Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Expressing Doubts: First Scientific Refutal Of Asperger's

Page 7 of 10 [ 152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Do I have a point?
No 86%  86%  [ 72 ]
Yes 7%  7%  [ 6 ]
Maybe 7%  7%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 84

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

27 Jun 2013, 11:28 am

MoonCanvas wrote:
If "Asperger's" is really a disorder then how come people with this disability have an intelligence superior to that of the normal person?

Because intelligence is not the be all and end all.

Not all people with Asperger's are smart, in fact they aren't even necessarily of average intelligence. You just have to be "not ret*d" (IQ must be over 70) to not be disqualified for an Asperger's diagnosis.
Quote:
As normal(non-smart) people vastly outnumber us, it comes as no surprise that we don't mix socially with them. The reason we're so ostracized from society is due to the Assumed Agreement Fallacy(AAF) which happens to come as a result of intelligent people being vastly outnumbered by non-intelligent people(under AFF, normal people routinely view us as stupid, which is why bullying is common), and isn't the result of our inability to understand social cues. I believe there's actually a thread up that indicates our users think NTs have a tougher time understanding us than we do them, and that we understand social cues among eachother just as well as normal people understand social cues among themselves.

But not all smart people have Asperger's, and not all people with Asperger's are smart. I was certainly not the smartest person in my year at school, and the people who would have qualified for that ahead of me were certainly not autistic. I made social mistakes around "intelligent" people just as often as around "regular" people.

Our users are quite possibly suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is well documented that people who are lacking in social skills are unaware of just how bad their social skills are. In any case, I think you have exaggerated the "findings" of that thread.

I think it is quite common for new users to argue that autism is only seen as a problem because we are in the minority. Personally I disagree with that. There are some things autistic people simply don't do as well as neurotypicals. In a "majority autistic" society, neurotypicals would be more successful than autistic people are in this society.



Charis
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 92

27 Jun 2013, 2:17 pm

What Graham and Walrus said. ^

I do hope I'm not coming off as abrasive in my response(s) here. It's not my intention. I do disagree with the OP's assessment, though I think I now have a clearer understanding of what he means than what I did previously. His most recent explanation helps in my mind to clarify his meaning.

Here's what I'm thinking, though, OP... here's where I'm coming from.

Cause--->tuberculosis--->tuberculosis characteristics.

The cause will result in a specific set of or combination of symptoms or effects. Those with the tuberculosis virus will be characterized by a given set of exhibited symptoms. Those people who exhibit this set of symptoms are said to "have tuberculosis," because theirs has a common cause, as evidenced by a fairly consistent and specific set of symptoms.

Those who "have autism" generally have a rather obvious and fairly consistent set of stuff in common, indicating a common cause. The scientific community may or may not know the cause, so what we would have,, in my opinion, is this:

X ----->autism---->autism characteristics


Historically, even before knowing what happens on a microscopic level with tuberculosis, the condition still had a name, and still had an identifiable set of symptoms. The tuberculosis was still a disease to be reckoned with (yes, I hate that phrase, but oh well). Such may be the case with autism.

Am I even making any sense? I'm not sure sometimes...


_________________
Professionally diagnosed
Your Aspie score: 182 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 32 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

27 Jun 2013, 3:29 pm

The religous argument is just stupid (and untrue). The religous attitudes of Aspies are just different on average. While NTs typically practise organised religion, Aspies are higher on superstitous beliefs and "private religion". Therefore the original claim is simply false.

It is also untrue that ASD (or AS if you like) is just personality-traits. That would extend the typical definition of personality-traits to an unacceptable extent. It would be true to claim that most (but not all) of ASD is human diversity though.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

27 Jun 2013, 4:47 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
MoonCanvas wrote:
If "Asperger's" is really a disorder then how come people with this disability have an intelligence superior to that of the normal person?

Because intelligence is not the be all and end all.

Not all people with Asperger's are smart, in fact they aren't even necessarily of average intelligence. You just have to be "not ret*d" (IQ must be over 70) to not be disqualified for an Asperger's diagnosis.


Also, having a high IQ doesn't mean that one is not really autistic, or that one is not really impaired. My IQ was apparently scored at genius level, and yet I have significant problems in every area of life, social impairment in every area of life, and moderate sensory sensitivities that lead to numerous daily problems.

