Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Autism

  • 09-01-2009 2:30pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭


    Never thought I'd start a thread in this forum... :)

    I'm basically concerned at the psychology community's requirement to give every little foible and every slight difference in people a name, and to tell people that it's a problem which requires treatment.

    There was a guy on Newstalk this morning. The discussion related to the news that it looked like it may be possible in future to do prenatal checks for autism, giving parents the option to abort or otherwise prepare for the arrival of autistic child.

    The guy was making the comment that automatically aborting foetuses at risk of autism would cause the progression of the human race to come to a standstill. This is because everyone who makes giant leaps in our understanding of the universe or who otherwise stands out from the crowd has a high-functioning form of autism. He actually said that geniuses and people who are multi-talented all have high-functioning forms of autism.

    Another comment was along the lines of, "Everyone involved in creating computers, for example, had a high functioning form of autism". This was his argument - if we didn't have autistic people, we'd never invent anything.

    Now, this wasn't just some "guy". He's a professor of child psychology in TCD.

    I think it's pretty insulting to everyone to say that if you are in any way different, there must be some form of mental challenge/difference which makes you so. It's insulting to intelligent people, as he did say that these people all have other "problems", without quoting any evidence, research, or otherwise backing up his assertions. It's also insulting to the rest of the population, basically - "Intelligence is a mental disability, so just don't bother trying."

    I just feel that there is this overwhelming drive to insert everyone into a box, tell you that it's a problem, but it's OK, we can treat it for €100/hour and €10/pill. The ridiculous overdiagnosis of disorders such as ADD, ADHD, autism (esp. asberger's), only serves to strengthen my suspicion.

    Anyone else?


«1

Comments

  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wow this guy is a bit of a dick for spreading that kind of bull****, especially when he's a professor of child psychology.
    There's enough bull**** about vaccines causing autism as it is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭spinandscribble


    Not that I'm trying to defend that child psychologist, autism isn't exactly a science, not enough is known, the modern basis of our knowledge was started in the last 100 years by Leo Kanner. psychology does not have all the answers yet. As a student I found it frustrating but now as I am working with children with a wide array of mental disturbances, I see its not so cut and dry. My clients have no one condition, but many and they're all so muddled up there's no knowing what is causing x, y and z.
    there's no such thing as a perfect case study so the study of mental disabilities is a long one. Not so long ago you were just labeled a "loon" if you were different.
    the remarks that child psychologist made are outrageous (seriously every computer geek cannot have a form of autism thats just stupid) but he may have a point with regard to the benefits of autism, the inventive nature of some of those on the spectrum of autism. i think enough people go around bashing autism but he over did going the polar opposite. not all autistic children have a special gift, i know of one mother desperately trying to figure out her autistic son's "gift", like its clear enough he's one of he luckier ones still in regular school.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    he may have a point with regard to the benefits of autism, the inventive nature of some of those on the spectrum of autism.
    Well, I'm definitely not disagreeing with that in the slightest, I have no dear doubt that some of the greatest minds ever born probably had some form of autism. It's by no means a blnket certainty though.
    not all autistic children have a special gift, i know of one mother desperately trying to figure out her autistic son's "gift", like its clear enough he's one of he luckier ones still in regular school.
    This indeed, is also something which he implied - that all autistic people have some form of "gift", of "superpower", to balance out the mental/social difficulties that they have to deal with.

    I really couldn't believe the guy was a professor.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭spinandscribble


    i can't quite believe it either but it just goes to show you just because you have letters after your name doesn't make you all that smart.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    that's just a slogan, some very intelligent people say stupid things.

    This seems to me to highlight the area of designer babies, which imo is a really bad thing. Can you imagine parents being allowed to choose certain characteristics over others, it would be a society of blond haired blue eyed extroverts, all of them lawyers and business people. It would be hell!


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    that's just a slogan, some very intelligent people say stupid things.

    This seems to me to highlight the area of designer babies, which imo is a really bad thing. Can you imagine parents being allowed to choose certain characteristics over others, it would be a society of blond haired blue eyed extroverts, all of them lawyers and business people. It would be hell!
    Not really. Curing genetic diseases and designer babies are two completely different things.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Very irresponsible, what he said. Of course there have been great people with mental disabilities in the past. But what about the other 99.9% who suffered the same?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    King Mob wrote: »
    Not really. Curing genetic diseases and designer babies are two completely different things.

