Can Genetics Find a Cure for Autism?

Post Reply New Topic

No, it would not be better. There's a difference between 'some guy's opinion' and actual science.

You can't say this for sure. We just don't know if there really is a connection between autism and genius. People just assume there is, but where is the actual evidence for it?

As for Sheldon Cooper, the words 'Asperger's Syndrome' or 'autism' have never been mentioned in association with that character in any of the episodes I have seen up to the end of season five. It's almost like Chuck Lorre doesn't want to run the risk of getting into trouble for insulting people with autism with this extreme, irritating caricature he presents us with.

ZombieBrideXD is entirely correct here. Understand: Just because YOU dont know of something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It absolutely baffles me that so very, very, very, VERY many people assume that because they dont know something, the something that they dont know CANNOT exist, or at the very least, PROBABLY doesnt exist. There's always the assumption... particularly among scientists... that if they have yet to find evidence of something, that something is not true (and that "something" could be all sorts of different things, WAY too many to list). Even if they havent found direct evidence AGAINST it. Frankly, I find this viewpoint very tiresome at this point. And utterly baffling. Not just in relation to autism, but in relation to.... everything.

In this case, yes. There are benefits. Or at the very least, perceived benefits; it is hard to be entirely sure, but one way or another, the traits are there in a huge number of cases. They vary from one individual to another, but they can be there. Obviously, not all autistics will have them... there are those that have been hit HARD by this disorder. But then... there are those that would never, ever accept a cure, because they dont WANT to get rid of it. Those people have found the benefits of it, whatever it may be to them.

It's a simple fact that many autistics tend to both view and process the world around them differently; it's one of the things that makes autism what it is. For some, this causes all manner of trouble. But for others... perhaps the trouble is still there, but it can be balanced out by the positive effects it causes. In my case, yes, I do process and think about things in what could definitely be called a strange way. But this has it's uses; because of my so-called "different wiring", or, I guess that's what *I* call it anyway, I am very, very good at things like abstract logic, and logic in general, able to figure out answers to problems without too much trouble, and usually very quickly, as I process some things *extremely* quickly. Which also means that my reflexes and reaction speed is a bit absurd; that specific bit is what I'm most known for, among those that know me at all. I needed no training or practice in these things; I simply can do them and always could, and I have a variety of other talents as well. Oh sure, I have my problems... I'm really, REALLY spacey much of the time, and can do things like try to make a sandwich and forget the bread (no, seriously, I've done that before) or a variety of other bizarre, screwy things. And I aint exactly good at the communication, and probably never will be. And of course the sensory issues. But it balances out well enough, and really, if the autism were removed... I wouldnt be the same person anymore. This would be a bad thing, so I'll keep it, thanks.

And that's just one example of the benefits, since you'd asked what they are. I'm sure others here could provide absurd numbers of examples of their own benefits, whatever they may be.


Now as for the connection between autism and genius? Could be, could be. Heck if I know. But I prefer to keep an open mind, rather than make any assumptions whatsoever, and really, I wish more people would do that. Currently, there simply is no answer to that question; when knowledge and technology has advanced further, perhaps, there will be an answer, but for now, there isnt really anything. Just a bunch of competing and conflicting viewpoints. And arguments, always with that bit.


As for the idea of wether or not a cure can be found... again, no definitive answer. My own thoughts on it are that there cannot be one, based on a variety of reasons and my own logic applied to that, but those are merely my own theories, which I simply keep to myself, since there just isnt enough knowledge yet to go very far with it.

...and I apologize if some of what I've written here either doesnt make sense, or is just kinda confusing. I'm not sure that I actually get through with some of the concepts I want to use in most cases; I think I get them backwards sometimes. Like I said... not so good at the communication. So yeah, some of anything I write up may seem strange or not make any sense, but whatever, I bloody well type it out anyway.


Aaaaaaaaanyway, just my own input on that bit. I'll let you all get back to the conversation at hand, as I've said pretty much everything I wanted to say, even if I rambled a bit and may have strayed off of it.

Perhaps it does, but what are they? People like to go on ad nauseam about how A. Einstein apparently had autism, but not only is there no evidence for this claim, but even if we accepted this as being true there would still be no reliable way of establishing a solid connection between it and his unusual abilities and talents. Being on the so-called high end of the spectrum does not guarantee that one will be a genius, or even have a higher than average intelligence.


I never said intelligence. Most autistic people, like myself, have the amazing ability unlike NT's to stick onto one topic for years. This is promising for a career. Do you think we would have Pokemon if autism was cured 70 years ago? how about humane slaughter houses? these things were created by autistic people because they were passionate about something and went out and shared their passion with the world. Even autistic people without obsessive tendency's have other abilities. Empathy is one, if Temple Grandin hadn't empathized with the cattle she wouldn't have made what she did. Look at these amazing piece of art



this was made by an autistic man after just quickly seeing a landscape. No NT could do this.

watch this video. i find this empowering.

