Autism Supremacy
24 Apr 2012, 1:22 am
androbot2084 wrote:
People tell me that autistics can't be artists because they copy the work of others
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt188487.html
TheSunAlsoRises
24 Apr 2012, 1:38 pm
androbot2084 wrote:
Obviously if an alien appeared before us with a brain twice as large as ours it would be harder to refute its superior intelligence. So let us say that it is a super human that uses more of its brain than the average person who only uses 10 percent.
The ten percent figure is a little inaccurate, because over a 24-period, you can use varying regions and percentages of your brain at given times. You easily cover most, if not all, of your brain in the 24-hour time frame.
Bigger heads and brains alone don't always equal intelligence, but if this being showed that wow, he could beat us all on a trivia quiz of 100 questions with only a few minutes to study loads of information, I would honestly be impressed.
02 May 2012, 10:16 am
aghogday wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Obviously if an alien appeared before us with a brain twice as large as ours it would be harder to refute its superior intelligence. So let us say that it is a super human that uses more of its brain than the average person who only uses 10 percent.
Quote:
The 10% of brain myth is the widely perpetuated urban legend that most or all humans only make use of 20%, 10% or some other small percentage of their brains. It has been misattributed to people including Albert Einstein.[1] By association, it is suggested that a person may harness this unused potential and increase intelligence.
Though factors of intelligence can increase with training[citation needed], the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.[2][3]
Though factors of intelligence can increase with training[citation needed], the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.[2][3]
Autism including Asperger's Syndrome, has been legally defined by government regulations as disorders understood to inherently limit brain function, in almost every case of these disorders.
Impairments in Social Interaction, impairments in Social communication, as well as restrictive repetitive behaviors, are understood to be a result of limited brain function.
This doesn't mean that autistic people can't be better than average in certain areas of cognitive abilities or skills, it just means that they have limitations in certain areas of brain functioning that result in these behavioral difficulties.
Autistic individuals are often not understood well because of these impairments. It's a good thing that you are proud of your achievement and wanted to share that achievement with others; some autistic individuals have difficulty sharing their achievements with others. Supervisors vary, hopefully the next one you have will be more understanding and supportive of your achievement.
Innate intelligence provides no advantage in the workplace, if not accompanied with actions that are perceived to have merit.
The entire problem with this entire argument on both sides is that there is really no information. In the past when I have tried to follow any of these claims back to their source I come up with little more than unsupported statements from "experts" that cannot point to any definitive studies or large scale population examinations - let alone any real experimental efforts of any kind. He** we can even tell just what percentage of the population is on the "spectrum" nor do we know for sure that many of the "diagnoses" are really the same "syndrome". For all we know we could be looking at many causes or sources for what we know see as the Autistic spectrum findings.
I can tell you my ability to communicate well with other Asperger's and "Geek" types is a fact - I know I go to a Computer interest meeting every week, and I find it enjoyable mainly because of the social interaction in a way that works for me. So, I can make an observation that it may well be its the NTs that have the communication problems as they are from my point of view unable to communicate effectively without the large amount of their own style of body language. Now this is only anecdotal fact and is only worth mentioning because there is absolutely no other hard information on this subject.
We need to get hard numbers on just how many of us there are, and some good ratios of various levels of the people on the spectrum. To start getting some real numbers here we need a method of discovering those on the spectrum without having to depend on a formal diagnosis by a psychiatrist using personal direct interviews and their personal appraisal only and yes, weather or not you are diagnosed may well depend on which psychiatrist you go to.
04 May 2012, 7:03 pm
MrPickles wrote:
aghogday wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Obviously if an alien appeared before us with a brain twice as large as ours it would be harder to refute its superior intelligence. So let us say that it is a super human that uses more of its brain than the average person who only uses 10 percent.
Quote:
The 10% of brain myth is the widely perpetuated urban legend that most or all humans only make use of 20%, 10% or some other small percentage of their brains. It has been misattributed to people including Albert Einstein.[1] By association, it is suggested that a person may harness this unused potential and increase intelligence.
Though factors of intelligence can increase with training[citation needed], the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.[2][3]
Though factors of intelligence can increase with training[citation needed], the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.[2][3]
Autism including Asperger's Syndrome, has been legally defined by government regulations as disorders understood to inherently limit brain function, in almost every case of these disorders.
Impairments in Social Interaction, impairments in Social communication, as well as restrictive repetitive behaviors, are understood to be a result of limited brain function.
