

I thought parallel meant the exact opposite of taking turns. Could someone clarify this sentence? —Keenan Pepper 05:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this means they are "taking turns" but not responding to each other's conversation, so one person is talking about one thing, the other a different thing, but they are still taking turns and listening in between.

As an aside, most of that section seems completely plagiarised from http://www.crystalinks.com/autism.html. Sparkleyone 06:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you sure we got it from them and not the other way around? Their "Terminology" section starts: Look up autism, autistic in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. —Keenan Pepper 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

About that new study about older fathers

I think it is important to note in the references to that study that while it was a large population, multi-center study, the ethnic group of the participants in study was Israeli Jews. Not that it enhances or detracts the group's findings, but it cannot be considered definitive until a similar study is done across other ethnic groups. I'm not sure referencing the study in the first few paragraphs of the article is a good idea, either. -Hahnsoo

Also, the study was based on young adults who were recently evaluated for induction into the Israeli army - that's why it addresses births that took place in the 1980s. I don't know whether Israel has seen the same growth in autism diagnoses that has occurred in the U.S., but consider this scenario: one thousand 20-something fathers would have one autistic child while one thousand 40-something fathers would have six autistic children, in the 1980s. But in the present, two thousand randomly chosen fathers would have twelve autistic children. Are 40-something fathers still producing six times the autistic children than the 20-somethings, or is there another factor?

Treatment Options

Can we have an intelligent discussion about what statment you did not like and why instead of scrapping the entire entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aspie7 (talk • contribs).

The revision in question is unsourced and original research. Furthermore, it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. If you're going to add any new information about treatment options, you're going to need to identify/cite the sources that prescribe that treatment, as there are many schools of thought on the subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I am suggesting that a section for personal statements from Autisic people be added, and that it be linked directly from the "Autism" entry. <aspie7> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aspie7 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Notice that anytime you contribute, the message under the edit box states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Other pertinent policies include

• • • Original research
    • Reliable sources. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Still I don't see the need to scrap the entire section without discussing what statements you want referenced. <Aspie7>

The autism rights issue should be highlighted in the article, and I believe it is. The section we keep deleting violates Wikipedia policy and guidelines on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and on general style. Wikipedia is not intended to be a forum to debate or resolve contentious issues, only to frame and describe them. --Leifern 12:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I just have to respond to this quote found just above in this very discussion. "as there are many schools of thought on the subject"

One of the schools of thought is the Autistic person's perpective. They are all unified in exaclty what I said. This is not just another school of thought. It is the perspective of the Autistic person and it must be presented. Aspie7

That's fine if you can find a source that meets the criteria described above. Generally speaking, personal testimony is not considered to be a reliable source. (For this reason, blogs are almost always discounted as reliable sources as well). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As a person with high functioning autism diagnosed at age 4, I can share a few of my own experiences. I believe educational therapies like playing music with teachers involved in the activity, picture cards attached with words to pinpoint what the items are, and behavioral correction methods (i.e. rewards for proper behaviors at school and in society) has worked most of the time for me. 20 years ago, My mother co-founded the Riverside/San Bernardino area (Cal. US) chapter, originally 6 to 20 members, in at time when no reliable services available to autistic children. Today, the chapter is divided into six local/regional chapters with each nearly 100 members. I never allowed my autism to overwhelm me, such as I've graduated high school despite the fact my psychiatric doctor told my parents I won't be able to do that. But it's true autism has put me in a difficult position from the entire world, then I feel this is a big part of me and cannot be cured of autism. I encountered a degree of social isolation at school or work, struggled with behavioral issues in a younger age, and used to self-stimulate...until recent medication for anxiety/ depression might put an end to that. I manage to communicate like "regular" or neurotypical people, manage to hold a part-time job, attend some college courses, have my own apartment through income subsizided housing, able to ride a bicycle and can purchase foods/necessities in a nearby grocery store. I dealt with other minority identities like ethnoracial (white/AmerIndian with a French father), income status (lower-middle class, but managed to attend a mainly "preppie" high school) and generational (it ain't easy to be in generation X/Y when to be young puts me in a hard place). Also to note I wasn't able to have a strong romantic relationship, so I've remained single most of the time, but had a number of love interests and they knew what autism is. I admit to stay within social boundaries in that too much, at other times my lovers had to turn me away. But as a 26-year old man with autism and other behavioral disorders, the strongest identity I hold myself in is the autistic community. I truly hope my post on personal experiences with autism can inspire and bring hope for millions of autistic children/adults and for parents today with autistic children, whom grow up in a more kinder/gentler and tolerant world with more advanced educational-behavioral therapies. +Mike D 26 15:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Criminals on the autism spectrum