Quote:
Quote:
As normal(non-smart) people vastly outnumber us, it comes as no surprise that we don't mix socially with them. The reason we're so ostracized from society is due to the Assumed Agreement Fallacy(AAF) which happens to come as a result of intelligent people being vastly outnumbered by non-intelligent people(under AFF, normal people routinely view us as stupid, which is why bullying is common), and isn't the result of our inability to understand social cues. I believe there's actually a thread up that indicates our users think NTs have a tougher time understanding us than we do them, and that we understand social cues among eachother just as well as normal people understand social cues among themselves.

But not all smart people have Asperger's, and not all people with Asperger's are smart. I was certainly not the smartest person in my year at school, and the people who would have qualified for that ahead of me were certainly not autistic. I made social mistakes around "intelligent" people just as often as around "regular" people.

Our users are quite possibly suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is well documented that people who are lacking in social skills are unaware of just how bad their social skills are. In any case, I think you have exaggerated the "findings" of that thread.

I think it is quite common for new users to argue that autism is only seen as a problem because we are in the minority. Personally I disagree with that. There are some things autistic people simply don't do as well as neurotypicals. In a "majority autistic" society, neurotypicals would be more successful than autistic people are in this society.


Indeed.

Also, I really do not understand many social cues. I misunderstand intentions fairly regularly, and I have a difficult time reading body language or facial expressions. For a long time I didn't think I had a problem with this, but what I had was a set of rules I had developed over time for interacting with people. These were essentially scripts, not reading anyone.

What MoonCanvas is saying sounds nothing like what I experience.



IdleHands
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 177

27 Jun 2013, 5:44 pm

Person A: "Oh no, I'm in the dark and I'm afraid."
Person B: "Just tell yourself there is nothing to be afraid of! "
Person A: "There's nothing to be afraid of. Ok I feel better. "

The OP: "Why do I have to be ASD?"
Inner self of OP: "Just tell yourself there is no Aspergers."
The OP: "First scientific refutal of Aspergers. Ok I feel better."



Last edited by IdleHands on 27 Jun 2013, 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

27 Jun 2013, 7:35 pm

MoonCanvas wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Great! We can abandon nearly seven decades of accumulated research because a random guy on the internet popped in to make a false equivalence argument about autism and being gay.

Yes, a random guy on the internet popped up to assert that personality traits shouldn't quality as mental disorders. You have failed on a massive scale to answer any of the questions I've presented and instead jab an insult at me. In other words you have nothing insightful to say.


Well see, that's where you've bum-jabbed yourself, because any real research on the subject matter would tell you that it's not a "mental" anything, it's neurological, meaning that the brain is wired differently and that is why the symptoms occur. People don't choose to be this way, they're born with it.

I can think of plenty of things that aren't explained by science that we know is real, for example, certain forms of cancer. We don't know what causes some of them, but we know it's real becuase people die from it all the time.

My advice to you, is to actually study the topic before trying to disprove it, otherwise you'll just make yourself look like a fool with no real agenda other than to argue with people who obviously know more about the topic than you do. And based on some fo the responses that I've read on this topic, you're better off doing that sooner rather than later.

Good day.


_________________
Writer. Author.


Charis
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 92

27 Jun 2013, 7:37 pm

Jaden wrote:
MoonCanvas wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Great! We can abandon nearly seven decades of accumulated research because a random guy on the internet popped in to make a false equivalence argument about autism and being gay.

Yes, a random guy on the internet popped up to assert that personality traits shouldn't quality as mental disorders. You have failed on a massive scale to answer any of the questions I've presented and instead jab an insult at me. In other words you have nothing insightful to say.


Well see, that's where you've bum-jabbed yourself, because any real research on the subject matter would tell you that it's not a "mental" anything, it's neurological, meaning that the brain is wired differently and that is why the symptoms occur. People don't choose to be this way, they're born with it.

I can think of plenty of things that aren't explained by science that we know is real, for example, certain forms of cancer. We don't know what causes some of them, but we know it's real becuase people die from it all the time.

My advice to you, is to actually study the topic before trying to disprove it, otherwise you'll just make yourself look like a fool with no real agenda other than to argue with people who obviously know more about the topic than you do. And based on some fo the responses that I've read on this topic, you're better off doing that sooner rather than later.

