On the relationship between autism and evolution

Post Reply New Topic

It seems that the majority of autistics have a rather different experience of self, and many superficially appear to be self-absorbed, but I suspect that the primary difference in experience of self in autistics is significantly reduced capacity for processing self and other simultaneously, rather than simple "self-absorption". "No self/all other" and "no self/no other" modes of thinking are probably just as common in autistics as (if not more common than) "all self/no other".

Because none of them exist in reality. There are no hard and fast boundaries between neuropsychological diagnoses, because those diagnoses are merely trends. They are heterogeneous and overlapping.

Take intellectual disability. There are many, many brain abnormalities that can result in ID. So why bother diagnosing people with ID? Simple--because the diagnosis has utility. It says something important about the people in question. The point of diagnosing something with ID is not to pinpoint exactly where and how their brain is abnormal--it's to, for example, give parents an idea of what they can expect for their child's future.

Same thing for autism. There are many, many brain abnormalities that can result in autism. So why bother diagnosing people with autism? Again, because the diagnosis has utility. It says something important about the people in question. The point of diagnosing something with autism is not to pinpoint exactly where and how their brain is abnormal--it's to, for example, give parents an idea of what they can expect for their child's future.



The "hard science" and "fuzzy diagnostic categories" will never be reconciled--they're not supposed to. Autism is supposed to describe a variety of brain abnormality.

You are missing the "point" of autism completely. Trust me.

We disagree on a fundamental level. Trust me.

The lack of quantifiable criteria for psychiatric diagnoses is not by design. It is by default. If the psychiatric community declines to implement quantitative measures and processes, then it will eventually be supplanted by a system that does.

What, exactly, is our disagreement? I don't see a disagreement--I see misunderstanding.

Please note that my description of autism as a heterogeneous "label" that can be the result of a variety of brain abnormality is, for all intents and purposes, universally supported by the communities of science and medicine. The only people who are out trying to "pin down" a homogeneous basis for autism are people who either don't understand what autism is, or people who are simply trying to identify one "brain state" or neurological "trend" among the many that can result in autistic behavior.

If I may, two more pertinent google searches:

"autism is a heterogeneous"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... =&aql=&oq=

"autism is a homogeneous"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22autis ... b&filter=0

Please note that there are 42,000 results for the former search, and fewer than ten for the latter. Please note that the few results that the latter search did produce are almost all instances of people denying the erroneous assumption that autism is a homogeneous condition.

Now, just to cover my own ass here--my point is not anything so puerile as "more results = truth". My point is, read the writing on the freakin wall. Read some of the 42,000 results returned by the first search. Educate yourself. Because, as of now, right now, in regard to the issue at hand, you are stuck in the dark ages.



You really don't get it. Not trying to be a jerk here, just being honest. The value of any diagnosis relates to its utility. Until you can understand how "general", heterogeneous diagnoses can have utility, you will not understand autism.

What, exactly, is our disagreement? I don't see a disagreement--I see misunderstanding.

/quote]

I see the fuzziness of current diagnosis as a problem. You don't. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just think it's wrong. A great deal of suffering happens because the fuzziness of psychiatric diagnoses leads to poor choices for treatment. The way behavioral traits are defined allow for so much subjectivity it's no wonder so many are misdiagnosed. I don't understand how you can't see the problem with this.

A list of behavioral traits that defines a disorder is subject to change and the interpretation bias of the practitioner. A specific brain anomaly can't be second guessed. It exists or it does not. These brain lesions will become the foundation for diagnosis, not behavioral categorizations based on the whims of of the current psychiatric status quo.

Case in point. How long has it been since homosexuality was removed from the DSM? (1973 in case you're interested) What changed? Certainly not science. Do you really trust the definition of autism to the same process that not so long ago considered homosexuality as a disorder needing treatment?

Again, you just don't seem to get it. You don't get the "point" of autism as a diagnosis.

Go back to my example of intellectual disability. I quote:

Do you honestly not understand what I'm saying?

If you are talking to me then it is you that doesn't get it. You are fixated on a particular concept of autism, as if that is the penultimate definition. I am saying that the very definition of autism that you adhere to is flawed. You can argue all you want from a flawed position, and your result will be equally flawed.

The story linked in this thread is interesting:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt162982.html

From the story:

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/ ... mal-brains

The study is here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... E-20110526

I read something yesterday that made me think of this thread. I'll share it after I respond to a post from several pages back.

Note that natural selection only describes the change--from large to small, in the case of the giraffes. You will note that, despite the change in each type, there is a great deal of stasis from example to example. The clams look almost identical. Same goes for the lizards and giraffes. In each case, there is a general uniformity of form (I know, that sounds awful) across the changes depicted. The dynamic I'm describing relates to that stasis, and, while it isn't the same as natural selection, it's something of a logical extension of it. Natural selection does reward a predilection toward normality--in a roundabout way by means of the dynamic I've described.

Anyway, I was reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay, Betting On Chance--And No Fair Peeking and was struck by this passage:



What a brilliant way of putting it.