Autism

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

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)

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?

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

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

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.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

WhaLofShi

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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:

King Mob

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.

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.

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.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

yes, Kerry Katona, scumbags and George Bush

You're joking right?

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

King Mob

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.

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.

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.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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?

King Mob

WhaLofShi wrote: »

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

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.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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

Yes you do. How exactly does nazism compare to socalising?

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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?

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.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

And this is a mental disability because.....

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

So you have no evidence besides your own opinions.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Don't you remember, I already gave examples.

You gave a list of people and a stereotype you are making a bunch of assumptions about with you provide no indication that any of them exhibit any of the symptoms you claim. Very scientific.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

Yes but people who have autism also suffer disability and distress caused by the autism itself.

Impaired social interaction and communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior.

Autistic individuals display many forms of repetitive or restricted behavior, which the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R)[28] categorizes as follows.

# Stereotypy is apparently purposeless movement, such as hand flapping, head rolling, or body rocking.
# Compulsive behavior is intended and appears to follow rules, such as arranging objects in a certain way.
# Sameness is resistance to change; for example, insisting that the furniture not be moved or refusing to be interrupted.
# Ritualistic behavior involves the performance of daily activities the same way each time, such as an unvarying menu or dressing ritual. This is closely associated with sameness and an independent validation has suggested combining the two factors.[29]
# Restricted behavior is limited in focus, interest, or activity, such as preoccupation with a single television program or toy.
# Self-injury includes movements that injure or can injure the person, such as biting oneself. A 2007 study reported that self-injury at some point affected about 30% of children with ASD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#Characteristics

nyarlothothep

King Mob wrote: »

And this is a mental disability because.....

So you have no evidence besides your own opinions.

You gave a list of people and a stereotype you are making a bunch of assumptions about with you provide no indication that any of them exhibit any of the symptoms you claim. Very scientific.


Yes but people who have autism also suffer disability and distress caused by the autism itself.

Impaired social interaction and communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior.

Autistic individuals display many forms of repetitive or restricted behavior, which the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R)[28] categorizes as follows.

# Stereotypy is apparently purposeless movement, such as hand flapping, head rolling, or body rocking.
# Compulsive behavior is intended and appears to follow rules, such as arranging objects in a certain way.
# Sameness is resistance to change; for example, insisting that the furniture not be moved or refusing to be interrupted.
# Ritualistic behavior involves the performance of daily activities the same way each time, such as an unvarying menu or dressing ritual. This is closely associated with sameness and an independent validation has suggested combining the two factors.[29]
# Restricted behavior is limited in focus, interest, or activity, such as preoccupation with a single television program or toy.
# Self-injury includes movements that injure or can injure the person, such as biting oneself. A 2007 study reported that self-injury at some point affected about 30% of children with ASD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#Characteristics

because millions of people needlessly die and face discrimination based on unjustifiable rationales. The Aztec society if it were to be characterized as an individual was also insane, with the pointless sacrifices, that everyone tolerated because it was socially encouraged.

Its soft evidence, akin to psychologists verifying basic claims that we already knew but lacked hard proof to back it up

Ok, I agree it is a mental disability. But the mild form could be described as a condition, rather than a disability. A lot of people who aren't that sociable (not autistic) have been unfairly typecast as mentally ill, when they just have a different approach to the world. Perhaps there is a fair trade off. Of course if it were possible to remove autism yet preserve the uber abilities and the obsessive focus on particular areas then this would make it easier for the person in the future and it would be beneficial.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

because millions of people needlessly die and face discrimination based on unjustifiable rationales. The Aztec society if it were to be characterized as an individual was also insane, with the pointless sacrifices, that everyone tolerated because it was socially encouraged.

Well first off you can't characterise a whole civilzation as an individual, it's pretty much the definition of oversimplification.
Second what's your point?

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Its soft evidence, akin to psychologists verifying basic claims that we already knew but lacked hard proof to back it up

Soft evidence for what?

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ok, I agree it is a mental disability. But the mild form could be described as a condition, rather than a disability. A lot of people who aren't that sociable (not autistic) have been unfairly typecast as mentally ill, when they just have a different approach to the world. Perhaps there is a fair trade off. Of course if it were possible to remove autism yet preserve the uber abilities and the obsessive focus on particular areas then this would make it easier for the person in the future and it would be beneficial.