Good day.


LOL! Love it! ;) (Yeah, what that guy said) ^


_________________
Professionally diagnosed
Your Aspie score: 182 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 32 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 Jun 2013, 8:28 pm

MoonCanvas wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Now, if you actually have some kind of suggestion that will assist in any particular person's treatment or in developing coping mechanisms or is helpful in some particular way that is not possible if people accept that they've been diagnosed with autism instead of focusing on details no one currently actually has, then I'd love to hear it. What beneficial purpose does saying "autism doesn't exist" on a message board serve? What humanitarian aims are met? What further understanding do you bring beyond the assertion that there is no such thing as autism?

Also, while autism and ADHD are not (contrary to your claims) a matter of identifying personality traits, there are disorders that are based in dysfunctional personality traits. They're called personality disorders. So, I wouldn't try to argue that something being a personality trait means it can't be a disorder.

If "Asperger's" is really a disorder then how come people with this disability have an intelligence superior to that of the normal person? As normal(non-smart) people vastly outnumber us, it comes as no surprise that we don't mix socially with them. The reason we're so ostracized from society is due to the Assumed Agreement Fallacy(AAF) which happens to come as a result of intelligent people being vastly outnumbered by non-intelligent people(under AFF, normal people routinely view us as stupid, which is why bullying is common), and isn't the result of our inability to understand social cues. I believe there's actually a thread up that indicates our users think NTs have a tougher time understanding us than we do them, and that we understand social cues among eachother just as well as normal people understand social cues among themselves.

Here's the fallacy below if anyone is interested.
Assumed Agreement Fallacy (Wikipedia)
Assumed Agreement Fallacy (Other)


Actually I think you come up with some interesting ideas and encourage you to read a little more on autism before hastily drawing conclusions based on your personal experiences. I agree with you that after 60 years of research on autism that is surprisingly little consensus on strategies to actually help people on the spectrum. The reality is that speech therapists, OTs, doctors, paediatricians, psychologists, psychiatrists, physiotherapists and counsellors (many with Masters, PhDs and/or MBBS) have developed a thriving business making money from the misery of desperate parents.

The only people who seem to be providing some assistance are special education teachers, school aides and ABA therapists who (working on low salaries) do make some difference to the lives of kids on the spectrum.



MoonCanvas
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 83

28 Jun 2013, 12:23 am

Jaden wrote:
MoonCanvas wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Great! We can abandon nearly seven decades of accumulated research because a random guy on the internet popped in to make a false equivalence argument about autism and being gay.

Yes, a random guy on the internet popped up to assert that personality traits shouldn't quality as mental disorders. You have failed on a massive scale to answer any of the questions I've presented and instead jab an insult at me. In other words you have nothing insightful to say.


Well see, that's where you've bum-jabbed yourself, because any real research on the subject matter would tell you that it's not a "mental" anything, it's neurological, meaning that the brain is wired differently and that is why the symptoms occur. People don't choose to be this way, they're born with it.

I can think of plenty of things that aren't explained by science that we know is real, for example, certain forms of cancer. We don't know what causes some of them, but we know it's real becuase people die from it all the time.

My advice to you, is to actually study the topic before trying to disprove it, otherwise you'll just make yourself look like a fool with no real agenda other than to argue with people who obviously know more about the topic than you do. And based on some fo the responses that I've read on this topic, you're better off doing that sooner rather than later.

Good day.

I already reiterated that I don't take the "they just pretend" stance, so either you aren't reading all my posts or you're misinformed, I think it's the former.

You and other's analogy fails because you insinuate I have no reason to think that cancer/strokes ever happen if I follow the logic that autism has no mechanism, but clearly invisible air can be demonstrated(so can cancer/stroke). Autism is different; how am I supposed to know there's a driving force that causes us to be the way we are and how do we know the driving force isn't just random factors that are statistically bound to occur? Seems to be a simple offset of intelligence and sub-par social skills.

Charis wrote:
What Graham and Walrus said. ^

I do hope I'm not coming off as abrasive in my response(s) here. It's not my intention. I do disagree with the OP's assessment, though I think I now have a clearer understanding of what he means than what I did previously. His most recent explanation helps in my mind to clarify his meaning.

