What is Autism?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi, I found this article which I thought was pretty neat:

WHAT IS AUTISM?

Autism is a genetically-based human neurological variant. The complex set of interrelated characteristics that distinguish autistic neurology from non-autistic neurology is not yet fully understood, but current evidence indicates that the central distinction is that autistic brains are characterized by particularly high levels of synaptic connectivity and responsiveness. This tends to make the autistic individual’s subjective experience more intense and chaotic than that of non-autistic individuals: on both the sensorimotor and cognitive levels, the autistic mind tends to register more information, and the impact of each bit of information tends to be both stronger and less predictable.

Autism is a developmental phenomenon, meaning that it begins in utero and has a pervasive influence on development, on multiple levels, throughout the lifespan. Autism produces distinctive, atypical ways of thinking, moving, interaction, and sensory and cognitive processing. One analogy that has often been made is that autistic individuals have a different neurological “operating system” than non-autistic individuals.

According to current estimates, somewhere between one percent and two percent of the world’s population is autistic. While the number of individuals diagnosed as autistic has increased continually over the past few decades, evidence suggests that this increase in diagnosis is the result of increased public and professional awareness, rather than an actual increase in the prevalence of autism.

Despite underlying neurological commonalities, autistic individuals are vastly different from one another. Some autistic individuals exhibit exceptional cognitive talents. However, in the context of a society designed around the sensory, cognitive, developmental, and social needs of non-autistic individuals, autistic individuals are almost always disabled to some degree – sometimes quite obviously, and sometimes more subtly.

The realm of social interaction is one context in which autistic individuals tend to consistently be disabled. An autistic child’s sensory experience of the world is more intense and chaotic than that of a non-autistic child, and the ongoing task of navigating and integrating that experience thus occupies more of the autistic child’s attention and energy. This means the autistic child has less attention and energy available to focus on the subtleties of social interaction. Difficulty meeting the social expectations of non-autistics often results in social rejection, which further compounds social difficulties and impedes social development. For this reason, autism has been frequently misconstrued as being essentially a set of “social and communication deficits,” by those who are unaware that the social challenges faced by autistic individuals are just by-products of the intense and chaotic nature of autistic sensory and cognitive experience.

Autism is still widely regarded as a “disorder,” but this view has been challenged in recent years by proponents of the neurodiversity model, which holds that autism and other neurocognitive variants are simply part of the natural spectrum of human biodiversity, like variations in ethnicity or sexual orientation (which have also been pathologized in the past). Ultimately, to describe autism as a disorder represents a value judgment rather than a scientific fact.

Original link: http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/what-is-autism/

Thoughts?

This, from the Mayo Clinic website.

Hi Fnord,

I'm not sure I understand how the Mayo Clinic quote is connected to this.....I liked the article because its perspective is to treat autistics as a kind of brain/mind minority instead of pathologizing us by saying we're "disordered" or that there's something wrong with us. The reason we have a hard time is that our way of thinking isn't ideally suited to this society. It doesn't accommodate or accept us very well, so that disables us. In a different society that had comfortable and natural ways to fully integrate us, we would not be disabled.

It's really difficult to accurately explain something we don't actually understand. These articles always start with "We don't know exactly what causes it, but it's probably genetic and environmental"
Obviously it's genetic and environmental, that's all there is!
Then they indentify a common feature (inability to filter sensory information, the "typical male brain", broken neurotransmitter pathways etc) and force that one feature to explain all the possible differences.
I've found that taking an in depth look at the brain is the best way to understand both ASDs and reality in general. The more you learn the more you realize how little you (and science in general) know.

Fnord and S is for savage do you know what a disorder is? A disorder can is sometimes defined as a disease and a disease is sometimes defined as a disorder. These cyclic definitions basically say nothing. So the only definition of a disorder that says something is that a disorder is an abnormal condition.

The neurodiversity paradigm rejects the concept of "normal", because it is nothing more than a social construct created for the purpose of oppressing neurological minorities and other minority groups whose behaviors diverge from those social norms.

