Concerned about consequences of current bad research

Post Reply New Topic

I don't doubt that there are neurologically atypical animals who are marginalized , thrown completely out of the pack, even attacked by the pack for being different. Animals, humans included, nearly always know. Like us, not like us.

Perhaps, early engineering aptitudes were evolutionarily desirable, because survival rates went up with weaponry that not only allowed for better hunting, but also defenses against the aggressively cliqueish.

I'm sure the monkeys failed the verbal test.

What if Autism is just an evolutionary step?
What if we are the "new normal."
What if, before we are born, we choose to be Autistic, in order to learn something in this incarnation?

There are many other ways to look at Autism…

Maybe.
Or, maybe those monkeys did better than anyone expected on the verbal IQ test.

Perhaps, autism has it's own separate evolutionary line, which I tend to believe.
Schizophrenia is said to hold constant at 1% of the population. I suspect, because they include what psychiatry calls "healthy schizotypy", which is to say, the creative writers, and artists.

Think of the solitary engineer a million years ago.
Alone on the African veldt, crossbow in hand, the breeze lightly ruffling his leopard miniskirt.
The original Marlboro man..... Albeit, rather more likely to trip over a rock,...or a leaf,.....or a shadow.
He visits various small communities, selling his design talents, and mechanical skills. But always moves on to the next, before social complications arise.
He takes orders. Does custom work. Becomes rich. Inevitable the NT demands become too much, and he disappears for awhile.
The women find him exotic and irrestible.
Babies are born with an intuitive grasp of pattern, and anamolies.
No one can stop us from being sexy.

The leopard miniskirt does it for me.

I often wonder in chats whether people are respecting the process of science fairly. People are very quick to judge the quality of research, not from the published papers, rather heresay several degrees of whispers later.

Sometimes people even judge the researchers from whats being said in the press (there are no science staff in media so they take press releases from research offices and turn them into innumerate/illiterate, polarised gobbledegook void of the actual science.)

Researchers saying 'something might be interesting therefore more research should be done', is very different to presenting facts (did you say it was an Autism mag that has presented it to parents as fact?)
The peer review process is in place. Although not perfect, they are fairly likely to be having doubt filled conversations and yet thats not represented instead they are often ridiculed, because people tend to forget the qualifications. Thats the scientific process in action, its not about presenting facts.

Its like the Italian neutrino physicists, they would never say "fact E=mc2 isn't true anymore". Yet every newspaper presented that, because their humanities editors had no understanding of process, peer review, reproducibility, context.

They didn't say it was interesting, and therefore ought to be looked into.

The research said the fetus started neurotypical, and was damaged by the mother's body into becoming autistic,
and the mag. simply reprinted the released article.

You're right that it is important to be fair minded.

You might want take a second, before assuming that I was being unfair.

Get this!
I was scrolling thru the list of grant awards on the Autism Speaks website, and came across the description of this study, and the money the lead researcher was given in 2008 to do the work.
Environmental Science Award 2008
3 year grant : 2008-2011

Etiology of Autism Risk Involving MET gene and the Environment.
$659,100.00

Your autism dollars at work.