Expressing Doubts: First Scientific Refutal Of Asperger's

Page 3 of 10 [ 152 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 Next

Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 83

25 Jun 2013, 12:13 pm

another 1 has replied to my opening post

Just leaving this message here to say I can't get back to his post until tonight, as I'm strictly nocturnal

IdleHands
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 177

25 Jun 2013, 12:20 pm

To the OP:

Are you saying you have a problem with labels or only negative labels?

Einstein was a genius-a label (mostly positive)

Einstein had AS- a label (positive? negative?)

View labels like colors:

Red-well, red. -Dark, bright, ugly, pretty, least favorite....all opinions and observations, but nonetheless RED.

Autistic-well, autistic.-Impairment, Genius, different, Intelligent, Sensory, etc...again, opinions and observations, but nonetheless AUTISTIC.

I get the feeling that you do not like the label of Aspergers because you view it as being a negative one; this leads to you not wanting this label; this leads to you not wanting to be ASD; this leads to the fruitless pursuit of disproving ASD so that you "cannot" be ASD; this leads you to subjective research that only shows what you want to find; this leads you to this post.

Again, the best way to prove something is in the inability to disprove it, and you have done that well.

Your ASD! Accept it, embrace it, and teach others about it. Good thing is, if they do not listen or you ramble, it will be no different than most conversations . If you open the eyes of one NT you will make more of a difference to yourself and others than this entire thread will. I don't like labels either; I don't like typing "NT", but categories create structure, and structure creates order, and for some of this order is paramount.

Si_82
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 525
Location: Newcastle, UK

25 Jun 2013, 12:24 pm

So so so many flaws in the argument here I really don't know where to begin! I am frankly amazed that someone claiming to have been diagnosed 'many times' with autism seems to understand so little about it. It is NOT an illness, it is NOT only defined by personality traits, genetic autism research, it turns out is quite complicated so NO it's not unexpected that we still have not agreed on which specific genes play into causality.

This is so wrong as to be quite offensive. I suspect that gaining such a reaction may have been the objective. If so, then congratulations.

_________________
AQ46, EQ9, FQ20, SQ50
RAADS-R: 181 (Language: 9, Social: 97, Sensory/Motor: 37, Interests: 36)
Aspie Quiz: AS129, NT80
Alexithymia: 137

Bitoku
Sea Gull

Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 222
Location: Calgary

25 Jun 2013, 1:21 pm

MoonCanvas wrote:

The thing is, if the cost of intelligence is not being understood by normal non-smart people, then it really isn't a cost; rather, this "cost" is judgmental bias from an overly conformist planet that can't think for themselves. Albert Einstein's troubles may have been attributed to this.

I assume that your argument here is that Aspergers is just a different type of "normal".
It's a reasonable theory to assume, and one I've thought of myself before.
I believe it breaks down at a certain point though... let me put forth something to consider.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a "normal" or regular brain is one that will be the most free of unpleasantness, at least to the self. Now let's envision the world where only AS people exist (thus making it at least quantitatively "normal"). What we have to ask ourselves is: would people in this world be relatively free of anxiety and depression? Would they be able to meet their goals effectively, socialize to the level of success they desire, and easily lead a self-fulfilling life?

The argument here is to try to separate out whether the difficulty and unpleasantness of AS comes from from the non-AS-friendly environment, or from within our own brains. Now granted there's some problems and frustrations that can be certainly attributed to trying to fit into a world where AS is the minority, and is mainly structured to accommodate the NT. But I suspect that if you really try to envision a AS-only world, you may realize that a lot of the unpleasant aspects of AS would likely still exist. This leads me to conclude that AS is not biologically normal, at least not equivalent to the "normalness" of someone NT without any psychological condition, because they won't experience as much internal discomfort as an AS would even in a AS-dominated world.

foxfield
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 276
Location: UK

25 Jun 2013, 1:46 pm

I answered yes to the poll, I think the OP has a valid point.