This doesn't mean that autistic people can't be better than average in certain areas of cognitive abilities or skills, it just means that they have limitations in certain areas of brain functioning that result in these behavioral difficulties.
Autistic individuals are often not understood well because of these impairments. It's a good thing that you are proud of your achievement and wanted to share that achievement with others; some autistic individuals have difficulty sharing their achievements with others. Supervisors vary, hopefully the next one you have will be more understanding and supportive of your achievement.
Innate intelligence provides no advantage in the workplace, if not accompanied with actions that are perceived to have merit.
The entire problem with this entire argument on both sides is that there is really no information. In the past when I have tried to follow any of these claims back to their source I come up with little more than unsupported statements from "experts" that cannot point to any definitive studies or large scale population examinations - let alone any real experimental efforts of any kind. He** we can even tell just what percentage of the population is on the "spectrum" nor do we know for sure that many of the "diagnoses" are really the same "syndrome". For all we know we could be looking at many causes or sources for what we know see as the Autistic spectrum findings.
I can tell you my ability to communicate well with other Asperger's and "Geek" types is a fact - I know I go to a Computer interest meeting every week, and I find it enjoyable mainly because of the social interaction in a way that works for me. So, I can make an observation that it may well be its the NTs that have the communication problems as they are from my point of view unable to communicate effectively without the large amount of their own style of body language. Now this is only anecdotal fact and is only worth mentioning because there is absolutely no other hard information on this subject.
We need to get hard numbers on just how many of us there are, and some good ratios of various levels of the people on the spectrum. To start getting some real numbers here we need a method of discovering those on the spectrum without having to depend on a formal diagnosis by a psychiatrist using personal direct interviews and their personal appraisal only and yes, weather or not you are diagnosed may well depend on which psychiatrist you go to.
Actually, Autism Speaks is providing a study to determine how many individuals there are in the population that have higher functioning forms of autism, among all other spectrum disorders in a scan of all demographics in the US. The first of it's kind in the US and likely the last of it's kind with the advancement of the new DSMV revised criteria in the US.
Current government numbers are pretty much limited to 8 year olds in classes for the developmentally disabled receiving support services in school.
At this point in time, it is actually technically possible to be diagnosed with no clinically significant impairments in difficulties in non-verbal or verbal communication, but that is likely pretty rare.
The DSMV criteria will make that impossible per current revised criteria.
People with Autism Spectrum disorders that are actually diagnosed with problems with non verbal and/or verbal communication difficulties at this time, definitely have impairments in communication as opposed to those that don't. There is no question about that. It is a scientific fact. Humans gain about 93% of their communication through non-verbal communication. It's a fairly automatic process for those that have good inherent and learned skills in communication.
As society moves further away from face to face communication it provides advantages for individuals with autistic like traits in problems with non-verbal communication, but on the other hand it reduces the ability to gain the skills in real life, through face to face communication.
05 May 2012, 8:28 am
aghogday wrote:
MrPickles wrote:
aghogday wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Obviously if an alien appeared before us with a brain twice as large as ours it would be harder to refute its superior intelligence. So let us say that it is a super human that uses more of its brain than the average person who only uses 10 percent.
Quote:
The 10% of brain myth is the widely perpetuated urban legend that most or all humans only make use of 20%, 10% or some other small percentage of their brains. It has been misattributed to people including Albert Einstein.[1] By association, it is suggested that a person may harness this unused potential and increase intelligence.
Though factors of intelligence can increase with training[citation needed], the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.[2][3]
Though factors of intelligence can increase with training[citation needed], the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.[2][3]
Autism including Asperger's Syndrome, has been legally defined by government regulations as disorders understood to inherently limit brain function, in almost every case of these disorders.
Impairments in Social Interaction, impairments in Social communication, as well as restrictive repetitive behaviors, are understood to be a result of limited brain function.
This doesn't mean that autistic people can't be better than average in certain areas of cognitive abilities or skills, it just means that they have limitations in certain areas of brain functioning that result in these behavioral difficulties.
Autistic individuals are often not understood well because of these impairments. It's a good thing that you are proud of your achievement and wanted to share that achievement with others; some autistic individuals have difficulty sharing their achievements with others. Supervisors vary, hopefully the next one you have will be more understanding and supportive of your achievement.