Unlike the definition of Autism that was posted at the top of this thread the definition of Autism that Fnord posted chose to reply with something that is written from the perspective of the pathology paradigm. A paradigm is a set of assumptions that your are making through which you chose to see things. The pathology paradigm, the dominant paradigm in the world today basically comes down to the following assumptions. 1. There is such a thing as normal or a range of normal. 2. If your behaviors diverge from that set of normal there is something wrong with you.

However, normal is a BS concept. It's made up. Normal does not mean natural. Normal does not even mean typical. Normal means whatever those with power say it means.

Furthermore, what you posted is BS in the sense that Autism research is basically the least scientific field out there. All these researchers have a bias from the beginning. It is the bias of the pathology paradigm. Everything they look at and the way they interpret their research is always based on the pathology paradigm. It is ingrained deep within their mentality.

A virus, bacteria, or any type of brain damage does not cause autism. It is innate from birth.

Hate groups like Autism speaks influence the research with money. Their prime objective is no less than the genocide of all Autistics.

Basically they pathologize Autistics in order to justify everything they do to abuse us, and even to justify eugenics research.

In the end buying into the pathology paradigm and internalizing it only prolongs and propagates the oppression and marginalizing of Autistics and other neurological minorities.

Unless you are an appropriately-trained and licensed mental health professional who says otherwise, I am going along with the current definition as given by such professionals.

There's just something about an amateur opinion that is based on word games and semantics that makes me want to laugh.

I liked the neurocosmopolitanism article because it respects the views and experiences of autistics.

I like the Mayo Clinic article because it is based on factual research instead of mere belief and political correctness.

Ok, dismissing people out of hand because you assume they don't have credentials is messed up.

The problem is that the "factual research" is often biased when researchers assume that anything atypical/unlike the majority is automatically a disorder or caused by a deficit. That's pretty much always the case with autism-related research.
Also, there have been many cases where the predominating scientific view has shifted in perspective from the way things are categorized. For example, ostensibly-scientific research was used to justify oppression of nonwhite races because supposedly they were biologically inferior or sub-human. And remember that homosexuality was listed in the DSM, as was gender identity disorder, up till not too long ago.

Ideas change even among professionals who say they have research to back them. So research isn't necessarily something to rigidly adhere to, especially when it concerns people's way of being.
It isn't about political correctness, it's about being aware of possible bias.
And you basically dismissed Nick Walker(the writer of the article)'s definition even though he does in fact have credentials.

Autism is a disorder of the synapse.
While many different genes contribute to autism, their participation in synaptic activities binds them to a common biological mechanism that underlies autism's core symptoms.

https://www.dnalc.org/view/2371-Autism-A-Synapse-Opathy.html

Children with autism have extra synapses in brain

#1. The definition above talks about the fact that Autistic brains have a different synapse activity, then non-autistic brains.

#2. Here is what you said expressed in language that is not of the pathology paradigm:

Autism is a genetic neurological variant that differs in synapse activity from non-autistic brains.

While many different genes contribute to autism, their participation in synaptic activities binds them to a common biological mechanism that underlies the core differences of Autistic behaviors from non-autistic behaviors.

This is true. However, dismissing the ideas expressed by someone who lacks the necessary credentials is a simple fact of life.

So, this man doesn't have a disorder then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jrqpn60d4A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1_wDwCkQcY

(Skip to 0:45 on the second video.)

Oh, or do only "high-functioning" people get to be members of the It's Not a Disorder Club?

I should point out I'm not trying to belittle the man in the videos in any way, but I can't help thinking about him and others like him when people start talking about how autism isn't a disorder. It's very silly to me.

Nick Walker wrote the definition above, and he has credentials. Yet you dismissed him too Fnord.

Also guess you need an example of the bias in Autism research.

Scientists may perform an experiment unaware of their own bias. This can happen when observations are made and interpreted through the lens of the pathology paradigm.

For example, a test that is supposed to be a way of determining whether the child can adopt an alternative perspective from his own is the famous Sally-Anne Test. As part of the test the researchers introduced some dolls and enacted a story that goes like this. Sally and Anne each have a basket. Sally’s basket contains a marble underneath, while Anne’s does not. Sally gets up and leaves the room. Anne takes Sally’s marble and puts it under her basket instead. Sally then comes back. The researcher then asks an observing child where Sally believes the marble is located. If the child answers Sally’s basket, he passes. However, if the child answers Anne’s basket, he fails. Most of the Autistic kids in this particular test chose “Anne’s basket” as their answer. Therefore, after this study was published, Autistics were labeled as lacking a theory of mind because it seemed like they couldn’t adopt an alternative perspective from their own.

However, it could be argued that the researchers themselves seem to lack a theory of mind, because they are failing to adopt the perspective of the Autistic child. Some modern research shows that Autistic children process more “information,” or at least have more brain activity, than non-autistic children. This seems to agree with what many Autistic adults have noticed from looking at their life experiences living in a non-autistic world. What if, for example, the Autistic child is processing more information or “thinking” more than the non-autistic child?

Well, it could be that the non-autistic child is thinking something like the following. Sally got up and left the room, so she can’t see that Anne just took her marble. Since she didn’t see that, Sally will, of course, think that the marble is still under her basket. Now the thought process for the Autistic child might be similar at the beginning, but then it might diverge from that of the non-autistic in the following way: Sally seems to have no reason to trust Anne. As far as Sally is concerned, she might have gotten up thinking that Anne was going to do that, and she wanted to prove a point. Perhaps Sally does, for the most part, trust Anne, but that still doesn’t mean Sally isn’t thinking that there is a 50% chance it’s still under the basket, and a 50% chance that Anne took it. There are too many unknowns, and it’s really hard to say which perspective is really Sally’s perspective. Therefore, I might as well choose to say Anne’s basket, because at least that represents the truth of where the marble is actually located.

From the above, I could argue that in a hypothetical world where Autistics are the overwhelming majority, it would be non-autistics who would be labeled as having a social “deficit” or being lazy or lacking a theory of mind. The non-autistic child at best would seem close-minded to other possibilities, and appear to be under-thinking. In such a hypothetical world the non-autistic child could easily be pathologized as having a disorder, a disease, or an illness.

What I am trying to say is that not everything that seems to diverge from what society has established as the “norm” is a pathology. True or real pathologies would have to be invariant. In other words, no matter the perspective, regardless of what hypothetical world one goes to, they would still be pathologies. Certain conditions such as Alzheimer’s could be considered true pathologies, because even in a hypothetical world where the overwhelming majority has Alzheimer’s, it would still be damaging to the brain.

Autism is innate from birth. It’s not something that is due to a virus, harmful bacteria, toxin, brain injury, or any type of neurological damage. Autism research has been and is still very much misguided. Even today, since Autism is seen as a disorder, many researchers try looking for deficits, almost as if they could never imagine that an Autistic person might actually be thinking more or processing more. Some recent research shows that certain parts of an Autistic’s brain have a higher level of activity compared to those of non-autistic brains. The pathology paradigm has blinded them because they see it as a disorder, an illness, or a disease. That perspective is already dictating what research they conduct and how they choose to conduct it.

One important thing to note is that I’m not saying Autism is not a disability. Living in a world where everything is not built for or around one’s style of neurocognitive functioning makes it a disability for sure.

The rest of this post that I wrote is at the blog Unboxed brain where I did a guest post on bias.

That's the paradox of autism. It could result in a mind like that of Nikola Tesla or like the profoundly autistic people in those videos. It's a disorder with sometimes good outcomes.
I sometimes think that considering anyone as disordered is kind of like invalidating the person they were born to be, and for the profoundly autistic, we don't know what's going on inside their minds.
But it is a paradox with amazing abilities as well as disabilities.

No, what some call "low-functioning" is still not a disorder, it's a disability. By the way, in both videos, the people were stimming. That's typical for a healthy autistic, but in the first video the guy was happy, and the one in the second film appears to be distressed. Functioning labels aren't useful because in many cases, functioning fluctuates day-to-day or depending on your environment (physical/emotional distress make a very big impact). Instead more specific terms like 'nonspeaking', 'needs assistance to navigate', etc., are better.

Amy Sequenzia is a nonspeaking autistic activist who blogs about this: http://nonspeakingautisticspeaking.blogspot.com/