What is Autism?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure if this topic is posted elsewhere - I did do a couple of brief searches, but it seems it could have gone under a number of different threads, but none specifically dedicated to the definition of autism?

Please correct me if I'm wrong - due to limited time I only took a cursory look.

I thought it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to defining autism. I personally found this definition by Nick Walker to resonate with me: http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/what-is-autism/

Interested to hear what others might think or have to add - alternative definitions etc.

I also think this would be a good idea. I thought it was strange that this doesn't already exist here. I find your article to be one of the better ones I've seen, although it is brief. Since I haven't been able to find a good in depth definition of autism, I think it would be great if we could use this thread to collaborate on giving autism a good definition.

Hi e4c5,

Thank you for your reply. It's good timing as I was already catching up on thread notifications for this site's forums.

I think I have a really good definition here based on how the neurology is fundamentally different. People have said for a long time those on the spectrum are wired differently. What does this mean? Well, new science is giving us some great insights into this. It also highlights the dangers of self-diagnosis and also how some conditions can manifest similarly but also seem so heterogeneous at times.

This new study using MRI to examine white matter in the brain (the axonal fibres that connect one region to another - ie. the WIRING diagram of the brain) shows that there are specific areas of the brain that have weak connections compared to controls. This reduced connectivity between brain regions and hemispheres results in the symptoms of autism and sensory processing disorder and even conditions like schizophrenia etc etc. It's the disconnected brain that gives rise to the various "disorders" of the brain.

I'm not sure where the science is going with it presently - but I'm devouring so many studies on it right now I can't keep up with my own brain! My own hypothesis is that because of the reduced connectivity between regions, processing power gets "stuck" or concentrated in one region, which amplifies the signals present there, which causes extra information to be generated, some of which is just useless "noise" which we cannot filter, but also gives rise to the sort of HIGH RESOLUTION DETAILED PERCEPTIONS which so many of us on the neurodiversity spectrum have. This somewhat more narrowed but detailed view of the world and of topics enables us to see the things that others miss. I think this is because their processing is so much more broadly diffuse they can't really hone in on something as easily. This zooming in effect can lead to great breakthroughs in science and deep love and appreciation of nature, art, philosophy or whatever your particular "special interest" is. It would be almost impossible NOT to have a special interest given this set of circumstances. However I do note that mental retardation and other handicaps do also co-occur with autism and similar syndromes of brain disconnectivity. This is where different profiles of connectivity can give rise to the diversity of the spectrum and also the level of functionality and also savants. That's why cognitive profiles are so spiky.

I'm presently unsure whether or not "autism" is the correct working label for me while I'm undergoing my very deep diagnostic process. I've been referred to a neurologist to have an MRI done, and if it were up to me I'd have DTI, fMRI and SPECT done! I'll be pushing for that as much as possible. I'm also having a full sensory profile done by an occupational therapist and seeing an audiologist to asses a potential crossover between audio-visual processing. They seem to both use the same circuit in my brain which makes me only be able to see you or hear you but not both. This is common to both autism and SPD, by virtue of the connectivity between hemispheres (the corpus collosum) around the area of the occipital lobes at the back of the brain. I think this is why autistics tend to think more in pictures and experience synthaesia. I have had persistent synthaesia all my life. Sounds and pictures are intrinsically linked within my brain.

Also I think it's important to note here are two types of connectivity. There is structural connectivity, which is the physical white matter wiring in the brain. Then there is functional connectivity, which is the level of connectivity across synapses of individual neuronal connections.

Here is possibly THE MOST IMPORTANT STUDY ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE AUTISTIC BRAIN that I think everybody who thinks they have or might have autism/Asperger's etc should read:

http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/art ... rain-areas

Obviously there need to be a lot more of these done. This is where research should be focussing right now - for all known brain disorders. I have the full research papers for this and similar studies - if anyone wants a copy they can PM me and I'll send you the PDFs.

Here is possibly THE MOST IMPORTANT YOUTUBE VIDEO ABOUT BRAIN ACTIVITY that I think everybody who has a brain should watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esPRsT-lmw8

Obviously diagnostic procedures should be taking imaging into consideration. Focussing on the behaviour is just too downstream. There can be convergence from many aetiologies. The diagnostic process is inherently flawed

Please join the discussion and help raise awareness of the talents and detriments of the neurodiverse disconnected brain! It is both amazing and wonderful but also painful and isolating. Perhaps one day we can find a way to "treat" this in a way that soothes the pain, but doesn't take away our amazing talents and benefits.

SK~

I find it interesting how you approach trying to understand autism from a neuroscience point of view. I personally prefer the behavioral psychology approach to understanding autism. I don't need to understand which chemical reactions occur in my head that are responsible for happiness in order for me to understand what happiness is; and the same reasoning can be applied to autism.