    Mental diseases have benefits as well though, like schizophrenia (beachboys dude, phil spector, maths dude in film) or autism as already mentioned. Why remove the disease and the attendant benefits?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    But what about the other 99.9% who suffered the same?
    Mental diseases have benefits as well though, like schizophrenia (beachboys dude, phil spector, maths dude in film) or autism as already mentioned. Why remove the disease and the attendant benefits?

    I repeat.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 671 ✭✭✭Daithi McGee


    Seamus,

    I heard the same thing on newstalk this morning and I think you are doing the guy an injustice.

    If I recall the piece was based on some new test, or future one that will allow parents to know if their child will have autism etc.

    His fear was that we will clean the gene pool genetics with our perfect babies and that as a a result of that we risk "killing" off one of the creative resources that has helped take us out of the caves so to speak. People who "think" a little differently.

    He also cited some example of people who had autism, that higher functioning kind. He mentioned some other kind to but I can't remember what it was called but Asparagus sounds close, even thought that is a veg :/


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mental diseases have benefits as well though, like schizophrenia (beachboys dude, phil spector, maths dude in film) or autism as already mentioned. Why remove the disease and the attendant benefits?
    Because having the disease does not mean you'll have benefits. The vast majority of people who have schizophrenia (not sure whether this is genetic or not) do not become famous musicians. Same with autism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    seamus wrote: »
    Never thought I'd start a thread in this forum... :)

    There was a guy on Newstalk this morning. The discussion related to the news that it looked like it may be possible in future to do prenatal checks for autism, giving parents the option to abort or otherwise prepare for the arrival of autistic child.

    The guy was making the comment that automatically aborting foetuses at risk of autism would cause the progression of the human race to come to a standstill. This is because everyone who makes giant leaps in our understanding of the universe or who otherwise stands out from the crowd has a high-functioning form of autism. He actually said that geniuses and people who are multi-talented all have high-functioning forms of autism.

    Another comment was along the lines of, "Everyone involved in creating computers, for example, had a high functioning form of autism". This was his argument - if we didn't have autistic people, we'd never invent anything.
    Now, this wasn't just some "guy". He's a professor of child psychology in TCD.


    Anyone else?

    I have a very vivid imagination , therefore i must be nuts , maybe i should have been aborted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    His fear was that we will clean the gene pool genetics with our perfect babies and that as a a result of that we risk "killing" off one of the creative resources that has helped take us out of the caves so to speak. People who "think" a little differently.
    Well I got the impression from him that most, if not all significant "creative resources" were autistic to some degree. Perhaps I heard wrong.
    He also cited some example of people who had autism, that higher functioning kind. He mentioned some other kind to but I can't remember what it was called but Asparagus sounds close, even thought that is a veg :/
    Well, this was the bit that really made me suspicious. He cited people who were never (and probably would never have been) tested/diagnosed with autism - Joyce and DeValera to name but two. You could suggest that perhaps these people were autistic based on biographies, but to say conclusively that they were autistic, is scientifically irresponsible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Reminds me of that pseudo science that 'rational' and 'enlightened' thinkers used to espouse as scientific truth. Eugenics. Hitler was a fan, I could see what he was thinking, trying to spare future generations from genetic disorders. Mutation is always a problem, and indeed, essential to evolution! :)


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kernel wrote: »
    Reminds me of that pseudo science that 'rational' and 'enlightened' thinkers used to espouse as scientific truth. Eugenics. Hitler was a fan, I could see what he was thinking, trying to spare future generations from genetic disorders. Mutation is always a problem, and indeed, essential to evolution! :)
    Goodwins!

    Science = Evolution = Eugenics = Hitler.

    Been watching that ridiculous Ben Stein movie?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    Kernel wrote: »
    Reminds me of that pseudo science that 'rational' and 'enlightened' thinkers used to espouse as scientific truth. Eugenics. Hitler was a fan, I could see what he was thinking, trying to spare future generations from genetic disorders. Mutation is always a problem, and indeed, essential to evolution! :)

    Yup. A great humanitarian. Somehow, Kernel, I don't think Adolf's support of eugenics had much to do with sparing future generations from anything. I'm of the opinion that he wanted his Aryan master race to be perfect and to hell with everyone else.

