Cultural Aspergers Hypothesis

Post Reply New Topic

60% is an extremely low estimate (the lowest I have seen) for concordance in identical twins, most identical twin studies seem to put it at between 80% and 96%.

I essence I wasn't disproving it G.

But I will it say that ADHD, dyslexia, color blindness, bipolar, BPD, NPD, schizophrenia, schizoid, schizotypal and so on stuff is a disorder. One could do more with their lives without these obstacles.
I won't answer for AS because I dont have it, but should AS be any different, though? I mean don't atypical folks have PhDs and accomplish much in their version of special interests, but without the impairments?

But I guess one could say that if everyone heard voices, there wouldn't be a worlwide impairment such as schizophrenia.... etc.

The Dx scale couldn't exist for schizophrenia.

Well what makes you think every single one of those is just a disorder? Ever heard of John Nash? Also, I didn't say the impairments would go away completely, I said that they wouldn't get diagnosed.

This article clarifies this point: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mor ... and-autism

60% concordance for classic autism.
90% for BAP

So we were both right (kinda)

Jason

Having a disorder does not at all mean that someone won't succeed at things. Having a disorder doesn't mean that someone can't reach the top in their field.

I have absolutely no clue how you could even conceive of the possibility of John Nash being an example of someone with schizophrenia but not a disorder. He spent almost a decade in and out of a mental hospital with severe paranoia, hearing voices and believing that communists (every man wearing a red tie) were trying to take over the country. He was able to at times, when he was most present, do math, but at times spent months in a mental hospital involuntarily. The fact that he was able to eventually, after quite a bit of time, control this without medication, also does not mean at all that he doesn't or didn't have a disorder.

For real!?!?

The literature is clear that there are identical twins where on is NT and the other is ASD.

This statement is wrong.

Schizophrenia is SO much more that hearing voices.

Schizophrenia is a thought disorder(Google the term) and those who are cursed with it are very impaired with a complex disorder which prevents them healthy functioning.

I didn't mean he didn't have a disorder, I mean he didn't think of himself as just having a disorder.

Uh, did I say this was the full scope of it?

The point could be understood without an essay or treatise on the nature of schizophrenia.

Yes!?!??!??!

The study linked above is several years old.

The newest, largest, and most rigorous twin study done last Summer, suggests that genetics accounts for 37% of the risk for autism disorder and 38% of the risk for ASD. The study tips environmental influence as the potentially larger contribution to the risk of autism.

However those specific environmental factors were not identified. There is a range of potential environmental factors from the prenatal to perinatal to post natal environments.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110704174608.htm





The fact that the social/cultural environment plays a role in the development of autism is indicated in the proposed DSMV revision in the criteria that states that while symptoms must be present in early childhood, they may not fully manifest themselves until social demands exceed abilities.

Some people are diagnosed close to birth and some people are diagnosed in middle age. The key point in the DSMV revision is that the symtoms work together to limit everyday functioning.

Whether or not someone crosses the border from the broader autism phenotype into a professional diagnosis, with problems with everyday functioning, can definitely be influenced by the cultural environment.

While the symptoms may be present in early childhood, everyday functioning may not be significantly compromised until much later in life, when social demands exceed abilities.

That's only common sense.

An individual might be an excellent computer programmer or auto mechanic, that displayed some symptoms of autism in early childhood, but put them on a cash register in McDonalds or Walmart, and the reality of life functioning can dramatically change, as the social demands become overwhelming.

Meanwhile a 70 year old grandmother, without any autistic symptoms in early childhood, may have no problems dealing with the social demands at the cash register at Walmart, but may never of had the functional ability to be an auto mechanic or a computer programmer, even if she tried.

And, on the other hand another 70 year old Grandmother might have had some autistic symptoms in early childhood, had some success in auto mechanics and computer programming, along with successfully adapting to a cashier position at Walmart in her later years.

The borders for a diagnosis of Autism are clear for a child that has no ability to speak. But, as one moves further out into the phenotype the borders become blurred.

And finally, there is the factor of Special interests/RRB's. While a special interest of programming a computer might take one out of the social realm, a special interest of bowling might put one into it.

Social skills can be improved for some despite of their inherent abilities. So the 70 year old grandmother illustrated above may also have a continued lifelong special interest in bowling, that bridged her abilities as automechanic/computer programmer into the social realm of Walmart Cashier.

Human beings are born with potential strengths and weaknesses, but the neuroplasticity of the brain and plasticity of physical capabilities, are molded by the experience of life.

In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that this natural plasticity, is powerful enough, where one may look upon the results as miraculous.

Focusing on limitations can definitely reduce the potential for that plasticity. Intense focus on limitations can be an inherent danger of the condition.

"Earlier twin studies had estimated the genetic heritability of autism to be as high as 90 percent, due to much lower estimates of concordance -- both members of a twin pair having the disorder -- in fraternal twins. The new study found such concordance to be four to five times higher."

Can someone walk me through the maths of this? You subtract the fraternal twin concordance from the identical twin concordance... but doesn't that need you to know something about the heritability in the first place? Why not just use identical twin concordance?

Fraternal twins tells a story greater than siblings, because they share the same prenatal and perinatal environment.

The prenatal/perinatal environment has been hypothesized as a factor in Autism; a greater occurence of autism among fraternal twins than what is understood as the statistical norm in siblings provides evidence for potential prenatal/perinatal environmental factors of influence.

Some of the previous studies only numbered around a dozen twins, and consisted of homogenous groups of subjects.

The group studied in the latest research was a heterogenous group, potentially exposed to a greater variety of environmental variables.

For example, a previous study was done in a homogenous group of subjects in a Scandanavian country, where the standard of living is not as diverse as it is in the US.

Stresses in pregnancy from harsher living conditions might create a hormonal imbalance in the prenatal environment, that is potentially greater, than what might be found in a homogenous group of subjects. That's a potential scenario for further research. The specific environmental factors were not determined in this research.

This study turns the table on previous studies, but it is the first one of it's kind. While rigorous methodology was used, the methodology must be replicated in further studies for full confidence in these results.

The statistical formulas that were used to arrive at the numbers, were complex. It's been about 30 years since my last statistics class, so perhaps there is someone else that can explain the formulas. It would likely take a background in statistics to understand them.

I feel confident that the statistical results were sound because they met peer review analysis, from experts in the field.

I also remember reading in the study that they repeated the formulas several times because the results were so much different than the previous studies on autistic twins.

If we took all of the broken clocks and isolated them from the ones that worked properly, would they no longer be broken?

So how many identical twins have one autistic and one not? I'm still amazed there are any. (Yes, for real!?!?!?)

If we thought about it would we realize that this metaphor is completely irrelevant?