Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Revisiting autism and the extreme male brain

Page 2 of 4 [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

paxfilosoof
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 380

07 Nov 2014, 6:26 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Well, let's consider the myriad of possibilities for why women don't get diagnosed with autism.....

1. Instead of getting diagnosed with autism, women get diagnosed with BPD, anxiety, depression, ect.

2. Parents socialize males and females differently.

3. There actually is a higher occurrence of genetics in males that precipitate autism.

Ect.

There's no inherent "logic" behind the thinking "autistic women ain't got no problems."


Anxiety and ddepression is not higher in females, females are more likely then males to look for help for this conditions.

Yes, females are nowadays much more raised in a 'positive' way than before. It used to be that females should act as males, now it is the opposite.

Also, my logic is much more likely then yours (scientific isolated facts!), why?
It's much more likely to argue that females are less diagnosed because they have less autistic characteristics then to argue that autistic females are diagnossed with other conditions, or that they are less diagnosed because they are socilized to be less autistic.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

07 Nov 2014, 6:31 pm

^ Not "logical" in the least.

And please feel free to post these "facts" you claim prove your "logic."


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


paxfilosoof
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 380

07 Nov 2014, 6:31 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The third scenario is not necessarily true. Hence, the logic tree is felled.

TRUE, but it's more likely then: "females with asperger/autism are diagnosed with other conditions, or different socilized".



Shep
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 219
Location: Akron, OH

07 Nov 2014, 6:31 pm

paxfilosoof wrote:
Also, my logic is much more likely then yours (scientific isolated facts!).
Oh please, your posts are riddled with "more likely", "probably", general weasel wording and zero scientific basis. If you want to say your words are founded in "scientific isolated facts", I challenge you to come up with actual scientific research documenting this is the case. And no, Google, Wikipedia, or that friend's blog don't count. I'm talking published, peer-reviewed, PhD-level stuff. If you can't deliver on that, your words have zero basis.


_________________
Much stuff. Many happen. Wow.


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

07 Nov 2014, 6:33 pm

^ Thank you. :D


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


paxfilosoof
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 380

07 Nov 2014, 6:34 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
^ Not "logical" in the least.

And please feel free to post these "facts" you claim prove your "logic."


Autistic characteristics lead to diagnosis, I think this is of course not 100% true, but much more likely then: "different socilization lead to that females are less diagnosed with autism/asperger or females with asperger/autism are diagnosed with other conditions".



paxfilosoof
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 380

07 Nov 2014, 6:36 pm

Shep wrote:
paxfilosoof wrote:
Also, my logic is much more likely then yours (scientific isolated facts!).
Oh please, your posts are riddled with "more likely", "probably", general weasel wording and zero scientific basis. If you want to say your words are founded in "scientific isolated facts", I challenge you to come up with actual scientific research documenting this is the case. And no, Google, Wikipedia, or that friend's blog don't count. I'm talking published, peer-reviewed, PhD-level stuff. If you can't deliver on that, your words have zero basis.


Straw man argument.

Likely is a probabilty in statistics if you don't have enough evidence. Most of the time you can't prove very easily that x is related with y, you can only say with some probability that x is correlated or associated with y.



I only say this: "it's more likely to say that females are less likely to be autistic/asperger then to argue that females are less diagnosed because of other factors". That's all!



Last edited by paxfilosoof on 07 Nov 2014, 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shep
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 219
Location: Akron, OH

07 Nov 2014, 6:37 pm

paxfilosoof wrote:
Straw man argument.

Likely is a probabilty in statistics if you don't have enough evidence.

I only say this: "it's more likely to say that females are less likely to be autistic/asperger then to argue that females are less diagnosed because of other factors". That's all!
Aaaaaaaand.... your proof is where now??? :roll:


_________________
Much stuff. Many happen. Wow.


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

07 Nov 2014, 6:38 pm

You can "think" whatever you please. However, your "thoughts" are not equivalent to "facts."

Anyway......

Sorry for derailing your thread, Ganadox. I'm done playing with the pseudo-intellectuals.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Nov 2014, 6:39 pm

I don't base my opinions of individuals upon generalities, even if they turn out to be "true."

There are 7 billion stories in this naked world

(A take on "there are 8 million stories in this naked city (New York)."



paxfilosoof
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 380

07 Nov 2014, 6:39 pm

Shep wrote:
paxfilosoof wrote:
Straw man argument.

Likely is a probabilty in statistics if you don't have enough evidence.

I only say this: "it's more likely to say that females are less likely to be autistic/asperger then to argue that females are less diagnosed because of other factors". That's all!
Aaaaaaaand.... your proof is where now??? :roll:


argumentum ad ignorantiam

It's already proven that females are less likely to be autistic, and thus (probably have less autism traits).
Because the definition of autism is having a diagnosis not having an autism brain or something.



Last edited by paxfilosoof on 07 Nov 2014, 6:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

paxfilosoof
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 380

07 Nov 2014, 6:40 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I don't base my opinions of individuals upon generalities, even if they turn out to be "true."

There are 7 billion stories in this naked world

(A take on "there are 8 million stories in this naked city (New York)."


argumentum ad ignorantiam



paxfilosoof
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 380

07 Nov 2014, 6:40 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
You can "think" whatever you please. However, your "thoughts" are not equivalent to "facts."

Anyway......

Sorry for derailing your thread, Ganadox. I'm done playing with the pseudo-intellectuals.


argumentum ad ignorantiam

Answer my logical deduction please?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Nov 2014, 6:48 pm

Truth does not reveal itself through the "resolution" of syllogisms.

If one wanted to use medieval logic, though:

In this case, there is no logical progression, because the third precept is quite, quite debatable.



paxfilosoof
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 380

07 Nov 2014, 6:55 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Truth does not reveal itself through the "resolution" of syllogisms.

If one wanted to use medieval logic, though:

In this case, there is no logical progression, because the third precept is quite, quite debatable.


Likely is a probabilty in statistics if you don't have enough evidence. Most of the time you can't prove very easily that x is related with y, you can only say with some probability that x is correlated or associated with y.

I only say this: "it's more likely to say that females are less likely to be autistic/asperger then to argue that females are less diagnosed because of other factors(1)". That's all!

(1) for example: less often diagnosed because of different socilization or different diagnosis instead of autism.
I could argue the same for males who are not diagnosed with autism: they are diagnosed with other disorders like ADHD, which often is the case lol! or that in our modern society males are less socilized to be acting like autistic people.



Last edited by paxfilosoof on 07 Nov 2014, 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Nov 2014, 6:57 pm

On WrongPlanet, the male/female ratio is almost 1:1.

I think, once the autism "epidemic" is resolved, that there will be many more females diagnosed, and that the ratio will be closer to 1:1 than it is now.