    Anyway, now to throw a spanner into the professor's works. If his theory is correct and people with autism are, or can be, geniuses, is it possible that some day, after a foetal diagnosis, one of them may come up with a prenatal cure?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    seamus wrote: »
    Never thought I'd start a thread in this forum... :)

    When you've had enough people moan at you about the forum, you're naturally drawn toward it. Either that or you obviously have one of the mental disorders the CTers are supposed to suffer from. Welcome to the club. Speaking of which .......
    seamus wrote:
    I think it's pretty insulting to everyone to say that if you are in any way different, there must be some form of mental challenge/difference which makes you so. It's insulting to intelligent people, as he did say that these people all have other "problems", without quoting any evidence, research, or otherwise backing up his assertions. It's also insulting to the rest of the population, basically - "Intelligence is a mental disability, so just don't bother trying."

    I just feel that there is this overwhelming drive to insert everyone into a box, tell you that it's a problem, but it's OK, we can treat it for €100/hour and €10/pill. The ridiculous overdiagnosis of disorders such as ADD, ADHD, autism (esp. asberger's), only serves to strengthen my suspicion.

    Anyone else?

    Seamus, it's been spouted around here that certain mental problems are the reason that CTers see things the way they do. Whether it's looking for order among the chaos (not on this forum :D) or simply reasoning that suchandsuch a thing doesn't seem right. Somebody might be able to direct us to some links (I think there was a list of them put up on the forum before). So I would think that it's not entirely insulting to consider that certain very intelligent people might have some sort of mental "problem". (see what I did there ? :D)

    On a more serious note, and I'm not going to blow my own trumpet here, and I run some risk of having this nugget dragged out to be slapped with, but I have an IQ of over 160 and have been regarded as extremely intelligent (all that intelligence has been wasted I might add). I have been able to identify personal mental patterns in myself, and having discussed it with friends, a couple of those I deem to be of above average intelligence, have similar "disorders". I'm not going into detail, but it's fair to say that my "problem" doesn't seem to affect me in any way other than when I'm alone and doing nothing (or very little), or if I find myself in a very boring conversation, I find my mind seems to need to keep occupied and my "issue" comes to the fore (unknown to anybody else - i.e. you can't see it)

    Another example, my closest frend can't spell to save his life and reads very little. He was diagnosed with dyslexia as a teenager after years of "trouble" in school. However, he can do complicacted maths in his head and uses formulae in his work (again done in his head) which allow him to do the work (manual work I might add) quicker and more competently than others in his field.

    Maybe most extremely intelligent people have a disorder of some sort. Maybe the professor is right. Maybe something wired "incorrectly" produces a better understanding of other things in some wierd and wonderful way.

    Maybe Stephen Hawking's ALS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) was programmed in somewhere, and the flip side is genius.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WhaLofShi wrote: »

    Seamus, it's been spouted around here that certain mental problems are the reason that CTers see things the way they do. Whether it's looking for order among the chaos (not on this forum :D) or simply reasoning that suchandsuch a thing doesn't seem right. Somebody might be able to direct us to some links (I think there was a list of them put up on the forum before). So I would think that it's not entirely insulting to consider that certain very intelligent people might have some sort of mental "problem". (see what I did there ? :D)

    On a more serious note, and I'm not going to blow my own trumpet here, and I run some risk of having this nugget dragged out to be slapped with, but I have an IQ of over 160 and have been regarded as extremely intelligent (all that intelligence has been wasted I might add). I have been able to identify personal mental patterns in myself, and having discussed it with friends, a couple of those I deem to be of above average intelligence, have similar "disorders". I'm not going into detail, but it's fair to say that my "problem" doesn't seem to affect me in any way other than when I'm alone and doing nothing (or very little), or if I find myself in a very boring conversation, I find my mind seems to need to keep occupied and my "issue" comes to the fore (unknown to anybody else - i.e. you can't see it)

    Another example, my closest frend can't spell to save his life and reads very little. He was diagnosed with dyslexia as a teenager after years of "trouble" in school. However, he can do complicacted maths in his head and uses formulae in his work (again done in his head) which allow him to do the work (manual work I might add) quicker and more competently than others in his field.

