Misleading Autism Studies

Post Reply New Topic

I ran across this article today: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 180406.htm

It's interesting in terms of the new data it provides. What annoyed me, though, was this claim:

"People with autism are relatively better at visual/spatial processing," Kana said. "The intervention facilitates the use of such strengths to ultimately improve language comprehension."

Why do they make it sound like all autistic people have the same strengths and weaknesses? I'm one of those Aspies who excels in language but fares less well in spatial processing. I may not be typical in that regard, but I know I'm not alone. I find it incredibly frustrating when "experts" make these kind of unqualified statements that don't necessarily apply to everyone on the spectrum.

I'm also one of the aspies it doesn't hold true for, and it's really frustrating when "experts" claim aspies are skilled at this and that, when it's not true for me. Yeah, great for them, but it doesn't help me any. In fact, making it sound like "all aspies" have this or that skill is a pretty harmful ignorance that can make things harder for those of us not having those skills/traits.
A lot of the stereotypes (thinking in images, good at visualizing, maths and computers) aren't true for me. I wish there were campaigns about how diverse we are.

IMO, the current state of autism research is, quite frankly, atrocious. It seems like every week there's a new study showing a completely different cause or treatment with ridiculously small sample sizes, poor statistical significance, or crap methodology. Until we start seeing more consensus building study after study, I would take pretty much any "new findings" you read about with a massive grain of salt.

This!!

I do think in images (and video) but I'm terrible at mathematics. The autism spectrum is almost like someone handed out items from a food buffet, and we each get certain items but other items are handed out to some, and not to others, and then in different quantities. It's all coming from the same table but not everyone gets the same things on their plate.

They may not be the truth of what autism is, and nobody knows, but at least research is being done. It has to start somewhere. Much of it is research in its early stages but should that mean they stop? Science would have never even started if it did. Think of it like the early theories of what the earth is. Autism research is past "the earth is flat" and is making progress. And that's what research is - it's not saying "this is fact", it's just saying "this is what we found in our sample group". At least my understanding of it anyway. Gonna be wrong things but they learn from mistakes.

That is a cool way to think of it, I like that.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying research on autism should stop. I'm saying that it should be held to a higher standard than it currently is; by the journals publishing it, the writers reporting on it, and the readers digesting it. Not every new study is a fantastic breakthrough that we all need to reorient our perception of autism around, most are just noise drowning out the legitimate research that is being done.

I think the problem is in media coverage. They hear of early studies with massive implications and report of those without properly stating how early it is. However your comment was on the research and not the media coverage which is what led me to interpret it that way.

I guess the problem with any research is that the spectrum nature of autism flies in the face of scientific reductionism. It's hard to say anything clear-cut about the subject without being partly wrong. It's hard to describe a community without generalising, and that usually causes annoyance.

I believe it would solve much of the discontent with the researchers should the researchers use qualifiers like: "It seems as if there is a tendency for people with autism to be relatively strong in the visual-spatial realm," rather than make absolute statements.

I don't believe the relative nature of that statement detracts from the strength of the research, and of the advice to make use of an autistic person's strengths within his/her therapy.

I'm equally critical of both I think. The media certainly plays its role here, but a lot of these studies don't really meet what I consider to be an appropriate hurdle for what should be published in peer reviewed journals as legitimate scientific findings. It's worth noting that this is not an issue necessarily unique to autism research. Scientific journals face incentives to publish positive findings that, over time, bias the publications towards less and less rigorous studies. This is a problem talked about in a variety of fields, presently. So I guess I'm most critical of the journals, as they're effectively the gatekeepers of what gets presented to the public as "approved science". I don't really expect a reporter, who has to cover wide range of fields, to always be able to tell a good study from a bad one. But I do expect journal editors specializing in those fields to be able to do so.

Nicely put kraftie, I agree completely but would have never been able to word it so well.

You do make a good point. I agree pretty much with what you said there, just not in how you put it in your original comment if that makes sense.

Completely agreed. It's the lack of acknowledgment that autistic people have varying strengths and challenges that bothers me. Saying something like the original quote I cited sounds like they're invalidating the diagnoses of many people (including myself), not to mention doing the broader public a disservice by creating false impressions: "Oh, that guy seems to write well, so he can't possibly be on the spectrum..."

All researchers I ever talked to know that autistic people differ in their traits and don't all conform to one model.

The language thing has been debunked. Difficulties with language exist with both autistic and non-autistic people. Autistic people with no language deficit do just as well on empathy tests as non-autistic people with no language deficits. Co-existing conditions muddy a lot of these studies.

If anyone is interested in participating in research that is merely asking for narrative responses from autistic people who work or have worked in paid and unpaid employment, please send me a private message. My study is seeking to understand the complicating factors behind disclosing one's autism status at work.

I would also like to add that I have talked to autism researchers who sound understanding and like good people in person, then I've looked up their studies, which seem to me to be unethical.