Innate intelligence provides no advantage in the workplace, if not accompanied with actions that are perceived to have merit.
The entire problem with this entire argument on both sides is that there is really no information. In the past when I have tried to follow any of these claims back to their source I come up with little more than unsupported statements from "experts" that cannot point to any definitive studies or large scale population examinations - let alone any real experimental efforts of any kind. He** we can even tell just what percentage of the population is on the "spectrum" nor do we know for sure that many of the "diagnoses" are really the same "syndrome". For all we know we could be looking at many causes or sources for what we know see as the Autistic spectrum findings.
I can tell you my ability to communicate well with other Asperger's and "Geek" types is a fact - I know I go to a Computer interest meeting every week, and I find it enjoyable mainly because of the social interaction in a way that works for me. So, I can make an observation that it may well be its the NTs that have the communication problems as they are from my point of view unable to communicate effectively without the large amount of their own style of body language. Now this is only anecdotal fact and is only worth mentioning because there is absolutely no other hard information on this subject.
We need to get hard numbers on just how many of us there are, and some good ratios of various levels of the people on the spectrum. To start getting some real numbers here we need a method of discovering those on the spectrum without having to depend on a formal diagnosis by a psychiatrist using personal direct interviews and their personal appraisal only and yes, weather or not you are diagnosed may well depend on which psychiatrist you go to.
Actually, Autism Speaks is providing a study to determine how many individuals there are in the population that have higher functioning forms of autism, among all other spectrum disorders in a scan of all demographics in the US. The first of it's kind in the US and likely the last of it's kind with the advancement of the new DSMV revised criteria in the US.
Current government numbers are pretty much limited to 8 year olds in classes for the developmentally disabled receiving support services in school.
At this point in time, it is actually technically possible to be diagnosed with no clinically significant impairments in difficulties in non-verbal or verbal communication, but that is likely pretty rare.
The DSMV criteria will make that impossible per current revised criteria.
People with Autism Spectrum disorders that are actually diagnosed with problems with non verbal and/or verbal communication difficulties at this time, definitely have impairments in communication as opposed to those that don't. There is no question about that. It is a scientific fact. Humans gain about 93% of their communication through non-verbal communication. It's a fairly automatic process for those that have good inherent and learned skills in communication.
As society moves further away from face to face communication it provides advantages for individuals with autistic like traits in problems with non-verbal communication, but on the other hand it reduces the ability to gain the skills in real life, through face to face communication.
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
05 May 2012, 4:57 pm
vermontsavant wrote:
your back i was begining to worry,we have not seen you in a while.i thought maybe you had been kidnapped by the ASAN's secret police for defending autism speaks to much
I have still been visiting the site on a daily basis, just caught up in a few other discussions, in some areas I rarely visit.
05 May 2012, 6:20 pm
aghogday wrote:
Actually, Autism Speaks is providing a study to determine how many individuals there are in the population that have higher functioning forms of autism, among all other spectrum disorders in a scan of all demographics in the US. The first of it's kind in the US and likely the last of it's kind with the advancement of the new DSMV revised criteria in the US.
Just so I don't ask about 150 pesky questions could you kindly give a link that describes the whys and wherefores of this study? tia.
Also, for no reason I've heard the next go-round at the DSM hoedown is using Arabic and not Roman numbers. IOW, it'll be DSM-5 and not DSM-V.
Pure and complete speculation on my part (and one that I grant veers into tinfoil hat territory)...I've only been able to think of one big advantage going with Arabic numbers would grant you: Instead of DSM-IV-R, DSM-IV-TR, DSM-IV-BS, etc., you could rather neatly sum up any revisions with decimal points, as in DSM 5.1, DSM 5.2.4, etc. They could revise the DSM as often as the US Tax Code and not get stuck with strange initials, just a different digit.
I'm sure there's a "real" reason for the change, but I'll be durned if I've seen it anywhere. If anyone knows what the skinny is, I'm rather curious about this change. Heck, for all I know they just didn't want Super Bowl comparisons.
Quote:
Current government numbers are pretty much limited to 8 year olds in classes for the developmentally disabled receiving support services in school.
Does the US gov't. have a definition of Autistic Spectrum Disorders that varies from DSM-IV-[Whatever]? And I'm a bit confused if you're saying looking at such a population would result in reported figures either overstated or understated relative to the actual numbers. After all, ASD is hardly the only developmental disability.