    Maybe most extremely intelligent people have a disorder of some sort. Maybe the professor is right. Maybe something wired "incorrectly" produces a better understanding of other things in some wierd and wonderful way.

    Maybe Stephen Hawking's ALS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) was programmed in somewhere, and the flip side is genius.
    Yea neither dyslexia or ALS make you a genius as a side effect.
    The vast vast major of people with mental disabilities do not become math wizards or great painters or whatever because of their disability.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    King Mob wrote: »
    Goodwins!

    Science = Evolution = Eugenics = Hitler.

    Been watching that ridiculous Ben Stein movie?

    Nonsense, the topic being discussed is related to genetic differences currently viewed as 'unfit', and the possibility of using genetic engineering to eradicate them from the gene pool. Do you not see the correlation to eugenics?? :rolleyes:

    Which man in history has done more to promote and enact eugenics? That's right, Hitler. Goodwins my arse! Can I bring in Kernel's law; in which whenever you mention nazis on an internet forum, however relevent to the topic, you are accused of succumbing to Goodwins law? ;)


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kernel wrote: »
    Nonsense, the topic being discussed is related to genetic differences currently viewed as 'unfit', and the possibility of using genetic engineering to eradicate them from the gene pool. Do you not see the correlation to eugenics?? :rolleyes:

    That's must be a slippery slope you see.
    Curing genetic diseases is not eugenics.
    Your logic is the same as saying let's not treat the flu because people who don't have the flu would wipe out those how do.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's must be a slippery slope you see.
    Curing genetic diseases is not eugenics.
    Your logic is the same as saying let's not treat the flu because people who don't have the flu would wipe out those how do.

    What the hell are you talking about? :confused: I'm off to play left 4 dead.. enough time spent here. :)


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Curing genetic diseases is not part of eugenics by any stretch of the imagination.
    These diseases are pretty well defined by causing disability or distress.
    To say that they are "genetic differences currently viewed as unfit" is not true.
    Just as saying that curing these disease will lead to eugenics is not true.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    King Mob wrote: »
    Curing genetic diseases is not part of eugenics by any stretch of the imagination.

    In your opinion.
    King Mob wrote: »
    These diseases are pretty well defined by causing disability or distress.
    To say that they are "genetic differences currently viewed as unfit" is not true.

    Why don't you read seamus' original post instead of tangenting.
    seamus wrote:
    I'm basically concerned at the psychology community's requirement to give every little foible and every slight difference in people a name, and to tell people that it's a problem which requires treatment.

    There was a guy on Newstalk this morning. The discussion related to the news that it looked like it may be possible in future to do prenatal checks for autism, giving parents the option to abort or otherwise prepare for the arrival of autistic child.

    The guy was making the comment that automatically aborting foetuses at risk of autism would cause the progression of the human race to come to a standstill. This is because everyone who makes giant leaps in our understanding of the universe or who otherwise stands out from the crowd has a high-functioning form of autism. He actually said that geniuses and people who are multi-talented all have high-functioning forms of autism.

    Genetic differences = autism. Currently viewed as unfit. See, I'm on topic.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Just as saying that curing these disease will lead to eugenics is not true.

    In your opinion.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kernel wrote: »
    In your opinion.
    Why don't you read seamus' original post instead of tangenting.
    Genetic differences = autism. Currently viewed as unfit. See, I'm on topic.
    In your opinion.

    Oh autism is genetic now? Not Vaccinations anymore?

    Autism isn't just a difference, it something that in most cases causes severe social problems. It's a disease. Most of the people with this disease don't become math geniuses.

    To compare curing a disease is like eugenics is plane ridiculous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    King Mob wrote: »
    Oh autism is genetic now? Not Vaccinations anymore?

    There are genetic components to it. Same way some children have trouble excreting the mercury from the vaccines. Different strokes. Regardless of my beliefs on autism, (which I have shared on another thread and do not wish to repeat here) the OP's point discussed autism as genetic mental disorders. In the spirit of the post, I have discussed the implications for genetic engineering. No need to drag the vaccination debate into here as well, unless a mod wants to merge the threads.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Autism isn't just a difference, it something that in most cases causes severe social problems. It's a disease. Most of the people with this disease don't become math geniuses.