I agree with you at least in part - that no matter the aetiology the behavioural manifestation is ultimately what impacts our lives (for good or bad). However I disagree as far as if one feels compelled to improve their situation (after all to receive a diagnosis one must have the criterion "impairs functioning") then having an understanding of the more upstream processes are imperative to this. Otherwise it's just a bunch of trial and error and wasted time trying to improve one's functionality. It's like the guy says in the video - it's like taking a stab in the dark. I'm a black or white person. I don't have time for grey areas - they're nebulous and confusing. I'm a reductionist.

The reason I'm seeking a diagnosis and understanding of my own situation is so that I can ultimately improve my level of functioning. That's where the neuroscience comes in. Sure, my scores on psychometric and behavioural analyses all indicate a level of autistic traits, but that doesn't give me any closure. I want to get to the root of what is going on inside my head so I can better understand it and make the best use of the hand I've been dealt. I'm not happy with my current level of functioning. It's not in alignment with my goals and values. The methods I routinely employ to increase my functioning ultimately interfere with my success. Any scientific tool that helps me get closer to getting what I set out to do on a given day gets me closer to happiness, contentment and fulfilment in my existence. Otherwise I just don't feel right.

Neurology is concrete - it's solid evidence. It's something that is tangible that a binary thinker like me can work with. Grey areas just look like fog to me - my mind can't render an image of a grey area. I need a picture in order to think and therefore function.

Seeing as this topic is to debate and discuss the definition of autism itself, I've taken the neurological branch and made it its own separate discussion called The Disconnected Brain. http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=300076

It's too long winded and takes forever to get to a point. That and it's from a neurodiversity standpoint which I can't get behind.

I also don't like how it says that sensory issues are the cause of social communication deficits. Not every autistic has sensory issues, and not all have hypersensitivity. It's a developmental disorder effecting those areas of development.

Autism is defined by the DSM and ICD, at the moment. Therefore the DSM and ICD definitions will be the best at defining it since everyone with an autism diagnosis must fit the criteria of them. So for that reason they're the most accurate. I know the article said that I am an bad for quoting the DSM, but I don't give a f**k.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

I quoted part of the text here.
I don't think social deficits are by-products of intense and chaotic sensory experience.
I think the social world is part of the chaos and withdrawal into an inner world is caused by the activity in the brain.

I don't remember where I copied this from but I like this definition.

My problem with the DSM criteria for autism is that they define autism primarily by social impairment, but in my understanding, both neurotypicals and autistics only have social problems with each other but not between themselves (ie: autistics can communicate fine with other autistics, neurotipicals can communicate fine with other neurotypicals, but autistics and neurotypicals both have trouble communicating with each other). Neurotypicals and autistics have difficulties understanding each other, and since neurotypicals are the majority, social norms are defined by neurotypicals and thus autistics are expected to conform to the social expectations of the neurotypicals and autistics are then labeled as socially impaired when they fail to comply with the social norms of the neurotypicals. If autistics were the majority, then it would be neurotypicals who would be socially impaired and have problems complying with the social norms of the autistics; and this is where the DSM definition of autism would be inaccurate. Instead of defining autism as having a different mindset than neurotypicals which impairs autistics from socializing with neurotypicals, it would be better if autism and neurotypicals were defined based on the actual neurological differences that lead to the social differences between the two.

Except that isn't true. Evidence in action is how much bickering goes on here. We don't all get along, we don't all like each other, we don't even all understand each other. A lot of us are polar opposites. I can't communicate fine if I can't even see where they're coming from, if I can't understand what they're going through, if I can't relate.

Assuming by 'we' and 'us' you are referring to autistics, then you are right that not all autistics get along with each other, just like not all neurotypicals get along with each other and some pairs autistics are polar opposites just like some pairs of neurotypicals are polar opposites. But on average, neurotypicals understand other neurotypicals better than autistics understand neurotypicals, and autistics understand other autistics better than neurotypicals understand autistics, although it is not true for every single case.




You're proving my point. The DSM criteria is flawed by using communication problems to define autism, when you just admitted that communication is not an inherent aspect of autism, but actually a biproduct of not understanding other people who think very differently from you because they are not also autistic.

I disagree. Not understanding is a biproduct of social communication deficits. Having them is core.

So then do you also think that if a majority of people were autistics and only a minority were neurotypicals, then autistics would still have problems socializing with each other, but the neurotypicals would sociallize fine with the autistics? If so then we might have to agree to disagree.

I don't know because the world is not like that. At a guess I'd think they may be natural leaders. And if they were around autistics long enough (e.g. surrounded by them) then they may start to understand. Like Tony Attwood, he's NT, but he sure understands us - he sees a lot, therefore gets an understanding. NTs don't understand in the current situation because the only autistic they may have seen would be, say, they're friend's sister's son or something like that. Or they may have seen a character in a TV show. They're not knowledgeable about it because not every person can be knowledgeable in every thing, therefore will not understand in the current situation.

But unless you were to simulate this there is no way to really know what would happen, just speculation.

ISIS communicates well but a lot of people do not agree with them.