Page 1 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Jamesy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,302
Location: Near London United Kingdom

17 Feb 2011, 9:56 pm

I know this has probably been asked a million times on wrong planet but is asperger disorder/sydrome a very rare condition? Or do more people have it then we think and it could even be overlooked in some individuals who have it very 'mild'?



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

17 Feb 2011, 10:03 pm

Jamesy wrote:
I know this has probably been asked a million times on wrong planet but is asperger disorder/sydrome a very rare condition? Or do more people have it then we think and it could even be overlooked in some individuals who have it very 'mild'?


What do you consider rare.

The most generous estimate of autism frequency is about 1 in 100. So if you are walking down the street, every 100th person is statistically on the spectrum. This is sloppy statistics, but it gives you an idea of the rarity,

If 1 in 100 people are on the spectrum, then there are more than 60 million people in the world that are autistic to a degree sufficient enough to be diagnosed. So it's not all that rare.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


tangomike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

17 Feb 2011, 10:06 pm

I suspect that there are many people with aspergers who just dont know it because they either had it overlooked as a child because it was mild or because they simply have strong personalities and are seen as quirky rather than aspie. I'm undiagnosed, I suspect that I was never diagnosed as a kid because my symptoms were mild-I have aspie like traits like obsessive interests, need for structure to my day, not liking certain textures and being preoccupied with them, lack or facial expression, messy handwriting and speak in a concise way. I do not stim other than moving my legs up and down (you know how ppl who are nervous do) nor do I look "autistic" as some put it which is why as a child i was seen as normal. im not even sure if I have it but a lot of clues point towards it being mild if I do.

There were some places where I saw statistics and it said 1 out of 300 people has aspergers. Some get diagnosed, others dont simply because of a lack of awareness of what it is on their part and their peers



Jamesy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,302
Location: Near London United Kingdom

17 Feb 2011, 10:10 pm

I wasn't aware i had aspergers growing up untill i was 17. I mean i knew i was 'different' through making some discoveries things from my friends about my personality and behaviour. I can't remember even how i discovered i had it in the first place?????????
I always thought i just had a learning disability not a 'social' disability etc............. the fact as well i needed learning suppourt assistants in school made me realise there was something different compared to other kids my age.

What do you mean by "look autistic"?????



tangomike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

17 Feb 2011, 10:18 pm

by looking autistic I mean that Aspergers Stare some people have where their face is blank, like a poker face. or there seems to be something lacking in the eyes in terms of expression. Someone else can better describe it for you, im bad at describing things



anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

18 Feb 2011, 1:21 am

It's not that rare. Autism in general is somewhere around 1/150 or 1/100, most of that is PDDNOS but a lot of it is AS too. (And the official distinctions mean less than people think they do.)


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


DandelionFireworks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,011

18 Feb 2011, 1:32 am

anbuend wrote:
It's not that rare. Autism in general is somewhere around 1/150 or 1/100, most of that is PDDNOS but a lot of it is AS too. (And the official distinctions mean less than people think they do.)


Do you ever wonder whether it's maybe 100/100? Like, everybody's autistic? Equally? But 99 out of 100 came up with a conspiracy where they decided to act strange and then tell the people who weren't in on it that they're crazy or something for not understanding? Like, the biggest practical joke ever and we're not in on it? Maybe "social rules" were made up to be as confusing and nonsensical as possible and the so-called NTs are laughing at us for thinking anyone could actually really use them, let alone do so by instinct. Maybe it's ridiculous to think "NTs" could run a society and they're laughing at us for thinking they could.


_________________
I'm using a non-verbal right now. I wish you could see it. --dyingofpoetry

NOT A DOCTOR


E-FrameZenderblast
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 230
Location: New Zealand

18 Feb 2011, 2:37 am

DandelionFireworks wrote:
anbuend wrote:
It's not that rare. Autism in general is somewhere around 1/150 or 1/100, most of that is PDDNOS but a lot of it is AS too. (And the official distinctions mean less than people think they do.)


Do you ever wonder whether it's maybe 100/100? Like, everybody's autistic? Equally? But 99 out of 100 came up with a conspiracy where they decided to act strange and then tell the people who weren't in on it that they're crazy or something for not understanding? Like, the biggest practical joke ever and we're not in on it? Maybe "social rules" were made up to be as confusing and nonsensical as possible and the so-called NTs are laughing at us for thinking anyone could actually really use them, let alone do so by instinct. Maybe it's ridiculous to think "NTs" could run a society and they're laughing at us for thinking they could.

Not this specific possibility, but I do wonder if everybody else is pulling my leg, or the leg of some sect of society I belong in.



y-pod
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,322
Location: Canada

18 Feb 2011, 4:50 am

I think it depends on specific population. For me it's not rare. I know loads of people on the spectrum and probably could be if they got it diagnosed. But then it runs in the family and I grew up in a place full of scientists. For a lot of people they might go through many years of their life without encountering anybody with it.

I do think everybody who's autistic tend to know more autistic people than the average people do. Overall though 1 in a 100 is usually not considered rare.



Bluefins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 975

18 Feb 2011, 5:24 am

DandelionFireworks wrote:
anbuend wrote:
It's not that rare. Autism in general is somewhere around 1/150 or 1/100, most of that is PDDNOS but a lot of it is AS too. (And the official distinctions mean less than people think they do.)


