1 in 100 people in USA are Autistic! HAHAHA

Post Reply New Topic

Your math is interesting to say the least.

Well, the way i see it, if 1/10000 - 1/1000 having a condition, its an epidemic . . . if 1/100 and more have it, it could be evolution >.>

According to Simon Baron-Cohen:
AS and HFA: IQ above 85.
MFA: IQ 71-84.
LFA: IQ 70 or below.


BTW, Kim Peek is not autistic, he is a savant who probably has FG syndrome.

How the f... you know what, I'm not gonna ask and just agree with you instead and see how many people point out the obvious.

Brilliant post by Inventor, as is often the case. The rise in Autism figures and the Asperger's epidemic are symptoms of what's going on in the world - and a serious portion of it is the new emphasis, almost dictatorial, on "connections" as the new money. Brilliant comment, that the same chaos causes NTs to socialize more and Aspies to socialize less. Not every human is born a winner at facebooking, twittering and myspacing all day. The communications madness and the imposition of homogeneity in thought, behavior and appearance at school and the job market will, if it doesn't recede, cause Autism figures to rise to the point that the facebookers (the only ones called NTs) will be reduced to a small elite with schooling, a job and a bit of a social life.

Stepping into the chaos topic

Aspies get aspier! This is what is happening to me right now, with 2 very socially adept teens in the house.

Sue, absolutely! I was able to make a living for 30 years, but nowadays it's become impossible. The gap between my social abilities and those of the new generations of "connections" has become wider and wider. 30 years ago I wasn't even considered weird at work.

I haven't forgotten about sending you photos. They're in the broken computer, and it's still at the lab (this week is the Feast of Tabernacles so most services don't work all week).

Wat

Not surprising to find 1 in 100 are on the spectrum. I don't see why in the US this is taken as shocking. In the UK in 2003, the number was already said to be 1 in 86.

I think I'm slooooowly seeing the same trend where I live (and work). The sample rate I have isn't sufficient to call this definitive. We'll see what happens in the next few years.

Dilbert, it's official and declared. You can see hard facts we wrote in the "Were we the artisans of old?" thread a couple months ago.

(again) Wat. (again)

30 years ago I'd probably have to deal with more complicated BS 'manners' that people were worse on enforcing on people. Also see the lack of the internet to use data/talk to people with. Granted I probably could've survived. But It'd be worse for me then probably. No texting people & all.

See older people who b***h that we don't go through the needless social protocols that have no purpose and slow you down/that many of us shun talking with people IRL and all the complicated things that entails.

Then again 30 years ago would've been 1979...so I could've gotten better into computers back in the day when it started and had better skills. Also see things like changing Star Wars as ep 4 came out in 1977. Maybe I can re-do the new trilogy not to suck so bad and have Lucas follow the EU stories on the Clone Wars XD

Also affirmative action then being stronger than now when some people claim it's a 'free ticker' or some garbage.

So it varies on things. some things migh tbe easy for you depending on you, and some hings would be harder for you varying on things.

too many factors :O

note the semicolon.

This is true. I'm diagnosed with PDD-NOS and I can relate to people with OCD slightly more that someone with more severe autism. The only thing they can't relate to is the senory overload, stimming, and social awkwardness.

It is not a meaningless word though. There is a modern clinical meaning, and roughly translated it refers to a turning in toward self. Neither the modern clinical meaning (a clustering of impairments in three particular domains of functioning), nor the earlier usage for a “turning inward toward self” merely means “different in thought and perception”. That would be ridiculous since 100% of people are different.

Actually the rate of difference is more like 1 out of every 1 people, or 100 of every 100 people if you prefer. This would still be the case even if 100 people out of every 100 people had an ASD.

The evidence from research into the adult population indicates that ASDs are probably not rising in prevalebce but actually rather stable between generations, and this is very unlikely if ASDs have a recent or intensifying environmental cause.

Which isn't how it has been traditionally described. Moderate severity autism was/is defined as mild mental retardation, which is an IQ of 50 to 70, and those lower were/are of the most severe kind (traditionally, anything under 70 is LFA).

Not Kim Peek, the fictional character Rain Man, he's based on several individuals with autism, and he's an accurate depiction of someone with HFA.