    To compare curing a disease is like eugenics is plane ridiculous.

    You fail to see what is right in front of your nose. If you read that statement again you might understand why there is a link. From wiki:
    wikipedia wrote:
    Eugenics was an international scientific, political and moral ideology and movement which was at its height in first half of the twentieth century and was largely abandoned after the Nazi Holocaust and its future associations with racism.[2]

    Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[3] Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[4] The movement, led by race scientists, financed by private philanthropies such as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation and implemented by governments was practised in North America, Europe (particularly Nazi Germany), and Australia (among others). The "interventions" advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families (including the poor, mentally ill, blind, 'promiscuous women', homosexuals) and entire "racial" groups (such as the Roma and Jews) as "degenerate" or "unfit", the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, their "euthanasia", and in the worst case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.

    Eradicating unborn children who may suffer from 'severe social problems' (as you say) is perfectly ok and not comparable to Eugenics??? May I remind you of your history, and point out that the Reich began it's program of Eugenics on the mentally ill, those with 'severe social problems'. I cannot understand why you fail to recognise the link between this topic and Eugenics. :confused:


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kernel wrote: »
    Eradicating unborn children who may suffer from 'severe social problems' (as you say) is perfectly ok and not comparable to Eugenics??? May I remind you of your history, and point out that the Reich began it's program of Eugenics on the mentally ill, those with 'severe social problems'. I cannot understand why you fail to recognise the link between this topic and Eugenics. :confused:
    Huh funny I don't remember saying any about eradicating unborn children.
    I believe I was talking about curing a genetic disease, through genetic engineering.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yea neither dyslexia or ALS make you a genius as a side effect.

    I don't think I claimed that to be the case. I suggested that it's possible that in a balancing sort of way, when one brain function is diminished, another is increased. A bit like how some blind people develop better hearing.

    The vast vast major of people with mental disabilities do not become math wizards or great painters or whatever because of their disability.

    Of course not. And you won't get any argument from me on that but it must be considered that many geniuses were quite mad.

    Seamus suggested that the guy on the radio was insulting intelligent people by saying that extremely intelligent people may have some sort of mental - let's call them - differences. I didn't hear the radio interview, but can only assume that the professor was warning about the possibility of removing potentially "smarter" people if it becomes the norm to abort a foetus diagniosed with autism. I'm sure most of the extremely intelligent people alluded to wouldn't be too insulted anyway.

    As we're talking about a new medical procedure here, what if a test for autism diagnoses even very mild cases, that would have little or no effect on a child's life, and those foetuses are aborted, are we running the risk of removing potential geniuses, or even just very smart people from the gene pool?

    The guy I grew up next door to seemed to be a bit of a mis-fit. He couldn't hold a conversation for more than 3 or 4 minutes before his mind wandered. We, as kids, labelled him "a bit of a wierdo". Today, he is called on by major drug companies, petro-chemical companies etc. to step in when their own chemists have a problem. I know I'm providing anecdotes, I'm no expert in this area, but feel that this "evidence" shouldn't just be flippantly ignored.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,344 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    A friend of mine who works with children with autism has always maintained that we are all on the autistic spectrum. We all have some behaviours or thoughts that if examined carefully (or admitted) would qualify us as autistic.

    The longer I live, the more people I meet, the more I agree with her. People with autism are more exaggerated versions of all of us. It's us that has the problem coping with them.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    I don't think I claimed that to be the case. I suggested that it's possible that in a balancing sort of way, when one brain function is diminished, another is increased. A bit like how some blind people develop better hearing.
    That's also a misconception. The brain doesn't balance it self out.
    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    Of course not. And you won't get any argument from me on that but it must be considered that many geniuses were quite mad.
    And there's many many geniuses who have provided huge amounts of scientific achievements who weren't mad.
    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    Seamus suggested that the guy on the radio was insulting intelligent people by saying that extremely intelligent people may have some sort of mental - let's call them - differences. I didn't hear the radio interview, but can only assume that the professor was warning about the possibility of removing potentially "smarter" people if it becomes the norm to abort a foetus diagniosed with autism. I'm sure most of the extremely intelligent people alluded to wouldn't be too insulted anyway.