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell
05 May 2012, 7:05 pm
WorldsEdge wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Actually, Autism Speaks is providing a study to determine how many individuals there are in the population that have higher functioning forms of autism, among all other spectrum disorders in a scan of all demographics in the US. The first of it's kind in the US and likely the last of it's kind with the advancement of the new DSMV revised criteria in the US.
Just so I don't ask about 150 pesky questions could you kindly give a link that describes the whys and wherefores of this study? tia.
Also, for no reason I've heard the next go-round at the DSM hoedown is using Arabic and not Roman numbers. IOW, it'll be DSM-5 and not DSM-V.
Pure and complete speculation on my part (and one that I grant veers into tinfoil hat territory)...I've only been able to think of one big advantage going with Arabic numbers would grant you: Instead of DSM-IV-R, DSM-IV-TR, DSM-IV-BS, etc., you could rather neatly sum up any revisions with decimal points, as in DSM 5.1, DSM 5.2.4, etc. They could revise the DSM as often as the US Tax Code and not get stuck with strange initials, just a different digit.
I'm sure there's a "real" reason for the change, but I'll be durned if I've seen it anywhere. If anyone knows what the skinny is, I'm rather curious about this change. Heck, for all I know they just didn't want Super Bowl comparisons.
Quote:
Current government numbers are pretty much limited to 8 year olds in classes for the developmentally disabled receiving support services in school.
Does the US gov't. have a definition of Autistic Spectrum Disorders that varies from DSM-IV-[Whatever]? And I'm a bit confused if you're saying looking at such a population would result in reported figures either overstated or understated relative to the actual numbers. After all, ASD is hardly the only developmental disability.
http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/sci ... ch-funding
Quote:
√ The first U.S. autism prevalence study using total population sampling methods. Current U.S. prevalence rates of 1 in 110 are based on records of autism-related services and, as such, may miss many undiagnosed children and adults in the community. The need for such a study was underscored last year, when a similar community-wide study found an autism prevalence of 1 in 38 among schoolchildren in South Korea. (That study was likewise funded by Autism Speaks.)
Interesting, I'm not sure why they started with roman numerals in the first place, in fact I can't remember ever seeing DSMI or DSMII, seems like it started with DSMIII.
DSM 5.2 is much tider than an eventual potential DSMVIII TR
The quote from Autism Speaks above explains part of the issue with the CDC numbers, and rationale for their study. The CDC uses DSMIV criteria, but only measures 8 year olds receiving support services in classes for the developmentally disabled.
So, it likely misses many people in the community that have never been in classes for the deveopmentally disabled or received support services, that have been diagnosed with Aspergers and PDD NOS, or have not had the opportunity to get diagnosed.
14 May 2012, 2:14 am
Read an article by the main editor for DSM 4. It seems there was nothing till 1980 or so when DSM 3 came out. 4 is the 1992 version.
He was totally against 5, saying that the normal problems of life, work, stress, were being classed as treatable mental illnesses.
Anything for billable office hours, and created by Psychiatrists, but mostly used by Psycholigists, Councilers, and MDs, who perscribe based on vauge criteria.
The guy most resonsibile for 4, used Arabic numbers, and claimed 5 to be a fraud.
He also brought up that Drug Companies were using it to write sales pitches for products. Their goal is to have a drug for every classification, and to have their drugs listed in as many as possible.
While Depression is a real illness, and common, some hundred times as many as meet the criteria are living on mood elevators, happy pills, which is a huge market, with no proven medical benefit to any but the drug companies.
There does seem to be a connection between a medicated society and an obese society. Both happened over the same time period.
He also mentioned hyperactive children, another booming market segment, saying treating the result, had ignored the cause, which is most likely diet.
The man most responible for DSM 4 has denounced the whole industry.
Now if I would only book mark these things and learn to post links.
He would fit in around here talking about Psychobabble, drug pushers, and the results of high fructose corn sugars in the food system.
In another article, the man who developed Tetraethel Lead, where tens of his workers died of lead poisoning, and his answer was get another lab, and new workers, who did the same, is now credited with tens of thousands of deaths, and tens of millions of disabled, that were exposed to lead before five, had their mental development stunted, and other lifetime health problems.
For his next project, he developed Cloroflorocarbons, which destroyed the Ozone layer, and also persist long term.
I think that might have been on Cracked.com under people who really screwed up the world.