Here's what I'm thinking, though, OP... here's where I'm coming from.

Cause--->tuberculosis--->tuberculosis characteristics.

The cause will result in a specific set of or combination of symptoms or effects. Those with the tuberculosis virus will be characterized by a given set of exhibited symptoms. Those people who exhibit this set of symptoms are said to "have tuberculosis," because theirs has a common cause, as evidenced by a fairly consistent and specific set of symptoms.

Those who "have autism" generally have a rather obvious and fairly consistent set of stuff in common, indicating a common cause. The scientific community may or may not know the cause, so what we would have,, in my opinion, is this:

X ----->autism---->autism characteristics


Historically, even before knowing what happens on a microscopic level with tuberculosis, the condition still had a name, and still had an identifiable set of symptoms. The tuberculosis was still a disease to be reckoned with (yes, I hate that phrase, but oh well). Such may be the case with autism.

Am I even making any sense? I'm not sure sometimes...

Yes, you've made tremendous sense. You have explained my stance perfectly. For anybody else interested who still doesn't know where I'm coming from, my stance is shown below:

The possible causes of autism don't result in a specific set of or combination of symptoms or effects, there is no common cause, autism has no true mechanism. The concept of autism serves no scientific purpose. As a result, no cause will ever be determined.



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

28 Jun 2013, 12:40 am

MoonCanvas wrote:
You and other's analogy fails because you insinuate I have no reason to think that cancer/strokes ever happen if I follow the logic that autism has no mechanism, but clearly invisible air can be demonstrated(so can cancer/stroke). Autism is different; how am I supposed to know there's a driving force that causes us to be the way we are and how do we know the driving force isn't just random factors that are statistically bound to occur? Seems to be a simple offset of intelligence and sub-par social skills.


I never "insinuated" anything of the sort. I gave an example of why your logic is false in this matter.

If you honestly think that thousands and thousands of cases of autism are strictly random occurances that scientists have yet to catch onto then you're seriously unhinged. For real. Scientists aren't so stupid that they can't see something as being random (for one), two, nothing truly random to any great degree, especially on the scale you're talking about, could ever occur without there being a common cause. If there were only a few cases (such as 100) then, sure that may be a possibility, but since that's not the case, you need to realize that something is causing it to happen. Every scientist will tell you the same thing. When a supposed random occurrance has commonality with other supposed random occurrances, science will always, and should always, lean to the reason of "cause".

But hey, if you want to delve into the deep of unhinged thinking, be my guest, meanwhile the rest of us will stick to what is known as reality and will be giving clear reasons why you're wrong. Accept it or don't, it doesn't change the truth.


_________________
Writer. Author.


MoonCanvas
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 83

28 Jun 2013, 1:26 am

Jaden wrote:
MoonCanvas wrote:
You and other's analogy fails because you insinuate I have no reason to think that cancer/strokes ever happen if I follow the logic that autism has no mechanism, but clearly invisible air can be demonstrated(so can cancer/stroke). Autism is different; how am I supposed to know there's a driving force that causes us to be the way we are and how do we know the driving force isn't just random factors that are statistically bound to occur? Seems to be a simple offset of intelligence and sub-par social skills.


I never "insinuated" anything of the sort. I gave an example of why your logic is false in this matter.

If you honestly think that thousands and thousands of cases of autism are strictly random occurances that scientists have yet to catch onto then you're seriously unhinged. For real. Scientists aren't so stupid that they can't see something as being random (for one), two, nothing truly random to any great degree, especially on the scale you're talking about, could ever occur without there being a common cause. If there were only a few cases (such as 100) then, sure that may be a possibility, but since that's not the case, you need to realize that something is causing it to happen. Every scientist will tell you the same thing. When a supposed random occurrance has commonality with other supposed random occurrances, science will always, and should always, lean to the reason of "cause".

But hey, if you want to delve into the deep of unhinged thinking, be my guest, meanwhile the rest of us will stick to what is known as reality and will be giving clear reasons why you're wrong. Accept it or don't, it doesn't change the truth.

There's no way to prove that this is all just a common cause. For example, I "suffer" from post-concussion symptoms that cause me irritability and some of the traits on the autism criteria which got me diagnosed, but our autism traits obviously aren't all caused by concussions.