A recent addition referred to a "groundbreaking" study connecting criminal behavior and the autism spectrum. Since it's a pretty strong and potentially controversial statement, I think that it really needs a citation right off the bat. If it can't be provided, I suggest that it be removed until we have one. Thoughts? --Tim D 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry MikeD, but I'm in favour of reverting pretty much everything added to the article. The criminality one should definitely go (strong statements require strong proof, or something similar). Many of those statements need backup with at least website. Fortunately I don't think they'd be too hard to find. Many of the additions, though they may reflect your experience (I think you said you were diagnosed as autisitc? Could be someone else) don't have any source material, which I think they need. In particular, the statements about Stallone, Gates, Raye and Gore need to be cited, otherwise it's just libel or unuseful speculation, and I think wikipedia could be sued. Do a couple quick google searches, see what turns up, then start adding the content back. WLU 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

From Mike D. - I apologize for my sloppy research on the removed statements, but I wish to kept or announce the resources. The Autism Society of America Advocate magazine, a monthly newsletter on autism research, had several articles on "celebrities suspected of autism/ASD" and the scholarly studied connection between criminality and undiagnosed autism. There are so many cases of suspects who appeared autistic in criminal cases involved in theft, arson, trespassing, sexual assault, and even home burglaries or store robberies, there's a new emphasis on educating law enforcement, prosecutors and court defense on handling individuals under arrest or tried at court who may appear autistic. I sought other reports on a link between rates of poverty among autistic adults and/or families with autistic relatives, and there was one on alcoholism rates among Asperger's syndrome patients are controversial or not yet fully established. I went to AOL Search for a long time to find where the heck the proof is...the results are "criminality and autism": So far, I've got one out of 395 pages [8] and it's hard to find which one to revert for Wikipedia. I selected one link to use as the article's reference on the connection of vaccines, autism and criminal behavior, for now:[9] and here's another [10] on how biographers attempt to identify famous people (scientists, artists and CEOs) to have autism. I hope to clear up the mess and please restore my edits now I got the links I should thought about, other than typing "citation needed" to receive help from others. +

Mike D, unfortunately that reference that you used for the criminality stuff is no good, at least from what I could tell. It's a letter to the editor (not an actual research paper), there is no abstract available, and I could not find it at all in a PsychINFO search. Have anything else? - Tim D 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after a little bit of looking, I found that there doesn't appear to be any good research done on the topic, so conclusions cannot be made. Up until now, there's only been speculation. However, here is a recent article that tries to shed some light on the topic:

Woodbury-Smith, M., Clare, I., Holland, A., and Kearns, A. (2006). High functioning autistic spectrum disorders, offending and other law-breaking: Findings from a community sample. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 17(1), 108-120.

The authors admit that the study is not perfect, but here is a summary of the results, taken from the abstract...

Unexpectedly, both self-report and 'official' data indicated that the rate of lawbreaking, including offending, was very low. Indeed, it was significantly (p < 0.05) lower than that of a stringent non-ASD comparison group (N = 20). Despite similarities, however, there were some striking differences between the patterns of illegal behaviours in the two groups. The participants with a diagnosis of an ASD were significantly (p < 0.01) less likely to report that they had engaged in illicit drug-taking; in contrast, they were significantly more likely (p < 0.05) to report activities which could be categorised as 'criminal damage'. Moreover, they tended to have a greater history of violent behaviours.