Yes autism is a mental disability. Yes there are varying degrees of autism. No not all forms of autism give you special abilities it only happens in rare cases.

Contrary to what you have stated there are fairly clear (though far from perfect) definitions of what is and isn't mental disability.

nyarlothothep

King Mob wrote: »

Well first off you can't characterise a whole civilzation as an individual, it's pretty much the definition of oversimplification.
Second what's your point?

Soft evidence for what?

Yes autism is a mental disability. Yes there are varying degrees of autism. No not all forms of autism give you special abilities it only happens in rare cases.

Contrary to what you have stated there are fairly clear (though far from perfect) definitions of what is and isn't mental disability.

its called looking at the big picture. Certain cultures are/were predominantly insane.

I've already stated that what this evidence is for. Its in my posts.

Where do you draw the line for defining whether someone has a mental disability or is living with a condition, and how do you define it as a disability when it may be equally enabling. Is someone who is borderline autistic yet perfectly capable of living a normal life mental disabled? Is someone with mild autism yet who thrives because of it in a particular field and again is capable of living a relatively normal life mentally disabled?

Why do we apply these terms to one end of the spectrum and not the other? Because we live in a world that favours sociability and the extreme forms are overlooked.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

its called looking at the big picture. Certain cultures are/were predominantly insane.

All mentally ill? I find that very hard to believe.
Immoral from today's perspective definitely.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Where do you draw the line for defining whether someone has a mental disability or is living with a condition, and how do you define it as a disability when it may be equally enabling. Is someone who is borderline autistic yet perfectly capable of living a normal life mental disabled? Is someone with mild autism yet who thrives because of it in a particular field and again is capable of living a relatively normal life mentally disabled?

Yes if someone is borderline autistic then by definition he is mentally disabled.
How many times must it be said? A person becoming exceptional in a field due to autism is very very rare. And even the few that do have some benefits are mental disabled because they have autism.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Why do we apply these terms to one end of the spectrum and not the other? Because we live in a world that favours sociability and the extreme forms are overlooked.

You have yet to show any reason to believe that a mental condition exists that causes extreme sociability as you describe it.

Would things like sex addiction and hypersexuality fit on this end of this spectrum of yours?

nyarlothothep

King Mob wrote: »

All mentally ill? I find that very hard to believe.
Immoral from today's perspective definitely.

Yes if someone is borderline autistic then by definition he is mentally disabled.
How many times must it be said? A person becoming exceptional in a field due to autism is very very rare. And even the few that do have some benefits are mental disabled because they have autism.


You have yet to show any reason to believe that a mental condition exists that causes extreme sociability as you describe it.

Would things like sex addiction and hypersexuality fit on this end of this spectrum of yours?

Of course not, but societies can exhibit general patterns of behaviour.

I disagree with the term disabled, condition is more appropriate.

No one has researched extreme sociability as a possible disability because being sociable is valued in society.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Of course not, but societies can exhibit general patterns of behaviour.

That may be true but it is not because of mental illness nor is the behavior of a society indicative of the mental health of it's people.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I disagree with the term disabled, condition is more appropriate.

You are simply arguing semantics.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

No one has researched extreme sociability as a possible disability because being sociable is valued in society.

Or maybe it's because it doesn't exist.

Why do you believe it does?

Mahatma coat

Mr Mob,
Same rules apply to you, provide some evidence of studies to back up your claims

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Mr Mob,
Same rules apply to you, provide some evidence of studies to back up your claims

What proof that autism is a mental disability?
That autism doesn't always produce geniuses?

nyarlothothep

King Mob wrote: »

That may be true but it is not because of mental illness nor is the behavior of a society indicative of the mental health of it's people.


You are simply arguing semantics.

Or maybe it's because it doesn't exist.

Why do you believe it does?

hmmm, environment can shape behaviour. Say you have an extremely violent society based on warfare and ritualistic brutality. Take that person out of the society and they would qualify as suffering from some form of mental illness.

Collective mental illness should be up for study.

There is a difference between a condition and disability.

Maybe it does exist, but no one has bothered to diagnose it because we are conditioned to think that being sociable is de facto a good thing, when in certain cases it isn't. If you have extreme unsociability in the form of autism its reasonable to suppose its opposite could exist.