    As we're talking about a new medical procedure here, what if a test for autism diagnoses even very mild cases, that would have little or no effect on a child's life, and those foetuses are aborted, are we running the risk of removing potential geniuses, or even just very smart people from the gene pool?
    Yea autism doesn't work like that. Great abilities are not guaranteed by autism. By treating autism (not just abort foetuses) we are not by any stretch running the risk of removing all potential geniuses.
    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    The guy I grew up next door to seemed to be a bit of a mis-fit. He couldn't hold a conversation for more than 3 or 4 minutes before his mind wandered. We, as kids, labelled him "a bit of a wierdo". Today, he is called on by major drug companies, petro-chemical companies etc. to step in when their own chemists have a problem. I know I'm providing anecdotes, I'm no expert in this area, but feel that this "evidence" shouldn't just be flippantly ignored.
    Ok unless you know whether this guy actually had a mental disorder your anecdote isn't exactly evidence for anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    What is the reason to change autistic people when they may have no problem being the way they are? Its not like they're harming anyone. I was reading an article about this physicist Dirac who exhibited a lot of autistic tendencies, he seemed cool, he had no emotion and was incredibly literal, like a robot. What is wrong with characteristics like these. Why are extremely sociable people at the other end of the scale not labeled as being mentally ill?


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What is the reason to change autistic people when they may have no problem being the way they are? Its not like they're harming anyone. I was reading an article about this physicist Dirac who exhibited a lot of autistic tendencies, he seemed cool, he had no emotion and was incredibly literal, like a robot. What is wrong with characteristics like these. Why are extremely sociable people at the other end of the scale not labeled as being mentally ill?
    Because severe autism leads to serious developmental and social problems.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭Fionnanc


    Remember for a lot of behavioural conditions children share their parents' genes and ENVIRONMENT. Difficult to say which has the most effect on phenotype.
    > a genetic predisposition allied with learned behaviour or exposure to parent's behaviour. This is not a comment on autism but a discussion on risk factors. Strange that genetics is not usually applied to Children with conduct disorder, but their environment is blamed the most(quite rightly in most cases imo)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because severe autism leads to serious developmental and social problems.

    It seems to be very value driven imo. If someone is extremely sociable why are they not considered mentally ill in the same way? For example they may have no ability at anything because all they concern themselves with is socializing, is this not a developmental problem? They are focused purely on pleasing the group, regardless of the implications, is this not a social problem with respect to bringing about harmful consequences? Therefore why is there not a name for this disease? Or is it even considered a disease because in society the condition showcases pleasing qualities, rather than symptoms of a measurable disorder?


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It seems to be very value driven imo. If someone is extremely sociable why are they not considered mentally ill in the same way? For example they may have no ability at anything because all they concern themselves with is socializing, is this not a developmental problem? They are focused purely on pleasing the group, regardless of the implications, is this not a social problem with respect to bringing about harmful consequences? Therefore why is there not a name for this disease? Or is it even considered a disease because in society the condition showcases pleasing qualities, rather than symptoms of a measurable disorder?

    Because autism has definable symptoms and neurological signs.

    There isn't a disease that causes extreme socialising because it doesn't have defined symptoms or any neurological signs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because autism has definable symptoms and neurological signs.

    There isn't a disease that causes extreme socialising because it doesn't have defined symptoms or any neurological signs.

    because we never thought to consider extreme socialising to be abnormal in the first place


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's also a misconception. The brain doesn't balance it self out.

    If you know this for a fact, could you direct me to some evidence?
    And there's many many geniuses who have provided huge amounts of scientific achievements who weren't mad.

    Irrellevant, you don't know how mad anyone is until diagnosed. Many people have some disorder that is never diagnosed as it doesn't affect their day to day lives. They could be complete loons and we may never know.
    Yea autism doesn't work like that. Great abilities are not guaranteed by autism. By treating autism (not just abort foetuses) we are not by any stretch running the risk of removing all* potential geniuses.

    You're arguing for the sake of arguing now and *misquoting me. There is no claim that genius is guaranteed by autism, and the radio interview (I believe) referred to aborting, not treating.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882699.ece
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/feb/12/weekend7.weekend2

    This one is could be about the prefessor on the radio
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3326317/Albert-Einstein-'found-genius-through-autism'.html

    Ok unless you know whether this guy actually had a mental disorder your anecdote isn't exactly evidence for anything.
    King Mob wrote:
    Because severe autism leads to serious developmental and social problems.