- Tim D 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mike D. - Thanks Tim...I don't want to stay up all night, but wasn't able to find a decent article on criminality and autism. Was I too quick on AOL search or I need to look at google, yahoo, lycos, etc. to prove my point? The Aspergers' syndrome article had speculations on Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, might have autism, according to steep research on their personalities and their great contributions to science. Autism and poverty statistics have been removed in the article, because of this rule on edits in wikipedia of "no resource was provided", however I agree on the high percentage of autistic adults are either unemployed, or under-employed, and in some cases, full time employees in occupations do pay minimum wages provided by their vocational developers. The U.S. census.gov data on the socio-economic health of adults with disabilities (finally, one sheet about those with autistic spectrum disorders), may place them like me in the "poorest" or least-paid segment of the U.S. population, in terms of every demographic group known by the census (race, age, gender, marital status, immigration status, education level and geographic location). Their close analysis of each group's pay rates to find who is underpaid and the representation of a minority group in poverty, but only recently accepted the data on autistic adults at the U.S. workforce. The U.S. government wants to assure economic equality among all "minorities", as the Autistic Rights movement demonstrates on the lack of financial stability, isn't only from the inability of achieving independence alone. I suggest that our governments (America and elsewhere) need to be further aware on a possible crises, in what more autistic diagnosed people (they are children under age 18 today) in certain employment will have on the U.S. economy. + 207.200.116.65 02:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Verification of facts

If you find anything in this article that you're not sure is valid, ask me here. My younger brother has autism, and I should be able to help on that. *goes to search the article for inaccuracies* --MaXiMiUS 15:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MaXiMiUS, but just be careful about verifying information based only on your experiences with your brother! For people who don't have access to university databases, a good place to start for fact-checking would be scholar.google.com -- Tim D 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Synesthesia?

I reverted an edit tonight that referred to the occurrence of synesthesia and micropsy in autism. I have no idea about either of these, or the prevalence, etc. - mainly because I haven't seen anything anecdotally or in the academic literature. I reverted it because it was uncited, had messed up formatting, was in the wrong section, and needed a good amount of writing work. I'm skeptical, but if someone has information out there, the topic might be able to sustain in the article (or an offshoot) in some form. -- Tim D 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any. The only place I've read extensive speculations about a connection between autism and synaesthesia was in Paul Collins' Not Even Wrong, which I regard as well-researched but anecdotal. There has been no formal scientific study on this supposed connection, to the best of my knowledge, and nothing published in any peer-reviewed journal. Just because a few autistics report synaesthesia doesn't mean there is a connection. A handful of people who display a certain set of behaviors and/or excel in mathematics, music, or art, and are thus speculated to be autistic, also report synaesthesia, but again that does not mean there really is a connection. I'd say wait to put it in until there is something more formal about it. --Bluejay Young 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gobbledygook

Really! This article is obfuscation not enlightenment. 1st sentence: Of course it's "abnormal" otherwise it wouldn't be a "condition" and would not have an article. The point is "abnormal how?" And it takes a very furrowed brow to make sense of this article. If that is possible. There must be a <tag>...</tag> in WP somewhere for articles of mostly {{incomprehensible jargon}}. I mean, please, just say what autism is, early on in the article, in plain language, before going on about etiology. Paul Beardsell 08:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that first sentence, I think it's a perfect short summary of what autism is. "Abnormal" is the only word that works there, too - the really important words are the ones that follow it. Then the rest of the article provides an operational definition. I do think that there should be some better organization to the article in general, though. How about someone start working on that? -- Tim D 22:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: The quick and easy point to make is this: "Abnormal" can mean "better than normal" but that is not what was meant. But the new opening to the article is a *lot* more accessible. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 06:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the introduction more closely, it really did seem bad. You could definitely tell that it was written over multiple instances by people of different levels of knowledge, organizational skills, and writing styles. The rest of the article needs similar work, but I just don't have the energy or focus for that right now :) -- Tim D 02:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Third Culture Kids

Over on a third culture kids talk page a discussion has arisen that relates to Autism. Somebody made an uncited reference that people who have Autism are also known as Third Culture Kids. Before we deleted this, I wanted to check with you guys to see if this was a known use? If this is something you've heard or can validate, could you respond on Talk:Third Culture Kids ThanksBalloonman 20:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status?