Do you ever wonder whether it's maybe 100/100? Like, everybody's autistic? Equally? But 99 out of 100 came up with a conspiracy where they decided to act strange and then tell the people who weren't in on it that they're crazy or something for not understanding? Like, the biggest practical joke ever and we're not in on it? Maybe "social rules" were made up to be as confusing and nonsensical as possible and the so-called NTs are laughing at us for thinking anyone could actually really use them, let alone do so by instinct. Maybe it's ridiculous to think "NTs" could run a society and they're laughing at us for thinking they could.

Occam's razor.



DandelionFireworks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,011

18 Feb 2011, 12:33 pm

Bluefins wrote:
DandelionFireworks wrote:
anbuend wrote:
It's not that rare. Autism in general is somewhere around 1/150 or 1/100, most of that is PDDNOS but a lot of it is AS too. (And the official distinctions mean less than people think they do.)


Do you ever wonder whether it's maybe 100/100? Like, everybody's autistic? Equally? But 99 out of 100 came up with a conspiracy where they decided to act strange and then tell the people who weren't in on it that they're crazy or something for not understanding? Like, the biggest practical joke ever and we're not in on it? Maybe "social rules" were made up to be as confusing and nonsensical as possible and the so-called NTs are laughing at us for thinking anyone could actually really use them, let alone do so by instinct. Maybe it's ridiculous to think "NTs" could run a society and they're laughing at us for thinking they could.

Occam's razor.


Do you think the simplest explanation includes two naturally-occurring styles of body language and thought in the same species? Does it make sense that the obviously-superior variant would be selected against to the point of being vanishingly rare? Does the simplest explanation truly include a large and functional group of people who lie all the time?


_________________
I'm using a non-verbal right now. I wish you could see it. --dyingofpoetry

NOT A DOCTOR


Bluefins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 975

18 Feb 2011, 12:56 pm

DandelionFireworks wrote:
Do you think the simplest explanation includes two naturally-occurring styles of body language and thought in the same species?
It's certainly takes a lot less than 99% of the human beings in the world ostracizing 1% of people (that aren't any different from them, so why exactly us?), communicate their secret language without us ever finding their notes, doing things they hate and not doing things they love just to fool us (even when they have no idea we're watching), and never, ever slipping up.

Body language changes over time along with everything else, and there's the Neanderthal theory if that's not enough for you.
Quote:
Does it make sense that the obviously-superior variant would be selected against to the point of being vanishingly rare?
I don't see how autism is obviously superior.
Quote:
Does the simplest explanation truly include a large and functional group of people who lie all the time?
Given that lying gives them an advantage, yes. Evolution has no morals at all.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

18 Feb 2011, 1:00 pm

DandelionFireworks wrote:

Do you think the simplest explanation includes two naturally-occurring styles of body language and thought in the same species? Does it make sense that the obviously-superior variant would be selected against to the point of being vanishingly rare? Does the simplest explanation truly include a large and functional group of people who lie all the time?


Obviously superior? The fact that it is selected against means that it is not superior. Natural selection is entirely ambivalent to any individual's notions of value and superiority. Autism is "losing" because it is inferior across enough dimensions that NT gains survival advantages. If autism is a new variant, and it is advantageous then its frequency will increase. Of course by arguing that autism is new means that we need to drop claims of historical figures being autistic which undermines the argument that the greatest minds (and their discoveries) reside on the spectrum.

Nor does natural selection give a rip about lying all the time. So what? If lying allows the survival of the genome, lying wins. Moral and ethical considerations are moot.

What is fascinating is that humans are the first species (that we know of) that will be able to choose its future genetics. This actually makes moral and ethical judgments a part of the selection process, elevating them from simply side effects of consciousness to actual forces in the evolutionary process.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

18 Feb 2011, 1:40 pm

DandelionFireworks wrote:
anbuend wrote:
It's not that rare. Autism in general is somewhere around 1/150 or 1/100, most of that is PDDNOS but a lot of it is AS too. (And the official distinctions mean less than people think they do.)


Do you ever wonder whether it's maybe 100/100? Like, everybody's autistic? Equally? But 99 out of 100 came up with a conspiracy where they decided to act strange and then tell the people who weren't in on it that they're crazy or something for not understanding? Like, the biggest practical joke ever and we're not in on it? Maybe "social rules" were made up to be as confusing and nonsensical as possible and the so-called NTs are laughing at us for thinking anyone could actually really use them, let alone do so by instinct. Maybe it's ridiculous to think "NTs" could run a society and they're laughing at us for thinking they could.


Ok. I'll play.

If everybody is actually autistic, then that means there is literally no difference between "NT" and "AS" other than that the "NT" group is aware of the practical joke while the "AS" group isn't. Since you have demonstrated your knowledge of this practical joke by writing this post, that automatically shifts you into the "NT" group. Bwahahaha.



Bluefins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 975

18 Feb 2011, 1:44 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:
Of course by arguing that autism is new means that we need to drop claims of historical figures being autistic which undermines the argument that the greatest minds (and their discoveries) reside on the spectrum.

That doesn't seem neccessary - it could be that it appeared a few thousand years ago, then slowly gained prevalence.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

18 Feb 2011, 1:48 pm

Bluefins wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
Of course by arguing that autism is new means that we need to drop claims of historical figures being autistic which undermines the argument that the greatest minds (and their discoveries) reside on the spectrum.

That doesn't seem neccessary - it could be that it appeared a few thousand years ago, then slowly gained prevalence.


True. It could also be a variant that has been largely selected against until this present culture where there may now be some advantages to its expression.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.