    Is it possible that mild autism might lead to mild social problems?

    My point is that some people who are slightly "off the wall" seem to have a higher brain function. And please respect my use of inverted commas (" "). I assume you know why I use them.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    because we never thought to consider extreme socialising to be abnormal in the first place

    And can you provide an example of this kind of extreme socialising with the exclusion of all other activities exists?
    And have you evidence that it is due to a physical condition?

    Or can you provide reasoning to support either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    It seems to be very value driven imo. If someone is extremely sociable why are they not considered mentally ill in the same way? For example they may have no ability at anything because all they concern themselves with is socializing, is this not a developmental problem? They are focused purely on pleasing the group, regardless of the implications, is this not a social problem with respect to bringing about harmful consequences? Therefore why is there not a name for this disease? Or is it even considered a disease because in society the condition showcases pleasing qualities, rather than symptoms of a measurable disorder?
    ... we never thought to consider extreme socialising to be abnormal in the first place

    I love this theory.

    My cousin's a taxi-driver. His only desire in life is to go on the piss as often as possible. He can't spell, nor can he do simple maths in his head. He gets into loud abusive arguments which are quite likely to end in a fight. He can talk the hind legs off a donkey and apart from socialising his only interest is readong comics. He's 38, and he's not even a good driver. :)

    Of course there's always the possibility that he's just thick. :rolleyes:


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    If you know this for a fact, could you direct me to some evidence?
    Mental disability. There are many conditions that are just plain out and disabilities that do not ever produce geniuses.
    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    Irrellevant, you don't know how mad anyone is until diagnosed. Many people have some disorder that is never diagnosed as it doesn't affect their day to day lives. They could be complete loons and we may never know.
    So all smart people are mad till proven sane? That's what I think the OP was talking about.

    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    You're arguing for the sake of arguing now and *misquoting me. There is no claim that genius is guaranteed by autism, and the radio interview (I believe) referred to aborting, not treating.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882699.ece
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/feb/12/weekend7.weekend2

    This one is could be about the prefessor on the radio
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3326317/Albert-Einstein-'found-genius-through-autism'.html
    You asked the question: are we running the risk of removing potential geniuses, or even just very smart people from the gene pool?
    I said no we are not running that risk, because the people who are autistic and are also geniuses because of the autism are very rare.

    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    Is it possible that mild autism might lead to mild social problems?

    My point is that some people who are slightly "off the wall" seem to have a higher brain function. And please respect my use of inverted commas (" "). I assume you know why I use them.
    Yes mild autism leads to mild social problems.
    "Off the wall" does not denote a mental condition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    King Mob wrote:
    Mental disability. There are many conditions that are just plain out and disabilities that do not ever produce geniuses.

    Nice cop out.


    :rolleyes:

    Ok, you got the last word.

    King Mob wrote: »

    Yes mild autism leads to mild social problems.
    "Off the wall" does not denote a mental condition.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    King Mob wrote: »
    And can you provide an example of this kind of extreme socialising with the exclusion of all other activities exists?
    And have you evidence that it is due to a physical condition?

    Or can you provide reasoning to support either.

    yes, Kerry Katona, scumbags and George Bush

    Everyone exhibits different mental patterns, its then decided whether these patterns are good or bad (symptoms) depending on how much they conform to the societal norm. For example homosexuality was considered an illness by most people up until very recently. However certain deviations are definitely bad for the individual or society, for example schizophrenia, depression or psychopathy. I read that as a species we may become more "autistic" due to our use of the internet which is a solitary activity, involving certain areas of the brain which promote certain forms of thought over others.

    There isn't any evidence as of yet because of our value driven society.

    My question is does autism make the individual unhappy and should others see it as a different form of perception to their own.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    yes, Kerry Katona, scumbags and George Bush
    You're joking right?
    Everyone exhibits different mental patterns, its then decided whether these patterns are good or bad (symptoms) depending on how much they conform to the societal norm. For example homosexuality was considered an illness by most people up until very recently. However certain deviations are definitely bad for the individual or society, for example schizophrenia, depression or psychopathy. I read that as a species we may become more "autistic" due to our use of the internet which is a solitary activity, involving certain areas of the brain which promote certain forms of thought over others.