I'm of the beleif that this aricle is no longer up to featured aticle status and have nominated it for a review Feel free to post your comments and opinions here, or improve it to try to get it back to its former glory--Acebrock 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone more than me is curious about this former glory. This is the version of the article where {{featured article}} was added to it. This is a version of the article around the time when the FAC was voted on. /skagedal^... 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This article have become extreme curebee

First, people have inserted *single gene* causes in the intro, just on the basis of a doubled frequence in some (probably minor) study.

Second, people are *persistent* with inserting CAN-links, and affiliated sites all over the article.

Third, there are no indications that autism is multigenetic (very likely because of CANs beliefs of simple "fixes").

Fourth, and no citation for the claims of the efficacy of ABA made in the beginning elmindreda 05:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the [sick] notion on Wikipedia is that "notable" things provided by professionals can be included even if there is no evidence if they are efficient or not. As long as they are published they are notable. --Rdos 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should correct the claims instead, as they seem to lack any mention of the slapping and cattle prods held to be essential in the original findings elmindreda 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To do: Insert link to multigenetic database for autism: http://projects.tcag.ca/autism/ Should be used as reference for backing up the multigenetic nature of autism, and single-gene causes should go. --Rdos 08:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "people with autism"

This term is only favored by curebee NTs, and is almost never used in the autistic community. It therefore needs to go everywhere it is used in the article. --Rdos 08:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not just for the autistic community, though. Keep a NPOV...it doesn't need to go! -- Tim D 14:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, many other minority groups mentioned in Wikipedia have had their wishes for proper forms of address respected. What makes autistics any different? elmindreda 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the text already uses "autistic", so it should be straight-forward to convert the last remaints of "person-first-language" as well. Anybody can do it, and I wouldn't revert. --Rdos 19:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't be too comfortable with that...there are different ways of looking at autism, and as long as it is a neurological disorder, I think that the term "with autism" shouldn't be avoided. Otherwise there's a chance that those who don't know anything about autism might read it differently. -- Tim D 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Autism is not primarily a neurological disorder. Autism is primarily human diversity with some genetic vulnerabilities that sometimes causes mental retardation and other problems. That's why it is pretty offensive to use person-first-language and terms like disorder, deficit and dysfunction. --Rdos 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is, but for those who function highly with it and have the right skills, it may not necessarily be a big handicap (at least in their eyes) - and that's an important distinction. Autism is more than a "human diversity" issue, and if the symptoms lead to no loss of function within the world, then you're really not talking about autism. -- Tim D 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Who doesn't have loss of function? I mean, nobody is a super-human possesing all possible talents. It can still be mostly a diversity-issue, even if some of the autistic functions are less adaptive than the neurotypical functions in today's society. --Rdos 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Significant loss of function, to be exact, where it keeps someone from doing what they want or need to do. Say there's a person who feels a little anxious when he leaves the house - he might just be an "anxious person." If these feelings keep him from ever leaving the house, that's agoraphobia. Most disorders are defined by a critical point on a continuum, and autism is really no different. Someone who doesn't like to talk may just be quiet...someone who doesn't talk and doesn't understand others - to the point where communication is heavily impaired - has something else going on. -- Tim D 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of link sections

I don't find it correct to describe CAN and others as "advocacy". Both the autistic community and CAN could (and do) claim to be involved in "advocacy". My original term probably wasn't too good either, but I used it as a starting point about the differences between the camps. I'd like a better name for it. "Research" is OK. --Rdos 05:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There certainly is a good amount of overlap between the "community" and "advocacy" groups. Perhaps they all can go under an "advocacy" heading and then separated into a couple other subheadings? Something like autistic membership and non-autistic membership? I don't know about groups that may have both, though... -- Tim D 07:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Theory

i dont know but for osme strange reason ive been thinking about this and ive been wondering if autism could maybe in some cases be the expression of intelectual brllience to such an extent to which is obscures all else. thats just the way i think bout it, maybe these so called Low functioning autistivs are actually he most extremely intelegent they just think on an alternate mental level tha other people cannot relate to. naturally with their intelect they couldn't care less if other people understand the way they think, they figure no one else can understand anyway. im not a psycologist but this concept intrigues me.