14 May 2012, 7:20 pm
Inventor wrote:
Read an article by the main editor for DSM 4. It seems there was nothing till 1980 or so when DSM 3 came out. 4 is the 1992 version.
He was totally against 5, saying that the normal problems of life, work, stress, were being classed as treatable mental illnesses.
Anything for billable office hours, and created by Psychiatrists, but mostly used by Psycholigists, Councilers, and MDs, who perscribe based on vauge criteria.
The guy most resonsibile for 4, used Arabic numbers, and claimed 5 to be a fraud.
He also brought up that Drug Companies were using it to write sales pitches for products. Their goal is to have a drug for every classification, and to have their drugs listed in as many as possible.
While Depression is a real illness, and common, some hundred times as many as meet the criteria are living on mood elevators, happy pills, which is a huge market, with no proven medical benefit to any but the drug companies.
There does seem to be a connection between a medicated society and an obese society. Both happened over the same time period.
He also mentioned hyperactive children, another booming market segment, saying treating the result, had ignored the cause, which is most likely diet.
The man most responible for DSM 4 has denounced the whole industry.
Now if I would only book mark these things and learn to post links.
He would fit in around here talking about Psychobabble, drug pushers, and the results of high fructose corn sugars in the food system.
In another article, the man who developed Tetraethel Lead, where tens of his workers died of lead poisoning, and his answer was get another lab, and new workers, who did the same, is now credited with tens of thousands of deaths, and tens of millions of disabled, that were exposed to lead before five, had their mental development stunted, and other lifetime health problems.
For his next project, he developed Cloroflorocarbons, which destroyed the Ozone layer, and also persist long term.
I think that might have been on Cracked.com under people who really screwed up the world.
He was totally against 5, saying that the normal problems of life, work, stress, were being classed as treatable mental illnesses.
Anything for billable office hours, and created by Psychiatrists, but mostly used by Psycholigists, Councilers, and MDs, who perscribe based on vauge criteria.
The guy most resonsibile for 4, used Arabic numbers, and claimed 5 to be a fraud.
He also brought up that Drug Companies were using it to write sales pitches for products. Their goal is to have a drug for every classification, and to have their drugs listed in as many as possible.
While Depression is a real illness, and common, some hundred times as many as meet the criteria are living on mood elevators, happy pills, which is a huge market, with no proven medical benefit to any but the drug companies.
There does seem to be a connection between a medicated society and an obese society. Both happened over the same time period.
He also mentioned hyperactive children, another booming market segment, saying treating the result, had ignored the cause, which is most likely diet.
The man most responible for DSM 4 has denounced the whole industry.
Now if I would only book mark these things and learn to post links.
He would fit in around here talking about Psychobabble, drug pushers, and the results of high fructose corn sugars in the food system.
In another article, the man who developed Tetraethel Lead, where tens of his workers died of lead poisoning, and his answer was get another lab, and new workers, who did the same, is now credited with tens of thousands of deaths, and tens of millions of disabled, that were exposed to lead before five, had their mental development stunted, and other lifetime health problems.
For his next project, he developed Cloroflorocarbons, which destroyed the Ozone layer, and also persist long term.
I think that might have been on Cracked.com under people who really screwed up the world.
It seems that GP's are dispensing anti-depressents for almost anything stress related in life. They were almost unheard of when I was young, in mainstream culture; can't remember any advertisements on TV for them. Everyone is looking for quick cures, and almost every experience in life seems to becoming identified as a mental illness, per the DSM5
Here is an interesting article on the DSM5, as it relates to the some of the controversial issues, associated with the latest revision.
Apparently they are giving up some ground to criticism.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201205/wonderful-news-dsm-5-finally-begins-its-belated-and-necessary-retreat
16 May 2012, 6:16 pm
Back in the day, like for hundreds of years, a few shots of whiskey a day took care of a lot of problems.
For Europeans it was a few glasses of wine.
It worked, and was often homemade.
1792, we will tax it. Even that made for home use.
Smoking weed was legal, till 1935, when it was thought to be cutting into the new consolidated taxed whiskey trade.
These new controlled products are just not as good as the old homemade treatments.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Having Autism |
19 Dec 2024, 12:00 pm |
| Autism and Fatigue? |
10 Dec 2024, 9:10 am |
| PTSD or autism |
03 Nov 2024, 5:13 pm |
| Teenager with Autism and OCD |
16 Dec 2024, 12:26 pm |