    There isn't any evidence as of yet because of our value driven society.

    My question is does autism make the individual unhappy and should others see it as a different form of perception to their own.
    Do you actually know the definition of a mental illness?
    A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.
    Homosexuality does not cause distress or disability hence it's not a mental illness.
    Autism causes social interaction problems which is a disability hence it's a mental illness.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    Nice cop out.
    So providing you with the evidence you're asking for is a cop out?
    If the brain does balance out like you claim the most people with mental disabilities will gain a gift in other areas. This is not the case.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    King Mob wrote: »
    You're joking right?

    Do you actually know the definition of a mental illness?

    Homosexuality does not cause distress or disability hence it's not a mental illness.
    Autism causes social interaction problems which is a disability hence it's a mental illness.

    No, I would include german people in WW2 and jingoist frenzy people in general too as killing jews and the enemy were pleasing to the wider group, an expression of extreme socialized madness.

    It can be argued that in the past and in some parts of the world homosexuality causes distress to the individual and to others and is seen as a mental illness.

    An extremely sociable person is never going to be particularly good at solitary activities, therefore they have solitary pursuit problems which are very important to the advancement of the human race in terms of technology, scientific understanding, art, music, writing etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭WhaLofShi


    King Mob wrote: »
    You're joking right?

    Do you actually know the definition of a mental illness?

    Homosexuality does not cause distress or disability hence it's not a mental illness.
    Autism causes social interaction problems which is a disability hence it's a mental illness.

    wtf.jpg


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, I would include german people in WW2 and war in general too as killing jews and the enemy were pleasing to the wider group, an expression of extreme socialized madness.
    Goodwins and a horrible oversimplification and generalisation. Killing Jews and Russians is not socialising.
    It can be argued that in the past and in some parts of the world homosexuality causes distress to the individual and to others and is seen as a mental illness.
    No, that distress comes for peoples prejudice not from the condition itself.

    An extremely sociable person is never going to be particularly good at solitary activities, therefore they have solitary pursuit problems which are very important to the advancement of the human race in terms of technology, scientific understanding, art, music, writing etc.
    That's a dreadfully weak definition. Have you evidence of extremely sociable persons being always bad at solitary activities?


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WhaLofShi wrote: »
    wtf.jpg

    Yea as I said, the distress from homosexuality comes from peoples prejudice not from homosexuality itself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    King Mob wrote: »
    Goodwins and a horrible oversimplification and generalisation. Killing Jews and Russians is not socialising.

    No, that distress comes for peoples prejudice not from the condition itself.


    That's a dreadfully weak definition. Have you evidence of extremely sociable persons being always bad at solitary activities?


    Kernels law, need I say more...need I say more.

    Nationalistic fervour often precedes war, its herd mentality, to fit in you think in a way that pleases the group.

    Not always bad, but how many extremely sociable people are good at solitary activities, compared to those who aren't as sociable.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kernels law, need I say more...need I say more.
    Yes you do. How exactly does nazism compare to socalising?
    Nationalistic fervour often precedes war, its herd mentality, to fit in you think in a way that pleases the group.
    Again a gross oversimplification. People did not join the nazi party because they had a mental illness that caused them to be extremely social.

    Not always bad, but how many extremely sociable people are good at solitary activities, compared to those who aren't as sociable.
    I don't know. Have you any evidence either way?
    Have you any evidence that the kind of extreme socalising you claim actually exists?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes you do. How exactly does nazism compare to socalising?

    Again a gross oversimplification. People did not join the nazi party because they had a mental illness that caused them to extremely social.


    I don't know. Have you any evidence either way?
    Have you any evidence that the kind of extreme socalising you claim actually exists?

    Its an holistic observation, jingoism is one manifestation of group mentality and the things which attend it, namely censoring thoughts, behaving in a way which pleases the group etc.

    Yes, experiential evidence. Although its hasn't been quantified, its probable that there are few extremely sociable people at the top of solitary pursuits, it would go against their nature.

    Don't you remember, I already gave examples.

    The point about homosexuals is that autistic people face prejudice too, if the world was populated only by autistic people, then it would no longer be a mental illness.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement