Expressing Doubts: First Scientific Refutal Of Asperger's

Post Reply New Topic

One month ago, none of these "aspects" belong to the diagnostic criteria for AS (and, even today, half of them don't belong)

Whether or not they are in the diagnostic criteria is not relevant if so many people who are diagnosed with it experience those things.

I think you mean processing delay

i couldn't agree more! infact they were added to the new criteria because they should have been part of the criteria the entire time!! !!


additionaly i am insualted the you would insinuate having a religeon or religous beliefs makes you mentaly ill nd that being an atheist means you ae not or it significantly decreases the likelyhood! that has little to do with mental illness. there are plenty of non religeous athiests who are mentally ill.


as others said autism doesnt equal ID! just because some with autism can not speak doesnt mean they are mentaly defficient!! yes einstien had some deffiecets he was disabled

here i challange you to tell me carly is ID but i tell you right now she isnt

watch this and tell me autism isn't real!

carly is my hero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34xoYwLNpvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBpLGE_Rl1w

Yep - I sometimes get my words mixed up

Actually I've not read the new criteria yet so had no idea these aspects had been added to it. Its about time really since they are such a big part of Autism.

In the case of a neurological disorder like schizophrenia, the effect is clear; the gradual loss of grey matter in the brain, and there's also brain chart data that proves it. Autism has no clear effect, and if I have autism then I want to know what its biological function is, not just conjecture. Image links below:
How Schizophrenia Works
Schizophrenia Comparison


Well unfortunately I also can't prove that the boogeyman doesn't exist. I'm the skeptic, not you, and I wanted proof that there's a mechanism behind autism. You presented no proof, giving me no reason to change my stance.


Can you give me proof that autism isn't a personality trait? I would be curious to see it.

The poll was just for fun, and I enjoy polls in general. But me thinking I'm wrong just for seeing 69 people vote one way, would be an argument from agreement. People have voted but it doesn't tell me anything about them, all it does is tell me they agree.

I can see that you're getting worked up, so relaxing might be good for you. I'm not disregarding science, it's just that skepticism is a big part of my personality and I want to be sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that autism serves a scientific purpose and has a neurological function.


You're mistaken, we both think that genetics play a role in being diagnosed with autism. The brain is genetic, afterall. For instance; my father was kinda weird and had heightened senses but otherwise a very normal person, and as his son, those traits happen to be more evident in me.

Someone with sensory issues having kids with sensory issues is what you'd expect.


Yes, her name is Carly Fleischmann. She is so severely disabled by her inability to speak that it goes beyond the diagnosis of autism. As for intellectual disability, I never equated it to autism. My notion was that there is a better diagnosis for people like Carly Fleischmann than autism.

I actually knew about Carly before you brought it up and have watched her videos. Recently I heard rumor that a brain scan has shown her brain is nonverbal and that her brain is quite active, that her neurology differs greatly from the average person. I still haven't found the brain scan but I don't really need to.

It's scientific fact that people diagnosed on the autism spectrum tend to have larger brains. It's to say that high intelligence increases your odds of being diagnosed and may be the only reason.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShD72mfYqUM[/youtube]

The question that has baffled many: The reason females are much less likely to be diagnosed with autism? It's because they have smaller peak cranial circumference, possibly limiting their intelligence. Blame science for the sexism.


And demographics also show a correlation with low intelligence and religious affiliation. I really didn't need to but I did anyways.




Science, reasoning and evidence always prevail.

I'm probably wasting my time responding, but what the hell. I'm in a good mood.

Being gay isn't an illness, correct. However, a disorder is called a disorder because it adversly affects ones life somehow. i.e: a disorder must be real else it wouldn't be a disorder. Being gay is being gay, it is real.

So what do we have here. A disorder is real, being gay is real, being gay isn't an illness.
A disorder can be caused by anything, it is an affect caused by something. A disorder isn't a desease, but it could be caused by a desease, it could be caused by Autism.




You're say that Autism is generaly accepted to be a genetic disorder. Then you say that the condition switches on or off from generation to generation. Nope, it's called a spectrum disorder. The only reason we can say we have Asperger's, is because we were above the 60% cutoff on the list of traits associated with the condition. If you have 55% of the traits, you are considered NORMAL. This is clearly not on/off. It is above a classification threshold.

After asking rehtorical questions; you then say "Nope". Which as far as i can determine, your saying that genetic disorders DON'T switch on and off. I'm at a loss to identify any other meaning in the paragraph.




Any traits gained from the parents to the children is called "genetics".

Random mutation, if it were to occure, is not genetics. Any condition which is caused by random mutation will be soley to that person, and there be no history of that condition in the family history up until that point in time.

I realy believe you are attributing to "random mutation" attributes that don't actualy occure in reality. You clearly belive in the Darwinian theory of evolution, in using this sort of language.

I'm also wondering what you are refering to as a "switch".





You then don't believe what evidence is laid before you, because you know better. Curcumstantial evidence, is still evidence. As is eye witness evidence, you weren't there, you didn't see it, but it is still evidence that it occured.




This has been answered by many people already, and you still argue with them. It's been stated better than I can, so I'll let their statements stand in place of mine.




Autism it not a mental illness. It is a nerological disorder.
Disorder: a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction: a mild stomach disorder.
It's called a disorder, because it is not typical. Or more precicely, it is a diviation from normal by a sufficient divience that it passes a classification threshold.

What any of that has to do with religion has got me beat.


This'll do me for now.
Now that I've taken your scientific research seriously, I reserve to right to ridicule you some more.

PS: I know I can't spell to save my life, but have fun if it helps

Ok, you made me laugh with this one.

Did you also hear that head size does not affect inteligence? The brain cell count in identical, regardless of head size. the brain cells are simply more densely packed. But you knew that, right?

Future posters: Quit commenting about my opening post, it was only an attempt to invoke conversation through use of controversial. It served it's purpose and I've already admitted some statements were wrong. I feel bad about the above poster having wasted his time on it, but this has been beaten to a dead horse quit enough. If you're going to post then reply to other stuff.

Okay, I might have been wrong. Though I would prefer to see the proof that what you're telling me is accurate... I'm not doubting you, I'm pretty sure there's proof. Yeah. An article would suffice.

Last edited by MoonCanvas on 29 Jun 2013, 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

In other words... You were trolling

Christopher Langan has a very large head and holds an extremely high intelligence quotient. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that there's a case where it strongly correlates. His IQ is estimated somewhere between 190 and 210.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9oorQ-q2Vg[/youtube]

I'm now refuting you. With the power of YouTube invested in me.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rfnbGpV0FI[/youtube]

Sigh....

Male brains are larger and that correlates with increased intelligence. Female brains are more 'wrinkly' and that also correlates with increased intelligence.

In my eyes if you think males are overall more intelligent then females, then you are nothing less than an idiot.
However, males and females are different, and both genders have different strengths and weaknesses, and I don't have a problem with the idea that more males are better at some things, and more females are better at other things.

As for the male-autism thing... the link below is to a TED talk by Simon Baron Cohen which specifically addresses this.
The link he discusses is between autism, gender, and maths/pattern/science type thinking.
I think it may have merit, but time will tell if there is more to it or not.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYy1GXaNNY