Anyone can post a comment on the internet?
Just saying something doesn't make it so...
Serious studies/theories/articles/papers are offered up for peer reviews if they want to establish credibility...



"peer re·view
noun
1.
evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field."

The Vatican and Richard Dawkins are not peers...

Seriously?
You don't see the necessity of having peer reviews by those in the same field?

My statement did not imply there is an association/connection between autism and genius...
You made that inference...
I simply made the observation that some on the autistic spectrum can and do significantly and positively contribute to society...

Regardless, my comment was not meant to be a profound commentary...



Sheldon Cooper is based on someone who is on the autistic spectrum...
It is self evident to me...
If you can't see it, we will have to agree to disagree...<shrug>

Sheldon Lee Cooper is the most beloved character in TBBT...
I personally don't think a lovable character is an insulting icon...

"True dat..."

Where is the "evidence" in determining/diagnosing *anyone* on the autistic spectrum?
Friends/associates of the late Albert Einstein have made observations about the man which suggested he may have been...
Not a difficult concept to digest...
Had you used Issac Newton in your example, only written observations would be in evidence...

And what is your obsession with denying autistic individuals can be intelligent also?
Do you have any idea how many autistic individuals had inferiority complexes because of their "social stupidity"?
You are talking to one now...

Matey, you are an odd bloke...
Even for an aspie...

I refuse to treat Peer-Review like some sort of authority (that would be like elevating it into & callling it a god).

When it comes to individuals like myself, I don't give a s**t about papers that others have written (peer-reviewed or not), but what I DO care about is if you/they can give ME the step-by-step processes to DO experiments for myself.

THAT is the difference between Book-Smarts (i.e.: book-learned) versus Street-Smarts (actual experience).

I have read PLENTY of « books/publications » where, when I put its claims to the test for myself, they crumble.

"CONCLUSION

So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
http://www.sott.net/article/258779-Peer ... blications

Let us assume the author is correct...
What is the alternative?
None, so he himself states...lol

You aren't seriously suggesting street smarts would make a better tool when dealing with a paper on quantum mechanics, for example, are you?
Are you saying that someone competent in the field would be less competent than someone who has no competency in the subject matter they have been asked to review?
Surely this is a logical nonsense...surely...surely...

BTW...Based on my research, let me just say that sott.nett may not have the bona fides to be considered a balanced/reliable source of information...
Perhaps we need to have this website peer reviewed to determine it's validity/credibility?...

The ONLY « reliable » source of information is s**t that I can personally test for myself.

The rest may as well fall into the realm of hearsay. Perhaps you'd prefer an article from a .gov source ?

Well look at that... even the .gov web-site sources seem to be saying the same thing apparently.

A LOT of also « References » that are of the « Medical-Publications » also seem to be included in foot-notes...

Well, Misery, where is the evidence for the claim that Einstein was autistic? The claim you make here about scientists assuming the non-existence of something simply because they have yet to see evidence for it, whatever 'it' may be, is one that is supremely sensible and sound. It is something that more people should do. I see every single day people on the internet make claims that have neither reason nor evidence to substantiate them, but when you point this out to them they become defensive, and say things like, "Well, you can't prove that I am not Jesus Christ reincarnated! So there!" Alternatively, they may just accuse you of being a member of whatever secret society they believe is trying to enslave us all.

99.9% of all that can be found on the internet is just pure junk, baloney and utter tripe. It has its uses (like email), but it shouldn't become the centre of one's life. Too many people seem to take it far too seriously, and I sometimes think we would all be better off without it. For one thing, myths like the autism of dead historical figures would not spread so fast. I'll believe that Einstein was autistic when I see evidence for it! So far I have seen none!

I'm odd? Well, that's good to hear

I don't have an 'obsession' with denying that autistic individuals can also be intelligent, I just don't automatically assume, as many do, that there is a causal connection, or even a correlation, between autism and genius. There is, at this point in time, nothing to substantiate such a claim. Perhaps Newton and Einstein were to some degree autistic, but even if they were how can we be so sure that their genius was in any way associated with being this way? We simply have no way to determine this, because they are both dead. It's one thing to say that Bill Gates, for example, has Asperger's, or autism or whatever, because he can be observed and we can even ask him about it, but to extend this to people who cannot even speak for themselves is just dishonest and wrong, not to mention downright delusional.