That's original research. Could a more experienced wikipedian correct me, are we allowed to remove stuff like this from talk pages? WLU 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but the "cabal" might think otherwise. --Rdos 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If this appeared in the article as original research, it'd be removed in a heartbeat. It's good to keep this in the talk page, however, because it gives an opportunity to point out that research done until this point says that "intellectual brilliance" theory is not accurate. -- Tim D 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not correct. No such research have been conducted. This seems to be the major problem here. Much of the needed research is never done because the drug-industry will not sell any pills on it . --Rdos 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia :) There is plenty of research happening out there that is not funded by drug companies...I've been involved in some myself. And the good academic journals out there that publish the stuff are completely independent. -- Tim D 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim, you are a big joker. "the good academic journals out there that publish the stuff are completely independent". I don't think so. Perhaps you can name one of them so I can send them an article? They will not publish controversial research, very likely because it threatens the revenues of the "poltically correct research" they are dependent on for new articles. At least this is my experience after three refusals to send controversial, multi-disciplinary, autism research on peer-review. --Rdos 19:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, just because they don't publish you doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy. What university or organization did you publish from? Is there a registered IRB that you went through? Did you have powerful statistics? And even if all the stars align in the logistics, there's still no guarantee...you just have to be persistant. If you're feeling adventurous, I can even take a look at something that you submitted. I'm pretty good at looking at just about anything objectively... -- Tim D 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you dare, certainly. I can send you the manuscript (in private). It's mostly about Aspie-quiz, and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. I mean, Aspie-quiz is probably one of the largest (if not the largest) database on autistic traits available anywhere. --Rdos 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a daring guy...I'll be happy to take a look. If you're up to it, how about e-mailing it to tdowling at mac.com? -- Tim D 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My problem with aspie-quiz is not the idea of it, but the fact that it comes off as having something of a Forer effect. Questions like "Do you _____ more than most people?" requires a degree of subjective judgement on the user's part. What I think of as "most people" is not going to be what someone else thinks of.(Unless you've changed that -- it's been a while since I took the quiz.) Another problem I have with it is that its very name puts difference between Asperger autism and non-Asperger, or Kanner autism -- a distinction which was artificial to begin with. Some autistic writers have called for an end to this distinction (autism is autism, in other words.) There is also this pop culture myth that Asperger = ability to speak. I realise that aspie-quiz contains a lot of questions and that you've revised it over the years as more is discovered about what autism really is. I think it's a good idea, I just think it needs some more updates and changes. I don't think there's a conspiracy, I think they're saying you need more statistical information. --Bluejay Young 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aspie-quiz doesn't attempt to isolate autism from AS. It shows that many psychiatric disorders are interrelated, not only autism and AS, but also ADHD, Bipolar, Social phobia, just to mention a few. --Rdos 09:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I guess that's where you and me part company because I have a lot of trouble believing that autism is a psychiatric disorder -- in fact, I have a lot of trouble believing that most of the things that are called psychiatric disorders (ADHD, social phobia, etc.) really are, as opposed to ordinary differences or variances in thought and learning style, shyness, etc., which have been pathologized. (For those who might reply "But they've been clearly labeled as such by modern psychiatry" I'll add that the way things are today, if modern psychiatry labels something a pathology, I'm less inclined to believe that it is. (viz. Thomas Szasz, etc.)) Anyway, maybe instead of aspie-quiz when you next revise it you could call it autie-quiz? --Bluejay Young 09:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would need to part company. I'm not advocating that any of these are disorders. IMHO, the quiz could just as well be called "neurodiversity quiz" or even "neanderthal heritage quiz", especially the later since scoring is not in any way related to autism or ASDs. The quiz is entirely scored on the primary axis of factor-analysis of the traits. --Rdos 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to burst the bubble here, but isn't this going way past a discussion of what to include in the Autism page, and perhaps could be moved to user talk pages or e-mail? WLU 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)