Analogy time:

Suppose you have an alien planet whose surface is littered with chest high obstacles. Most of the alien population has the ability to jump and crawl.

Some aliens are born without the ability to jump over the ostacles, they are not considered disabled as they can crawl under the obstacles.

Some aliens are born without the ability to crawl under the obstacles, they are not considered disabled as they can jump over the obstacles.

Some aliens cannot either jump or crawl. They are considered severely disabled as they cannot move around the planet. They are given the label "Quargs" disease. To complicate the picture aliens with Quargs disease develop a whole lot of other symptoms from not being able to move. For example they are obese, they have low intelligence from not being stimulated by there surroundings, and catch lots of infections due to poor circulation.,

The point is that there there is no real mechanism for Quargs disease, its just a collection of random mutations that together happen to be disabling. These disabling symptoms go on to cause other symptoms, making Quargs disease look much more complicated than it is.Alien scientists spend years studing Quargs disease, but are unable to pin down any fundamental difference in brain chemistry linked to Quargs disease.

Maybe there is no grand theory of Autism. Maybe there is no mechanism for Autism. Maybe its just a set of disabling symptoms which statisically are bound to occur together in a small subset of the population.

IdleHands
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 177

25 Jun 2013, 1:57 pm

So, anything that does not have an explanation does not exist?

foxfield
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 276
Location: UK

25 Jun 2013, 2:31 pm

IdleHands wrote:

So, anything that does not have an explanation does not exist?

It is possible that Autism as a concept is not scientifically appropriate.

People used to believe in centrifugal force. When spinning a bucket of water around their head they noticed that the water stayed within the bucket. Aha, they said. Something must be pushing the water into the bucket! We'll name that thing centrifugal force!

However, when the scientific principles behind the situation were examined, they found that a description of a "centrifugal force" is irrelevent to the situation (there is actually a centripetal force, a force inward). In short, they found that centrifugal force, as a concept, does not really exist.

The same thing may well happen to autism....

Max000
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

25 Jun 2013, 2:41 pm

MoonCanvas wrote:

Autism disorders aren't real for the same reason being gay isn't an illness. The general consensus is that genetic disorders(and it's widely speculated autism would count since you're either born with it or not) flip on and off like light switches from generation to generation. Is there really such a switch that makes you autistic? Was there really such a switch that made gay people gay? Nope. There is no switch that toggles whether one is born with attention deficit disorder; rather, based off parents, random mutations occur which may favor(or not) any number of basic attributes in personality, including hyperactivity, and just because random mutation grants your child with more prevalent hyperactivity doesn't mean it meets the criteria of genetic disorder.

Just like anything else, when I see a claim being made, I require evidence. If autism spectrum illnesses really exist then how come a cause has never been determined, and how come the branches of autism spectrum are so broad? If people diagnosed with autism are mentally ill then how come such a high portion of this group are non-religious? If autism were really a disorder or illness then you should be able to take a brain MRI of a person diagnosed with autism and locate the point of deficiencies, but even though autistic's brains are supposedly wired differently, no deficiencies are ever found. If anything, brain activity is more active.

I've researched autism for the past decade, and I've seen even the worst (YouTube)cases. I've seen adults who can't even speak without severe speech impediments, I've seen a teenager who despite intellectual aptitude must use a keyboard to communicate or suffers meltdowns, and I've seen those regarded as geniuses fail to express an understanding of empathy. You may then all be asking yourselves why I'm refuting autism if I've seen what you could call empirical evidence. But does saying "autism did it" really enable a greater understanding of why these people are the way they are?

High functioning autism is random mutation and severe autism is mild retardation. Under the criteria of neurological disorder, I conclude autism's invalidity. If you think I'm full of it; I want you to admit you think Albert Einstein, one of the highest regarded minds, was neurologically impeded. I simply don't think the pioneers of science(and basically society) are impaired at all. The Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis is just a way for conformist sheep to make themselves feel superior to people who are different.

If you want to see the response I got on another site, check out Zoklet. You can join and post in that thread as well. It's located in the math and science section.

IdleHands
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 177

25 Jun 2013, 2:52 pm

Pu tay toh; puh tah toh.
Centripetal force does exist, so I could see the name changing and the "why"emerging, but the autistics of today would still exist no matter what they are called, wouldn't you agree?

SphinxFace
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 41

25 Jun 2013, 3:28 pm

MoonCanvas wrote:

If people diagnosed with autism are mentally ill then how come such a high portion of this group are non-religious? If autism were really a disorder or illness then you should be able to take a brain MRI of a person diagnosed with autism and locate the point of deficiencies, but even though autistic's brains are supposedly wired differently, no deficiencies are ever found. If anything, brain activity is more active.

First off I have absolutely no idea how the first sentence makes any sort of sense. What does someone's religious status have to do with the way their brain functions?

Also they do find abnormalities in brain scans of autistic people. You seem to assume that technology is as advanced as it ever will be and that doctors know everything there is to know. Both things aren't true. They may someday find exactly what causes autism and related disorders... Your statements are random and judgmental and hard to follow logically...

SphinxFace
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 41

25 Jun 2013, 3:31 pm

IdleHands wrote:

So, anything that does not have an explanation does not exist?

Does this mean that the posters point doesn't exist because it has no explanation?

IdleHands
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 177

25 Jun 2013, 3:49 pm

SphinxFace wrote:

IdleHands wrote:

So, anything that does not have an explanation does not exist?

Does this mean that the posters point doesn't exist because it has no explanation?

I am hoping that the OP was coming from a good place but his execution was poor.

foxfield
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 276
Location: UK

25 Jun 2013, 3:51 pm

IdleHands wrote:

OK I'm making up a new developmental disorder. The symptoms are being bad at maths, having blue eyes, and being scared of spiders. I name it "foxfield syndrome"

People with the symptoms of foxfield syndrome exist. Therefore by your logic, we must say that "foxfield syndrome" also exists as a useful concept.

IdleHands
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 177

25 Jun 2013, 4:02 pm

foxfield wrote:

IdleHands wrote:

Your logic, although primitive, is the basis of most science.

TPE2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,461

25 Jun 2013, 4:08 pm

MoonCanvas wrote:

I have some doubts about what is exactly your point?

a) You are trying to refute to concept of "Asperger's Syndrome" or are trying to refute the whole concept of "Autism"?

b) my more important doubt - your point is that the supposed neurological difference who is named "Asperger's Syndrome" does not exist? Or is only that this difference exist, but it is not a disease nor a disability, simply a difference?

TPE2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,461

25 Jun 2013, 4:19 pm

MoonCanvas wrote:

One of my positions is that nearly all manifestations of Asperger's are caused by above average intelligence, and that smart people are almost exclusively diagnosed with the disorder. Now, this is something that can be backed up with evidence, unless of course you suggest that the intelligence comes at a cost. The thing is, if the cost of intelligence is not being understood by normal non-smart people, then it really isn't a cost; rather, this "cost" is judgmental bias from an overly conformist planet that can't think for themselves. Albert Einstein's troubles may have been attributed to this.

For what I have read, the average IQ of people diagnosed with Asperger's is almost the same than in the general population; I read somewhere in these forum that is 102 - if this is true, the difference from the "normal" 100 is minimum, and can be explained by the exclusion (by diagnostic criteria) of people with mental retardation from a diagnosis of AS (however, I read also in another place that both "giftness" and "borderline mental retardation" are over-represented in people diagnosed with AS; if there is the case, I admit that is possible that some symptoms of AS could be simply the manifestation of abnormal intelligence).

What you want to say with "smart people are almost exclusively diagnosed with the disorder"? That AS is almost the only disorder that is diagnosed in smart people? That almost all of the people diagnosed with AS are smart?

Page 3 of 10 [ 152 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 Next

Jump to:

Expressing Doubts: First Scientific Refutal Of Asperger's Post Reply New Topic

Expressing Doubts: First Scientific Refutal Of Asperger's