Your error is in approaching this subject as if it is a competition to see who is the better, NT or austistics. Given the blanket use of the term which covers a whole range of cognitive functions, we will never get a straight answer if an answer serves any use. However, we do know that individuals with an elevated objectivity function tend to have elevated manipulative skills....the conscious primate fully realised.

But simply creating a one use fits all function for the label is not going to give us any consistency. For those of us stuck with the label that is not much comfort but as a minority that is about as good as it is going to get.

.....you.... entirely and completely missed my point. Please dont jump on me to defend something by talking about things that I did not actually say.

What I said had nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein. Read it carefully, and notice that I did not mention him. I only know some of the stuff that Einstein DID. I dont know what he was LIKE. I have no assumptions of him whatsoever.

I *also* didnt mention anything about info specifically coming from the web. I'm talking about the attitude that so VERY many people have overall; the EXTREMELY arrogant attitude of "Well we're so great, our science is SO perfect (but we cant even get off our own damn planet, or properly heal our own bodies! Yeah, CLEARLY we know everything), so OBVIOUSLY if we havent found it, it doesnt exist". Or the absolutely, totally baffling view that a LACK of evidence is, in fact, evidence. That's not just illogical. That's what I call ANTI-LOGIC. Yet I've seen that one over... and over.... and over... and over.... and over.... and over.... and over.... and over.... and every single time, I want to throw a chair at the person doing it simply for being so bloody stupid. Based on that sort of logic, the fact that I do not have 100 frogs in my room CLEARLY proves that I do in fact have 100 frogs in my room. EXACT same type of logic. You cannot find the evidence of a lack of frogs beyond simply what I do or do not tell you, so there MUST be frogs. Your science and logic is just so GREAT, after all.

That's what I"m talking about. Those viewpoints that people say are oh-so scientific, yet that are utterly BACKWARDS and nonsensical. It's not just idiocy in most cases, but also sheer arrogance. A *real* scientist, a good one, doesnt do this; instead, they would say "Well, I dont see any evidence here, but we lack the technology and equipment to truly dig deep here, so I cannot see any evidence the other way either, therefore, we have literally no answer either way to this question at this time. It will have to wait until some day much further down the line". I mean, theories about stuff is one thing... but so many people absolutely believe that what THEY know is the absolute truth, because THEY are the ones that know it. Instead of being able to simply admit "Well, I just dont know. I dont have the means to figure it out right now. I have my own personal theory, but indeed, it IS just a theory, and is not evidence of anything either way; just my personal thoughts on the matter."

I dont care about Einstein and wether or not he was autistic, or maybe some sort of giant space bee in disguise. Doesnt matter for the point I was trying to make. And I wasnt referencing ANYTHING on the internet; as a rule, I just dont give a damn about most things found there. Like many autistics, my interests are VERY focused, and outside of that... much of the time, I really just dont care. Every now and then, an exception, sure, but in this case..... no. Uninterested in those things. It was the logic being used here that caught my attention.

I dont mean to be offensive towards anyone here with that though... understand, I sound like this ALL THE TIME. I call myself Misery for alot of reasons, and that's one of them, I am extremely negative. Bugs the hell outta my friends, but I'm not about to try to be something that I'm not.

But yes, to me, that viewpoint is fantastically idiotic. It doesnt mean that the individual using it is stupid, but regardless, I just cant take anyone seriously when they are using it. For once, it'd be nice for people to just ADMIT when they dont know something. But rarely is this the case.

For me, I usually just say "...how the hell should I know? Go away and bother someone else with that." Maybe not the best way to put it, but it gets my point across. While possibly getting people to not be too close to me. Useful, that.

One other thing: If you go back to read my earlier post.... only in the top bit do I even mention the stuff about logic. MOST of it is about the whole autism bit, since you'd wondered what the benefits might be, and stuff like that.

Frankly, I dont actually know why you brought up Einstein at all, unless I missed something earlier in the topic, which is entirely possible.

My point though is that this bit about the logic and assumptions isnt something I'm going to argue further than that; further debate is pointless and will serve no purpose, and as it has little to do with the actual topic, I'm going to stop with it at this point to allow this to go back to what it's supposed to be about. Respond with an arguement about the logic bit if you like, but you'll only be wasting time with that, as again, I'm not going to derail this further. Beyond that, I've already stated everything I wanted to say on it; what you do or do not get out of that is not my problem. Ignore me if you like, or whatever, I dont care too much. I figure people probably do that frequently already, so.... *shrug*

And again I apologize if I've offended anyone in here by being unpleasant and/or abrasive; just the way I tend to sound, that's all. Is why I dont talk much IRL. On HERE people are more understanding of things like that, but IRL... not so much.