I find it believable that random occurrences explain a majority of us; in fact I'll invent my very own syndrome, shown below:
Disorder: MoonCanvas Syndrome
Symptoms: Indecisive about easy choices, anger when in repetitive situations, excessive apathy.
Diagnosis Rate: 1> in 1000
MoonCanvas Syndrome would have thousands and thousands of occurences too, but it evidently isn't a real disorder.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

28 Jun 2013, 1:38 am

That doesn't demonstrate anything, and bears no resemblance to how conditions such as autism and ADHD have been identified.

You're picking a few random traits and claiming they comprise a syndrome. You have no case histories, no patients, no clinical observations. You have nothing but a poorly supported assumption. There's no way this example of yours is applicable to how autism was identified, nor how Asperger's Syndrome was later described.

This thread doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience. You're not right. You're not even wrong.



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

28 Jun 2013, 2:03 am

Verdandi wrote:
That doesn't demonstrate anything, and bears no resemblance to how conditions such as autism and ADHD have been identified.

You're picking a few random traits and claiming they comprise a syndrome. You have no case histories, no patients, no clinical observations. You have nothing but a poorly supported assumption. There's no way this example of yours is applicable to how autism was identified, nor how Asperger's Syndrome was later described.

This thread doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience. You're not right. You're not even wrong.


Agreed, there have been facts that are established in science that are currently used by professionals to diagnose Autistic Spectrum Disorders who all agree that there must be a cause somewhere, not simply random occurrance. There is no doubt that brain damage can indeed cause autism, this is also proven in science, however that doesn't mean anything in terms of the rest of those who are diagnosed and in no way establishes anything more than the neurological aspect of autism/AS. There can be more than one cause, but most certainly not random occurrance.

I also agree that the example given proves absolutely nothing beyond a talent for pulling together a couple symptoms and making up a statistic to prove an invalid point. It holds no basis in science and has absolutely no substance in this matter.


_________________
Writer. Author.


Rascal77s
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

28 Jun 2013, 2:14 am

MoonCanvas wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Great! We can abandon nearly seven decades of accumulated research because a random guy on the internet popped in to make a false equivalence argument about autism and being gay.

Yes, a random guy on the internet popped up to assert that personality traits shouldn't quality as mental disorders. You have failed on a massive scale to answer any of the questions I've presented and instead jab an insult at me. In other words you have nothing insightful to say.


Why should she respond in any other way? Your comment about autism being a set of personality traits nicely highlights how ignorant you are. Why should she waste insight on a fool who is too full of himself to benefit from it?



MoonCanvas
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 83

28 Jun 2013, 2:14 am

Jaden wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
That doesn't demonstrate anything, and bears no resemblance to how conditions such as autism and ADHD have been identified.

You're picking a few random traits and claiming they comprise a syndrome. You have no case histories, no patients, no clinical observations. You have nothing but a poorly supported assumption. There's no way this example of yours is applicable to how autism was identified, nor how Asperger's Syndrome was later described.

This thread doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience. You're not right. You're not even wrong.


Agreed, there have been facts that are established in science that are currently used by professionals to diagnose Autistic Spectrum Disorders who all agree that there must be a cause somewhere, not simply random occurrance. There is no doubt that brain damage can indeed cause autism, this is also proven in science, however that doesn't mean anything in terms of the rest of those who are diagnosed and in no way establishes anything more than the neurological aspect of autism/AS. There can be more than one cause, but most certainly not random occurrance.

I also agree that the example given proves absolutely nothing beyond a talent for pulling together a couple symptoms and making up a statistic to prove an invalid point. It holds no basis in science and has absolutely no substance in this matter.

That's called an argument from authority:

Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.

So you basically said that: Most of what scientists have to say about science is correct. Scientists say autism is not a random occurrence. Therefore autism is not a random occurence. Your response is a logical fallacy.



MoonCanvas
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 83

28 Jun 2013, 3:41 am

Jaden wrote:
There is no doubt that brain damage can indeed cause autism, this is also proven in science,

Proof, please. Preferably a peer reviewed scientific finding.



Last edited by MoonCanvas on 28 Jun 2013, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.