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
Autism
Options
-
09-01-2009 3:30pm#1Never 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?0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
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
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
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.0 -
Well I got the impression from him that most, if not all significant "creative resources" were autistic to some degree. Perhaps I heard wrong.Daithi McGee wrote: »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, 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.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 veg0 -
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! 0
-
Goodwins!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!
Science = Evolution = Eugenics = Hitler.
Been watching that ridiculous Ben Stein movie?0 -
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?0 -
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
) 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 ? )
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.0 -
Yea neither dyslexia or ALS make you a genius as a side effect.
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) 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 ? )
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.
The vast vast major of people with mental disabilities do not become math wizards or great painters or whatever because of their disability.0 -
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?
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
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? I'm off to play left 4 dead.. enough time spent here. 0 -
-
-
-
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.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. 0 -
Huh funny I don't remember saying any about eradicating unborn children.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.
I believe I was talking about curing a genetic disease, through genetic engineering.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement