Ending the "epidemic" epidemic...

Post Reply New Topic

If you would like to see the name changed, why don't you email HP? I think it would be a useless venture, but I certainly won't hold your efforts against you.

And if we look above:

What? How is this related to this post? Maybe you should ask Autism Speaks: they are involved. You have the telephone number of one of Autism Speak's leaders.

And if it doesn't bear fruit then that only casts a bad light on autism speaks, a group you were eagerly trumpeting about earlier when you talked about changing the word epidemic.

What? How is this related to this post? Maybe you should ask Autism Speaks: they are involved. You have the telephone number of one of Autism Speak's leaders.

And if it doesn't bear fruit then that only casts a bad light on autism speaks, a group you were eagerly trumpeting about earlier when you talked about changing the word epidemic.

It seems like I remember discussing the point with you before, and we agreed that it would be good if a clear definition of what is autism in an individual, that wasn't determined by subjective judgement of a required set of behavioral traits could be developed.

That's the easy part, the hard part is figuring out a way to do it. If there was a brain scan that could objectively measure differences in the brain that would help, but even in the case of other neurological disorders like epilepsy, one doesn't get approved to see a specialist for it, unless there are overt symptoms that indicate an underlying neurological condition.

So it seems, even if a test were developed, some type of behavioral traits that differed from the norm would have to be identified first, unless a blood test could be decisive enough to warrant a brain scan.

There is the potential that brain scans may be used to help identifiy ASD's in the future; part of the brain tissue donation project, is to find the differences for identification purposes.

Fighting for a change in the diagnosis, as of today, with the present state of science, would have to be influenced by science, it's not something one could objectively fight for unless they had evidence to support a change. It's the researchers that would be the ones to fight for a diagnostic change by whatever evidence that they could produce to support one. That is with hard science.

As far as with the imperfect study of psychology, that is a society of individuals with educational credentials, that come to decisions based on clinical experience and research results studying behavioral differences.

I guess what I'm saying here, is the only way to actually support a change in diagnosis, would be to work within the system of research and the psychological institution to bring about the change one wanted to see. A difficult task indeed, considering one has to invest in the education, to even get their foot in the door.

Gedrene's suggestion of people moving away from the diagnosis, is doable for those that don't need the support that a diagnosis provides. This almost goes without saying. Once the DSMV goes into effect and Aspergers no longer exists as a disorder, that would be an opportunity for those who proclaim themselves to be self-diagnosed Aspies to form their own movement. In effect, it has already happened in vague ways, it just isn't officially stated as a separate entity from the individuals with Classic Autism.

There are some people here that suggest they have no problem with the condition, but on the other hand there are some people with Aspergers that do see it as an inherent disorder that is disabling in someways to them in their personal lives.

For those that live with it successfully, they could easily gain their own support site like wrongplanet, after the DSMV goes into effect and proclaim themselves as separate group of individuals, with no diagnosed disorder; only a society of individuals that proclaim themselves as a neurodiverse group of individuals called Aspies or another name they might choose.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if a small group of individuals decide to do this after the DSMV goes into effect. It would be the perfect time, considering Aspergers would no longer be an official disorder by name.

Meanwhile we can wait for the researchers and psychological society to develop a discrete medical test, but that seems more likely to be a test that is used in support of diagnosis rather than the only evidence required for a diagnosis.

One caveat though for those that might skirt a diagnosis, in favor of an undiagnosed group, is the potential of related symptoms that can become disabling later in life, without the early diagnosis and medical records that accompany this. Support when if it becomes necessary, would be much harder to obtain, than if a medical history were part of the record.

I didn't make a statement that asserted "only you" said anything, you place these words as a quote next to my name suggesting it is something I stated, when I did not state it.

I didn't state that only you said anything

No one has suggested that HP change the name at this point, except you as far as I can see from the posts.

Yes of course, what you mean those comments on page 4 that say exactly those things? I print screened by the way just in case. You cannot admit ever to making a contradiction so you just say I am lying. This is despicable.


And yet...


So are you going to admit to doing anything wrong?

Anyways, Corporations have all sorts of battles over names, change names of products and so all sorts of rebranding. I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent.

Could we not have real counter reasons to this rather than what amounts to fatalism?

The difference is you left the rest of the context of my sentence out. I qualified "except you" with unless I have missed something in the posts,

Some people including me have suggested they could have come up with a word that has less of a literal negative connotation than hacking

Anyways, Corporations have all sorts of battles over names, change names of products and so all sorts of rebranding. I doubt this is going to ruffle their feathers, if they are decent.

So basically you change your tack from I never said that to I never checked to see whether this was actually correct. So not only are you contradicting yourself again, but you're also saying that you didn't check anything before you made an accusation.

Morever the accusation that only I wanted HP to change the name according to you is followed by this:




Even more obvious is that what I said didn't say HP should change the name, it said that HP could easily change the name, and you ignored this. Your excuse was some irrelevance involving the present tense.

My understanding now is that you don't personally think the organization should change the name now.

Your understand should be that you don't know what I think because I never said!

I said that hacking had negative connotations and that HP could easily change the name.


Does any of that say they should or should not change it?

"Outsourcing Autism" "Offshoring Autism"

Turning the future of Autism over to a gutted or gutless company, with no background whatsoever. Not true, with a horrible background of failure.

B2B, Brain to Brain, where the units run on various opperating systems, bandwidth, is going to be cracked by a company that cannot write documentation?

The User Interface Device has not changed in thirty years, a Mouse and Qwerty Keyboard.

So one product that can be used by all autistics, and can translate their thoughts into Neurotypical? That is only half, and the easy one. Making sense of a Neurotypical mixed signal made of emotions mixed with thoughts, tone of voice, eyes, lip twisting, body poses, who are also lying.

Lying is a harsh word, who have never told the truth. Who wigggle their antenna just to see what response they get, and change signals from second to second.

I do have a program to do one at a time, but even then, it would take a third for any two to communicate. The problem, and glory, is that no two are alike, not even like the self they were when last seen.

We all wear protective coloration.

In a perfect world everyone would wear direct thought transfer helmets, and the streets and buildings would be littered with bodies.

Perhaps if they spoke with someone who understood technology.

There is no personal verbal support expressed for a change now, evidenced that I can see in the posts, unless I have missed something.

Since a significant number of personal complaints to the organization would be required to substantiate the need for a change, it is not a realistic expectation that the organization could make a change at this point in time.

Aye, but rather than suggest that I have given no support you should say 'I don't know'. You're making inferences. You're not on a battlefield fighting for your life. You don't need to do it.


And I have explained that it can be changed because a company is a company. Companies can change names easily. I don't need to go over this again again again... :/

Inference: Reading Ideas as Well as Words
Ideally, speakers mean what they say and say what they mean. Spoken communication is not that simple. Much of what we understand—whether when listening or reading—we understand indirectly, by inference. Listening involves a complex combination of hearing words, analyzing sentence structure, and attempting to find meaning within the context of the given situation.

The situation with the written word is no different. A text does not contain a meaning. Readers construct meaning by what they take the words to mean and how they process sentences to find meaning. Readers draw on their knowledge of the language and of conventions of social communication.

They also draw on other factors, such as knowledge of the author (“Would Henry say such a thing?), the occasion (“No one knew such things then!”), or the audience (“He’d never admit that publicly.”) They infer unstated meanings based on social conventions, shared knowledge, shared experience, or shared values. They make sense of remarks by recognizing implications and drawing conclusions.

Readers read ideas more than words, and infer, rather than find, meaning.